Wow, you just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper by posting weak and ineffectual gibberish meant to distract everyone from the fact that to you, the life of a fellow American with whom you differ on political issues is not more important to you than an Islamic fanatic who would gladly kill all of us. It is clear that we each disgust the other. The difference is that I, if I had the ability to save you from an Islamic fanatic, I would. You, on the other hand, would not. It says a lot about your character, or lack of, rather. Tell us, JB, do your close friends and relatives with whom you disagree about the war know that you consider their lives to be worth as much as a suicide bomber's or any run-of-the-mill in the name of Allah decapitator?
how are you different from "an islamic fanatic who would gladly kill all of us"? extremism isn't only an islamic phenomenon you've fanatically argued for a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of real, living, breathing people, most of them innocent. you've practically got a genocide on your hands. are you saying a significant quantity of those deaths were 'islamofascists' who wanted to behead you?
Another moonbat chimes in. Apparently to you and your ilk, Americans who disagree with you about the war are no different from an Islamic fanatic who would gladly kill all of us. Good grief but you people are deranged. And yes, a large quantity of those whom US forces have killed in Iraq would have gladly beheaded me. And oh, by the way, they'd just as happily behead a "useful idiot" like yourself, too.
dddooo, has it occurred to you that he cannot admit that which he does not believe? Clearly, if he preferred that an American with whom he disagrees vehemently about the Iraq war be allowed to live instead of an Al Qaeda operative, he would simply say so. It's a very easy question to answer. That he does not does indeed speak volumes. You should ask him if given a choice between an Israeli and a member of Hamas or Fatah, whom would he choose to live? How about an American like you who believes in Israel's right to survival over the life of the same Hamas or Fatah member? How about it, JB. Tell us if your hate for your fellow Americans extends to Israelis as well.
lol my point has nothing to do with disagreeing with you, or even disagreeing with people about the war per se. i don't think most americans are bloodthirsty like you and your rabid hero anne coulter. a small fraction of islamic society are bloodthirsty fanatics.... as well a small fraction of americans are bloodthirsty fanatics. you have more in common with your enemies than you do with most americans (and muslims)
Thank you for your kind words, too. I wasn't going to waste my time to explain to hapaboy. His whole purpose on this board, is to spread hatred. I understand perfectly what Islamofascist means, and I'd like to rid of it as much as you do. But given the track record of the conservatives' malicious attacks on their compatriots - they were quick to label anyone who shares a slightest agreement with the left extremists a communist - I'm quite suspicious of the use of the term "Islamofascist." They may arbitrarily label any Arabs "Islamofascists" and thus justify their killings. This is also the right's excuse to spread racial hatred in this country. It's very clear that hapaboy's bar for defining who is "Islamofascist" is quite low. If we all think (and act) like what hapaboy is advocating, what is the difference between us and the "Islamofascists?" The question hapaboy posted, represented his understanding of bad and good. On the face of it, he's not necessarily wrong, just too simplistic. It's like on the level of a 2nd grader. The conservatives love to use these simplified 2nd grade questions to paint the whole world into black and white. They were quite successful in convincing enough people the validity of their argument, so that they won election after election. We now see when you deal with the world problems like a 2nd grader for eal, you end up with disaster after disaster. Here is the real difference between me and hapaboy. Although I believe that hapaboy would defend my life, just as I would defend his, he would rather that I either change my views, or at least shut up. He does not believe that liberals make any positive contribution to this country. I, on the other hand, believe that both the left and the right are necessary for a society to function properly. That's why I am particularly bothered by the deep hatred that the right has towards the rest of us. That's the poison that eventually could destroy all of us. BTW, this joke about the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is true: http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1248377&highlight=southerner+AND+bang#post1248377 Just most Republicans don't get the subtlety of it...
Bingo... Hapa uses terms he's heard in the popular media as an assault on those with whom he disagrees because he otherwise has nothings to defend himself. This is why he appears to be so angry and lashing out at others so often.
What pompous arrogance. My purpose on this board is the same as yours: to speak freely about my opinions on politics. Do I hate? Absolutely. Who do I hate? Those who would kill my family and fellow citizens and whose aim is to convert my country to a 7th century caliphate. Do I hate you? No. You disgust me, as do your ilk such as Doc Vodka, Bitstream, IQ(less), and of course the Zzzztroll. I consider you all mentally deficient about the nature of those who wish to destroy us, and dangerous enablers of our enemies, the "useful idiots" Lenin spoke of. But I don't hate you. Well, wait a minute, to be honest, as the Zzzztroll wished the death of my children at the hands of a pedophile, I can say that I do harbor a certain measure of animosity toward it. But that's an entirely different issue altogether. Moonbat drivel. You have never asked me how I define an Islamofascist, have you? I can assure you it does not arbitrarily mean "any Arabs." Say, I've got Arab friends. Can you say the same? Huh? So how about asking before you jump to your ridiculous conclusions? Yes, genius, it was a very simple question. One that you refused to answer. You consider yourself such an intellectual yet the fact that it was a simple question asked simply to measure your level of hatred against someone who differs from you in regards to the war went completely over your head. Instead of just answering it, you had to analyze it and insert your subjective rationalizations as to why I would ask it in the first place. Sometimes things really are black and white. Does "Peace in our time" ring a bell? REALLY?!? And my gosh, it only took you until now to say so? Forgive my skepticism....it is clear you are not a leader of any kind who must make quick decisions. Tell us, when you are in a restaurant are you the patron all the waiters hate because it takes you an eternity to decide if you want your salad dressing on the side? Yes, I wish you and your ilk would shut up about certain things, or at least get your facts straight. The ridiculous assertions you make, i.e. the lies you tell about supposed American atrocities - and their scale - resonate throughout the world because of the vast numbers of simple-minded lemmings that are joined with you in the ranks of moonbatdom. How could bin Laden and Co. not read about such things and be emboldened? Has history taught you nothing? Are you really that dense? I think so... Last of all, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that the far Left bears a "deep hatred" toward those who do not prescribe to its views?
Petraeus Makes The Case By Donald Lambro Monday, September 17, 2007 WASHINGTON -- There is no doubt that Gen. David Petraeus won the politically charged slugfest on Capitol Hill last week when he called for the withdrawal of 30,000 troops from Iraq between now and early next year. He won it on his case that, as bad as things are in Iraq, the troop surge of the past six months has made verifiable progress in key battlegrounds now cleansed of terrorists. And he won it by outflanking the Democrats' demands that we begin precipitously pulling all of our forces out now by a specific deadline. There is also no doubt that Democratic war critics and their leftist allies at MoveOn.org suffered some blows and were bleeding, strategically and politically. Before the week was over, they had been decked by a one-two punch. The first delivered by Petraeus' troop-withdrawal recommendations; the second, by President Bush who quickly embraced them. In one bold, outflanking maneuver, the Republicans were suddenly on the offensive again and the Democrats were desperately playing defense as best they could. Only this time they were the ones opposing the troop pullout that the administration was preparing to begin in the coming weeks. On the first point, the grounds had clearly been prepared for Petraeus' case that things were demonstrably better. In the past four weeks, dozens of defense analysts and lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, have come back from tours of Iraq, praising the improved security situation in Anbar province and several other areas in the country. Veteran reporters from newspapers that have been severe critics of the war, like the New York Times, have come back with similar assessments. Petraeus strode into the House and Senate hearings last week armed with charts detailing the progress made in strategic areas that showed far less sectarian violence and reduced terrorist attacks, owing in large measure to strategic alliances between U.S./Iraqi forces and Sunni and Shia tribal chiefs who have turned against Al Qaeda. On the second point, he surprised war critics by the size and swiftness of the forthcoming withdrawal. Democrats were left sputtering about his figures and arguing that U.S. forces would still number 130,000 troops. But such statistical bean counting was overwhelmed by the headlines that a preliminary, carefully thought-out troop withdrawal would begin this year. While the national news media repeatedly highlights the large majorities favoring a troop pullout, it never mentions that these same surveys, like the latest Gallup Poll, also show that majorities approaching 70 percent do not want to see a complete withdrawal until U.S. forces establish a "reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq." A New York Times/CBS poll reported last week that only 22 percent of Americans surveyed wanted a complete troop pullout within the next year. Petraeus also won on another level: believability and trust. Going into the hearings, Gallup reported that 63 percent of Americans trusted his recommendations on Iraq. Throughout the grilling to which both he and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, were subjected, Petraeus never flinched, never once showed any emotion and pointedly declined to engage in hypothetical questions. He stuck to his report and stayed on message over two days and three separate committee hearings. His cool, nonpolitical, noncombative demeanor was in sharp contrast to the politically transparent anger he faced in both the House and Senate. Sen. Barack Obama, trying to jump-start his presidential candidacy, used most of his allotted time as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to deliver a political speech fiercely criticizing administration war policy, instead of posing questions about Petraeus' testimony. With his time nearly up, he hastily asked Crocker, with little apparent thought, about "benchmarks." "Senator, I described (them) for Sen. (John) Sununu a little bit ago," Crocker replied. Taken aback, Obama asked, "Can you repeat those?" The leftist group MoveOn had tried to cut Petraeus down to size on the day of his first hearing with a $100,000 ad in the New York Times that called the career Army officer, who has been on the front lines of the Iraq war, "General Betray Us," accusing him of "cooking the books." But the ad only served to embarrass Democratic leaders, who were asked to defend a hateful personal attack on a widely admired decorated soldier that Republicans called "disgraceful." Now, less than four months before the 2008 election year, the debate over the war has changed dramatically. The argument -- at least for now -- is no longer whether the surge is working. It has worked, and is working. Suddenly, the Democrats' antiwar cry of "bring the troops home" does not carry the same weight it did before. Instead, they face the prospect of campaigning in next year's presidential primaries amid news reports of ongoing U.S. troop withdrawals as the Iraqi army grows in experience, size and lethality. In the meantime, Petraeus faces the difficult task of holding the ground that U.S. and Iraqi troops have cleared, while extending his gains elsewhere in the country by next July. That's when he must reassess the next step when he hopes the Iraqi military will be even stronger, and ready to shoulder more of the fighting and dying for their country.