hypocalypse

You have poor reading comprehension, complicated by your erroneous assumption that I somehow supported the 9/11 attacks, or that it is un-American to attribute those attacks to anything but the concept that I railed against in my posting, which is that we were attacked for our "freedoms". Do you know what it means to "reap"?

Read it again, knowing clearly and unequivocally that I am American, like you. And please spend some of your valuable time reading up on Ron Paul. It should clear up multiple levels of misconception and misperception that may be preventing your proper understanding of the world in which we live.

Abraham, I read it as it was written. WE is inclusive and your use of it here includes you in the WE. Maybe you should read it agian. I undertand, much to your dismay, the point you are trying to make. I may even agree with it... to a point. Please remember that there are idiots on BOTH sides of this argument, but I digress. Here is your direct quote.

"These people are the true enemies of America. They are a cancer on our society. Oblivious to the ills that our disastrous foreign policy has sown for several decades through our support of brutally unjust and viciously dictatorial regimes, THEIR REACTION TO THE DESTRUCTION THAT WE REAPED in return could only be explained to them and subsequently understood in egregiously disinformative summations: they hate us because of our freedom."

If you meant to say WAS reaped in return then say so. Everyone but a president is entitled to a mistake, even an Arab "Intellectual." By the way, "reap" is a farming term meaning harvest. Like the inability of the Palestinians to reap (harvest) what they have sown in their great ancient olive orchards that the Zionists stole from them.

Your pleas to educate ourselves to Arab/Islamic culture are, again, amusing given that any pleas to the Jihadists to understand and accept OUR (including you in the OUR Mr. All-American Abe) culture would be met with a serrated blade. I see now how your blog came by it's name. The apocolyptic hypocrisy runs deep here. 

So you know, I am rushing right over to antiwar.com to read up on and enlighten myself regarding Mrs. Paul's husband.

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain as the sentence reads quite clearly to me. WE, as in you, I, and anyone else who paid their taxes and indirectly contributed to the Reagan-era enterprise of sowing the seeds of fanatical Muslim guerilla fighters while assisting Israel in it's brutal occupation of the Palestinians, reaped the consequences of those poor decisions when the battle came to New York and Washington, D.C. The stated intent for Al Quada's attack was spelled out pretty clearly in their announcements and writings: support for Saudi Arabia, American troops on Saudi soil, and support of an occupation regime in Palestine were but some of their nits.

So what I'm saying is that WE, all Americans, even those that don't agree with what I'm saying (it's their American right to keep their head planted in the sand), are responsible for sowing what we reaped. I happen to have a clear understanding of why we were attacked. The "their" I refer to are those who refuse to wake up from their happy dream where America is a benevolent force for freedom and democracy throughout the world, which I think the events of the past 8 years at least have disproved in utterly catastrophic fashion. This is a great country, certainly perhaps the greatest, but we have failed to carry out the ideals we espouse and which are embodied in the Constitution. We have failed not only ourselves but the world. Public opinion polls across the globe confirm this.

Please do read Dr. Paul's essays. I don't think anyone could accuse that guy of being un-American, and I'm not saying anything here that he hasn't (except for my excoriation of Totten, about whom I would guess he knows or cares little).

OK, I see we disagree on how to analyze your writing. I read it as "I will reap upon you" and you meant it as we reaped upon ourselves. Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Reagan era? The seeds of "fanatical Muslim guerilla fighters"?  Winston Churchill warned of the dangers of the Wahhabist (where all of this REALLY stems from) Threat long before Reagan:

A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahhabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars. The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

I know, I know, another imperialist lying about the peace loving Arabs... Not only those who dare to disagree with you have their head in the sand it appears. These seeds were sown long ago and they were planted in fertile soil with little if any contribution from America. America is the scape goat but this plant reproduces itself with no outside force necessary.

AQ did post it's demands but did so incrementally. First it was US troops on Saudi soil. The troops left and up comes the "nit" as you call it regarding Palestine. The "nits" will keep coming Abraham regardless of what we do or don't do. It looks good to rail against "American Policy" when the true answer is quite simple. Force is all these extremists respect, thus the success of the surge in Iraq which I am sure you will deny has occurred.

I have a Masters in History but I am always trying to learn and I have learned here today but sometimes Abraham, evil is just that. Evil! Not once have you seen any American celebrate in the streets when Iraqi or Afghan or Palestinian civillians were killed by by American or it's Allied forces... accidentally or intentionally. Nor will you ever!

Do you honestly believe there were no WMDs in Iraq? War heads were found with trace elements. Ask the Kurds if there were no WMDs in Iraq. If there weren't, so be it but don't blame the American intelligence. Every intelligence agency in the world worth it's salt had the same intelligence. Were there dissenters in ranks regarding that intelligence. Of course there were but everyone hears what they want to hear... EVERYONE. It's human nature. What did the Russians have to gain by substantiating the same intelligence? The French who were oh so in bed with Saddam? The same intelligence (of course this was the French intelligence it's where they got so much of the technology along with the Soviets/Russians to begin with).

No Iraqi connection to AQ? Hide behind the "Saddam was a secularist" argument all you want to. Convenience makes great bedfellows. That's why the "hardline" mullahs are benefitting from the opium trade. What would sharia law say about that? Yes I'm combining examples from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all the same conflict. But as you said, the battle was brought to us so now we take right back the them and we are the bad guys. Interesting.

I'm ranting... I apologize.

I know, I know, another imperialist lying about the peace loving Arabs... Not only those who dare to disagree with you have their head in the sand it appears. These seeds were sown long ago and they were planted in fertile soil with little if any contribution from America. America is the scape goat but this plant reproduces itself with no outside force necessary.

No, you misunderstand us here (Samir and I) completely, but since we haven't articulated our views in any one place then it's not necessarily a failing on your part.

Notwithstanding the fact that I am no fan whatsoever of Churchill, I don't at all disagree that the Saudis are contemptible troglodytes. The problem is and has been U.S. and British support for the Sauds. We signed a pact with the devil long ago. Why did we do this? To secure oil rights so that, at least until the Bush junta took over, you could drive your SUV around for $1.50 a gallon. So you've benefitted all these years from those contemptible trogolodytes, and in return your tax dollars contributed to the protection of their kingdom and dictatorship. And as long as they didn't go crashing jet aeroplanes into our skyscrapers you couldn't care less what they were doing. And as long as we played our foreign policy right they kept their tribespeople in line. But you're purposely ignoring a lot of history that happened between the time of Churchill and the time of Bush. We weaved a lot of tangled webs during the Cold War, and now we are dealing with the aftermath.

The "nits" will keep coming Abraham regardless of what we do or don't do. It looks good to rail against "American Policy" when the true answer is quite simple.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. Let's call it a difference of philosophy and move on.

Force is all these extremists respect

That's an Orientalist cannard. It could be argued that the opposite is true. We prey on weak countries and don't raise a stink when we conquer them, like Grenada and Panama. But when a conflict proves intractible, like Vietnam and Somalia, especially where our national security interests are not at stake, we exit. The resistance by the Bush administration to withdrawal is based on the fact that they know they opened a can of worms and our withdrawal would result in an unmitigated disaster. Of course, remaining is untenable, and so their strategy is to punt to the next administration. Despicable.

We (The People) on the whole are pretty fed up with this disastrous war. It is finally starting to dawn on most citizens that the invasion was a huge mistake. Sure, the most recent polling numbers show attitudes about the situation in Iraq are improving but this is only because the violence has fallen since the Surge began, perhaps because of the surge itself, perhaps because of other factors, but for the sake of argument we'll just accept at it at face value and assume the Surge strategy is working. But it's only temporary.

...thus the success of the surge in Iraq which I am sure you will deny has occurred.

Of course it hasn't, for two reasons. First, the so called "success" is debatable, especially since the definition of "success" in this case becomes less ostentatious as time goes on. Now, we are simply happy that car bombs aren't going off every day, ignoring the fact that millions are still displaced inside and out of Iraq and the country is in a shambles. Public services (water, power, sewage, etc.) are still well below pre-war levels and public works projects are stalled or have been abandoned. The Iraqi government has been in a political stalemate for months with no prospect of reconciliation between the factions in sight. Second, as I assert above, this period of quiet is only temporary. As soon as the U.S. begins drawing down its forces as planned the violence will peak again. At that point, Americans will have really had it and that will be that. The pressure will be too much for our idiot politicians to bear and the troops will start coming home. The military is effectively out of troops, and the continuing decline of the dollar will make it increasingly expensive to continue pouring money into this money pit. We have arrived at the breaking point. When time demonstrates that I'm correct I expect you to come back here and acknowledge this prediction.

Do you honestly believe there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Did I ever say that? I certainly don't recall making that assertion. Can you point to where I did? There were certainly WMD in Iraq before the UNSCOM team headed by Scott Ritter dismantled them. We knew they were there because Donald Rumsfeld delivered them with a handshake with Saddam. I'm sure you've seen the video. But after UNSCOM did their job, there were no WMD in Iraq, and certainly none when we invaded.

War heads were found with trace elements.

Trace elements do not constitute WMDs. By that definition, every kitchen in America would have trace elements of WMDs. Warheads loaded with chemical agents are WMDs. Warheads with "trace elements" are disarmed (by UNSCOM).

Ask the Kurds if there were no WMDs in Iraq. If there weren't, so be it but don't blame the American intelligence. Every intelligence agency in the world worth it's salt had the same intelligence.

I'm not sure how we arrvied at discussing WMDs in Iraq, but so be it. But anyway, yes, the same intelligence. Exactly the same, from the same sources. And if you bothered to read the footnotes, you would've understood long ago that the sources were unreliable and proven liars, like Curveball. And the Niger Yellowcake intelligence was debunked before Joseph Wilson even embarked on his infamous journey to Africa. So this excuse that "every intelligence agency in the world" believed there were WMD in Iraq is another cannard. No they did not. There was no uniform consensus, the intelligence that was out there was considered unreliable, and the only people making such claims now are revisionists of the worst sort.

Were there dissenters in ranks regarding that intelligence. Of course there were but everyone hears what they want to hear... EVERYONE. It's human nature. What did the Russians have to gain by substantiating the same intelligence? The French who were oh so in bed with Saddam?

Are you trying to excuse our culpability for going to war on a lie just because other countries were in on the lie? If so, that's really silly. The case for going to war with Iraq was contrived, and obviously so for those who weren't scared out of their wits that Iraq was going to attack us imminently. The claim was as patently false then as it is now in hindsight, and many Americans, myself included, were not fooled. Read the articles in the archives of AntiWar.Com from September 12, 2001, through March of 2003 to see that the case for war being made was not only being doubted but actively debunked every step of the way. Of particular note would be the dispatches from Justin Raimondo.

of course this was the French intelligence it's where they got so much of the technology along with the Soviets/Russians to begin with.

And the United States.

No Iraqi connection to AQ? Hide behind the "Saddam was a secularist" argument all you want to. Convenience makes great bedfellows. That's why the "hardline" mullahs are benefitting from the opium trade. What would sharia law say about that?

You have this predilection for putting words into my mouth. But I'll respond to this anyway.

This is just nonsense. Yes, Saddam was a secularist. That is a known and undisputed fact. Iraq along with Syria was one of the most secular countries in the Middle East until we transformed it into a sectarian meat grinder. For that, we are to blame.

As far as the mullahs, yeah, they're fucking hypocrites, but it's not like they have a monopoly on hypocrisy. What does that have to do with anything anyway?

Yes I'm combining examples from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all the same conflict.

Same conflict? Again, only because we made it that way. This is all head-in-the-sand thinking.

But as you said, the battle was brought to us so now we take right back the them and we are the bad guys. Interesting.

No, I said what we sow is what we reap. I shudder to wonder what the harvest will be next decade.

returned to a peaceful state?

I thought Iraq was full of rape rooms and people were randomly abducted, tortured, and gassed?

At least that's what Totten the Intrepid told me.

...but you are in fact being racist yourself noting that 52% of Americans are the stupidest in the world.

Sorry, I forgot to include in that percentage the number of Canadians that think making fun of Americans is being "racist". Since when is America a race?

Islamofascism vs. Christian Fundamentalism: Which is the Greater Threat?

The comments section is for comments, not for posting your ludicrous propaganda.

To answer the question: the latter, because it's an actual ideology, whereas the former exists only in the imaginations of cowardly cretins.

"Islamic Fundamentalism", of course! "Islamofacism" is a nonsensical term because facism has nothing to do with religious fanaticism and there's no comparison between radical Islam and the fascist regimes of Europe where the ideology originated (Italy).

It's equivalent to describing Israeli settlers as Judeonazis. Apt, but nonsense nonetheless.

Christofanaticism, of course, because in order for their silly fairy tale to have a happy ending, everyone must die.

Personally, I say fuck all religious fanatics. If they want to fight over which imaginary man in the sky to pray to then they can do that somewhere else and leave rational people the fuck alone.

How many Christofanaticists do you see committing acts of mass terrorism? The Bible says to kill everyone who's had gay sex, but you don't see a lot of mass gay oppression in societies with lots of Christians (unless you count the whole right-to-marry thing, which doesn't compare with right-to-life issues for homosexuals in some Islamic countries). Religious theory is all well and good, but it's the Islamofanatics who put the theory into practice most often these days.

Agreed, though, that religious fanatics in general are fools.

You're just a high schooler, so I'll cut you some slack, but before you were born gays were considered despicable mutants and got attacked very frequently. They kept their sexual orientation private and even secret, because if it got out that they were gay they could lose their job, their reputation, or even their life.

And yes, the hate came from Christians too (at least the ones that weren't up on their own religious doctrine).

Change happens over time. It's all fine and good to point at America and talk about how free and open and liberal we are, but our history of slavery, racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. bespeaks a past not so different from other developing nations. And let's not fool ourselves: we still have a ways to go.

It's easy to overlook our own ills when the focus is on "the other". If this nation and its people (you included) spent more time solving our own problems at home rather than looking for demons outside our borders to slay, the problems that exist on the other side of the world would work themselves out.

Clean up your own damn mess before you go yelling at other people for theirs.

I'M the cowardly one? It's YOU who were afraid to leave my post up, nimrod. I guess you were afraid it would make too much sense to too many people. The brave and honorable thing to do would have been to refute it, point by point. But that would have been expecting too much of you. Maybe because you couldn't.

[ remainder of idiotic zionist propaganda expunged ]

Blah blah blah. The last thing on which I'm going to waste my time on this earth is refuting mindless zionist propaganda point by point. zionism is an immoral and degenerate political ideology. I'd no sooner debate you on the merits of your abhorrent ideas than I would a Nazi.

Go find a dick to choke on.

You called Jews Nazis, even though they were the Nazis' most prominent victims, and I answered you by posting a link that show's Yassar Arafat's direct line of influence, through his uncle the Mufti of Jerusalem, from the Third Reich itself.

So what do you do? Once again you remove my evidence - rather than refute it, which you can't - while incorrectly labeling it, without leaving the link up so people can decide the issue for themselves, and then you insult me.

I guess when the facts, logic, and historical evidence aren't on your side, ad hominem fallacy is all you have left.

Here's the link, again. Expunge it again, you craven coward. I know that you dare now allow such inconvenient and cognitively dissonant history to remain on your blog; it messes with your taqiyya.

[ link to zionist bullshit expunged ]

"dare now" = "dare not"

Look, if you want to propoagate zionist blood libels then do it on your own blog. I'll have no part of it on mine. You can believe your myths and fables on your own time, and don't bitch and whine when someone posts links to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

And where do you get this insane idea that I called Jews Nazis? I may have compared the action of certain zionists in Israel with those of Nazi Germany, and rightfully so. The treatment of the Palestinians under the occupying zionists is no different than the plight of the Jews under the Nazis. We just haven't reached the stage of barbed wire, shaved heads, and ovens, though we're getting there. But I never called Jews "Nazis" and I challenge you to find one place in all my writings ever on any place on the internet where I did.

If you can't (and you won't) then I expect you to apologize, declare yourself a stinking sphincter hole, and rid this place of your filth by never coming back here again.

Little miss Abe doesnt like anyone coming to his blog with whom he disagrees....Awwwww, poor little shit-breathed asshole, welcome to america, the internet and free fucking speech, you cocksucking twerp.  God, you are such a gigantic asshole. Ive never met anyone who quite fit the word so well as you.  CONGRATULATIONS (ASSHOLE)!

Let me repeat: I hope you, and your family, die slowly and painfully.

HAHAHA!

Whatever, dude.

I can compare the actions of certain groups in America with Nazi Germany, but that doesn't make the two countries equivalent. I can say that America's recent losses of civil liberties due to the war are trends towards "barbed wire, shaved heads, and ovens", but that doesn't make it so.

Just as with the Ash'har Company statements in your "This is Zionism" post, you mistake the extreme for the mainstream.

If you want me to believe that Israel is on its way to becoming a Nazi Germany to the Palestinians, you should show how the Muslims are being oppressed MORE than, say, atheists/Jews/Christians in an Islamic society (Saudi Arabia or Iran or somebody).

If you think the incidents portrayed in the "This is Zionism" posting are exceptions to the norm, you are not only sadly mistaken, you are completely ignorant of what is happening in Occupied Palestine. You usually don't hear or read about the 1 or 2 Palestinians who are killed by Israeli terrorists (which includes either the IDF or settlers) on a daily basis (on average).

You speak out of complete ignorance. Please educate yourself before commenting here.

Well, it's a misconception Totten shares with MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093813/

But there's nothing in your link that says that the statement originated with Kissinger, just that at some time he said it. Perhaps Time Magazine thought it would be better accepted if it was portrayed as Kissinger's saying than as a Middle-East one.

I also notice that you guys refuse to comment on the main body of Totten's arguments, preferring to pick at random details in the hopes of undermining his credibility and then calling him "unprincipled jack-ass" and the like. If he's so wrong, why don't you look at the main components of his articles and argue them?

You ask too many questions.

Would you debate a Creationist about "Intelligent Design"? Why even give them the legitimacy? Faith is stronger (or more stubborn) than knowledge.

So it is with Totten's terrible treatises.

"Mr. al-Fadhily quotes many disgruntled Iraqis. That’s all fine and good. I, too, heard lots of complaints. There’s plenty to gripe about. Fallujah is a broken-down, ramshackle, impoverished wreck of a city. It was ruined by more than three years of war. What else can you expect of a place that only stopped exploding this summer?"

Yeah, Totten only talks about the good stuff.

If you can't wait more than 4 years for the US to invade a hostile country, depose the dictator, rebuild the country while fighting off an organized insurgency that's willing to blow up innocent civilians to make a point, and get a mostly hostile population to begin to side with us, I imagine high school must have been hell for you. A whole 4 years just to learn math, science, english, and some other stuff? Who's got time for that crap?

As for "arrogant know-it-all who's never been to the Middle East", you sure you're not projecting? Because that's kinda how you're coming across right now. And instead of "lapping up" Christopher Hitchens as you say Totten did before he went to Iraq, you choose to lap up CNN (or whatever antiwar source you happen to be using) and still don't go to Iraq (or have you been?), so that complaint isn't valid.

Lastly, I love that you think the essence of journalism is muckraking. But you know, maybe Totten isn't doing that because there's already half a dozen mainstream news sources trying to. Surely Totten's observations from the places he's embedded (like where he is now, as one of two-ish journalists in Fallujah looking at post-insurgency rebuilding) are more valuable than adding a twelfth journalist to the train lamenting Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or the Blackwater incident. But you don't care that Totten's work is exposing areas of Iraq that aren't in the public eye, because it's not exposing the flaws of the Bush Administration. I guess we know where your priorities lie.

Why not also concede that you are an asshole of epic proportions?  Or that people find you incredibly and especially annoying in person?  Or that you have no friends, only fellow whiners and bitchers and moaners?  Indeed, concede that the only difference between you and Stalin is that he had the power to mass murder his own countrymen in barabaric and sadistic fashion.  Ahh, if you could, no doubt you would. 

 Does it bother you that the vast majority find you to be an unpleasant, weasley little shit?   Im guessing not.  Do us all a favor.  Start 2008 with a really big bang -- to your head, preferably with a .38...

Poster is made of fail. And he's obviously not Abraham (as others have alleged about the other hating posts) because he doesn't know how the comment section works.

Plainly you don't know the first thing about American principles, blacks, or Arabs. Nor do you know the first thing about the American military if you think they're in the business of bombing countries back to the Stone Age.