Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Why does Abu Muqawama hate freedom?
June 22, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 12:15pm | 55 Comments
Oh, goodness, I have offended the Blackfivers.
Abu M: lol, you wont be
Abu M: lol, you wont be getting any gifts from Krauthammer in the near future. You should interview him on his opinions, it might be the most fair and balanced act in a while. Invite him, let him explain the Jerusalem Post psychosis wich does exist right about now.
Yawn. When are these guys
Yawn.
When are these guys going to get over the idea that expecting rational and pragmatic action (or occasionally non-action) in the defense of American interests constitutes "ass-covering" of the administration?
Here's my question: if vocal American support is so desirable, so necessary, how come we're not hearing Mousavi ask for it? How come basically no one is saying "where are the Americans"??
And as Ex asked the first time around, what's the endgame? What are these guys hoping to have happen? Because it seems clear that Wolfowitz and Krauthammer would welcome a violent revolution. And where's that going to get us?
"America has long stood as
"America has long stood as the loudest voice for freedom and liberty, but now we sit on the sidelines as President Sarkozy of France raises his voice against tyranny. "
Tell that to the Shah.
That being said, Krauthammer does manage to solve every problem in the Middle East in a few short paragraphs. Why won't Obama listen!?
AM: Blackfive aren't the
AM: Blackfive aren't the only ones doing some hating: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/aug/01/00038/ They not only target you but the whole of CNAS.
AM: Blackfive aren't the
AM: Blackfive aren't the only ones hating. American Conservative hating on you all the rest of the CNAS crew: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/aug/01/00038/
"I don't think the Obama
"I don't think the Obama team supports the regime, but I think they have made the determination that they want to negotiate with them and so have cold-bloodely decided that they gain nothing from angering them."
How about... the obama admin actually decided to not negot. with Iran right now because if things go poorly and there's more backlash from the regime against the "evil" west for meddling in Iran's affairs,
(as Dianne Feinstein said)
"I think the president has it correct. ... It is very crucial as I see it that we not have our fingerprints on this. That this really be truly inspired by the Iranian people. We don't know where this goes. And I sure wouldn't want to be responsible for thousands of people being killed, which is a distinct possibility." -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California
The U.S. doesn't want to be responsible for thousands of people being killed.
It's OK to hate Exum and the
It's OK to hate Exum and the CNAS crew. But it's not OK to hate on them the way Blackfive does.
And to be fair to Kelley
And to be fair to Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, Miller, Chris Mewett thinks she's hot. In fact, I suspect when it comes to her notions about COIN, force projection and the recent Bacevich centerfold in Buchanan Tiger Beat Magazine, he finds her pardonably hot.
And that's pretty hot.
Whoa, let's get this
Whoa, let's get this straight: I said "kind of hot," and I never heard her speak. But I'd like to quash all this hot talk, as I think it sort of discredits me when I say that she writes really nutty, ad hominem-y articles.
That doesn't make it right,
That doesn't make it right, Chris. You're going to need to find someone moderately hot at CNAS to praise to regain your COINdinista street cred. I recommend Fick.
Krauthammer, Wolfowitz,
Krauthammer, Wolfowitz, Dennis Ross and the Blackfive crew are for anything that will increase tensions between the United States and Iran. These people believe that increased tension may snowballl into confrontation and culminate in an attack on Iran.
These types want America to crush Israel's enemies. However, since 2003, we have found out this shit cost lots of money and results in dead Americans.
We have seen this act before. No more war$ for I$rael!
Mewett's email system
Mewett's email system apparently is now flooded with inquiries from hot blooded American men about zany right-wing blondes.
I should hereby disclose that I was being facetious when I mentioned that he found her "hot." He found her kind of attractive, but he dislikes her political views and probably her voting record.
I don't know if he finds "Uncle Jimbo" hot or not. But if he does find the lumpy pundit kind of hot, we shouldn't assume that Mewett's loins speak for his brain.
"Why does Abu Muqawama hate
"Why does Abu Muqawama hate freedom?"
Because he thinks that peaceful coexistence with tyrants is better than to struggle for democracy.
"Why does Abu Muqawama hate
"Why does Abu Muqawama hate freedom? "
Because he prefers peaceful coexistance with tyrants above struggle for democracy.
CNN just ran a commercial
CNN just ran a commercial calling for sanctions on Iran paid for by a group calling itself "United Against Nuclear Iran."
I just googled it and it was founded by Dennis Ross. Their advisory board includes the token Fouad Ajami who never saw a Middle East war that he did not like. Also included were the usual Team America dupes like Karen Hughes. And topping it off, Chairperson of the Conferences of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Alan Solow.
A ghastly lineup indeed. No amount of American blood is enough to satiate their desire for the security of a foreign country.
I wonder if it's a successor
I wonder if it's a successor to the Alliance for Democracy in Iran types which was chaired by this character:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rRv9iqeRU0
Abu Muqawama is part of the
Abu Muqawama is part of the same coteri as Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski which thinks that iranian nukes would create a balanced MAD situation in the ME and which believes that the israeli democracy is not worth defending and that Islamists will be peaceful if you talk to them.
"sort of discredits me when
"sort of discredits me when I say that she writes really nutty, ad hominem-y articles."
Geez, that's kind of a nutty, ad hominem-y accusation. Maybe you could provide a link or two next time.
Geez, that's kind of a
Geez, that's kind of a nutty, ad hominem-y accusation. Maybe you could provide a link or two next time.
1. It should be clear that there's a certain element of facetiousness about this entire line of conversation
2. I expressed an opinion ("nutty") and an interpretation of fact ("ad hominem-y"), but didn't make an "accusation."
3. No, I'm good. You're welcome to go googling if you're particularly interested.
@ Andrew Exum This is what
@ Andrew Exum
This is what happens when you make ad hominem attacks on people.
No surprises that a blog
No surprises that a blog called "father of the (Islamic) resistance" is on the defense from Black Five. No rebuttals here, just letting your sycophantic followers pump you back up again? That says a lot. This blog has gone downhill over the last several months, but has become even more noticeably so since becoming a part of the CNAS, the "home think tank" of the Obama administration, who have been propping up Islamic terrorist groups with this so-called COUNTER insurgency blog.
You watermucker,
You watermucker, you.....
Give Owego back their jobs, and all will be forgiven....
Otherwise, we shall, from the ruins of the town assemble and invincible sky blimp, and smite the Beltway.
For the love of poop, will
For the love of poop, will the Internets PLEASE start using "ad hominem" correctly?!
In terms of balancing on this particular high-wire, I think the Obama Administration has it right: They can't not comment at all, but to comment too much would be counter-productive.
Also, since when do the people who spent months criticizing the president as being all talk ("Speeches can't make change") get off criticizing the man for not speaking?
Wow, a feud between
Wow, a feud between bloggers... underwhelming.
Sorry for the double-post -
Sorry for the double-post - just wanted to make sure some of the social science playa-haters in the audience (Hi SNLII!) saw this:
Lars-Erik Cederman
Luc Girardin
Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
Ethnonationalist Triads: Assessing the Influence of Kin Groups on Civil Wars
World Politics - Volume 61, Number 3, July 2009, pp. 403-437
Abstract:
Although the case-based literature suggests that kin groups are prominent in ethnonationalist conflicts, quantitative studies of civil war onset have both overaggregated and underaggregated the role of ethnicity, by looking at civil war at the country level instead of among specific groups and by treating individual countries as closed units, ignoring groups' transnational links. In this article the authors integrate transnational links into a dyadic perspective on conflict between marginalized ethnic groups and governments. They argue that transnational links can increase the risk of conflict as transnational kin support can facilitate insurgencies and are difficult for governments to target or deter. The empirical analysis, using new geocoded data on ethnic groups on a transnational basis, indicates that the risk of conflict is high when large, excluded ethnic groups have transnational kin in neighboring countries, and it provides strong support for the authors' propositions on the importance of transnational ties in ethnonationalist conflict.
When your blog has a shirt
When your blog has a shirt as awesome as this OFFICIAL Blackfive T-shirt, I will take you seriously:
http://www.rangerup.com/blackfiveshirt.html
@ Chris Mewett - Thanks for
@ Chris Mewett -
Thanks for telegraphing you have thin skin and no sense of humor. That's okay, I can still work with you.
What's googling? Whatever you're into. Don't ask, don't tell.
Oh, as T-shirts go, the
Oh, as T-shirts go, the "unapologetical American" beats the lot. ("Greatest economy... ever...")
http://www.rangerup.com/american.html
It should be a must have among illegal immigrants.
"Smart power that ignores
"Smart power that ignores those willing to die for their freedom doesn't seem so smart to me...Perhaps you should begin by proving yourself right Andrew, you have said so little. And if the belief that negotiating with the Mullahs will fail is wrong, then 30+ years of track record is bat shit crazy."
What happens if you do get involved and side with the protesters? You essentially put the protesters on the hook and the national interests and the protesters become aligned. When the regime reacts less than politely and more than violently then the United States becomes the bearer and protector of the opposition. That is when reality collides with the rhetorically created moral construct. The example widely used is the Hungary Uprising in 1956. But I think the better and more contemporary example is the Shiite and Marsh Arab uprising after the Gulf War in 1991. Remember after that conflict Saddamn was seen as weak and the Shiites of the south rose up. The president at the time, George H.w. Bush, injected the country into the domestic conflict by saying, ""There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations." What happened next? The uprising intensified with the understanding that the US would help. At the end of the day the United States didn't intervene and the Shiites were crushed.
The first tier consequence of this was that United States and George HW Bush looked foolish. The administration quickly recanted that statement and prayed nobody had footage. The second consequence was that opinion towards the United States among the Shiites of Iraq was negative. When the United States invaded Iraq again in 2003, the Shiites were at best skeptical of the US and at worst violent. Through a rhetoric intervention the United States lowered its ability to influence Iraq and matters contained there in.
In the Iran case Obama has done the right thing. The idea of smart power is realizing when it is prudent to intervene and interfere with the domestic affairs of another country. Interfering in a situation to which the details we are not privy too might end up burning the United States, burning the United States' cause, and finally extinguishing any chance the United States might have to leverage Iran into better behavior.
Negotiating with the Mullahs won't fail. They are rational and interest driven. Furthermore the United States' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan provides a fair and long docket of issues to discusses with the Iranians. Start there.
Just so folks don't think
Just so folks don't think I'm pole jocking this blog. I find it shameful that writer of this blog despite experience in Lebanon, writing about Afghanistan, and belonging to a think tank that produces paper on Iraq doesn't have anything to say, publish, or link to on the subject of Iran other than nukes are bad and twitter is new fangled.
Its as if Dr Colonel Nagl looked at map of the space occupying between Beirut and Kabul and pointing at the map Curzon-like (or Durand like, Lawrence like or Belle like...pick your favorite colonial adventurer) and gleefully declared, "That is no Iran. Thus it has been deeeeeeecreed."
@ Sina: So now you think
@ Sina: So now you think it's shameful that AM has not stuck his nose into analytical business where he lacks (to public knowledge) experience? Are you really implying that the differences between Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are that insignificant?
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that they are providing an incomplete picture. It seems there is an avoidance of tackling Iran in terms of influence in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you say that the end game in Iraq is political and the game is ratcheting up in Afghanistan where is Iran discussed? Insurgencies aren't just battles to determine who has the legitimate right to exert authority domestically but also how external forces are shaping those said forces. Iran is involved in these types of fights in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan influencing policy in a way that could be contra or even is contra to the policy of the United States. In a way Iran shapes the conflict as much as the United States does. So it begs the question why not tackle the issue directly? It would seem that CNAS has limited their writings on Iran to just the nuke issue and choosing to not publish papers on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I understand that Dr. Exum's sphere of experience is centered on Arabs and COIN but why not ask for a guest writer or blogger? D.C. is choke full of graduate students, think tankers, professors, and Persians finding a capable writer and intelligent wouldn't be hard to find.
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that they are providing an incomplete picture. It seems there is an avoidance of tackling Iran in terms of influence in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you say that the end game in Iraq is political and the game is ratcheting up in Afghanistan where is Iran discussed? Insurgencies aren't just battles to determine who has the legitimate right to exert authority domestically but also how external forces are shaping those said forces. Iran is involved in these types of fights in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan influencing policy in a way that could be contra or even is contra to the policy of the United States. In a way Iran shapes the conflict as much as the United States does. So it begs the question why not tackle the issue directly? It would seem that CNAS has limited their writings on Iran to just the nuke issue and choosing to not publish papers on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I understand that Dr. Exum's sphere of experience is centered on Arabs and COIN but why not ask for a guest writer or blogger? D.C. is choke full of graduate students, think tankers, professors, and Persians finding a capable writer and intelligent wouldn't be hard to find.
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that they are providing an incomplete picture. It seems there is an avoidance of tackling Iran in terms of influence in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you say that the end game in Iraq is political and the game is ratcheting up in Afghanistan where is Iran discussed? Insurgencies aren't just battles to determine who has the legitimate right to exert authority domestically but also how external forces are shaping those said forces. Iran is involved in these types of fights in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan influencing policy in a way that could be contra or even is contra to the policy of the United States. In a way Iran shapes the conflict as much as the United States does. So it begs the question why not tackle the issue directly? It would seem that CNAS has limited their writings on Iran to just the nuke issue and choosing to not publish papers on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I understand that Dr. Exum's sphere of experience is centered on Arabs and COIN but why not ask for a guest writer or blogger? D.C. is choke full of graduate students, think tankers, professors, and Persians finding a capable writer and intelligent wouldn't be hard to find.
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that
@T.E. Shaw: I'm saying that they are providing an incomplete picture. It seems there is an avoidance of tackling Iran in terms of influence in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you say that the end game in Iraq is political and the game is ratcheting up in Afghanistan where is Iran discussed? Insurgencies aren't just battles to determine who has the legitimate right to exert authority domestically but also how external forces are shaping those said forces. Iran is involved in these types of fights in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan influencing policy in a way that could be contra or even is contra to the policy of the United States. In a way Iran shapes the conflict as much as the United States does. So it begs the question why not tackle the issue directly? It would seem that CNAS has limited their writings on Iran to just the nuke issue and choosing to not publish papers on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I understand that Dr. Exum's sphere of experience is centered on Arabs and COIN but why not ask for a guest writer or blogger? D.C. is choke full of graduate students, think tankers, professors, and Persians finding a capable writer and intelligent wouldn't be hard to find.
"Oh, as T-shirts go, the
"Oh, as T-shirts go, the "unapologetical American" beats the lot."
I like this one....
http://www.rangerup.com/terroristvets.html
The lines on it make it really easy to turn it into an interactive scorecard for people involved in domestic terrorism incidents since 9/11.
North Koreans: 0
Taliban: 0
Killer Robots: 0
Returned vets in league with white supremacists: 203
See, the funny shirt just gets funnier.
What did you think the FBI/DHS was lying, you retards ?
And jealous. Sorry you
And jealous. Sorry you passed on your chance to be heroic, or at least to serve. I wonder what 203 terror incidents involving both vets and white supremacists you are talking about? Somehow I think the MSM, the Daily Kooze, I Huffington'd my way into a gold digging marriage blogs, and wherever you get your information from would not have passed on a chance to lump their paranoid fantasies together.
Starting to realize "Kilo" has something to do with your no doubt lifelong obesession with drugs but only the non-addictive kind, right? Just the kind that make you a smug, pseudo-liberal moral, intellectual and ethical retard.
OK, Elf has fed the troll enough. Don't forget to amuse yourself in your white trash mothers basement, congrats you pissed someone off. I guess that's some kind of human connection. Now go back to porn.
"Sorry you passed on your
"Sorry you passed on your chance to be heroic, or at least to serve."
The comment quoted above is emblematic of the "New American Militarism" espoused by so many milbloggers. In their fevered effort to create a "warrior caste" in a nation whose Founders expressly sought to prevent such a thing, they have falsely advanced the idea that uniformed, military service is the only avenue to heroism, honor or service.
The tragedy is that this meme is gaining traction. The ultimate irony is that its advance was greatly aided by the actions/words of GEN Schoomaker, GEN Casey and LTG Stultz. As custodians of the Army's relationship with the civil-society, they have ceaselessly advanced the notion of a "warrior caste" and done their level best to purge the citizen-soldier ethos from our institutional DNA.
I'm not going to say Kilo
I'm not going to say Kilo passed on his chance to be heroic, his time may still come and certainly service in the military is not required to a hero. I think firemen are every bit as brave as infantrymen.
I don't think the military espouses a "warrior caste" but I think one *does* exist. And I think those that have gone in harm's way, stared evil in the face and didn't blink are entitled to their sense of pride and camaraderie in what they have done. They do not say no one except them are among the heroic and honorable. However, they do not take kindly to those who have not walked the same path leveling harsh criticisms towards who they are and what they have done in the name of freedom.
That being said, I think Kilo is slightly misguided, both in his understanding of who veterans are and what they stand for and in the factual basis for his allegations.
or if those words are too large for you Kilo, you're a f*cking idiot.
From the link"
From the link" "...Krauthammer has shown quite a bit more intellectual..."
I stopped reading right there. Anyone who REALLY believes he is any more 'intellectual' than a chimpanzee just could not be worth reading
(...and my apologies to global chimp society for that comparison, along with the GW Bush comparisons I've used over the years)
I don't know how "hot"
I don't know how "hot" Vlahos is, but her web-site's aesthetics are gross, and she repeatedly quotes Steely Dan. I'm filing her under "to be avoided."
"I wonder what 203 terror
"I wonder what 203 terror incidents involving both vets and white supremacists you are talking about?"
Yeah, that would be the point. How useful it is to wonder about that now, after the t-shirts are printed. A better time would be before you start printing up t-shirts highlighting a report that otherwise would have been forgotten.
It was one paragraph in the DHS report, otherwise unconcerned with the military. If you don't like the word "retarded" then check the fkn references list before harping on about it. You know, just to make sure the source of that claim isn't a 14 page FBI report dedicated to the sole topic of military vets involved in white supremacist groups and extremist actions on US soil.
BTW 203 is a rather non-round figure. Kind of shit makes it easy to google.
"OK, Elf has fed the troll enough."
Whatever bitch. Anytime you feel like moving from random insults to trying to disagree with me, do let us know. I'll be all kinds of interested.
"However, they do not take
"However, they do not take kindly to those who have not walked the same path leveling harsh criticisms towards who they are and what they have done in the name of freedom."
By "they" do you mean those who want to pipe bomb Jews and blacks in the name of freedom for the white race, or have you too missed the point. If you don't like being associated with racist scum who want to kill americans, do not co-opt criticism of them as an attack on yourself. This is not complicated. If someone warns about arseholes like these and you say "hey he's talking about us", then fuck you too.
"That being said, I think Kilo is slightly misguided, both in his understanding of who veterans are and what they stand for and in the factual basis for his allegations."
Yeah, but considering you are basing that on nothing other than a desire for that to be the true and unable to suggest in any way, shape or form how it is, who really cares. Pretend I never said it. Pretending these reports don't say what they do seems to be working out just fine for you. Pretend I said something about freedom.
@Kilo, That DHS report was a
@Kilo,
That DHS report was a f*cking disgrace, not worthy of Law Enforcement, Researchers, science, scholars, etc. That's why it was almost certainly leaked by L.E because it offended them.
It's also classic paranoid liberal conspiracy theory politics in action, to include the clumsy attempt to make disagreeing with them illegal.
And it's Classic Alinsky immoral demonizing of opponents.
And more Chicago-Stan, banana Republic thug politics.
203 veterans were involved in white supremacist politics...out of a veteran population of 27 million, and of course the 3 million who serve now? That's real bedrock Wallah. Oh, we're liberals. We don't profile, of course.
The psycho vet theory from Vietnam (propounded by guilty conscience liberals who needed to justify their disgraceful treatment of them) was conclusively refuted by an exhuastive 10 year study by the VA who found no differences between vets and the general population.
Moreover, when the NYT and others started pushing the pyscho Iraq vet/PTSD victim (we all are victims in Lib world), it was refuted by many, to include serving officer scholars on this blog, as being totally the inverse. We Iraq vets are 80% less likely to commit homicide than our reflective civilian population. For instance. And PTSD does not express itself violently, unless you want to include screaming at everyone under "violence". That BTW is just one symptom, not universal.
You richly deserved the abuse for that slander against vets. And it's bullshit. A T-Shirt? That's your f*cking evidence? That and that totally discredited DHS report?
And Kilo? I actually don't think military service is the benchmark of "heroism", or any such thing. I hope you get your chance. Really.
Have a nice yuppie day.
And sorry to any true liberals I offended. I meant to correct just some (who I don't know why they call themselves "Liberal". Are they kidding?)
Comment by Elf tries again
Comment by Elf tries again on June 24, 2009 - 8:32am
"That DHS report was a f*cking disgrace, not worthy of Law Enforcement, Researchers, science, scholars, etc. That's why it was almost certainly leaked by L.E because it offended them."
And that's an opinion rather than a disagreement with content.
As far as it concerned the military, I couldn't imagine anyone could have been happier with it. Like I said, if 6 months earlier the FBI dedicates an entire paper solely to examine the nexus between returned OIF/OEF vets joining white supremacist groups who have been responsible for hundreds of domestic terrorism plots since 9/11. ie These are the most prolific, demonstrated threats to US citizens post-9/11.
6 months later DHS publishes a report on domestic threats, for which white supremacist (et al) groups are the most obvious focus, and that whole 14 pages of info about the military connection gets turned into 1 paragraph in the report and rather than saying "phew" the response is outrage ? Short of it being actively censored out of the report, how was that not the best outcome anyone could have hoped for ?
""It's also classic paranoid liberal conspiracy theory politics in action, to include the clumsy attempt to make disagreeing with them illegal.""
Er... no. This would be the paranoid conspiracy theory.
Again, this was a report about domestic threats. It outlined characteristics/causes identified in groups who want to blow shit up and kill lots of Americans.
Now if you too think the gold standard should be brought back and the Fed is an unconstitutional power usurping organisation then you may in fact have this in common with some psychopathic terrorist nutbags who want to blow up said agency/people. So all you'd be missing is the violent racist desire and a garage full of pipe bombs.
One of these two factors is pivotal.
If you're lacking the latter and you still feel that you are being targeted by this report, then that's either paranoia or a reason you shouldn't be left alone in a shed. Literally every mention was of "right-wing extremists". You can't read "right-wing" leave out "extremist" and identify with that. Again, one of these is the pivotal characteristic.
""203 veterans were involved in white supremacist politics...out of a veteran population of 27 million, and of course the 3 million who serve now? That's real bedrock Wallah. Oh, we're liberals. We don't profile, of course. ""
No, not politics, that many were involved in extremist incidents which warranted the attention of the FBI.
The point however was either it's zero, just like the number of killer robots, or you might want to STFU instead of printing yourself t-shirts asking the question which one of these poses the bigger domestic threat. Because there's actually data if you're stupid enough to want that question answered.
""And Kilo? I actually don't think military service is the benchmark of "heroism", or any such thing. I hope you get your chance. Really.""
No, actually unlike the previous 48 million times that old chestnut's been lobbed on the internet, I actually made a conscious decision to not join the armed forces. My best friend joined as soon as he was old enough and I lived with him outside of the base. He tried to sell me on joining. I asked him if it was true they forced you to get up at 6am and punished you if you didn't. He said yes. I said fk that and it's never come up since.
I wouldn't join the fkn Swimsuit Photography Academy if I had to listen to some arsehole harp on about BS like that and the creases in my clothes.
I guess it just takes a certain kind of person to seek out that kind of submissive existence in return for a shitty wage.
Oooh look, there's
Oooh look, there's more.
""You richly deserved the abuse for that slander against vets. And it's bullshit. A T-Shirt? That's your f*cking evidence? ""
No, it's not my evidence, it's just their shirt. Which as I pointed out is totally hilarious if you ignore hundreds of domestic terrorism plots, carried out or disrupted since 9/11.
You know, like we do for every other demographic. When we ignore their hundreds of plots to kill US citizens then sympathise with them when they get angry about this being mentioned in a single solitary paragraph about threats to the US. You remember that other group that gets treated this favorably after clocking up that many attacks on US soil right ? Who's that again ?
BTW it's also not called "slander" when it's true. Which I think you know, considering you've not been able to offer even a single disagreement with it so far.
"That and that totally discredited DHS report?"
So totally discredited we're yet to hear any specific way in which it was, let alone something relevant to it's published findings of observed facts regarding vets in league with white supremacist groups. Sure.
Like I said, just pretend I mentioned something about Freedom instead if it makes you feel better.
@Kilo Most of my comment was
@Kilo
Most of my comment was directed at IRR Soldier and his comments about the warrior caste, but whatever.
"By "they" do you mean those who want to pipe bomb Jews and blacks in the name of freedom for the white race, or have you too missed the point. If you don't like being associated with racist scum who want to kill americans, do not co-opt criticism of them as an attack on yourself. This is not complicated. If someone warns about arseholes like these and you say "hey he's talking about us", then fuck you too."
I can see your point about co-opting criticism. I think the issue is that the report didn't say "There are some racist scum asshats, who happen to be veterans, joining Group X." The report said Veterans pose a threat. That's too broad of a stroke, and probably due to trying to dilute it down to a paragraph.
"Yeah, but considering you are basing that on nothing other than a desire for that to be the true and unable to suggest in any way, shape or form how it is, who really cares. Pretend I never said it. Pretending these reports don't say what they do seems to be working out just fine for you. Pretend I said something about freedom."
I'm just going to pretend you understand the rules of grammar. Keep my horizons low and all.
Guess this thread is dead,
Guess this thread is dead, but nevertheless: Elf, Im thinking youre a wee bit self-defensive. That DHS report was a missive to law-enforcement officers, right? As I read it, the DHS rep. doesnt say that all veterans are potential nazi-scum, but that when veterans and nazi-scum converge there is a risk involved, and it is important to be vigilant. In other words, a stay alert notice aimed at cops. Given the level of hatred visible over the internet, mixed with nazigroups selfdescribed aims at recruiting vets, i think thats a fair warning.
Fnord, You remember my story
Fnord,
You remember my story of my friends dog dying, he skips a VA meeting as he's in mourning, the VA sends SWAT teams and helicopters to his house?
There is definitely prejudicial feelings and paranoid fears concerning Vets in this country, reinforced by popular culture (TV's, movies), a compliant media, and often enough as we have seen by academic prejudices.
Just not supported by the evidence. Because the evidence points the other way.
When the "recommended stay alert policies" are implemented or noted for other groups, it's called "profiling". Ahem.
Veterans are threats?
Veterans are threats? Unlikely. 203 out of a combined 30 million? I'd say the odds of a civilian attacking is far greater. Where by the way do you get the idea that there have been no more attempts on the US by foreign parties? Perhaps none that were not intercepted by our men on the job.
Kilo, try to keep your hate for those more robust and caring individuals than yourself under control OK? you have made a damned fool of yourself here. They have served. Have you?
Yeah ................I thought not
Add your comment