As Donkeycrats see veterans

[johnb]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118917,00.html

[Don]

thanks for that disgusting story John. Send the grad student to Iraq for a real education?

[kellyc]

Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him

By Rene Gonzalez
April 28, 2004


[Deleted by admin - Sorry Kelly, I can't dignify Gonzalez' trash by allowing it here...]

[Mark]

Perhaps a link will pass then, for those wishing to evaluate on their own?

Click (http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html?in_archive=1)

[kellyc]

Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him

By Rene Gonzalez
April 28, 2004


[Deleted by admin - Sorry Kelly, I can't dignify Gonzalez' trash by allowing it here...]

Thats fine but I think in the end you defeat exactly what Pat Tillman was fighting for...people's rights to freedom of speech. It is trash, but by providing the article to be read...it gives people an opportunity to read and judge for themselves, and to not rely on other people's analysis...Isnt that what having freedom of speech is really all about? I dont agree with what this kid says, but I'd be one of the first to stand up and defend his right to say his peace. Too many people are okay with letting other people analyze and develop their opinions for themselves.

Kelly

[Don]

Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him

By Rene Gonzalez
April 28, 2004


[Deleted by admin - Sorry Kelly, I can't dignify Gonzalez' trash by allowing it here...]

Thats fine but I think in the end you defeat exactly what Pat Tillman was fighting for...people's rights to freedom of speech. It is trash, but by providing the article to be read...it gives people an opportunity to read and judge for themselves, and to not rely on other people's analysis...Isnt that what having freedom of speech is really all about? I dont agree with what this kid says, but I'd be one of the first to stand up and defend his right to say his peace. Too many people are okay with letting other people analyze and develop their opinions for themselves.

Kelly

I Agree with Kelly. It is garbage - real bad too, but it's his right to write it and say it. On the other hand, It's our right to publicly denounce the little [insert explicitive] and maybe even throw in some tar and feathers. I hope the retaliation towards Gonzales and the public humiliation carries on for a long time, after all, he should get what's coming to him right?

[dhyatt]

Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him

By Rene Gonzalez
April 28, 2004


[Deleted by admin - Sorry Kelly, I can't dignify Gonzalez' trash by allowing it here...]

Thats fine but I think in the end you defeat exactly what Pat Tillman was fighting for...people's rights to freedom of speech. It is trash, but by providing the article to be read...it gives people an opportunity to read and judge for themselves, and to not rely on other people's analysis...Isnt that what having freedom of speech is really all about? I dont agree with what this kid says, but I'd be one of the first to stand up and defend his right to say his peace. Too many people are okay with letting other people analyze and develop their opinions for themselves.

Kelly

Understood. If you want to post a link to it, that's ok by me. I realize the difference is minimal but his article really rubbed me the wrong way and I just couldn't stomach reading it on a site I own.

[johnb]

Leftists better be very careful what they wish for.

Their hatred of Christianity is so intense they willingly make allies of others with an equally vicious hatred of Christianity without realizing the problems inherent in believing the enemy of my enemy is my friend. logic.

Islamists are conducting bloody pogroms against Christians in the Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc... However, atheists/non-theists, are condemned even more intensely than are Christians in the Koran and the haddith's. The only people in Islamic theology as vile as atheists and pagans are Jews.

Coming from a woman it's all the more ridiculous given the intense persecution Islam metes out towards/against women in the first place, even women who are Muslims.

While that grad student is free to mouth her ignorance, she is kept alive only because guys like Pat Tillman are willing to stand up and confront these animals and put a boot on their throat and a gun barrel on their foreheads.

[Anonymous]

A little perspective.


* John Barbara resides in South West Cary where he apparently lives with his wife, Eileen. Also registered as living at his address, or recently gone off to university, are who I can only surmise are John's children, [deleted by admin] - whom I also must guess that he loves very much. Together, the Barbaras make a fine family. *

Every time John wishes to open his hate filled heart to share with us some dehumanizing and offensive words like "guys like Pat Tillman are willing to stand up and confront these animals and put a boot on their throat and a gun barrel on their foreheads." I will post the above message in hopes that he may someday come to understand what it means to be human.

[Mark]

(points up) 'twas mine.

[kellyc]

Mark

I have a serious problem with you posting information about people's families, especially kids. None of us have any idea who all is reading this message board. I think you are a bit out of line there.

Kelly

[kellyc]

While that grad student is free to mouth her ignorance, she is kept alive only because guys like Pat Tillman are willing to stand up and confront these animals and put a boot on their throat and a gun barrel on their foreheads.

John from what I have read Rene is a guy.

Kelly

[Wuptdo]

Mark,

Agree with Kelly, you crossed the line. This is an open, friendly forum where ideas are freely exchanged and debated. If don't agree with what someone else post, write a rebuttal, not a personal attack. Though this type of behavior is accepted at other forums, I think "Admin" is within his right to judge what is apporpriate, i.e., maybe not post an article, but at least have the web link.

Now, let me ask you, what right do you have to judge other people? Or did Emory teach you that life is a one-way street? Tell us thing that you would be willing to sacrafice your life for?

Wuptdo B-)

[Mark]

Now, let me ask you, what right do you have to judge other people? Or did Emory teach you that life is a one-way street? Tell us thing that you would be willing to sacrafice your life for?

Wuptdo B-)

I have trouble believing that to be a serious question Wup, for it seems you think answer to be "none" which is, of course, logically absurd. I, we, cannot but judge the actions and behavior of others, it is impossible not too. You cannot have any guide for your or anyone else's behavior without so doing. You cannot think it better for your children to act in a certain, say moral (whatever that may be for you), way without first having declared the actions of some to be immoral.

Now, whether or not you made that judgment correctly is another matter entirely. And, further, what actions you take after that judgment is open to debate. So, you can dislike what judgments I've made about John because you belive them to be incorrect, or how I chose to voice them, but not that I have made them at all.

If your question was actually do I have any more right to judge others and have people respect that judgment more than anyone else? than to that I would surely say no. All opinions expressed are my own, as they say, and you are of course at liberty to take them or leave them. I naturally think they're the rights ones, and it is my burden to provide reasons why... which I shall presently do.

I posted that personal information to highlight the absurdity of John's calling... calling who, I'm not even sure he knows towards whom his hate is directed... anyone an animal. They're not, they're human beings. Human beings with families, with homes, with lives, just like John's. So I hope that everytime he, or anyone else, is tempted to dehumanize someone like that that he reflect on the similarities between himself and they, for the similiarities vastly outweigh the differences.

I find it so patently offensive for him to lump together as "animal" everyone whom Pat Tillman types would have cause to point a gun at that I was, for a time, at a loss for words. Included in that group are people precisely like John, willing to kill to resist an occupation that threatens, or has already killed their loved ones. It might not be the most noble of emotions, but it is a superbly human one. Included in that group are people, somehow deserving of mistreatment, whose only crime is wish to make decisions for themselves, or to sleep at night without fear. Not only does John think that these people are deserving of such treatment, he goes so far as to conclude it is all that they understand. Such narrowmindedness, that this could be the only way, is appalling.

John also continues in his failure to grasp a simple fact of human nature. 99.9% of humans want nothing more than to be left at liberty to run their own lives and leave their children with a better world than they themselves had. It takes a lot to make an ordinary person to take up arms to try and gain back that vision. How hopeless must a situation look, what must have happened, to even cause one to consider violence as an option? A lot, and there are, among John's animals, a lot of ordinary people. This doesn't excuse their methods, no, in that they too are wrong. But so is John, for thinking that those engaged in the violence all actually want to be so, and that their values differ significantly from his, and that they can only have their lives dictated at the barrel of a gun.

How best to remind people of that fact? By having them recall, in the awkwardness of a public space, personal and minute details of their own life, for it is these that they share with everyone and the reason why no person, even the most vile and abhorrent among us should ever be treated as, or called, an animal.

And, finally, what am I willing to sacrifice my life for? Precisely the same things as most everyone here. My loved ones, positive freedom, resisting tyranny and promoting justice. Wonderfully naive, no? Tell me you're any different.

[kellyc]

How best to remind people of that fact? By having them recall, in the awkwardness of a public space, personal and minute details of their own life, for it is these that they share with everyone and the reason why no person, even the most vile and abhorrent among us should ever be treated as, or called, an animal.


The difference is that we all volunteered ourselves to be a part of this political board, our families did not. When you have children and realize the amount of danger that exsits for children on the internet, it is uncool for you to expose anyone's children, no matter how minor it appears. Plain and simple...involving people's families in political discussions is just wrong.

Kelly

[Mark]

The "animals" sign up too?

[dhyatt]

[snip]

John also continues in his failure to grasp a simple fact of human nature. 99.9% of humans want nothing more than to be left at liberty to run their own lives and leave their children with a better world than they themselves had.

[snip]

Mark,
You have (by accident I think) hit on the crux of the issue. Do Islamic extremists in fact want to "leave their children with a better world than the themselves had"? I submit many do not even have a clue as to what that means. If they did, they would be doing basic things like treating women as humans instead of "animals" that are kept covered and locked up. If they did, they wouldn't being seeking death as a martyr nor would they be wishing that on their sons and daughters. As a matter of fact, if we take their religious tenets to their logical conclusion, the worst thing that could happen to them is they win and the world becomes one big Islamic state. No more martyrdom, no more heavenly virgins. What then???

[kellyc]

The "animals" sign up too?

Yeah..when Rene wrote that editorial he opened himself to being harshly judged. Yes he did volunteer for that, Johns children did not. Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want, and it also gives me the right to call you an idiot. What should seperate us from the animals is our ability to rationalize, and a rationale person would see that involving someone's family in a discussion on this website was just wrong. Someday when or if you have a child of your own you will understand that comment.

Kelly

[Mark]

What then???

Good question. I imagine it would be something like the Millennial Kingdom would be for evangelical Christians. The Christians also appear to be killing more of the non true believers at present too - this bodes well for their prospects.

As for your question in bold I would submit that they in fact do. Do they want to leave to their children Don Hyatt's vision of a better world? Probably not. So sure they have a clue what that means, if you're talking about a vision, if you're talking about your vision they might not understand it at all. That really is a secondary point though.

If their idea is that a more pure Islamic state is a better thing to leave their children then they're certainly acting like rational human beings. That's all I'm trying to say. You may still evaluate the content of their, or your, visions if you like - it's a difficult calculus, but it is at least approachable, but you cannot deny that their vision, even if it be radically different than your own, is a vision that motivates behavior in the same fashion as does yours.

[dhyatt]

What then???

Good question. I imagine it would be something like the Millennial Kingdom would be for evangelical Christians. The Christians also appear to be killing more of the non true believers at present too - this bodes well for their prospects.

As for your question in bold I would submit that they in fact do. Do they want to leave to their children Don Hyatt's vision of a better world? Probably not. So sure they have a clue what that means, if you're talking about a vision, if you're talking about your vision they might not understand it at all. That really is a secondary point though.

If their idea is that a more pure Islamic state is a better thing to leave their children then they're certainly acting like rational human beings. That's all I'm trying to say. You may still evaluate the content of their, or your, visions if you like - it's a difficult calculus, but it is at least approachable, but you cannot deny that their vision, even if it be radically different than your own, is a vision that motivates behavior in the same fashion as does yours.

But isn't wanting to leave them in a more pure Islamic earthly state mutually exclusive with wishing them the heavenly rewards of dying as martyr? I just don't see how they can have both.

[johnb]

I posted that personal information to highlight the absurdity...

That is simply not true. You did it because your position is weak, you are wrong, and you are trying to lash out at me in any way you think you can silence me Mark. Nothing more. You take care to continue to hide your identity and that of the non-profit you work for. Although that's less of a secret than you think.


I'm not even sure he knows towards whom his hate is directed...

Maybe it's not been said clearly enough for you. The political ideology derived from the Koran Mark. Islam is not merely a religion as is Hinduism, Christianity, or Judaism. It comes complete with "authoritative" statements from al-illah calling for the physcial extermination of apostates, pagans, Jews, and anyone and everyone who "blasphemes" Islam. It is simply impossible to reconcile Islam with democracy. Guaranteeing people their freedom of conscience, ie, the right to change their religion has a name in Islam. That name is shirk. It's a broad term originally meaning the association of al-illah with a consort. Over time it has come to mean much more. It's a crime punishable by physical extermination in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Sudan, and a other Islamic nations. Dar es Harb, the House of War, that's all of us, deserve and will get no quarter from Dar es Salaam. Al Illah has comanded them to make war on unbelievers and that our property, our wives, and our children are appropriate plunder for the believers. This would be merely good history if it ceased to exist after, oh I don't know, the 12th century. But it is still very much an indisputable, unreformable component of the religion. What's worse, it is the more vile statements AGAINST freedom of conscience (including the right to be an atheist) that are actually animating the terrorists. It's unfortunate you insist on playing crude games as opposed to actually engaging in any substantive discussion of Islam. I have tried repetitively and when the discussion of the theology and history of Islam gets deeper than the platittudes (Islam means peace) you cut and run.


Human beings with families, with homes, with lives, just like John's.

Aside from being irrelevant your statement serves only to muddy the water. What any one Muslim may or may not have nor not have has no meaning. What is important is the theology and the terrorists who act on it. Stop trying to steer this into some mindless leftwing "can't we all just get along" nonsense. Frankly, no, we can't. The ideology of Wahhabi Islam cannot be reconciled with Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man.


I find it so patently offensive for him to lump together as "animal" everyone whom Pat Tillman types would have cause to point a gun at...

The gun gets pointed at the types that would fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, the type that would execute a woman for committing adultery by having the audacity to allow herself to be raped, the type that has put the Protocols of the Elders of Zion into second place in the Arab world in book sales behind only the Koran, the type that demands non-Muslims pay the jizyah (basically a slave tax) to Muslims to finance jihad, shall I go on?


that I was, for a time, at a loss for words.

Unfortunately that time did not last quite long enough.


"...whose only crime is wish to make decisions for themselves, or to sleep at night without fear."

Do you have ANY clue what you are talking about? These people live in a Muslim theocracy. They have no right to make decisions for themselves or anyone and their lives are ruled by fear. Shari'a removes most of the choices in their daily lives. They aren't living just like you and me but with a turban Mark.


John also continues in his failure to grasp a simple fact of human nature. 99.9% of humans want nothing more than to be left at liberty to run their own lives and leave their children with a better world than they themselves had.

Is that a scientific poll Mark? It sounds almost as sappy as Stings "Do the Russians love their children too?". Sorry, but it has no meaning. What any one Muslim may or may not believe about your little fantasy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that over 85% of all Muslims in the Arab world believe some combination of the CIA and the dreaded Jews blew up the World Trade Center, that the whole world must be forced to submit to Islam, and that the existance of Israel and the US is a threat to Islam. These are the thoughts that animate those willing to stand up and speak and worse, act, in the Muslim world. This "peace, love, and understanding" nonsense never gets past an Elvis Costello song. There are Muslim driven jihads slaughtering non-Muslims in Nigeria, the Sudan, Mauritania, Indonesia, and the Middle East right now. People are dying every day, victims of Jihad are being slaughtered right now. And I'm not talking about US soldiers, sorry Mark. Black Africans are being sold in Muslim slave markets in Mauritania right now. This isn't 150 years ago.


But so is John, for thinking that those engaged in the violence all actually want to be so, and that their values differ significantly from his, and that they can only have their lives dictated at the barrel of a gun.

Their values are different. They seek to impose Islam on everyone. There is certainly compulsion in religion within Islam. They seek to compel those of us who are not believers to pay their slave tax to finance their jihad. I'm certain you've not read much about the Islamofascist terror wars going on in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Macedonia. I may disagree with you on many things Mark, but I don't think you should die for that. They do.


"for it is these that they share with everyone and the reason why no person, even the most vile and abhorrent among us should ever be treated as, or called, an animal."

You are wrong. Your cheap attack on my kids is also uncalled for and reprehensible. But expected. The Islamofascists terrorists are animals, as are the members of Hamas, Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, al Qaeda, the Kashmiri separatists/terrorists, and a host of other bloodthirsty beasts. Hitler was an animal, as was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Iron Felix, Saddam Hussein, and other mass murderers.


And, finally, what am I willing to sacrifice my life for? Precisely the same things as most everyone here.

I doubt it. That takes the courage of some convictions, any convictions. You are too content to hide in the shadows where you can anonymously attack other people's kids.

[johnb]

If they did, they would be doing basic things like treating women as humans instead of "animals" that are kept covered and locked up.

They cannot change that. Mohammed was given a vision of heaven and hell by the moon god al illah. In it Mohammed saw that the majority of the people in hell were women. He claimed they were deficient in mind and religion. As such, a woman could only get into heaven if her husband was pleased with her. The Koran teaches men that they have three steps to reforming/changing their wives: admonishing, withholding sex, and finally beating her. The testimony of a woman is woth exactly 1/2 of a mans, per the Koran. I have read Muslim apologists who claim that beating women conforms to the latest in scientific advances! Imagine that, the b!tch deserved it! These aren't quacks, these are people taken seriously in mainstream Islam. Muslims cannot change what is written in the Koran. They cannot change the haddiths. Islamic judges cannot change the haddiths or the Koran. The only thing they can do is apply pre-existing rules. Islam allows for no theological innovation. So when Mark says he knows a Muslim who doesn't beat his wife, that really means nothing. The religious sources allow it, justify it, and even demand it.

The universities in Saudi Arabia had a flap a few years ago because a fatwa was issued insisting the world was flat and that teachings to the contrary were haram (forbidden). Ouch! LOL

Islam is a terribly intersting topic, unfortunately Mark and most others get their knowledge of it off bumper stickers.

[johnb]

As a matter of fact, if we take their religious tenets to their logical conclusion...

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176 & 177 of the Sahih Bukhari edition of the Hadith. The title of this chapter is, "Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)"

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

This haddith is not something that can or will be reformed from within. It can only be confronted, blocked, and defeated.

As for Mark's foolish assertion that these Islamofascists are just fighting for what they perceive as their freedom. In 1960, for example, before the 6 day war, before Israel conquered Judea and Samaria, the Golan and Gaza, Adolf Eichmann was abducted from his hiding-hole in Buenos Aires by Israeli secret agents, an event recorded by Saudi Arabia's principal government-controlled newspaper as: "ARREST OF EICHMANN, WHO HAD THE HONOR OF KILLING 6 MILLION JEWS".

This Islamic hatred for the Jews did not start in 1949. It is a foundational concept of the ideology. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was in Nazi Germany during the war urging the Germans to NOT allow Hungarian Jews to emigrate back to the land of their ancestors. He fought the Hungarian govenrment before the Nazis and helped push through the orders condemning Hungarian Jewry to the death camps. That man was Yassir Arafats uncle.

Group membership implies certain things about people.

I am a registered Libertarian. That conveys certain information about me to others. They can suppose with a degree of certainty that I distrust government and have more faith in individuals to control their own affairs than would, say, a Republican or a Donkeycrat.

Even Mark would pre-judge someone who is a member of the Nazi party or the Klan. We could freely associate that individual with racism and a hatred of blacks and Jews. They could argue all day long they're not, but their membership in the organization is pretty damning. Living in a Muslim society is a lot like living in a communist one. People were basically compelled to join whether they believed it or not. However, the onus is on THEM to denounce the organizations principles and policies when wrong, not on the rest of us to pretend they don't exist. Mark is, as usual 180degrees off on this. It is reasonable for non-Muslims to have, as a default attitude, one of suspicion regarding Muslims because the religion has sanctified and commanded the murder of apostates, the murder of nonbelievers, a patriarchal misogony so profoundly vicious as to shock the senses (female circumcision), the abduction of the children of nonbelievers for chattel slavery, the seizure of the property of nonbelievers for the gain of believers, the repression of non-Muslims through a denial of political and civil rights, and so on and so forth. These come not from some freakish denomination. This is not as if we are judging Mormonism on the theology of some fringe group of 20 or 30 Mormons living in the outback of Utah. This things come straight from the Koran and the Haddith's. They are the unalterable and unreformable commands of al-illah the Meccan moon god to his followers.

People who join the Klan should be prepared when others assume they hate blacks. If I make that assumption, and I do, I am not the one with anything to defend. Sorry Mark. Same deal with Islam.

[Brent]

that I was, for a time, at a loss for words.

Unfortunately that time did not last quite long enough.

Hyatt, I think that this snippet is one for the "classics" file! :lol:

[Cathy]

Great exposition of the facts, John.

We don't expect to see any enlightenment in Mark as a result of it, but it is always worth the time and research you put into it to be able to state the facts in a public forum.

I appreciate that you have shared that information with all of us.

[Wuptdo]

On this day in history:


In 1964, the Pentagon reported the first of two attacks on U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Questions?

1) Did this really happen or what it a big "lie?"
2) What happened after this "incident?"
3) Who was the President at this time?
4) What party controled the Congress?

Wuptdo :evil:

[johnb]

Did it even happen? Good question Wup. Something happened, whether it was what the public was led to believe is probably doubtful at best.

There are some who believe Johnson was just looking for a reason to escalate US intervention in Vietnam even if the excuse had to be fabricated. That is not an unknown phenomena, think of Case White where the Germans dressed up some prisoners in Polish Army uniforms and shot them at a couple of border crossing in the early hours of the invasion of Poland.