mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

February 11, 2006

GWOT

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 12:01 pm

Arab Assholes

the global war on terrorism.

this is in response to a george clooney interview.

i’ll include that below

WARNING! the pictures below are work safe, but NOT for the faint of heart.

“I was at a party the other night and it was all these hardcore Republicans and these guys are like, ‘Why do you hate your country?’ I said, ‘I love my country.’ They said, ‘Why, at a time of war, would you criticise it then?’ And I said, ‘My country right or wrong means women don’t vote, black people sit in the back of buses and we’re still in Vietnam. My country right or wrong means we don’t have the New Deal.’ I mean, what, are you crazy? My country, right or wrong? It’s not your right, it’s your duty. And then I said, ‘Where was I wrong, schmuck?’ In 2003 I was saying, where are the ties [between Iraq] and al-Qaida? Where are the ties to 9/11? I knew it; where the fuck were these Democrats who said, ‘We were misled’? That’s the kind of thing that drives me crazy: ‘We were misled.’ Fuck you, you weren’t misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.”

you fucking moron.

i have some questions for george so that he can understand exactly how asshatedish he sounds.

1. where were the german planes bombing battleships in pearl harbor dec 7th, 1941?
2. where were the german soldiers in the rape of nanking?
3. where were the german ties to the planning of the attack on pearl harbor?
4. where were the german american citizens marking the movements of us navy warships in and around the entire west coast prior to pearl harbor (yeah, i’ve been reading malkin).
5. where were the german soldiers during the bataan death march?

so mr clooney. are you trying to say that we were WRONG for directing our primary war efforts against germany upon our entry to ww2? are you trying to say that we should have only fought against japan?

what about italy? craotia? manchuria? why just germany? 6 million jews? how many chinese did the japanese kill mr clooney? phillipinos? koreans?

i have an answer for you. it’s pretty simple. i’ll try to use small words so that your tiny brain can hopefully comprehend them.

we were fighting fascism you moron. and germany and the rest were party to it.

Beslan schoolgirl

in regards to your alqaida dumbness.

it is the global war on TERROR. not the global war on alqaida.

black september? rolling leon klinghoffer off of the achille lauro because he was a dirty jew american? fuckers must die.

asshat fatah, hamas bombers blowing themselves up in tel aviv weddings, cafes, bus stops? fuckers must die.

state sponsored libyan agents planting bombs in discos in germany? fuckers must die.

libyans shooting limey policewomen FROM the libyan embassy?! fuckers must die

muslim jihadi wannabe’s beheading schoolgirls in malaysia? fuckers must die.

fuckers ceremonially executing coptic christian families in the US! fuckers must die.

fuckers beheading journalists in iraq? i really don’t give a shit. but only because i view most journalists as THEM.

brigands breaking into an elementary school, killing how many? dozens? raping the young ladies first? all in the name of allah, and a separate chechnya? fuckers must die.

Beslan aftermath

fuckers killing people over some bullshit cartoons of mohammed? when they themselves have pictures of him in their own museums. and we have a relief of mohammed on the wall of the supreme court. fuckers must die.

gang rapes in scandinavia? fuckers must die

hijacking planes to beirut and stomping passengers to death? FUCKERS MUST DIE!

flying the planes into the world trade centers by alqaida was only the single act that finally pushed us into action against terror.

not against alqaida.

are you actually so naive that you believe if we captured UBL tomorrow, that terror would end? that everything would be just peachy?

you child.

i got the pictures from this site

11 Comments »

  1. Umm, he was talking about the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, dude. There weren’t any terrorists there.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — February 13, 2006 @ 9:28 pm

  2. sure there were you idiot. the entire abu nidal organization was run from baghdad, as i’ve informed you before on this blog. except of course for abu nidal, who uday killed a month or so before we ousted saddam and his pig henchmen from power.

    and the reasons given for the war were …. once again… elaborated by colin powell to the un.

    Comment by mlah — February 13, 2006 @ 10:32 pm

  3. Trick_Shot_Whatever,

    Let me remind you of some things since you and every other liberal seem to have forgotten.
    The REASON for invading Iraq was UN Resolution 1442.
    That was it, no other REASON was or needed to be given.
    Don’t try to change history by changing facts OK?

    Now, as to the war itself. The icing on the cake was the POSSIBILITY of capturing or killing terrorists.

    The facts are that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Saddam was hiding WMDs, and Saddam was training and funding terrorists. Not just Al Quaida, but terrorists of every sort.

    Don’t “forget” history while trying to make a point. It’s counter-productive.

    Comment by Joatmoaf — February 13, 2006 @ 11:12 pm

  4. Hey stupidhead Gus! Zarqawi? Hello? Colin Powell in his presentation gave three distinct reasons for use of force. 1) Failure to comply with numerous UN resolutions demanding Iraq’s disarmament; 2) Ties to terrorists; 3) Crimes against humanity. See the transcript at http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

    And let’s not forget that Iraq had also violated the 1991 cease fire with its repeated attacks against US/UK aircraft on patrol. That alone was grounds for renewed hostilites, but the French, Germans and others would have screamed too loud were that our only condition. They were making too much money building up Saddam’s infrastructure and taking oil bribes in the UN “Oil for Food” program, ya know.

    Nowhere in his address did Powell intimate that Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots on the 9/11 attack. Anyone revising history to say that was our primary motivation for the Iraq invasion is a fool.

    And to head Gus off, yes, Powell has admitted that certain of the evidence he presented was shaky (the descriptions of the interior of the mobile chem/bio labs). However, there was enough material backstopping the three main points that to focus on that one point and cry that the whole address was a lie would be like, well, focusing on Bill Clinton’s creative use of the word “is” and screaming that everything he ever says is a lie.

    And yes, the administration has been forced to say that there were no WMDs, because no 20 kiloton bombs were found in Saddam’s pockets (why they’re so lacking in backbone on their issues I have no idea). However, I remind you that Saddam had a penchant for sending his military kit outside his borders to keep us from getting hold of it; witness the air forces he sent to Iran in 1990. Now consider that the director of the NGA told us about massive truck convoys being sent to Syria prior to the invasion. Also consider that Saddam had a penchant for burying his military treasures in the desert; witness the aircraft that he decided not to give to Iran, which he buried in the sands. Tell me now that we’ve taken metal detectors over the entirety of Iraq’s desert and found nothing. (And oh, by the way, there have been “WMDs” found.)

    And do you DARE deny that there were terrorists being supported inside Iraq, Gus? Go back to Zarqawi and start over.

    Comment by yup — February 14, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

  5. Phuque all y’all!
    Mlah sed: “the entire abu nidal organization was run from baghdad”
    Ooh, really, big guy? What terrorist acts were they responsible for? You’re not confusing them with the Fatah Revolutionary Council, are you? (“The group is not known to have been active since 1991, when an FRC gunman assassinated Abu Iyad, the deputy chief of the PLO.”)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal
    All that’s known for sure is that he was kicked out of Libya in 1999 and by 2001 was living openly in Iraq and died there in 2002. We don’t know what he was doing and there were no known connections to Saddam, who may or may not have had him killed. We weren’t there for him and his men.

    Yuphole axed:”do you DARE deny that there were terrorists being supported inside Iraq, Gus? Go back to Zarqawi and start over.”
    Okey-dokey!
    “CIA report finds no Zarqawi-Saddam link” (10/6/04)
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/
    “(A senior admin official said there was) no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad.”

    “Nowhere in his address did Powell intimate that Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots on the 9/11 attack.”
    True, but it was implied early and often for domestic consumption by Bush, Cheney, etc. On 9/26/02 Rummy said it out loud.

    In general, if pre-war Iraq was the next leading front for the GWOT after Afghanistan, what terrorists were there? Zarqawi & Ansar al-Islam? They controlled 12 villages on the border w/ Iran. We could have struck at them anytime without the whole invasion (they were in otherwise Kurdish-controlled territory in the no-fly zone).

    “certain of the evidence he presented was shaky (the descriptions of the interior of the mobile chem/bio labs)”
    Among other items…
    Hans Blix questioned the interpretations of the satellite images put forward by Powell. He also stated that the Iraqis have in fact never received early warning of the inspectors visiting any sites as Powell claimed. ElBaradei also said that he did not believe the Iraqis have a nuclear weapons program.

    “Iraq had also violated the 1991 cease fire”
    There was never a UN consensus about this.

    “(And oh, by the way, there have been “WMDs” found.)”
    Don’t you mean “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities”? Show me the money-shot.

    Mr Meatloaf spewed: “The REASON for invading Iraq was UN Resolution 1442. That was it, no other REASON was or needed to be given.”
    That depends on who you ask. Like, why did Blair push for a unamimous “2nd resolution” then? Why not give the inspectors more time? What does “serious consequences” mean when previous authorizations for war (say, Gulf War 1) said “all necessary means”? And 1441 (not 1442, dildo) stated that the Security Council shall “remain seized of the matter”, implying that all was not resolved.

    “The facts are that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Saddam was hiding WMDs, and Saddam was training and funding terrorists. Not just Al Quaida, but terrorists of every sort.”
    BULLFUCKINGSHIT!!! Where do you get these yahoos, Mlah?

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — February 15, 2006 @ 7:33 am

  6. “there was never UN consensus about this” — ummm, OK. The UN was too busy trying to make the Zionist state out to be a racist pariah (remember the infamous conference on racism) because of its treatment of those poor defenseless little Palestinian rioters. The UN member states were too busy pulling in oil bribe under “Oil-for-Food.” The UN member states were too busy doing all in their power to thwart that evil meanie Great Satan, because it is the sole remaining Superpower and there was need to kick their shins to feel superior. Or as one pundit has described the UN: a world body two-thirds controlled by despotic regimes. Gee, you think they would be sympathetic to the US…..

    “Hans Blix had questions….” — yeah, he’s a trained imagery analyst. I take his word over the professionals any time. He should also referee for the NFL. (Actually, he might improve their game calls.)

    “never received early warning” — uh huh. The inspectors’ quarters and offices weren’t bugged, their drivers/guides/companions weren’t on Saddam’s payroll, they were never refused admission to a place while things were made ready for them. Oh, and even ElBaradei squirmed when confronted with multiple official reports that the Iraqis had prior notice: “I’m saying that I do not know about why notice was given on that specific plant and if it were given by UNMOVIC, there must be a good reason for giving that notice. I’m not, clearly not to give the Iraqis time to hide things, it’s probably needed for some other technical reason, but I would suggest that you should check that with UNMOVIC. They might have a very good reason for it.” So ElBaradei is saying — or at least strongly hinting — that it wasn’t IAEA but UNMOVIC giving the advance notice. For very good reason, of course. http://www.nci.org/02NCI/12/Stephanopoulos.htm

    “no clear cut evidence” — yeah, unlike with Bubba’s indescretions, Saddam had a system in place to eliminate potential leaks to his secret dealings. All he needs do is deny deny deny. Bubba tried that (remember Monica, if we both deny, they have no proof) and failed.

    “ElBaradei also said” in 1998 that no matter how comprehensive the inspection, any country-wide verification process, in Iraq or anywhere else, has a degree of uncertainty that aims to verify the absence of readily concealable objects such as small amounts of nuclear material or weapons components. IAEAs own inspection reports admitted that Iraq has never surrendered to inspectors its two completed designs for a nuclear bomb, nuclear-bomb components such as explosive lenses and neutron initiators that it is known to have possessed, or almost any documentation of its efforts to enrich uranium to bomb-grade using gas centrifuges, devices which are small and readily concealed from reconnaissance. Further, the IAEAs own guidelines for the safeguarding of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium gives the conversion time for transforming these materials into weapons components as on the order of seven to ten days or one to three weeks. (Cite: Nuclear Control Institute, http://www.nci.org/02NCI/09/iraq-pr9302002.htm)

    The US took some 1.8 tons of fissable material out of the country after the invasion. Hmmmmm. Go back a bit: 7 days to 3 weeks to constitute a nuclear bomb. All you need is the nuclear component. Which can be obtained by enriching fissable materials.

    Oh, and the training camp that was set up for terrorists was ACTUALLY a training compound for counter-terrorism police agencies, right? So that Saddam could make his own contibutions to the GWOT? The world would have been invited to train there if only we had given him more time? Because he’s such a believer in the brotherhood of man?

    Knucklehead. I gotta go eat supper.

    Comment by yup — February 15, 2006 @ 12:42 pm

  7. Man, I had a great posting set up and lost it due to an internal server error (Mlah, wtf?). Now, Gus will just have to educate himself to see why he is oh so wrong.

    //Yup, your post was held for links. at a threshhold of links, my mt holds comments in a que for my approval. it shoudl be up now//

    Comment by yup — February 15, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

  8. A blistering refutation, ya lazy loser.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — February 15, 2006 @ 8:36 pm

  9. Gus, it’s so good of you to publicly show that you ignore facts that contradict your worldview. Look at the posting above my ‘dinner’ post. It made it. It’s chock-ful-o stuff to refute your positions. But a,ll you do is call me a lazy loser? Wow, your intellectual prowess and academic honesty are SO refreshing, coming as they do from a leftie. (That’s sarcasm if you can’t compute.)

    Comment by yup — February 16, 2006 @ 5:38 am

  10. Everything you mention proves exactly nothing.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — February 22, 2006 @ 12:31 am

  11. “Everything you mention proves exactly nothing.”

    Hmmm, that applies to every piece of Gus-spew posted to Mlah’s page.

    Comment by yup — February 22, 2006 @ 1:27 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress