Who Dares Call it Terror?

In what is sure to become an iconic image, a London Muslim, hands stained with the blood of his victim lying in the street behind him, is calm as he explains murdering a soldier in cold blood. In short, it was for jihad.

CNN reported the man in the image said of himself and his accomplice:

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,” said a meat-cleaver-wielding man with bloody hands, speaking in what seems to be a London accent.

“The only reasons we killed this man … is because Muslims are dying daily,” he added, in video aired by CNN affiliate ITN. “This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth.”

Other witnesses state, ”…they heard the two men shouting “Allahu Akbar” as they worked to dismember their victim.”

Despite inarguable testimony to the contrary, despite having seen this sort of thing before and despite both British Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May calling it a terrorist attack some remain skeptical.

London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe said,

“We understand concern about the motivation, and we will work tirelessly to uncover why this occurred and and who was responsible.”

Why this occurred and who was responsible are the two things most clear in the midst of this tragedy. The only “Why?” which needs to be asked is “Why won’t we come out and say what we really know? Why won’t we say that Islam is responsible for outrages like this daily, around the world and it’s getting worse, not better?” Why won’t we say that?

Closer to home we have the Ft. Hood murderer who screamed “Allah is great!” as he murdered 13 US soldiers and wounded 32 more in November of 2009. The military is calling it an act of workplace violence. As such, none of the victims are entitled to combat benefits while a slam dunk case against the Islamic terrorist languishes well into its third year and the terrorist collects his pay – $278,000 so far.

Also in 2009, a lone Muslim terrorist murdered a US soldier and wounded another in front of a US Army recruiting station in Little Rock, AR.

Despite law enforcement admitting the murderer acted,”…to protest the U.S. military and “what they had done to Muslims in the past,”” he was tried in a civilian court and prosecutors opted for a life sentence rather than the death penalty. They left the choice up to the victim’s families who showed the murderer more mercy than he showed their sons.

The 2011 LA Times story also notes several other, “…terrorism-related cases since the Sept. 11 attacks have been tried in federal courts, but none have resulted in a death sentence.”

In short, while Britain seems to be moving toward calling terrorism what is – terrorism – the US, starting with the President of the United States himself, refuses to acknowledge the obvious. Men and women, claiming authority from the teachings of Islam, are murdering our sons and daughters.

I am aware not every Muslim approves of the actions of these few. But that in no way absolves us from dealing with the reality that those murdering strangers in the streets around the world on a daily basis are doing it in the name of Allah.

At a minimum that makes it a holy war on everyone that is not Muslim. At its worst these are individual acts of terrorism with Islam squarely in the crosshairs as the motivation and inspiration.

Until US law enforcement, the US military and US citizens alike come to grips with this reality, we remain asleep and vulnerable. To date, not only have these groups not clearly named the enemy stalking them, they have gone out of their way to muddy the waters and divert attention from the real evil.

Instead of Islamic threats, the government, largely left leaning, has suggested that US military veterans, political conservatives and others hated by Progressives present a clear and present danger to Americans.

Not until these Quislings shed their craven political costumes for reality and take up the mantle of America’s protectors will we find a unified and effective strategy to deal with threats we face.

The only question is will we have enough time to deal with the problem effectively when – and if – they do.

When those charged with protecting our rights refuse to acknowledge who it is threatening them, it is difficult to muster up confidence. Time will tell.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Memorial Day: Honor Our Military, Reject Political Correctness.
Washington Bridge Collapse Being Used to Push Big Government
  • jim_m

    The left will never not blame our own culture, our own existence for the homicidal violence of islamic fascism. There are no conditions where western culture is not guilty. What these fools do not recognize is that once they have surrendered our freedoms to the islamists, they will be at the front of the line for the beheadings.

    Quisling is really too nice of a term for these people. Quisling thought he would protect and preserve the heritage of his people. The left wants to see that heritage destroyed.

  • jim_m

    The left will never not blame our own culture, our own existence for the homicidal violence of islamic fascism. There are no conditions where western culture is not guilty. What these fools do not recognize is that once they have surrendered our freedoms to the islamists, they will be at the front of the line for the beheadings.

    Quisling is really too nice of a term for these people. Quisling thought he would protect and preserve the heritage of his people. The left wants to see that heritage destroyed.

    • Blue Collar Muse

      Thanks for the response Jim – can’t really argue with anything you’ve said. I appreciate your passion and your patriotism …

  • Commander_Chico

    Seems like everyone “dares” calling it terror. Is that your question? Do you see anyone not calling it terror?

    A part of the Islamic world is going through a transition to modernity. Other parts, like Malaysia, Turkey, and Indonesia, have already gone through that transition. This creates conflict. We don’t help by identifying modernity with the wars and “regime change” we bring. There is going to be some friction for awhile. It’s best to keep our troops and bombs out of their countries and let our movies, TV, internet, technology, medicine and fashion do its work.

    On the other hand, we support a government, Saudi Arabia, whose nationals provide the largest source of funding for extreme interpretation of Islam and terror. They are the reactionaries to modernity in the Islamic world. They’ve been funding extremists all over the world. We’ve supported them for years. They get a pass from us because they pump oil on command.

    We also kill Moslems on a scale that dwarfs what these nutballs like the ones in London or Boston did. But that’s OK, because those kids in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan were killed and maimed “by mistake.” Whoops!


    Look, you can rant and rave all you want, but the questions are: (1) do you want to have a sensible foreign policy that doesn’t create hate and discontent around the world? or (2) do you want to impose a total police and surveillance state to stop the blowback from our interference in other countries? It’s already bad enough.

    9/11 was a well planned operation perpetrated by 19 guys (mostly Saudis) that exploited a vulnerability in aircraft security. That’s not going to happen again. There are going to be other incidents like Boston or London. The risk of an individual being killed by terrorism, absent some foolishness like the US attacking Iran, is likely to remain way down below getting killed in a robbery. You are four times more likely to be struck by a lightning bolt than killed by terrorism.


    I go with Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    People that run around doing the Chicken Little about terrorism are basically pussies. They can’t take any risk, so whatever big daddy state can do to protect them, they want. They’re happy to send our troops off to fight to save their weak asses, however misguided the wars might be. They are constantly afraid of something less dangerous than lightning on a golf course. I say, grow up.

    • jim_m

      The difference is that the rest of us call it terrorism and blame the people who perpetrate it. You and your lefty friends, on the other hand, side with the terrorists in blaming us and our culture for the terrorism. No one is calling for the state to save us. We are calling for the state to wake up to the danger.

      As for calling others “pussies” I seem to remember someone saying “ad hominem = surrender”. Looks like you threw in the towel on this argument already. You are such a hypocrite.

      • Commander_Chico

        What I meant was that someone who uses ad hominem is surrendering to the logic of the opposing argument. I see that you are surrendering again.

        “Pussies” is just descriptive of anyone who really walks around in the USA worrying about terrorism.

        • jim_m

          Whatever. Just more weasel words from the leftist, trying to distract from his support of fascism.

          You can continue to apologize for the terrorists like you did the other day, castigating everyone here for being the root cause of terrorism like you did then. Go ahead, continue to show us how much you hate this country and its culture and how much we are to blame for your islamofascist friends wanting to kill us, hateful, Anti-American parasite that you are.

          • Commander_Chico

            Wipe that foam off of your mouth.

            Funny how nobody but Chico has any ideas about how to reduce the threat of terror, but Ken and you are running around acting like your hair’s on fire.

            Nobody ever disputes my facts, like that the threat of terrorism is statistically small. I know hasbara wants to make it into a big thing to make Americans scared of the Mooslims, but it’s not.

          • jim_m

            I have already stated my ideas on how to stop terrorism. If you are too imbecilic to understand simple English I am unable to help you.

            As for nobody disputing your facts, you rarely ever post any facts but are full of a lot of self important opinion, bolstered by your many years as member of the joint chiefs, CIA, and Seal Team 6. You are so full of BS I don’t know where to start.

            Nobody is afraid of muslims, we just don’t want to surrender to them like you do.

          • Commander_Chico

            Right we know your plan – more wars that other people and their kids will fight.

          • Blue Collar Muse

            Right … which is why my son is serving his second tour in Afghanistan along with the children of several close friends and those about to deploy. My guess is I have more people whose kids are fighting than you do. No way to prove that, but your “high dudgeon” would seem to suggest that you couldn’t be bothered to defend yourself against the peace loving jihadists should they break faith with your trust in them. You don’t believe there’s a threat so you do nothing. I know different and take appropriate action. You get the benefit without lifting a finger AND get to play moral purist. Bearing such a load of double standard must be difficult …

          • Commander_Chico

            I am sorry your son is in Afghanistan. I have been in the same situation as you are.

            It’s tough to consider, I know, but do you really think that your son is doing anything to protect the USA over there, at this time? Karzai and his people are massively corrupt. His brother is a big dope dealer. Others steal tens of millions of our aid. Karzai routinely bites our hand by rousing the rabble against NATO forces when we make yet another “mistake” by mistaking a wedding party for a Taliban platoon and bombing them.

            80% of the people there are iron-age illiterates. Yes, they might kill each other. Is it worth bankrupting the USA to have them stop? Do we have to impose our ideas of “gender” equality by the barrel of a gun? If we control our borders, do you think somehow the Taliban are going to come over here and attack us?

            As I said, Ken, your post is long on ranting but short on solutions. Do you really think the war in Afghanistan or Iraq made the USA safer? Do you think that our interventions in Libya or Syria make us safer? What is your prescription for solving the terrorism issue?

            We spent, what, three or four trillion $$$ on domestic and foreign measures to “fight terrorism.” What if we had spent that money on medical or fusion energy research? Probably would have saved a lot more lives, that’s what.

            The London and Boston terrorists basically said, we’re killing you people because you’re killing our people. So you’re going to ignore that and say they killed because “they hate our freedom” or other nonsense?

          • jim_m

            Nice that you place value on people based on whether they can read.

            You are disgusting. People have value as human beings. You are every bit the totalitarian that sees people as having value as long as you can use them and once their utility is over you discard them or kill them. I for one do not want to live in such a fascist state. You would have felt right at home feeding ovens in 1940.

          • Commander_Chico

            OK, you get your ass over there to keep those illiterates from killing each other then. I’m sure you can get an AK-47 pretty easily.

            It’s pretty accepted that one of the reasons the USSR collapsed was because they spent too much money trying to keep up with the USA.

            How is it good then, if the USA runs around the world spending trillions “protecting” every tribe on Earth?

            “Responsibility to protect” is not a conservative doctrine, it is a liberal internationalist one.

        • retired.military

          “What I meant was that someone who uses ad hominem is surrendering to the logic of the opposing argument. I see that you are surrendering again”
          Says the pot calling the kettle black

    • warnertoddhuston

      Actually, Malasia, Turkey and Indonesia are REGRESSING, not moving toward modernity. Islam is a disease on mankind.

      • Commander_Chico

        I am sure this is based on your extensive experience in those countries, three of the fastest growing and freest economies in the developing world. At least I can buy booze in Malaysia 24/7, unlike in the USA.

        • jim_m

          Fuck you Chico. You talk like there is no way to get information from overseas other than by being there. Malaysia has the PAS party, which is promoting radical islam.

          Your claims are very much like someone whistling past the graveyard. You deliberately attempt to deceive people about what is really going on by painting a one sided picture that bears no resemblance to reality. In some ways, your having been there has given you a false impression of what the fact may really be.

          You would do better by getting out of the bottle and actually doing some reading to educate yourself.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well they are not doing a very good job of promoting radical Islam, it’s pretty free and easy in Malaysia.

            Shorter jim_m: “Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes, believe what I read on Pam Geller’s website!”

          • jim_m

            I don’t read her website douchebag. I am capable of finding real news and reading that. A capability you would do well to cultivate yourself.

    • Blue Collar Muse

      LOLOL … You note, “We also kill Moslems on a scale that dwarfs what these nutballs like the ones in London or Boston did. But that’s OK, because those kids in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan were killed and maimed “by mistake.” Whoops!”

      Thanks for demonstrating the moral vacuum you dwell in. Far and away the biggest killers of Muslims are … wait for it … other Muslims. Just look at Sadam Hussein’s Iraq and Afghanistan under the Taliban. Talk about your murderous thugs.

      Conveniently, you miss the notion that we are not simply killing Muslims. We are killing murderous, amoral animals who behead innocents and shoot women in the head in public for showing their ankles or having the audacity to be raped.

      I swear you chuckleheads will believe and espouse anything …

      • Commander_Chico

        If Muslims want to stop people like the Taliban, they need to do it themselves. It is not our job to police them if they are killing each other.

        As I said above, the USA coming in and wiping out wedding parties mistaken for Taliban platoons only provides more recruits for the Taliban. WTF wants foreign troops occupying their land?

  • GarandFan

    It’s so much easier to bury your head in the sand and see nothing. Meanwhile, in Sweden, the police stand by while property is torched by rioting Muslims because they ‘don’t fit in’. Go figure.

    • jim_m

      As we saw in France a few years ago, it isn’t the people who are afraid of muslims, it is the left wing governments.

    • Commander_Chico

      The Swedes were being politically correct dumbasses when they allowed so much immigration. Of course, Sweden is so oppressive and feminist it does not surprise me people are rebelling.

      • Blue Collar Muse

        Wait … how can the Swedes be wrong to allow so much immigration? I thought the immigrants in question were fine, upstanding and contributing members of any society in which they are found.

        • Commander_Chico

          The Swedes thought those people would be assimilated into their Borg collective.

          The Arabs in Sweden, being anarchic people who do not like rules, had other ideas.

          • jim_m

            Your bigoted comments about the Swedes aside, like many EU nations, Sweden made no efforts to assimilate their immigrants. Following the leftist mantra of multiculturalism they kept their immigrants apart and now they are reaping the whirlwind.

          • Commander_Chico

            It wasn’t me who named them the Borg. Blame the Star Trek TNG writers.

  • herddog505

    In fairness, the culprits COULD be lefties:

    1. They hate western society

    2. They hate the military

    3. They consider the west responsible for thousands of murders

    Think of it: when informed of such a crime, the average lefty doubtless thinks, “Man, I’d like to do that, myself” only they haven’t got the nerve.

    • Commander_Chico

      Or they could be something else: do you remember Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph?

  • ackwired

    Islam has not declared war against the west, and the US is not at war against Islam. These people should be treated as the criminals that they are, not elevated to the level of soldiers.

    • jim_m

      Trying them as criminals still misses the fact that these people are part of a larger ideological movement. If that movement is not addressed (and the left does not want it addressed at any cost), then these kinds of “crimes” will continue and increase.

      I think it may be necessary to define a new category for these individuals where they can be treated as neither criminals nor soldiers.

      • ackwired

        These criminals are part of a larger ideological movement. Treating them as criminals does not necessarily ignore that fact, and addressing that fact does not necessarily do anything to decrease or discourage future crimes by these people. I do not see any value in allowing them to terrorize us, and we control whether or not we are terrorized by our reaction to their crimes. If we get all excited and rant about the evil Islamists, then they have succeeded in terrorizing us. If we remain calm and rational and bring them to justice, then terrorism is not an effective tactic.

    • Blue Collar Muse

      “Islam has not declared war against the west”

      Did you watch the video that the image in this post was taken from? Or are you the only person on the planet who did not?

      One can argue that there are many Muslims who do not wish conflict with the US or anyone else. It is orders of magnitude much harder to make the argument that Islam, as a religion – given it’s 1500 years of demonstrated history – is not at war with everyone …

      That there have been times of peace or places where there is no conflict is not sufficient to disprove that contention. Islam has practiced a conquer and expand by the sword doctrine almost from its inception. That is not open to debate …

      For proof, just ask the Christians of North Africa … O, that’s right, you can’t … they were murdered centuries ago …

      • Commander_Chico

        There are still Christians in North Africa and have been for a long time. More than there are adherents of Native American beliefs in the USA.

        Of course, the French and Italians took over North Africa more recently and ended up murdering a lot of Arabs in the process.

        Ever see “Battle of Algiers?” It’s required viewing by officers in the U.S. Army and USMC.

        Funny how people can rant and rave about shit that happened 700 years ago, but overlook things that happened 100, 50 and 5 years ago.

        80 years ago, 90% of the Muslim world was colonized and their resources were being exploited by Europeans. For example, the British were mining all of the tin out of Malaysia. They were pumping oil out of Iraq, etc. The French were mining in Morocco, getting oil out of Algeria. The Dutch ruled Indonesia.

        90 years ago, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had to fight a war against the British, French, Italians and Greeks to keep them from carving up Turkey.

        100 years ago, the U.S. Army was massacring Muslims in the Philippines, for purely imperialist reasons.

        Somehow all of that history gets ignored when white folks talk about Muslims being aggressive.

        Muslims did not take over most of the world, end up killing most of the indigenous people of the Americas, fight a war to push opium on China, enslave people on cotton and sugar plantations, or use other slaves to take diamonds and gold from the slaves’ own land.

        Over history, compared to the crimes of Christians, Muslims’ crimes are relatively small.

        • jim_m

          And you complain when I tell you that you have a Hate America First viewpoint.

          • Commander_Chico

            Please engage like a man – with facts and not emotions.

            Is there anything I said which is not true?

          • jim_m

            It is the characterization that I disagree with. For instance, you complain about “killing most of the indigenous people of the Americas” yet you neglect how that happened. Go read about King Philip’s war. The Indians were not pure in that war (a war that eliminated 1 in 3 people living in New England at the time).

            The muslim world and the west have been in conflict for centuries. Arbitrarily going back 90 years so you can make a point displays a depth of dishonesty that I expect from few people. You are one of those few.

            It is easy when you impose bullshit ideological conclusions out of our ignorance. My job is not to educate you. DO some work for yourself you lazy jerk, or just wallow in your anti-American ignorance.

          • jim_m

            Tell me Pvt Pyle, What atrocities of colonialism do you maintain to be ample justification for cutting a man’s head off in London last week?

            You are aligned with the enemies of civilization.

          • Commander_Chico

            You were trying in your previous answer and then you had to revert to bitch mode.

            It’s not justified, what those nutballs did.

            What atrocities of Islam do you maintain justify the women and children we killed in yet another mistaken drone strike last month?

          • jim_m

            You are an American hating fascist. It is obvious to see for anyone who reads your posts. Your interest in the US is limited to your government benefit check. You are a parasite and the world would be better off without you.

          • Commander_Chico

            Why that’s not a nice thing to say at all.

          • jim_m

            It has the virtue of being true.

          • Snap out of it dickface

          • jim_m

            The difference you dirt bag is that the muslims killed those children deliberately.




            This is how you celebrate Memorial Day? By calling our soldiers baby killers and blaming them for terrorism? Nice.

          • Commander_Chico

            Actually I was called a baby killer. DFW airport, May 1975.

          • That may have been the only case in which they were correct.

          • Commander_Chico

            King Philips’s War? That’s a good one. Yeah when the Indians woke up and said these white people are going to take over our land. Europeans were the aggressors, they were invading and bringing diseases. You know that later on Captain Jeffrey Amherst ordered the distribution of smallpox infected blankets to Indians during the French and Indian War?

            I could go back 200 years, 300 years, 400 years and recite instances of European conquest of Muslim lands. The Muslims have been back on their heels getting their asses kicked for a long time.

          • jim_m

            Figures you would take sides against the pilgrims. Fact of the matter was that King Philip did not represent all the Indians but he succeeded in committing such atrocities that he poisoned the well for generations to come, if not for centuries.

            You characterization is exactly what I was pointing out. You reflexively take sides against the west without even bothering to learn anything about it. While there were injustices done by both sides, it was the aggressive and bloody minded King Philip that caused the war. The war is predominantly his fault, individually, more than it is the fault of any group, either Indian or colonist.

          • Brucehenry

            Funny that the Wikipedia entry for King Philip’s War doesn’t characterize Metacomet (King Philip) as the villain of the piece as you do, Jim. While I don’t claim that Wikipedia is authoritative by any means, I wonder what is your source for the claim that King Philip “poisoned the well” all by his damn self. Also the reported death count is MUCH lower than you have asserted it was.

            Edit: Also, so what? So King Philip fought back in a way you consider savage. What would you do if invaders were stealing your homeland? What would be out of bounds?

            If the English response to the savagery of King Philip’s adherents was anything like the British response to the Mau Maus of Kenya 275 years later I’d say the two sides each got some licks in.

          • jim_m

            The point is that you and Chico cannot find a single point in history that you will say that the US or western culture is not guilt of some crime against humanity.

          • Brucehenry

            Mangled syntax, but I think I get your drift…

            One can be proud of one’s country and still acknowledge that it and its leaders have done wrong. One can be proud of one’s culture and its accomplishments and still acknowledge its failings.

          • jim_m

            My syntax is correct, if not straightforward.

            And yes, you can point out the failings of your own country. However, one is not compelled to point them out at every instance and one is not showing ones self to be a supporter of your country when you blame it for every act perpetrated against innocent civilians.

            That is what Chico does and that is what you are defending him for doing.

            The problem is how you and your fellow travelers on the left feel compelled to criticize the US at every turn and how you will not let any praise of the US pass without providing a multitude of criticisms. Given that, all of Chico’s comments about Memorial day ring false.

          • Brucehenry

            Chico has pointed out that accidental deaths – “collateral damage” – from drone strikes gone awry cause a lot of anti-American anger and arguably create more terrorists than those drone strikes kill. You freak out and accuse him of disloyalty for saying a thing that is undeniably true.

            If you were a Pakistani father whose small son was killed (like in Chico’s photo) as “collateral damage” who would YOU blame for “every act perpetrated against innocent civilians?” Do you think you’d blame the targets of the strike who escaped, or would you blame the owners of the drone that fired the missile that killed your son?

          • jim_m

            I blame the people who committed the actions for deliberately targeting civilians. You and Chico blame US soldiers.

            It is that simple.

            It is not true that there is any equivalence in the accidental and undesired deaths of civilains and the deliberate targeting of those civilians.

            You and Chico say that these are the same. That view is as repugnant as it is false.

            You can try to square that circle all you want. You are calling US soldiers terrorists and so is Chico. Congrats.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not asking who you, from the air-conditioned comfort of your armchair, blame for terrorism.

            I’m asking you to put yourself in the shoes of the Pakistani father of that boy in the picture. Were you him, who would you blame, the Taliban targets who skated, or the Americans who fired the missile?

            That is the point of saying we need to stop participating in wars in the Muslim world. It’s counter-productive for us.

          • jim_m

            That is not the question. You are still equating an accidental death to a deliberate targeting.

          • Brucehenry

            What deliberate targeting? I’m asking you to try, just this once, to have some fucking empathy for another human being. Try to imagine what that boy’s father feels. Now who do you blame for your son’s death? The Taliban who DIDN’T kill your son, or the drone that DID kill him — accidentally or not.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I would be angry at those who were the instruments of his death and not a bunch of people out for a shopping trip or watching a marathon. That does not change the fact that they did not try to kill him in an indiscriminate act of terrorism. You cannot see that because you are too intent on hating the US.

            I’m asking you to see that there is a difference between accidentally killing someone in a drone strike and deliberately trying to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible.

            You are claiming that Boston and that drone strike are equivalences and so is Chico. That is the whole point of Chico’s argument. That was the point of his picture.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, I can see it, and you can see it, and Chico can see it, but that boy’s father, and uncles, and brothers, and cousins, cannot and will never see it.

            This is the kernel of Chico’s point. You cannot see THAT because you’re too busy calling him names.

          • jim_m

            I see that point. I also find it to not be proven in fact.

            Terrorists are not the illiterate back water farmer whose child was accidentally killed. Terrorists are almost exclusively college educated, middle class ideologues who believe in a radical religious doctrine that tells them they will go to heaven if they murder someone. Terrorists are people who have the means to conduct terrorism.

            That is what you and Chico and the rest of your anti-American friends refuse to acknowledge. Your argument is false and not supported by the facts. But I already know that you don’t care about facts.

            Wake me when we are inundated by illiterate farmers seeking redress for the loss of their children. Haven’t seen it yet.

          • Brucehenry

            You are correct that the terrorists who have struck Western interests in spectacular fashion have been educated. But Taliban footsoldiers, like the Iraqi insurgents who planted IEDs throughout that conflict, are often indeed illiterate or semi-literate tribesmen.

            EDIT: Also, it doesn’t MATTER whether it is “proven in fact” or not, if it is proven to the satisfaction of the aggrieved family members.

          • jim_m

            This was about terrorism and not recruitment for the Taliban. That constitutes a huge moving of the goal posts.

            So far the one thing we are agreed on is that you are unwilling to call acts against innocent civilians in the US or Britain, terrorism and you are willing to call acts of the US military as terrorism.

          • jim_m

            And while you have defended Chico’s service I will point out his comment here where he basically calls our soldiers baby killers and blames them for terrorism.

            This is why we doubt his service. There is no doubt to his lack of patriotism and his hatred of this country.

          • Brucehenry

            Hilarious that you quibble about “bloodthirsty” vs “bloody-minded” but you read into Chico’s comments that our soldiers are baby killers and should be blamed for terrorism, something he never came close to saying.

          • jim_m

            Both you and he have equated unintended deaths of civilians to terrorism deliberately targeting civilians.

            That is not twisting your words, that is the direct and plain spoken point of both your arguments.

            You say that fighting muslims is counter productive? SO your answer is then to have them killing people here like on 9/11. No thanks.

            And yes, Chico did just call our soldiers baby killers.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m pretty sure that the PERCEPTION of the relatives of those Muslims who have been accidentally killed is that America doesn’t give a shit if they are dead.

            If those relatives weren’t terrorists before their wives, children, parents or siblings were “collaterally” killed, they’re damn sure more likely to be terrorists now.

            But a conservative, born without an empathy gene, can never grasp this truth.

          • jim_m

            I am not talking about perceptions.

            I am talking about moral equivalence.

            If you want to defend the position that our soldiers are the moral equivalence of the Boston marathon bombers then be my guest. That is your position and I will not forget it.

          • Brucehenry

            This whole discussion is about perceptions, you fool. It is how one perceives the events around one that determines how one will react. As Chico has pointed out, Muslims are angered by “collateral” deaths from drone strikes gone awry, hence they are more likely to choose sides against us. Their perception of us drives terrorism.

            Which brings us to another refrain of Chico’s, our support for the Saudis — wacky Wahhabis who fund the very madrassas that teach this Salafist craziness. These madrassas are instrumental in inculcating this anti-Americanism in the first place, the misplaced anti-Americanism that started this whole vicious cycle.

          • jim_m

            Yes, people are angered by collateral deaths. That is why the US military takes such pains to avoid them. Duh.

            However, your argument that it is causing people to rise up in revenge is bullshit. Tamarlin Tzarnaev didn”t have any children murdered, we have not bombed Chechnya.

            So what you are saying is that collateral deaths are providing excuses for deranged religious zealots and therefore we need to get out and stop because if we do stop they will no longer have any reason for terrorism.


            They are deranged and they will make up new offenses. Just as they made up the worst of the cartoons that they rioted over they will come up with something. They had excuses before 9/11 when we weren’t nearly as engaged in the ME as we are now.

            Your reasoning is insane and has no bearing on reality.

          • Commander_Chico

            First, it’s not just collateral deaths. Anytime you put an army into a foreign country, there will be atrocities.

            Truth is, members of U.S. forces and contractors have murdered Iraqis and Afghans. Even if you just look at the prosecuted cases, there is “the kill team” in Afghanistan, SSG Bales, Abu Ghraib, the rape murder in Mahmudiyah, the Blackwater massacre, and a few others. Just off the top of my head, without research.

            That is a simple truth, and obviously a reason why invading countries excites hate and discontent against the USA.

          • jim_m

            You and John Kerry. Always seeking an opportunity to throw our soldiers under the bus for your own gain.

          • Commander_Chico

            Shorter Jim: it’s OK if we kill hundreds of kids, ’cause it’s an accident.

          • jim_m

            Did you miss the part where I say that we do everything we can to avoid unnecessary deaths?

            Of course you did, because you are like John Kerry, seeking for the way you can best betray the US military.

            What you are doing is saying that the few civilians that are accidentally killed in theater of combat are equivalent to terrorists going out and deliberately murdering innocent people on city streets.

            You are calling our military worse than terrorists. You don’t deserve your pension, if in fact you ever really served. I find it hard to believe that someone who served would be calling our military worse than terrorists.

          • Commander_Chico

            If you’re in my country, and you’re killing my kids, I don’t give a shit what you’re doing. You’re not doing everything you can, because if you were you’d get out of my country.

            There seems to be a lot of these wedding parties getting wiped out despite these extreme efforts you talk about.

          • jim_m

            I’ve heard of exactly one wedding party. I suppose you are still believing in the whole Mohammad al Dura hoax too.

            Is there any slander against the US you will not accept at face value?

          • Commander_Chico
          • Oysteria

            Bruce, your point is correct. The problem for me is acknowledging the wrong (real or imagined) all Chico seems to do. No matter what good one brings up about our own culture or country, Chico is right there to remind us how evil we are. No matter what bad one brings up about another culture or country, Chico is right there to remind us that it’s our fault.
            It really is tiresome.

          • jim_m

            You don’t claim Wikipedia to be authoritative but you cite it as such. Make up your mind.

            On the other hand I happen to have bothered to read so actual history.

            When Philip’s warriors attacked in the June of 1675 (note that the Indians started this war-jim) it was not because relentless and faceless force had given the Indians no other choice. Those forces had existed form the very beginning. War came to New England because two leaders – Philip and his English counterpart, Josiah WInslow – allowed it to happen…

            What is surprising is that even in the midst of one of the deadliest wars in American history, there were Englishmen who believed the Indians were not inherently malevolent and there were Indians who believed the same about the English. They were the ones whose rambunctious and rebellious faith in humanity finally brought the war to an end, and they are the heroes of this story.

            From the book “Mayflower” by Nathaniel Philbrick

            The point of this is to illustrate how you and Chico blindly accept the anti-American revisionist history of the left and how you basically desire to hate your country and its people.

            Your first answer is always that the white European man is at fault, that we are the enemy of humanity and that we need to change our ways because we are always in the wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            So this Philbrick guy IS authoritative? says who?And LOl, “these forces had existed from the very beginning.” Really? The beginning of WHAT? The beginning of the European conquest of North America, THAT’S what!

            If the English had not come to America and established towns and farms on the hunting grounds and maize fields of the indigenous people, there would have been no war, correct?

            Also, your Philbrick quote doesn’t support your claim that King Philip was some kind of bloodthirsty monster nor that one third of New Englanders died during this conflict. Wiki says 600 settlers and 3000 Indians.

            But it’s funny that you think that because you recently read this book you are an expert in early colonial history with a specialty in the Indian Wars.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t claim he was a blood thirsty monster. Bloody minded implies that he was desiring war and my quotation backs that up.

            I am no expert, but I have read more than Wikipedia and more than one book on the subject. Funny that you deride someone that has bothered to improve himself and learn that Americans are not to blame for everything. Just like Chico you hate America too. Are you going to back him on calling US soldiers Baby Killers on Memorial Day now?

            Go actually read some real history and stop using Wikipedia for your sole source on what the world is about.

          • Commander_Chico

            Given what happened to them in the following years, the best course for the Indians would have been to attack and wipe out the Mayflower settlers. At least the men.

            Now all the Indians in New England have left are a few 1/16 descendants trying to get on the casino train.

          • jim_m

            Now Chico comes out in favor of genocide. Of course that doesn’t surprise any of us.

          • Commander_Chico

            I guess the converse is saying the white man is never at fault, even while he’s taking over other people’s land.

          • Commander_Chico

            King Philip was a guy fighting for the land, freedom and way of life of his people.

          • jim_m

            If you went back further you could recount the muslims taking these lands from the Europeans. What is Spain, but a land that the muslims conquered but was taken back? What is Turkey but a European land that was seized by the muslims and has never been taken back?

            Your definitions of who is at fault always lie with the ethnicity of the person.

            You are a thorough bigot. You blame the Jews or nearly everything. What you do not blame them for you place on the US and the west. You talk about people like the Swedes and the people of Malaysia in terms of disgusting caricatures, belittling their value as humans and insulting their cultures.

            There is not a single culture I have ever heard you speak politely about. You are the stereotypical hate filled bigot.

          • Commander_Chico

            You are the stereotypical hate filled bigot.

            Sez who? I’m not the one in favor of invading countries so we can kill kids by mistake.

          • jim_m

            I have not said that I am in favor of invading other countries. You keep claiming that and it is a lie.

            You however, are the one peddling obnoxious stereotypes of Swedes being emotionless automatons and muslims being illiterate drunks. You have not mentioned another race on this blog except to characterize them in some bigoted way.

          • So that’s what Pyle looks like without the tatoo…

        • jim_m

          There are still Christians in North Africa

          Yes, and the muslims are murdering 100,000 Christians globally every year.

          But the muslims are the victims in all this.

          Chico, anti-American, anti-Semite, anti-Christian.

          [edit] It should not be surprising that Chico is an apologist for the one culture that still accepts and promotes slavery.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, good point – the Christians in Syria are backing Assad, whom we are trying to remove.

            They are backing Assad because they know the US and Saudi backed Al Qaeda force will kill them.

            Just like the US invasion of Iraq destroyed the Christian communities of Iraq.


          • Yeah, 0bama purely sucks at target discrimination.

          • Commander_Chico

            The Christians in Iraq were decimated by Bush’s war – they were dead, gone or hiding in the Kurdish region by the time Obama came in.

          • [citation required]

          • jim_m

            Yep. Chico comes out in support of yet another murderous dictator. Is there any thug dictator that Chico does not support? It would seem that it is a prerequisite to be some sort of fascist dictator in order to get his approval.

      • ackwired

        LOL…I make it a point to never debate someone who tells me that their views are “not open to debate”

    • Criminals have rights.

      Illegal combatants rather less so.

  • Oysteria

    Guys, there’s no point in arguing with Chico. He’s right and you’re wrong. His attitude is that you can’t possibly know because you’re not there, yet he can know all and see all because a bartender in South Carolina once told him that the South is riddled with racism and he can buy booze 24/7 in Malasia. He is a “world traveler” and you’re just some jerk-off in Podunk, Nowhere.

    He is so firmly ensconced in isolationist rhetoric and theory, which is clearly evident in nearly every post he offers, that he neglects the inevitable outcome of it. Because it’s the opposite of what the US does now, it MUST be the right thing to do.

    I’m not saying that what we do now is right, but the opposite, isolate ourselves, isn’t the right thing either. If you think that letting our movies, TV, internet, technology, medicine and fashion do its work is the answer, you’re wrong. One has only to consider the brutal fashion in which these things are withheld from those who might benefit from them. That’s why so many of them are “iron-age illiterates”. No modern culture can penetrate that wall they erect. Because attempting to climb that wall spells death. And as their borders grow and begin to engulf everything around them, while we sit here smug in our righteousness that “all cultures have a right to self-determation” we souldn’t be surpised when they knock on our front door.

    • Commander_Chico

      I am not an isolationist. I believe in trade, communications, diplomacy and prudent foreign aid. I do not believe in interventions like the invasion of Iraq, the prolonged “nation building” exercise in Afghanistan, and our interference in Libya and Syria. It always will come back to bite us in the ass. People do not like foreign troops telling them what to do.

      Intervening in Syria to replace Assad with jihadis is just madness. Opposing madness is not isolationism.

      • Just like you’re not an anti-semite…

        • Commander_Chico

          Putting America first before Israelis and Saudis is not anti semitic. American Jews share my opinon.

          • Show One who explicitly agrees with the spew you have posted here.

          • Commander_Chico

            This guy would be a great place to start, he’s very knowledgeable:



            You could add Glenn Greenwald, a great American.

          • Still waiting for you to show one who explicitly agrees with the spew you have posted here.

            You still have shown none.

          • Commander_Chico

            You haven’t read everything they’ve written, when you do get back to me.

          • There you go again asserting that which just ain’t so while failing to produce evidence in support of your earlier un-supported assertion.

            You must have been a constant source of amusement during your asserted service.

      • jim_m

        None of the things you mention are what defines an isolationist. Traditional isolationism is the US has been a resistance to getting involved with conflicts overseas or entering into various alliances. Even the pro Nazi isolationists before WWII were in favor of trade you dumbass.

        Like all you comments this one is filled with lies and deception.

        • Willfully ignorant is our soi disant cognoscenti veteran.

        • Commander_Chico

          Being reluctant to get involved in conflicts overseas and get entangled in alliances is exactly what George Washington counseled in his Farewell Address. The Adamses were of the same idea.

    • I’ve been pointing that out:

      …there’s no point in arguing with Chico.

      about our soi disant cognoscenti and veteran for the longest time…