Head out of the arse for just one second, please.....
And these were innocents by what standard? I seem to recall that Spanish soldiers were killing Iraqis in Iraq at that time.
The only innocents in this "war" are the Iraqis we rained bombs upon on the day of the world televised "Shock and Awe".
Patel, you f**king idiot, the Spaniards who were killed were not soldiers. AND the Spanish soldiers were killing foreign terrorists who have been infiltrating the country via Syria! And good riddance to the lot of them.
We have not "rained bombs upon" the Iraqis. We have gone out of our way to avoid killing innocent civilians, which is more than I can say for the idiots who bomb mosques and buses and market places. They INTENTIONALLY kill innocents.
Lord, you're an idiot. Pull your own head of your own naive, blind, and willfully ignorant, sulf-satisfied ass and take a breath of fresh air. Man, you need to spend less time parroting the talking points of the anti-war leftists and spend some time among real people.
what Patrick said...except for the "F" word, which is not allowed here, btw sweetie!!
Patel
In war sometimes innocents/civilians, get hurt or worse. That's is not the crux of the moral argument.
I want to know if you see no moral difference between people who make all efforts to NOT hurt civilivians and those that deliberately TARGET civilians.
yikes... typo ...should be "civilians"
...need...more...coffee...
It just makes me SPIT when these people don't understand the difference between the post-born and the pre-born.
The post-born are guilty because they go to war on purpose, so when they die it doesn't matter.
The pre-born on the other hand even though they're too little to survive on their own are however, are innocent, so they DO matter.
Anyone who keeps on calling Pres. George W. Bush the major abortionist of the post-born will hear it from me!
Sorry I put the wrong homepage address.
Patel. I'm afraid not mate.
Abu Hamza says
...Islamically...it is Immoral to target people who have no say in the war. In fact they were against the war in Iraq... it is not fair to target them. It is not Islamic…We’ve got to distinguish between the evil politicians and the normal people who go about there business every day.”
The victims in the photo are aparently innocent by his standards. Yup. All bases covered. What are YOU saying?
Sparkle. How do you know? What is the ratio between innocents killed and guilty? What is the ratio between jihadhist killed and new ones made?
Sorry. you are posting emotive pictures and quoting statistics to prove your point. I am in no way against thwarting terrorist attacks.
Actually, what we need to do is quit parsing some fictitious line between terrorism and the basic tenets if Islam, and get to admitting who we're at war with.
It's Ramadan, and there's million Jihadists laying face down at mecca. I don't know about you, but the old presidential foootball may need to be hiked.
-T
Muffy?
Don't quit yer day job, girl.
This just in:
EWM - (October 6, 2005) The scientific community was stunned today when famed French geophysicist Jacques Revanche published a study that concludes euthanizing right-wing talk show hosts would solve the global warming problem.
The report sparked a firestorm of controversy across the nation’s airwaves, even as Revanche sought to downplay its findings. “It’s true that if you wanted to stop global warming, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could euthanize every right-wing talk show host in this country, and the global temperature would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your temperature would go down.”
To gather data for the study, Revanche sneaked into talk show studios variously disguised as a plumber, hair stylist and, in the case of Bill O’Reilly, a falafel delivery boy. He then captured air samples in the vicinity of the hosts and subjected them to rigorous testing.
The results varied widely. For example, Rush Limbaugh’s breath was found to be the pollution equivalent of an 18-ton garbage truck while Michael Savage’s sample scored just below a battery-powered dildo.
nicky
what I said to muffy
plus I'm glad you find libel funny
Why? What'd you say to Muffy?
Nicky
you don't read the comments posted above yours?
whodda thunk it.
Libel isn't usually funny, unless it's true and funny.
Funnier than that is parody.
dave bones,
What statistics did I use? The thwarted attacks were from Bush and our Intellgence. Not statistics.
I try really hard not use statistics. So many are bogus.
nicky, nicky, nicky...
Parody is funny when dealing with something with a kernal of truth, or a known stereotype.
Your 'parody' is based on a libel.
At best, it's tedious.
Sparky, add that guy's name to "The List!"
[you know which list I mean]
nicky,
so when Rush uses parody then it's no longer hate speech, right?
"And these were innocents by what standard?"
Are you kidding?
Sadly, I suppose not. You're just morally bankrupt.
The people in the picture are noncombatants. They were not in a combat zone and cannot be considered collateral civilian casualties by any stretch of the imagination. The U.S. and its allies do not target noncombatants in Iraq or Afghanistan. The enemy not only targets noncombatants; it is their primary strategy.
Guess you think that doesn't make a difference.
It should be noted that the U.S. also spent a lot of money attempting to minimize Iraqi civilian and military casualties, as well as our own. The "rain of bombs" about which you whine were part of an explicit campaign to counter Saddam's reign of fear with highly sophisticated, and expensive, smart munitions directed at military targets, which would indeed elicit "shock and awe." The goal was to minimize casualties all around by convincing Saddam's forces that the fight was hopeless. It was largely successful.
But, I don't expect a putz like you to think beyond the cliches you have been fed.
I can't tell by looking at that picture if those are civilinans that were intentionally, or unintentionally target by out military, I can't even tell if they are civilians or insurgents since they all dress the same.I also can't tell whether they were killed by our side or the insurgents. I think it's fair to say no one else posting in here can tell the difference either.
What I can tell you is that if our forces were to launch any form of an indiscriminate attack there would be more casualties than this picture shows. When we carpet bombed jungles in Viet Nam, 1, count 'em 1, bomber would wipe a clear path 1 mile long 1/4 of a mile wide. Anyone have a clue what the casualty figures would be if that happened in an urban area?
I think it's safe to say our government is telling the whole story when they say they are making every effort to minimize civilian losses and at the same time maximizing enemy losses.
Misses a key statement in the few words next to the pic, obviously these were civilians, but stand by my argument as to our military is handling their job.
I can't tell by looking at that picture if those are civilinans that were intentionally, or unintentionally target by out military, I can't even tell if they are civilians or insurgents since they all dress the same.
Did you read the post accompanying the picture?
I thought not.
And there's a reason for that. You're a moron.
You failed to notice that the picture was identified as ordinary people who were killed by terrorists in Spain. So you're looking at the picture to see if you can identify any uniforms. Confirming that you are a putz.
Next you say . . .
[My dumbass comment . . .] Misses a key statement in the few words next to the pic, obviously these were civilians, but stand by my argument as to our military is handling their job.
.
Uh-huh. You expose yourself as retard, but stand by your opinion without any attempt to justify it.
Do you feed yourself?
What picture are ya'll talking about?????
I think there is a miscommunication here. dave isn't a liberal. I think he just got the idea that the picture was from Iraq from the first commenter Patel.
I think there is a miscommunication here.
If so, my sincere apologies Dave. I thought you were supporting Patel's (mindless) point. I'm in a testy mood tonight.
Y'know, RWS, there is something about you that is attracting really low-quality trolls. I'd be worried about that, if I were you.
If you're going to move up in the blogosphere, you need at least one quality troll. Like, say, Cedarford. Yeah, Cedarford. Maybe you should send him an email. :>)
Darleen: Your definition of parody is skewed -- although, by your characterization, the kernel or truth, or "known stereotype," if you insist, might be Bill Bennett's definition of when abortion is permissible. Bennett's statement has been widely reported (oops -- I know Sparkle and Jill automatically equate that with "false"). And you don't understand the definition of libel. I suggest you look at the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46,1988. Then you would know that the parody posted above is not based on "libel."
Sparkle: If you're defining Rush as a "parodist," then that changes, and actually explains, everything.
Aren't you glad pictures don't come with the smell.
Nickey
The definition of libel is deliberate defamation of a person.
People who say Bennett advocates abortion black babies to bring down the crime rate are LIBELING him (or slander if they say such lies orally).
Now, if you read the link I provided, either you support the continued libel of Bennett or you decry it.
Which is it? It IS an easy touchstone of whether or not you are a decent liberal or an indecent leftist.
Choice is yours.
Did you know? (Micheal Caine moment) Defamation of Character is as serious in law as murder (well in the UK it is - I don't know about for you guys)
Darleen: I know what the definition of libel is.
Bill Bennett said what he said. Everyone has heard it. In its entirety, it's true he didn't "advocate" aborting black fetuses. The fact remains, that's the example he chose to make---well, whatever point he was trying to make.
One well-known, and quite successful, defense against libel is the truth.
Simon,
No. it's not as serious as murder here.
nicky,
Tell the truth. Do you honestly believe that Bennet is a racist? Do you honestly believe that he was making some hidden point about black people?
Not facing the problems in the black community does not do any one in that community any good. HIs point was mainly about crime rates. No one can deny the fact that crime among black men is out of control. Is it racist to point that out????
I have a black friend who I was talking to about volunteering at the Astrodome. I mentioned that most of the people in there were women and children. She said to me, "thats because most of their men are in prison." I was taken aback at first. And I suppose that if it had been a white friend I might have found that statement a bit racist. But actually she was just stating something that was probably true.
People focused on the "black" part of Bennets statement and missed the point about the crime rate.
His presumption is that blacks are, from the womb, predisposed to committing the most crime. He posits that by aborting them, the crime rate would go down. His qualifying "but it would be wrong" addendum does not negate his presumption and his argument. He chose to say it; he owns it.
No, that is not his presumption. He was NOT saying that it was predisposed. HE never said anything to lead one to believe that. He was saying, that since we know that a large portion of crime is committed by black men, then aborting all black babies would lower the crime rate. NOt that they wre predisposed to it. And that wasn't his point anyway, His point was that you can make arguments like that, but that they are "morally indefensible." I have no problem with his owning it.
Now answer my questions please.
nicky, his point was blacks in the US commit a statistically higher rate of violent crime. we can argue about why they do (high rates of poverty, broken families, or the cops just busting their chops unfairly), but his observation is inaurguably accurate.
interestingly, it was the left critics who could not choose to have the honest debate about why, they preferred (as you did) to distort it and demogogue race.
His presumption is that blacks are, from the womb, predisposed to committing the most crime.
Actually that's YOUR presumption (i.e. a strawman) which you then knock down.
Bennet never did elaborated on the mechanism by which the elevated crime rate is caused.
That mechanism, whatever it may be, doesn't really matter to the logical consistency of the statement Bennet made. The statistical reality of the crime rates is sufficient to support the statement.
In my 20+ year career as a programmer and engineer in the computer business, if I had made the logic errors you've made here, the computer you are typing on probably wouldn't boot, and would catch fire within 5 minutes if it did.
nicky
Bennett was libeled and you are continuing to do it.
The example Bennett used was from Freakonomics and Bennett used their statistical fact to argue that ANY argument for or against abortion (got that? FOR or AGAINST) relying on a utilitarian or pragmatic basis is MORALLY WRONG.
That you have yet to fess up to the salacious and reprehensible behavior on the part of all people who continue to libel Bennett clearly is putting you into the "indecent leftist" category.
"we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, and Al Qaida attacked us anyway.
The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."
j andrew
Iraq, a central state-sponsor of Islamist terrorism which we had already declared in 1998 that a regime change MUST happen ... Iraq, in which the state of war since the 1st Gulf war had never been resolved (unless you think shooting at US/UK planes is just fun and games) ... Iraq, which made an attempt to assassinate Bush 41 ... Iraq, which was bribing its way out of UN 'sanctions' in labyrinth of corruption that reaches all to way to Kofi Annan ... Iraq, which the WORLD agreed had WMD's and Saddam had never cooperated in resolving in violation of the cease-fire agreement
Iraq ...
If not Iraq, who? If not Iraq, then no terrorist need be held accountable.
Say welcome to dhimmitude.
dhimmiwhat babes?
you are in love with your adversaries babes.
You live and breathe for them. Without them you would be unhappy.
dhimmiplatitudes r u.
How did this devolve into a Bennet-screed from Spain terrorist attacks? Wacky.
You realize of course, that if they aborted all WHITE babies, the crime rate would go down as well? But that was bennet's point. Throwing the "baby" out with the bathwater is NOT a solution to crime. That was the point he was trying to make.
People, it's about CONTEXT! How many people who continue to villify Bennet have actually read the entire transcirpt of his comments? Understand the audience to whom he was speaking? Or even know the core topic about which he spoke?
Why bother, cuz it's just sooo much more fun to label him a racist.
Those who live by the sword; die by the sword.
Or so I hear.
those who live by thw sword really well, kill those who don't.
Uncle Melvin, they also say the Meek shall Inheret the Earth. Until then, the violent will run roughshod over the meek.
Commenting by HaloScan
