Comments on: Suckage

By: lostdunecoon

lostdunecoon — Tue, 11 May 2004 21:15:01 +0000

The arab culture needs to be detroyed by all means and their women smell of camel shit

By: big jake

big jake — Tue, 11 May 2004 21:10:00 +0000

I am so sick of hearing these islamist cry because the US is not nice to them. You dune coons will always loose because you are ismaels kids. By by poor shits

By: Ad

Ad — Sun, 09 May 2004 05:41:45 +0000

Tombo- If you check the previous post I made with the link to the May 1998 interview, you will see that you are incorrect. To establish this would take less than 10 minutes of your time. Your comments contain blatant inaccuracy in the face of the evidence and is developing into a pattern. Please check your facts before making statements, otherwise your comments add nothing to the discussion. So my original post stands which was: If you read the AQ literature carefully, you will find that AQ will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel. In this respect, Bush or Kerry, we are not being given a choice of withdrawal.

By: tombo

tombo — Sun, 09 May 2004 03:09:13 +0000

Ad, Osama never mentioned Israel in his manifestos or rants prior to a year ago. Which is why, again, throughout the last decade, his fellow Saudis and other jihadists rebuked him for his inattention to the Palestinian cause. Other targets of convenience added for PR effect in recent months include Kofi Annan. Osama just placed a bounty on Annan’s head. Are you seriously going to argue that Osama’s recent change of tack in targeting Kofi, like his sudden conversion to the Palestinian cause, is anything more than tactical desperation? What next—a bounty on Chirac? On Michael Moore’s fat head for dissing the House of Saud?

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sat, 08 May 2004 19:29:47 +0000

In case anyone’s still reading this and wondered how low Ted Rall could sink, here’s an answer: http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/04/12/ Notice, especially, the last panel in which Daniel Pearl’s widow is trying to pick up a guy who’s “thinking about opening a synagogue in Baghdad”, probably Rall’s made-for-Iraq version of the Protocols!

By: pepi

pepi — Sat, 08 May 2004 10:48:00 +0000

donald johnson, that was rather impressive… and no argument with any of it. one of the things that most bothered me as I was watching Rumsfeld being heard in Senate and Congress yesterday was his (and his supporters’) refrain along the lines of “yeah but at least we’ve got a free press, a working system of justice, investigations, and sanctions and punishment for violations and crimes! doesn’t that make us a great country”. And I thought those things were supposed to be the basic requirements for qualifying as a democracy at all, and one with functioning and transparent institutions, as opposed to a tyrannical and corrupt system. I thought what can make a democracy great in that sense must necessarily belong to a much higher level of standards than the basic ones. How naive of me. I don’t think the intent of Henry’s post was to use that game of degrees though, or provide any apology of the “at least we’re not as bad” kind.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Sat, 08 May 2004 03:31:38 +0000

Yeah, Rall is an idiot. That was hardly worth the energy to type. More important, though, is this whole Godwin’s law thing. I’ve broken it myself on occasion, but in hindsight I can see I was showing a deplorable lack of American pride. If one wants to criticize the latest American atrocity with an overstated analogy, why should one import an example from German history? There are plenty of good, honest American crimes against humanity in the history books, on scales large and small. Then, when someone points out that current atrocity X really isn’t as bad as past atrocity Y, we can be spared the subtle self-congratulatory pats on the back that come with the realization that Abu Ghraib isn’t even remotely comparable to what our enemy Nazi Germany did at Auschwitz. Instead, we can engage in the more fruitful historical comparison of current American crimes with past ones. Some of those approach Nazi-level evil, (though not quantitatively) in my opinion and probably the opinions of the victims, if they could be resurrected and asked about it.. So in the future, if people follow my advice, we can say “You moral imbecile, how could you compare the torture of Iraqis to the bounties placed on Indian scalps in California?” For further information people could be directed to that museum of great American crimes in Washington D.C. Or wherever. Too bad this thread is dead. I’ll have to trot out this suggestion next time the inevitable dreary Godwin’s law discussion comes up again.

By: ad

ad — Fri, 07 May 2004 19:50:21 +0000

Tombo- re: You obviously have not read the “AQ literature.” Osama over the years has not mentioned Israel … Let us look at pretty typical AQ literature and decide whether Israel is mentioned: http://www.doublestandards.org/alqa.html “To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him. God is great, may pride be with Islam.” (ie: what is required is: 1. Security in Palestine 2. Exit from the “land of Muhammed”.) “Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins and we don’t hear condemnation or a fatwa from the rulers. In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine – in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don’t hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb.” (ie: Israel is oppressing the Palestinians) It really could not be any clearer.

By: tombo

tombo — Fri, 07 May 2004 16:43:03 +0000

The Limbaugh stupidity and brutality linked to in the previous post explains clearly why I’m not a Republican. Many so-called “patriots” are not decent; likewise for the so-called “progressives” who cannot discern the real fascists in Iraq, Syria, Saudi, and Afghanistan. Limbaugh and Rall are nothing more than haters on the make. A pox on both their houses

By: tombo

tombo — Fri, 07 May 2004 15:11:07 +0000

Ad, “If you read the AQ literature carefully, you will find that AQ will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel.” You obviously have not read the “AQ literature.” Osama over the years has not mentioned Israel and has been chided repeaetdly by his fellow Arabs for failing to do so. More importantly, Osama’s only SPECIFIC demand—aside from the restoration of the medieval caliphate—was for US troops to exit the muslim holy soil of Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, the US (quietly, in its run-up to the Iraq War) did precisely that! The US central Command has been moved to Qatar! Which is why, of course, Osama thereupon declared a truce with us…

By: Alice

Alice — Fri, 07 May 2004 14:00:39 +0000

Good discussion. tombo: A lot of what you have said makes sense to me and is pushing me a bit towards Bush, I must say. I agree particularly with what you said about AQ. To my mind they should be treated like criminals. No bargains. No discussions. They are an incurably irrational bunch who have forsaken this life for another- to me, the scariest thing a human can do. I have heard nothing from the Kerry camp that makes me think he would handle things any better than Bush on the issue of defense and terrorism. Environment-Kerry. Gay rights-Kerry. Busting corporate thieves-Kerry (I think.) Sep. of church and state-Kerry. Budget balancing-neither, right? So, I’m still confused. I want to see a VP candidate.

By: pepi

pepi — Fri, 07 May 2004 10:37:35 +0000

Pepi, it is precisely because of this history, that they are dangerous. The hijacking of history, of what truly happened in 1933-45, is a great crime. Whether committed by those who would deny it entirely or those who would debase it for glib political debate. It is the latter who facilitate the former. kyle: I completely agree. I guess I was trying to make a distinction in "dangerousness" based on relevance, impact, influence of the person expressing that kind of mentality. Then again, anything that gets into a public/media debate has influence so it carries a danger of propagating. And on that note... at the opposite end of the spectrum from Rall (Kurt: if it's any consolation, I think your point was clear enough, and I didn't read any implied defense of Coulter in it), here's what some of the apologists for Abu Ghraib have to say: it was not torture, just a fraternity prank it was not torture, just something that was over the line, and anyway, the Arabs do much worse it was not torture, just something to make juvenile and unfunny jokes about it was torture, but torture is not such a big deal when you could be killed by terrorists any day Granted, that that sort of sentiment would emanate from Limbaugh or LGF is not suprising, but that the latter item should come from the Chicago Sun Times is rather depressing. Even more than Ted Rall's stuff. Actually, no, I can't decide which attitude is more sickening and idiotic. And dangerous. Such great times we live in, such great choices...

By: ad

ad — Fri, 07 May 2004 07:43:28 +0000

“we’ll be attacked by AQ and similar islamist fascist groups no matter how nice we make with arabs or how hard we try” If you read the AQ literature carefully, you will find that AQ will stop attacking us if we withdraw from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel. In this respect, Bush or Kerry, we are not being given a choice of withdrawal.

By: tombo

tombo — Fri, 07 May 2004 02:48:32 +0000

Jack, I appreciate your obvious attempt to be civil and gracious, but Kennedy has embarrassed himself and his (my) party. Forget the Texas aspect (I only recently moved here, for work mainly). As stupid as that is—and I’m always amused at northern liberals’ ignorance of the fact that race relations are far better in the benighted south than in those riot-prone redneck citadels of NYC nad Boston—, what bothers me about Kennedy’s rants is the complete failure to consider the Clinton administration’s efforts and sincerity in all this. Were Clinton and his men guilty of a conspiracy? A hoax? Was he a war criminal for carpet-bombing Baghdad? Did they falsify intelligence estimates when they concluded (Dick Clarke even notes this in his book!) that Saddam was in league with Osama and was furnishing chemical weapons to AQ cells in East Africa? All of the above must be concluded if Kennedy’s rants are correct. But of course they’re phony, based on nothing but bile and bitterness and a childlike sulk that the 21st century is not, as everyone foolishly wished, a golden age of mutlilateralist harmony and peace. Regardless who occupies the White House, several facts are apparent to any rational, unsentimental observer: First, we’ll be attacked by AQ and similar islamist fascist groups no matter how nice we make with arabs or how hard we try—and Clinton worked literally around the clock to achieve this—to bring peace to Israel-Palestine. Second, the “West” is finished because most Europeans will always view us as rivals, not allies. (Think Microsoft and Apple.) Third, the truly crucial region for us in this century is Asia, specifically India and China, about which Kennedy and the other apoplectics have nothing intelligent to say. For all the above reasons, I know that electing Kerry would not in the slightest improve the situation in any of those three realms. Kerry’s cast himself as Sharon’s best pal: say goodbye to cozy multilateralism with the Euros! No matter what he tells the world, a President Kerry would inevitably have to continue to carry the fight to AQ, and the Ba’athists in Iraq and in Syria, and to the fundamentalist shi’a in Iran, and eventually to the Wahabbis in Saudi. As to Asia, Kerry doesn’t know what the f*** he’s talking about regarding outsourcing or trade or economics generally. Would CLinton’s syrupy sweet talk have been preferred to Bush/Rusmfeld’s brutal honesty? For keeping a lid on Euro hostility, certainly. For winning friends in the muslim world, absolutely not. Clinton could not command the Pentagon and persuade the Chiefs to take the fight to Osama. As a result Osama scorned the US as a paper tiger and perpetrated repeated, devastating attacks on us and our embassies, ships, soldiers, citizens and others around the world. In Israel-Pal, all of Clinton’s tireless efforts came to naught because of Arafat. In sum I don’t hold any illusions that the world will be a nicer place if Bush is replaced. And I have plenty of reason to believe that Kerry will make a tough situation far worse. Sorry, but No Zapaterismo for this nation. Not our style.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 07 May 2004 02:11:41 +0000

Kurt, just to get this straight, there is no point drawing a distinction between Coulter because he is as bad as her because he can’t draw a distinction between one set of torturers and another?