Jay Tea

You are obviously racist since most muslims have darker skin than yours.

I didnt look at the list of the conflicts but I wonder how many Muslims died at the hands of other Muslims.

The two imams I'm sympathetic toward. As I understand it, they have clean backgrounds, didn't mind getting questioned, etc., but the pilot just refused to fly with them aboard. Even after gate agents, ticketing folks, air crew, etc., pointed out the imams weren't a threat, the pilot refused to fly.

As for bin Laden's kid. I'm only sympathetic with them to the extent that nobody wants their father to be killed. But as was pointed out on the Volokh Conspiracy the other day, there was an outstanding indictment from (I think) 1989. If Osama bin Laden wanted to face justice, all he had to do was fly to New York for his trial.

What do you think the ratio is of Westerners killed by evil Muslims vs. totally innocent Muslims killed as "collateral damage" or worse in the recent wars? Like the innocent Iraqis shot up by the Blackwater guys now charged with murder?

I mean, our man President Karzai is always complaining about some wedding party or group of school kids wiped out by a Predator strike. Just wondering what you think the ratio is. If you added those killed from 9/11 on. After all, killed is killed, a dead child is a dead child. Or a dead parent a dead parent, like the ones this girl was crying over:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/04/opc.html

Well, chica, to whom are you going to ascribe responsibility for collateral damage? The people trying to kill the muslim terrorists with the minimum amount of harm to innocent bystanders, or the terrorists who deliberately choose to hide behind civilians virtually daring their enemies to kill them knowing that they will inevitably cause the deaths of non-combatants?

You hypocritical leftists are all about granting Geneva Convention rights to terrorists but you ignore the fact that their hiding amongst civilians is a violation of the convention.

Under the Geneva Convention that you demand we adhere to but ignore from our enemies it is a war crime to hide among civilians in order to cause their deaths.

You disgust me.

What people forget in the midst of all this hype about Muslims as victims, is that the group that continues to be victimized by hate crimes the most is still Jewish people. It amazes me how invisible antisemitism still is. There can be half a dozen attacks on any given day and still the news will completely ignore it. Some people even have this idea that Jews deserve it, that Israel is the great satan, so that justifies all crimes against Jews everywhere. Just in my little community we've had Jewish cemetaries vandalized, swastikas spray painted on things, public protests and marches against Israel, boycotts against Jewish products, arson attempts. We don't even notice these things because they're so common place, but if the shoe was on the other foot and any other group, including Muslims, were being targeted like this, the PC police would take up arms.

I think it's interesting to set the bar of mistreatment at "murder". That automatically avoids nearly all cases of mistreatment of Muslims in the US, just because no one was killed.

Racism, prejudice and bigoted treatment exists [tweet! Graves law violation. Also note that Islam is NOT a race nor are all the "sons of the prophet" of any single race]. Sometimes the bigots are Muslims. Sometimes they aren't. Neither makes the other better.

I love when the lefties always move the goal posts of the argument. They don't address the post. Ever.

Bill O'Reilly said it many times. There is a muslim problem in the world today. There is. There is no denying it.

If you are the son of Adolph Hitler, or Stalin, I don't think they would rise up to defend the father. ww

Jim x, you misunderstand (shocking!). Jay focused on murder, because that's pretty much the most extreme injustice a person can face. As an example, I have been literally spat upon, robbed, beaten, and terrorized a number of times in my life.

Each time, I got over it. You can survive abuse and insults.

Being murdered, not so much.

And the plain fact here - sucks for you but it's the fact - is that hate-driven Muslims kill innocent non-Muslims far more than the opposite happens.

So, strangely we would like to correct that imbalance, by asking the sane Muslims to address their crazy fellow Muslims and, you know, maybe do less murdering?

After that, we'll be happy to talk about feelings.

I think it's interesting to set the bar of mistreatment at "murder". That automatically avoids nearly all cases of mistreatment of Muslims in the US, just because no one was killed.

It's called "prioritizing." It's called "a sense of proportion." Try it some time.

Chico, as others have noted, the "collateral damage" is not, legally, our responsibility. We obey the rules, they do not; the rules say that those who break the rules are responsible for the consequences.

Further, nice little con game you pulled there:

What do you think the ratio is of Westerners killed by evil Muslims vs. totally innocent Muslims killed as "collateral damage" or worse in the recent wars?

Note that Chico didn't say "killed by Westerners," just "killed." That is part of the standard left tactic: we're responsible for all the deaths, even those caused by those we are trying to kill. If a suicide bomber blows himself up in a market and kills two dozen "totally innocent" Muslims, that's our fault, too.

J.

I call fucking BULLSHIT on "Muslim persecution".

The simple fact that there has been NO nation-wide, ongoing persecution of muslims post 9-11 says all that needs be uttered.

It's called "prioritizing." It's called "a sense of proportion." Try it some time.

OK, I will if you will. Just don't ever say anyone is being racist against a conservative unless they kill that conservative.

jim x, you remind me of the James Byrd lynching case in Texas. After that, liberals pushed for a hate crime law in Texas. Then-Governor George W. Bush pointed out that Byrd's murderers had been caught, and those not sentenced to death had testified for the state in exchange for life without parole. What the hell else did they want?

I'm not saying don't discuss those matters, and you'd admit that if you were inclined towards honesty. I'm saying that the discussions about all the people killed in the name of Allah are squelched in favor of those who want to talk about how awful some Muslim felt after being called a raghead terrorist.

Your analogy would make more sense if there were actually large numbers of people being killed by racists in the US. Lemme know when that starts.

J.

Jay Tea: "when I hear claims of "Muslim persecution," the first thing that comes to mind is not persecution of Muslims, but persecution by Muslims"

You seem to be forgetting (is it willful??) that a couple of years ago there was a rumor of an allegation that someone was considering the potential concept of throwing a Koran in a toilet.

It was only natural that this rumor of an allegation of a consideration of a concept led to Muslims "defending" themselves by killing a few dozen Christians. With such provocation, just imagine if the Religion of Peace WASN'T peaceful????

JimX, you really need to go look up the word 'context'. The problem with Muslim extremism is that it includes murder. That does not mean that racism in other contexts is not worth discussing. In another threads, racism may or may not be valid as an element of discussion, depending on the specific thread's context.

Having said that, it's also important to define terms. The war in Iraq, for example, was many things, but it was never a 'racist' war, although many of the Left tried to claim so.

Please understand that lead paint chips may look tasty, but you really need to give them up if you want to focus on the issues and make a cogent argument.

I mean, our man President Karzai is always complaining about some wedding party or group of school kids wiped out by a Predator strike.

No, that hasn't happened since Jan. 20, 2009. I read the New York Times.

Racism, prejudice and bigoted treatment exists. Sometimes the bigots are Muslims. Sometimes they aren't. Neither makes the other better.

I love the smell of moral equivalence in the morning. It smells like ... bullshit, actually. And for a very good reason.

That automatically avoids nearly all cases of mistreatment of Muslims in the US,

It would serve us right if they got the F out. That would really teach us a lesson that we could reflect on as we had to wait longer for a taxi, or to get served at 7/11.

I'm not saying don't discuss those matters, and you'd admit that if you were inclined towards honesty.

Jay Tea, I am taking your words at their face value, and showing you the logical outcome of those words.

Let's review what happened here:

I pointed out that you were deliberately setting the bar of whether or not something shows persecution, is whether or not it results in murder.

You then said that this was "prioritizing" and I should "try it some time".

I then did try it, by showing the results of it on a group of people who you seem to like - conservatives.

Lo and behold, suddenly you didn't like this method of "prioritization".

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it dishonesty. In fact, for you to suggest otherwise is dishonesty on your part, and not mine.

I'm saying that the discussions about all the people killed in the name of Allah are squelched in favor of those who want to talk about how awful some Muslim felt after being called a raghead terrorist.

And I'm saying that for you to do the same in reverse, to squelch any discussion of persecution of Muslims that *doesn't* result in murder is ALSO ridiculous.

If someone does something immoral or inaccurate in "x" circumstances, that has no effect on whether or something else is immoral or inaccurate in "y" circumstances.

I'd say "sorry if you don't like it", but I'm not at all sorry.

Liberalism is the ultimate victim card,. Twat's like chico are too stupid to use it sparingly however.

As an example, I have been literally spat upon, robbed, beaten, and terrorized a number of times in my life.

Each time, I got over it. You can survive abuse and insults.

Sorry to hear you've had a hard time sometimes. So have I, and many other people.

But what you're saying is that any persecution short of murder doesn't matter.

And if that's so, then there should be no more complaints of media bias against conservatives, laws you don't like, rudeness of liberals etc. Right? Because as long as it doesn't result in murder, it doesn't matter, right?

The shoe's always different when it's on your foot, though, isn't it?

Jim the crybaby: "But what you're saying is that any persecution short of murder doesn't matter."

No, I said quite the opposite. Go have a literate American read you my whole comment again.

Ask them to read the words slowly, so you can try to catch up this time.

DJ Drummond, why don't you look up "context"? Because it seems your definition of context is "only discussing areas of a subject that I want to discuss".

What I am doing, you see, is showing the larger world that results from this notion of "something is only persecution if it results in murder". And I'm showing how it's something you would not like.

I'm showing the actual context, in other words.

DJ the poopypants, why don't you explain how this:

You can survive abuse and insults.

Being murdered, not so much.

is the *opposite* of this:

But what you're saying is that any persecution short of murder doesn't matter.

Read and write the words as slowly as you like.

As for me, from now on any time any conservative complains about some imagined slight - such as actually being asked a tough question or being reminded of how their worldview is a logically-inconsistent mishmash - I'll remind them that, according to Jay Tea, their experience really doesn't matter because it didn't result in their murder.

I'm sure that'll go over just awesome, right guys?

Asd I said, Jim, you don't understand the word. In this thread, the context is murder. Other grievances can - and have - been addressed in other threads. If you want to make a relevant comment in this thread, you have to address the question of murder and retribution for murder.

Your problem in this thread is, primarily, that you can't defend the liberal position in this case. That's because the liberals chose to embrace contradictory positions regarding the use of military force, and the methods which produced the death of bin Laden (pigs be unto him).

You have three choices - you can admit that in this case the conservatives were right (that does not mean you have to say they are always right or even usually right, you just have to let go of your mania about blaming the Right for everything, even good things); you can leave the topic alone since you cannot an argument this time; or you can prove you are immature, don't understand the issue, and act like a borderline psychotic.

Guess which course your comments have taken so far?

But what you're saying is that any persecution short of murder doesn't matter.

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that all those other forms of persecution get far, far more attention than the actual murders. And that's not just stupid, but downright offensive.

J.

Chico

'What do you think the ratio is of Westerners killed by evil Muslims vs. totally innocent Muslims killed as "collateral damage" or worse in the recent wars?"

Not nearly as high as the ratio of muslims killed by Saddam over the 25 Years he was in power. THat average (if I remember correctly) was about 100k a year.

BTW how many Libyans did Obama kill in his bombing runs?

Jim X

"Just don't ever say anyone is being racist against a conservative unless they kill that conservative."

I daresay that 99% of the time that the word racism is used it is done so by Liberals.

About the only racism against republicans that I can remember is Condi Rice being called a house nigg*r and Colin Powell (before he jumped the shark) being called an Uncle Tom. And that was done by liberals.

Oh and about 75% (a WAG there) of recent accusations of racism have been when people have disagreed with Obama's policies and have nothing to do with race.

Jimmy, I think the operative word in DJ's comment is "survive".

I know you are gaming us. I have read your stuff before and I never got the impression you were stupid but if you keep digging the hole your stance is making, I will have to reset your intelligience to stupid. I quickly read JT's post and got the point. Wake up Jimmy. You are looking rather silly. ww

As I said, DJ, your definition of the word is apparently "only discussing areas of a subject that I want to discuss".

I get that in this thread, Jay Tea is attempting to limit the context to murder.

What I am saying, is that making the context that narrow is freaking ridiculous. I am disagreeing with the entire premise of this article.

Your problem in this thread is, primarily, that you can't defend the liberal position in this case.

You are showing multiple problems.

1. the notion that there is a single liberal position here to defend, which all liberals believe in
2. the further notion that I'm avoiding defending that hypothetical position
3. the even further notion that this position is, that liberals are against the use of deadly force towards America's enemies
4. the even even further notion that this position also means that one can't be for killing guilty muslims, and still be against the non-murderous persecution of innocent muslims

You have a bunch of choices. Among them:

1. you can admit not all liberals have this position
2. you can admit that me not agreeing with you, is different from me not understanding you
3. you can stop saying ridiculous things and move on

Choose as you will.

I agree with #11!!!!
WE and Muslims would KNOW right away if Muslim persecution was REALLY going on.

It is CLEAR that an IMBALANCE of Muslim (aggressively and intentionally)killing NON-Muslims vs NON-Muslims (aggressively and intentionally) killing Muslims.

This SHOULD and WILL change at some point. The best way is for Muslims to fix this themselves and lower the ration.
If NOT....then NON-Muslims will be forced to respond likewise and stop waiting to be attacked, and start acting (aggressively and intentionally)...

Not gonna happen under President PrompterBinky and his lapdog Holder calling the PC shots, but soon enough......

Note that Chico didn't say "killed by Westerners," just "killed."

Fine, limit it to killed by Westerners - that's what I meant anyways. Add up all those innocent Muslims killed as "collateral damage" or outright murder by Western military forces and private contractors in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya.

I mean, that's the minimum number you could credit to their point of view, even though they might think that a lot more deaths are a result of foreign military forces operating in their countries and over their skies.

We could also consider the most egregious incidents informing their point of view, like the rape and murder of a 15 year old girl and her family in Iraq, or the "Kill Teams" random murders of Afghan civilians, or the Blackwater massacre in Baghdad in 2007.

The bottom line is, there aren't bombs being dropping on Western countries by Muslim nations, or shoot-em-ups by Arab private contractors and soldiers in the USA on a daily basis, it's vice-versa.

Jim X

"I get that in this thread, Jay Tea is attempting to limit the context to murder.

"

Well Jim. Last time I checked. IT WAS HIS THREAD and therefore he can do that if he so wishes.

If you wish to expand the thread to include whatever you so desire may I suggest you write a thread and submit it to Wizbangblog.com for posting. They may or may not choose to post it on their site.

In the meantime, how about staying within the confines which the author of the thread has established to be discussed.

What's ironic, is that JimX does not know what he just proved.

Oh, and Chico, fine example of the 'Mobile Goalpost Defense'.

The bottom line is, there aren't bombs being dropping on Western countries by Muslim nations

Somebody tell the Israelis.

Chico fails to mention the rape rooms that Saddam had. of course it doesnt matter to Chico since he feels that only rape by westerners matter whereas if the Republican guard and Saddam's family raped anyone it is of no consequence.

Chico fails to mention the over 2 million people that Saddam whose unnatural deaths happened in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Again, it isnt of consequence since it isnt Westerners doing it.

Chico fails to mention the torture chambers that were part of the Saddam regime. Again not a westerner doing it so of no consequence.

Chico fails to mention the chemical weapons used by Saddam on his own people. Westerners didnt do it so it is of no consequence.

But if a westerner caused an iraqi to stub his toe than that is of concern to Chico because we shouldnt be in Iraq anyway.

retired military,

Ayup.

Chico

Shouldnt we have gone into Iraq under the Obama doctrine? You know the humanitarian mission with vital interests to the US that Obama used to attack Libya?

Chico

"or shoot-em-ups by Arab private contractors and soldiers in the USA on a daily basis, it's vice-versa"

So are you asserting that US soldiers are conducting shoot em ups in Iraq on a daily basis? Presumeably for no reason.

A simple yes or no will do. That is if you have time to answer the question.

Also if the answer is yes and no action appears to be being taken by the chain of command do you feel that this is then authorized and condoned by Obama since he is the Commander in Chief?

If the anwer is no then of course you lied above.

So please tell us which is it Chico.

You could flip JT's around and write it from the point of view of a pissed off Muslim:

You know what? I'm sick of hearing about the "victims of terrorism" of Westerners. I'd like to challenge anyone to find examples -- recent of Westerners being killed by Muslims for their faith. Instead, every day, we hear about bombs dropping and killing innocent Muslims in Libya, Afghanistan, and before that Iraq. I'd wager that for every single example of a Westerner being killed by "terrorism," I can find at least a dozen examples of Muslims being killed by Western bombs that missed, trigger happy soldiers or mercenaries, or just outright murderers like the solders that raped a 15 year old girl in Iraq and then wiped out the family. Not to mention Abu Ghraib and all the torture and abuse there.

Further, here's a list of current wars and significant conflicts. There are ten major conflicts going on right now, of which eight involve Westerners on at least one side. They are coming to our countries, trying to steal our land and resources. We aren't invading their countries, subverting their leaders, imposing corrupt puppets like Mubarak, Ben Ali and the Sauds on their people.

Two words, Chico:

Daniel Pearl.

J.

Chico

""or shoot-em-ups by Arab private contractors and soldiers in the USA on a daily basis, it's vice-versa"

"

Since these unjustified (if they were justified why would you bring them up in the first place) shoot em ups and bombings are happening on a daily basis then I am sure that there are some deaths associated with them. Do you hold Obama responsible for those deaths?

I mean you hold BUsh responsible for the death of the cab driver that was tortured and the deaths in Abu Graib and Gitmo so therefore USING YOUR STANDARDS then Obama is responsible for any deaths associated with these shoot em ups and bombings which are occuring on a daily basis correct?

Or do you have double standards there Chico?

(Something tells me that Chico is going to be either too busy to answer my questions or he isnt going to see them. Anyone want to give me odds?)

Well Jim. Last time I checked. IT WAS HIS THREAD and therefore he can do that if he so wishes.

Sure he can. Absolutely.

And I am here saying how I think it's wrong and innaccurate.

Well Jim
That is your opinion. And opinions are like assholes. everyone has at least one and some are more smelly than others
-----------

As for Muslim extremists maybe they should live by 2 simple rules.

a. Dont start no trouble and there wont be no trouble.

b. If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Three words, JT:

Abeer Qasim Hamza.

Of course her name is not as well known as Daniel Pearl's. You will probably have to Google it.

[The United States charged, tried, convicted, and has imprisoned all who were part of the heinous crimes agains the Hamza family. al Qaeda praised and promoted the murderers of Daniel Pearl. Not much equivalence there.]

You see, this is an easy game to play [when one leaves out the germane parts as chicka always does].

Chico

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502684_162-4745901-502684.html

New Video Documents Al Qaeda Atrocities in Iraq

Dont those count?

Still waiting on answers to my other questions above.

Are you saying the soldiers that raped that girl are indicant of US soldiers? I mean the Muslim terrorists who killed Danny Pearl are damn sure indicative of muslim terrorists.

Chico

Is Obama responsible for these atrocities?

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/6014-iraq-atrocities-and-the-mia-media.html

On May 5, 2009, US aircraft bombed a number of homes in the Afghan village of Abdul Basir Khan in Farah Province. According to Afghan officials, the death toll was upwards of 140 civilians. The Pentagon initially claimed the entire incident was fabricated, but then later conceded that people were killed by the airstrike, but that "no one will ever" know the exact number. They also claimed that the pilots had no idea civilians were in the area.

More recently, on April 12, four Afghan civilians were killed in Kandahar when US troops fired on a bus in Afghanistan. The slaughter sparked furious protests and an expression of "regret" from the military. The Afghan government said a woman and child were among the dead, and that at least 18 others were wounded in the shooting.

Jim X

I salute you. Though we may not agree on a lot of stuff you at least have the guts to answer questions and respond back. Chico and dickieboy should take notes.

retired military,

You should add:

c. If you choose to wage war against a nation state while failing to uphold the Customary Laws of Warfare don't complain when you (and your forces) are treated as wolves are.

Not that I really want to weigh in on this, but...

We aren't invading their countries, subverting their leaders, imposing corrupt puppets like Mubarak, Ben Ali and the Sauds on their people.

Mubarak took after Sadat was murdered, imposed by the Egyption military I believe. The Sauds have been in power since the mid to late 1920's and came to power after killing previous competitors related to the Assaad and Hussein familes. Ben Ali came to power after the previous president was declared incapacitated and according to the Tunisian constitution. The fact that those Muslim leaders chose to victimize their own people is not of the U.S. doing.

Matt,

There you go demolishing their narrative with facts...

ROdney

Mad dogs maybe. I give wolves more credit.

retired military,

Point. Few things more dangerous than a pack of formerly domestic dogs gone feral.

Then again, both should be shot on sight.

For the record, Chico did NOT say the bracketed parts of comment #44. They were added by someone with editorial privileges here, and it was NOT me. I am slightly put out that one of my colleagues chose to do that, instead of replying in a comment.

J.

Jay

It was obvious that Chico didnt say the part within the brackets. I mean it was clear and articulate and actually made sense.

The United States charged, tried, convicted, and has imprisoned all who were part of the heinous crimes agains the Hamza family.

Oh that makes it OK, then. We can send guys over there, a small number are sure to be psychopaths, to murder as long as we "convict" them. Sometimes, like when they don't get away with it.

Chico, I can't believe I'm having to spell this out. That you can't/won't recognize the distinction is almost grounds to ban you.

When our side does it, it's an aberration and the perpetrators are punished. When their side does it, it's policy and the perpetrators are celebrated.

And for you to even imply that they are interchangeable is almost obscene.

J.

You can disagree with me, but from my view, your "distinction" is partly a fig leaf to excuse U.S. "policy."

When a country, as a matter of policy plans and executes invasions and long occupations with counterinsurgency of foreign countries with alien cultures, it is essentially guaranteeing that innocents will be killed by misguided bombs and small arms fire. Also, that the few psychopaths that manage to enlist will have the opportunity and the power to commit atrocities. Yes, these are "aberrations," but they are aberrations that approach statistical certainty of occurance once you make the decision to invade and bomb. Now, war may be justified and in self-defense. It does not appear to me that Iraq and Libya involved self-defense from the beginning, nor Afghanistan today, but that will be left to the judgment of history, which I believe will be particularly harsh in the Iraq case.

Somehow, you think that all of the carnage and depredations should be excused by Muslim populations with a "Sorry, my bad, we didn't mean it," while you can ascribe full responsibility to all Muslims in general for any terrorist act. Seems to me that you (and I) have far more responsibility for Abeer's death as a U.S. voter, taxpayer (and in your case, supporter of the Iraq war) for Abeer's death than Mohammed the NYC taxi driver, Ahmed the Cairo fruit seller (or Abeer herself) has for the actions of OBL.

Your excuses and explanations would not cut it for a family member of Abeer or one of the victims of the Blackwater massacre or Abu Ghraib or any of the other incidents. They see a cause-effect relationship between U.S. policy and the deaths of loved ones.

Chico

last time I checked very few muslims were abhorred at Danny Pearl getting beheaded. Last time I checked a lot more muslims were cheering in the street due to 911 than Americans were cheering in the streets for the rape or atrocities cited above.

last time I checked you held Bush responsible for the deaths of the cab driver, at Abu Graib and Gitmo but you wont respond to if you hold Obama responsible for the atrocities I outlined above which happened while he was President.

Also it is a given fact that during war atrocities are committed. That isnt an excuse it is a fact. however, sometimes the atrocities commited during a war are nothing compared to the ones which would have been committed had the war not taken place. It is an historical fact that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people, established rape rooms and torture chambers, and personally ordered at least dozens of murders. Your logic above would seem to imply that we should not have fought Hitler due to the fact that we had some aberations on our side.

You want to hold Bush responsible for acts committed by individuals while he was President but you dont want to seem to hold Obama responsible for acts committed while is President. Or at least you havent had the fucking guts to answer my question about the matter.

Again, your hypocracy is astounding, and obvious. And what is more obvious is that you know it because you refuse to address the issues I have raised.

"They see a cause-effect relationship between U.S. policy and the deaths of loved ones"

Well I see a cause effect relationship between Muslim extremism (which most Muslims refuse to even denouce) and the US response to it.

They are the ones shouting "death to infidels"
They are the ones who want women to live in the dark ages.
They are the ones who are stoning people for adultery.
They are the ones who convict women who have been raped of adultery.
They are the ones who wont denouce Muslim extremism or the Imans who preach it.
They are the ones using children as suicide bombers.

Wait wait a partial correction

We do have preachers who preach hate.

REv Wright is one.

THe westboro baptist church preacher is another.

Jay Tea

If you do have to pull Olaf out on Chico than please do everyone a favor. Write CLUE on it before you smack him.

It is still a running bet between Chico and RichardW as to who gets hit first.

Chico

Here are some logical extensions to your reasoning.

We shouldnt have prison guards because some of the abuse prisoners.
We shouldnt have elected officials because some of them are corrupt.
We shouldnt have cops because some of them abuse their power.
We shouldnt have teachers because some of them have had sex with students.

And the list goes on.

As I read Chico's alleged arguments, they sounded more and more and more familiar. I just couldn't place where I'd heard those kinds of arguments.

And then it struck me: the Ground Zero mosque. In both cases, it is a matter of emotion vs. reason. But it's not the same. In the Ground Zero mosque, reason is supposed to triumph. In this case, emotion is favored.

The consistent element? Don't piss off the Muslims. Let them have their way.

J.

Chico

Since you say that we shouldnt have gone into Iraq because of the "atrocities" that will happen when psycopaths join the army then do you also feel we shouldnt have gone into Afghanistan either? I mean if the "psycopaths" didnt have Iraq to commit atrocities in than they surely would have committed them in Afgahnistan. Wouldnt they?

Also does anyone else find it strange that Chico valiently defended the SEALS that killed OBL when I suggested that Obama ordered the murder of OBL but now he is calling US Soldiers rapists and murderers?

Once again going by your STANDARDS Chico

That being

" it is essentially guaranteeing that innocents will be killed by misguided bombs and small arms fire. Also, that the few psychopaths that manage to enlist will have the opportunity and the power to commit atrocities. "

Then we shouldnt have an army at all

Isnt it amazing that when Obama is President these incidents are called (by Chico) aberations and done by psycopaths but when Bush was President then it was state sponspored torture.

And then it struck me: the Ground Zero mosque. In both cases, it is a matter of emotion vs. reason. But it's not the same. In the Ground Zero mosque, reason is supposed to triumph. In this case, emotion is favored.

Yes, because we all know the emotional impact of Someone putting Something somewhere you don't own, and have no right to dispute, but you don't like; and violently killing your family members and thousands of your country members is precisely the same.

Don't piss off the Muslims.

You're right, don't piss off the Muslims by invading, occupying and bombing their countries for years, or by propping up corrupt puppets to better rob their resources. It will save US money, too.

Chico

Maybe those muslim countries shouldnt harbor terrorists who declare war on the US, kill US soldiers and civilians and elect officials who are sympathetic to terrorist causes.

Maybe their leaders shouldnt invade US allies, violate UN (Pooh Pooh spit spit) resolutins and shoot at US planes in violation of the ceasefire which kept their ass in power.

In short maybe they should follow the golden rule.

"Dont start no trouble and there wont be no trouble"

Our chicka is definitely a co-belligerent of the enemies of civilization.

a blithering asshat wrote @ 55

Oh that makes it OK, then. We can send guys over there, a small number are sure to be psychopaths, to murder as long as we "convict" them. Sometimes, like when they don't get away with it.

High newspeak moral equivalence.

The United States upholds, and enforces against not only our enemies but also against our own forces when they violate them, the Customary Laws of Warfare.

The enemies of civilization do not uphold the Customary Laws of Warfare, and have, to date, never so much as attempted to enforce them.

I think I need to restate one of my comments to tie it back into the theme of the article, and try to put an end to Chico's little diversion:

Don't piss off the Muslims, because there isn't any other group more inclined to take any kind of provocation to be driven into homicidal frenzies.

You don't even need to go to the extent Chico describes. Burn a book, draw a cartoon, or simply do anything that they might take as "an insult to Islam" and you run the risk of setting them off.

You end up with cowards like Chico who can't admit that, so they wrap their cravenness in lofty ideals and alleged principles to make them feel better about themselves.

Which is why those of us, who aren't... well, terrorized into compliance, need to be ostracized and castigated and silenced. Because the crazies aren't that discriminating, and if we piss them off enough, they just might kill the cowards.

Cowards like Chico.

J.

JT @ 70 wrote:

Because the crazies aren't that discriminating, and if we piss them off enough, they just might kill the cowards.

And thus, through the law of unintended consequences, actually strengthen the forces of civilization.

The muslim race card and checks should be stamped NSF.
Just curious chica, how many muslims in the USA are killed by Christians vs how many muslims are killed by muslims in the USA using sharia as an excuse?

JT @ 56 wrote:

Chico, I can't believe I'm having to spell this out. That you can't/won't recognize the distinction is almost grounds to ban you.

When our side does it, it's an aberration and the perpetrators are punished. When their side does it, it's policy and the perpetrators are celebrated.

And for you to even imply that they are interchangeable is almost obscene.

You were doing great until you got to that second "almost." That position, especially for one who claims to have served in the Armed Forces, IS obscene.

Olsoljer,

chicka will no doubt justify "Honor Killings" as very late term abortions.

Again Chico

Your double standard is astonishing and Obvious and it is quite obvious you see it as well.

The US punishes rapists, vs Muslims who punish women who were gangraped as adulterers.

The US wont show a picture of a dead OBL but the Jihadists videotape and put on the net Danny Pearl and others getting beheaded.

The US may get sued by the son of OBL but people who draw antiMuslim cartoons have a fatwa placed against them.

In the US we have Code Pink and in Muslim countries we have Jihad.

The left feels that Bush should be tried for war crimes yet Obama should be praised.

"You're right, don't piss off the Muslims by invading, occupying and bombing their countries for years"

So tell me Chico which Muslim country had we invaded and occupied for years on 9/10/2001? Seems they were plenty pissed off before we "occupied" any of their countries.

Before we go go too far condemning Chico, I was in favor of risking the disfavor of jihadists, by releasing bin Laden´s corpse photo, but I presume most of you, including Jay were against it, for that reason.

Steve

What are they going to do if we release OBL photo? Fly planes into buildings?
Cut off reporter's heads?

A good example of Muslims being treated with kid gloves is the way that the Fort Hood shooter has been treated. He murdered 32 people, while shouting Allah Akbar and the state controlled media did their damnest to put a lid on that. They even hired him the best lawyers money could buy. Still they want him to be out on bail or even all charges dropped. But, someone of white ancestry even shoots a mugger in self defense, the loons want him locked up for life and move for more laws to take away all of the firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I was in favor of risking the disfavor of jihadists, by releasing bin Laden´s corpse photo, but I presume most of you, including Jay were against it, for that reason.

You presume incorrectly, Steve. I haven't said so, but I would like the photos released. But for purely selfish, vindictive reasons.

As far as provoking jihadis, I find the logic there most flawed. We can summarily execute them, but we can't waterboard them? We can kill them, but we can't show photos proving we did it? That's some f'ed-up logic right there...

J.

Yes, there are many inconsistencies all round. I suppose this is what makes life intriguing, and most people on the planet get bent out of shape trying to parse together what a couple of nomads, who left no writings, may have said, in their respective deserts, forteen hundred to two thousand years ago.

Steve, I'm areligious. Don't mistake that for anti-religious. So your cheap shot against religious faiths doesn't distract me from noting that you declined to address the inconsistencies on the left that I presume you share. (You presumed my position on the Bin Laden photos, so I feel entitled to return the favor.)

J.

I think the real American left are divided on the matter of shooting bin Laden on sight, when he was not realistically going to harm any of the Seals. There are those unelected like Glenn Greenwald and myself who are at least consistent and feel it sends the wrong message to the world, that new American adminsitration should practice what it preaches, due process. Ever second country, in the worid has faced terrorism on its shores, yet most have have resisted the expedient method of summary execution. The main body of elected Democrats are very hypocritical I agree, because they dont want to be killjoys to "the wicked witch is dead", celebration to which they unexpectedly are the honored guests.

Of course if bin Laden becomes a martyr, and there are more more attacks like yesterday·s in Pakisitan, or closer to home, and a wave of new recruits to the remnants of al -Queda, the Democrats will may have to rethink that since they had Osama in their grasp, wouldn´t have been better to put him a humilating candy striped prison suit or orange jump suit and show the world their prize? It is too late now!

crampless opines:

...[the current] American adminsitration should practice what it preaches, due process. Ever[sic] second country, in the worid[sic] has faced terrorism on its shores, yet most have have resisted the expedient method of summary execution.

That's the lawfare view.

Fighting terrorism via criminal law grants rights to illegal combatants which they do NOT deserve. Treating them instead as enemy combatants, which is how this matter was treated in Pakistan, is the correct approach.

Rodney, accepting that, even the US can not just shoot enemy combatants, or enemy soldiers when they pose no danger and are far from the battlefield.

What we did to bin Laden (and probably have for others), is this what would we would have done to a Nazi General hiding behind the lines in World War 11? Of course not, even someone like Hitler hiding in his bunker, we wouldn´t have just shot, in a raid, but tried to capture, if the advancing Allied soldiers felt they were not under any immediate threat. I suppose this is one reason why Hitler committed suicide, because he feared the Allies wouldn't shoot him or execute him, as they did bin Laden. This is one area, where we can legitimately compare the evil of Hitler with bin Laden or don´t you feel the comparison or circumstances are a legitimate one.

But that was a different era, when we had a Nuremberg tribunal for those who killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, well millions in Europe, but not really American civilians on their home soil.

Then, the Truman government fought hard for the setting up of the civilian Nuremberg Trials, and the quaint principle that the "the law applies equally to everyone", against the wishes of Churchill, who pleaded for summary execution of the Nazi leaders.