But... but... but... John Edwards said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker! This sort of thing shouldn't be happening now that Bushitler Buddy Blair is out, Britons should be beloved of Muslims now!

A possible mirror into our own future... Unless we start taking this seriously.

Instead of taking them to jail, the polics should have thrown those 2 islamoterrorists back into the burning vehicle, along with a rack or 2 of ribs.

Not only do these en need to die and fast, there needs to be a message sent that we will not be 'kind' to people who try to murder innocent people.

ccg;

Do you sit by your computer all day just to entertain us with something utterly stupid and banal? You sound so much like a jackass one might think you were one - oh excuse me what an insult to a jackass.

What's worrisome is that the New York Times' "Terror plot? What terror plot?" attitude can also be found across the pond.

That's a brilliant statement you made JFO. Are stating for a fact that this was not an incident of terrorism? Are you claiming Edwards made no such remark regarding the War on Terror using the bumper sticker anaolgy?Or are you here to just spit at people who say things you dislike?

Instead of taking them to jail, the polics should have thrown those 2 islamoterrorists back into the burning vehicle, along with a rack or 2 of ribs.

Naah. Waste of perfectly good ribs.

I disagree with you C C G. I think pork ribs and muslims go together. I dip my bullets in lard, just in case some day I am called upon to send a muslim to Allah. With lard inside them they go the other way. No 72 virgins, just eternal BBQ. JFO, just f**k off. No one here is interested in anything you have to post. So as I said just f**k off. I get it, that is what your initials stand for. I knew you were a f**k off. Go f**k off JFO.

Hugh S

You must be his jackass brother, you always seem to have a need to defend him. You question is as stupid and banal as his comment which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with the post. Just another excuse for his usual snarky, off topic shot at people who don't see things the same way he does. Clear enough for you now?

Something tells me this is not AQ.

But, because of Scotland, it is definately aimed at the intimidation of Brown. I wonder if he will be as strong as Blair?

Just F**k Off, your first post here was an attack on CCG. You have the audacity to correct someone who responded to your trolling. What the fu*k is wrong with you, boy? Were you born stupid or did you just grow that way? Do you doubt Scotland Yards statment that this was a terrorist attack?

JFO

Here is what you said:

ccg;

Do you sit by your computer all day just to entertain us with something utterly stupid and banal? You sound so much like a jackass one might think you were one - oh excuse me what an insult to a jackass.

Posted by: JFO at June 30, 2007 05:46 PM

Here's what he said:

But... but... but... John Edwards said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker! This sort of thing shouldn't be happening now that Bushitler Buddy Blair is out, Britons should be beloved of Muslims now!

Posted by: C-C-G at June 30, 2007 05:12 PM

Your reply to my post:

Hugh S

You must be his jackass brother, you always seem to have a need to defend him. You question is as stupid and banal as his comment which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with the post. Just another excuse for his usual snarky, off topic shot at people who don't see things the same way he does. Clear enough for you now?
Posted by: JFO at June 30, 2007 07:54 PM

No he is not my brother. My question is on topic, not stupid and not banal. Present a cogent and sober argument to rebut this.

There wasn't anything off topic about the C-C-G comment. Edwards has said that the war on terror is a bumper sticker. British officials are treating this as a terror attack.

Hugh, JFO is obviously humor-impaired and can't tell sarcasm without /sarc tags.

But... but... but... John Edwards said that the war on terror is just a bumper sticker!

Did the WOT prevent this? Any chance it incited this? I don't recall South Asians attacking Western targets prior to 9/11. Should we now start invading South Asian countries because of this? Should we occupy Thailand?

Calling the WOT a "bumper sticker" doesn't mean that terrorism doesn't exit, just as the failures of the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" have left us with both of those in abundance. Any suggestion that it does is either stupidity, illiteracy, or political rhetoric.

C-C-G
I think JFO is just the troll on patrol this evening and either can't keep up with the traffic or is having dinner with Sonoma.

Jackass Brothers:

I have a fabulous sense of humor. I laugh at the "comments" of youright wing goofballs every time I visit this funny paper blog.

JFO
That's simply fabulous. Fabulous.

Now, answer the questions. Make an intelligent argument. Present facts relevant to the responses to your vapid post.

Or go back to your fabulous life.

Did the WOT prevent this? Any chance it incited this?

Did WWII prevent attacks on our ships? Did it incite more attacks on our shipping?

Should we not have attacked Germany or Japan?

Nice evasion of the questions.

WWII campaigns were successful in limiting Germany's advance, and were ultimately successful in stopping them. The WOT campaigns are not succeeding in stopping terrorism, and in fact are increasing them. And I would love to hear how "winning" in Iraq would somehow stop terrorism from AQ's worldwide presence, including South Asia. By your argument, we needn't have attacked Japan, since defeating Germany would have been enough to make Japan magically docile.

Brian:

Did the WOT prevent this? Any chance it incited this? I don't recall South Asians attacking Western targets prior to 9/11. Should we now start invading South Asian countries because of this? Should we occupy Thailand?

Let's start with your misunderstanding of "South Asians." In the U.K. the phrase refers to those of Pakistani or Indian ancestry.

Secondly Thailand in NOT in south Asia it is in South-East Asia. I'm sorry you're so geographically challenged but it is was it is.

Moreover, in looking at western targets the list shouldn't be limited to those carried out by "south Asians."

A few examples.

Jan. 19 1975 - Arab terrorists attack Orly airport, Paris, France, seizing 10 hostages from a bathroom. French provided the terrorists with a plane to fly them to safety in Baghdad, Iraq.

April 19 1981 - 13 people killed, 177 injured in a terrorist attack in Davao Philippines.

21 Dec 1988 - Pan Am Boeing 747 destroyed in flight and crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland; 270 killed (189 Americans) including 11 on the ground.

26 Jun 1996 - truck bombing at U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; 19 killed, 515 injured.

AND, lets not forget the big one shall we:

Feb. 26 1993 - World Trade Center in New York badly damaged by a massive bomb by Islamic terrorists. The van bomb was planted in an underground garage and left 6 people dead and 1042 injured and almost ½ billion dollars in damage.

But ya know nothing happened prior to 2001.

Brian, the question was asked in another thread, but you ignored it, so I will ask it again.

When you take away all the attacks inside Iraq itself, has the total number of attacks in the rest of the world increased or decreased since 2003?

It's a very simple question, which I am sure you'll either ignore or try to avoid.

When you take away all the attacks inside Iraq itself, has the total number of attacks in the rest of the world increased or decreased since 2003?

Well, let's see...

The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.

30% of 11,111 is 3,333. That means 7,778 terrorism incidents NOT in Iraq. And if worldwide incidents increased fourfold to 11,111, that means they were at 2,777 prior to that increase. 7778 is greater than 2777.

So the answer to your question is "increased".

It's a very simple question, which I am sure you'll either ignore or try to avoid.

Typical for you to accuse others of that which you do so often.

And where can someone find those stats online to verify them, Brian?

That's all the jackass ccg does Brian. He opens his mouth and the the diarrhea of goofball right wing talking points flow out. He reads nothing, thinks nothing and offers nothing. My 5th grade grandson would have seen you answered the question - with a link even. LOL

Got a link Brian?

Not that we don't trust you... but, it's good to know the source to judge how accurate the data is.

JFO:

That's all the jackass ccg does Brian. He opens his mouth and the the diarrhea of goofball right wing talking points flow out.

And you have provided exactly what in this thread, (and most other you infest) that doesn't fall under your own description.

Re: Trolls

I must credit Jay Tea on this: He wrote an excellent essay on the tactics of trolls.

JFO manifests most of them: insult, ad hominem attack, diversion, rinse and repeat.

JFO is to be compared to a bot: he can do nothing but follow the above program.

Ignore him as you would a pop up ad.

Marc, I did a little research on my own and I found there's a very good reason Brian used 2005 figures: The 2006 figures tell quite a different tale.

As you can see in the combination of the Near East and South Asia accounts for about 80 percent of the total. I mentioned that the total terrorist incidents have gone up from about 11,000 to 14,000. As you can see, most of that growth occurs in the Near East and most of that is accounted for by Iraq and I'll get into that here in a second. The rest of the world is relatively flat.

Quite illuminating, don't you think?

HughS:

Ignore him as you would a pop up ad.

A 100 bucks to the first one who writes a FireFox plugin that blocks JFO and Lee popups!

Well Brian... got a rebuttal to C-C-G's post?

And note, "rebuttal" means a counter argument not making a hasty exit from the thread.

When one of you wingnuts writes something cogent or intelligent with some critical thinking I'll be happy to respond. Meanwhile i remain amused by ccg off-topic snark about Ewards, his inability to read and Hugh's stupid questions.

Marc, note also that I give a link to where I got the report. Just happens to be from the website of the US Counterterrorism Office itself.

JFO:

When one of you wingnuts writes something cogent or intelligent with some critical thinking I'll be happy to respond.

OK, you got us, we confess. But perhaps in the interest of being a good blog-buddy you can provide an example of cogent, intelligent writing that uses some critical thinking.

Let's start with your misunderstanding of "South Asians." In the U.K. the phrase refers to those of Pakistani or Indian ancestry. Secondly Thailand in NOT in south Asia it is in South-East Asia. I'm sorry you're so geographically challenged but it is was it is.

Oooh, you got me, didn't you! Why, that just invalidates my entire point! Damn, why didn't I look at a map?!

Moreover, in looking at western targets the list shouldn't be limited to those carried out by "south Asians."

Excellent. Thanks for supporting my point.

But ya know nothing happened prior to 2001.

Did someone say it didn't? Or was that just you trying to work tangential sarcasm into your post?

Oh, and you really should credit the sites you copy text from, especially when you just pick and choose what to copy and ignore all the rest of the information that invalidates your point.

Got a link Brian? Not that we don't trust you... but, it's good to know the source to judge how accurate the data is.

The link was in the previous post

Brian:

Oh, and you really should credit the sites you copy text from, especially when you just pick and choose what to copy and ignore all the rest of the information that invalidates your point.

You really are a befuddled idiot aren't you?

You first... where's your link and credit to this:

The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.