…LC & IB Rusty Shackleford has graphic updates and evidence of what the “Religion of Peace (My Increasingly Homicidal Ass)” did to PFCs Menchaca and Tucker. You see, the animals that we’re not supposed to inconvenience in any shape, form or fashion, the worthless, disease-ridden subhuman slime that our Supreme Whores just saw fit to endow with all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, just released a video of what they did to prisoners they’d taken.

(WARNING: You do NOT want to click the above link if you’re in any way inclined to acts of rage and violence and most CERTAINLY not if you’ve got any loaded firearms nearby).

But if you do choose to click the link, and let it be noted that there is more than enough empty space inserted in the post for you to read it all without having to proceed to the images at the bottom, please, when you’re done taking deep breaths and counting slowly to ten (or a thousand, which might be a better idea in this case), please remember the following:

Our Supreme Court recently decided that the animals who commited those gruesome atrocities against helpless, unarmed prisoners, are entitled to every protection under the Geneva Conventions, including the protections of articles that our legislative branch never ratified, including protection against being “humiliated” in any fashion, “humiliation” to be defined later by our unelected, dictatorial judiciary branch, no doubt.

Of course, this is the same Supreme Court that earlier decided in Kelo that private property rights only matter as long as a private company doesn’t offer a better deal, above or below the table, to local authorities, so one shouldn’t really be surprised. The unelected, black-robed tyrants have a long history of not giving a fig about the Constitution if they don’t like what it says, not to mention a long tradition of usurping the powers of the legislative and executive branch by ruling by judicial fiat.

“Separate but equal” be damned.

So keep that in mind. Should we ever make the mistake of capturing any of the perpetrators of the war crime against PFCs Menchaca and Tucker alive, we can forget about interrogating them in order to catch the rest, according to the Supreme Whores. Well, unless they’re willing to give up information if we ask “pretty please?”, since anything other than that has been deemed illegal by those blackrobed tyrants. Are we exaggerating? Try doing anything to those mutilating darlings of the Supremes in order to extract life-saving intel from them, and then wait for the Supreme Whores to decide that you were “humiliating” them in doing so.

Five ropes, five robes, five trees.

Some assembly required.

Until then, here’s the message to our troops overseas: Shoot to kill, don’t bother taking prisoners. The Supreme Court has decided that they’re actively on the other side, so the only thing we’re likely to get from NOT shooting the koranimal swine is a bill for hosting their stay in Gitmo. Until the Supreme Whores decide that that’s against some penumbra of an emanation of Miss Cleo’s crystal ball as well, that is, at which point they’ll probably decide that we owe the hadjis a few million bucks in compensation as well.

Let me make a few things clear here:

We’re at war. We’re at war with the most inhumane, subhuman enemy we’ve ever faced.

We have two sets of enemies.

We have the ones without, the koranimal butchers that will not hesitate to do to each and every one of us, ourselves, our wives, our husbands, our children, and every single one of our friends what they did to PFCs Menchaca and Tucker and, on top of that, celebrate and ululate about it.

Those are the ones we can easily defeat. They have no chance in Hell against our weaponry, our training and our technology.

And then we have the dangerous ones, the ones within, the ones who will pay no price, shy away from any burden, refuse any hardship, handicap any friend, appease and encourage any foe, in order to assure the death and destruction of liberty, be it by tying both hands of our brave and honorable soldiers behind their backs, making sure that our animal foes never suffer a moment of indignity no matter how many American lives such cuddling will cost, or by exposing and publishing every single classified bit of information they can lay their hands on in order to further the cause of our enemies, the enemies that murdered 3,000 of our countrymen a scant 4 and a half years ago.

I quote:

I, _______, do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Draw your own conclusions.

UPDATE: Welcome, Lefty Moonbats, particularly readers of Glenn Greenwald’s, who seems to have gotten his Depends™ all wadded up, the poor fellow. Allow me to make a few points about his rather amusing claims.

First, I note that he’s calling for all Right Wingers to furiously denounce this post because, if they don’t, they’ll all be as bad as Misha! They can only wish. NOBODY can possibly be as horribly bad as I. Anyway, I do know that some Right Wing blogs did, indeed, make claims along the same lines regarding the Frisch-maker but, to quote myself:

Debbie is no more a representative of everybody in the Moonbatosphere than Phreddie Phelps is a representative of all Christians.

Just to save yourself some embarrassment in case you were getting all ready to scream OH, THE HYPOCRISY! at me.

As to Glenn’s claims of similarity between yours truly and the CrapFrisch, here are a few points:

1) Are you familiar with the term “hyperbole?” If not, look it up.

2) Have you noticed that my hyperbole tends to be directed at the ones I have a beef with, rather than at their 2-year-old children? Do you see a difference there? If not, why not? Were you born that dense or is it a result of years of huffing glue?

3) Quit flattering the CrapFrisch. She’s already full enough of her psychotic self as it is.

4) Say, are those dunce caps, or is it merely the way your heads are shaped?

5) At least you seem to be over your phase of saying “sure, Debbie’s bad, but BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!1!” as an “argument.” Well, you’re not excusing her behavior by pointing to Bush, at the very least. That’s progress, I suppose.

6) Contrary to what you may think, I really don’t give a fig about what you think about me. I do find your antics amusing, though, and I’m very appreciative of your devotion to keeping me entertained. For free, no less.

Thatisall.

124 Responses to “Oh, And Just In Case You Were Still Busy Thinking About Winning Their Hearts and Minds”
  1. Unregistered Pingback by AntiHippies » Blog Archive » The Jawa Report: Beheading Desecration Video of Dead U.S. Soldiers Released on Internet by al Qaeda (Video/Images) UNITED STATES

    […] A better warning comes from  Emperor Darth Misha I […]

  2. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Why has Bush been such a mighty disappointment (at least to me) in regards to this sort of action by the terrorist towel heads?

    Sure does make a person feel good to see one’s tax dollars going to fatten up the terrorist towel heads at Club Gitmo…

    Carol Van Drie: Good food, free health care … oh, the torture

    Terrorists living quite well, despite what you’ve heard

    Someone call Jenny Craig and get her to Guantanamo Bay ASAP! Apparently, the newest torture at “Gitmo” is compulsory weight gain!

    Yes, those Nazi-wannabes, you know who I’m talking about - our U.S. soldiers - are now using a most despicable form of torture against the terrorist prisoners: They’re fattening them up. Apparently a stay in “Gitmo” is so agonizing, so heinous, so like the Russian gulag and the evil of Pol Pot’s murderous regime, that the prisoners are actually gaining weight - an average of 18 pounds each.

    Jenny, get them on your weight loss program immediately!

    I think we could help the terrorist towel heads shed a few excess pounds via head removal system instead of Jenny Craig…

  3. LC Scott Comment by LC Scott UNITED STATES

    I’m just glad I did’nt see this before PFC Tuckers funeral.(the phleps shits came out here to “protest”)

    Shoot to kill, don’t bother taking prisoners. The Supreme Court has decided that they’re actively on the other side, so the only thing we’re likely to get from NOT shooting the koranimal swine is a bill for hosting their stay in Gitmo.

    I’ve been wondering where I would see this first.

  4. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte UNITED STATES

    Prisoners are a waste of time now. Better to kill the muzzies instead of risking your neck just to see them let go later on.

  5. LC Woody Comment by LC Woody UNITED STATES

    Words fail to adequately express the anger and disgust I’m feeling.

    Where do we go from here? I guess “take no prisoners” is a start, but we’ve got to respond to this. I imagine the troops have been brainstorming over it… Hopefully we’ll never know the result or the MSM/DNC cabal will beat us over the head with their selective outrage yet again.

  6. DJM Comment by DJM UNITED STATES

    I couldn’t watch the video. But I think the still shots should be required viewing, so we can all see the horrendous depravity we are dealing with in Iraq. And what kind of sick fucks stand around and poke at mutilated remains of tortured prisoners? For G-D’s sake, why are we restraining our soldiers against this enemy? If we can’t let our troops wipe this scum off the face of the planet, we need to just bring them home. I’m not a ‘cut & run’ advocate, but this ’sit and let them do whatever the fuck they want while we do nothing that might offend’ BULLSHIT has got to go!

    I’m so angry. I feel that we are letting our soldiers down, and there’s not a damned thing we can do about it. Everything is under the control of gutless politicians who only care about their careers and insist on projecting this image of civility and respect. And the politicians are the same on both sides. We have a choice between the ass-kissing appeasers or the tough-talking appeasers, and both in the end want to coddle the enemy.

    In the link to the video, even the still pictures have been edited so as not to be too offensive. One of the soldiers has his chest split open, but that’s blurred out. It’s not that I want to see such a gruesome image, but we should not be sanitizing it. The pictures need to be posted, unedited, on every blog, every website, billboard, lamppost, bulletin board, EVERYWHERE! Maybe then, will people be so offended and so horrified, they’ll DEMAND to have these sick animals annihilated.

  7. FIAR Comment by FIAR UNITED STATES

    They’re a plague. They need to be exterminated. Period.

  8. NCLivingBrit Comment by NCLivingBrit UNITED STATES

    Now I’m usually the one that says we shouldn’t descend to their level.

    So we shouldn’t.

    Nor do we need to, we have been gifted through hard work and intelligence with weapons that can turn every damn one of these cowardly vermin into fog, so let’s break out the thermobarics and just glaze over the whole SUNNI triangle. I suspect we’ll find support for this sort of thing trailing -right- off when we vapourise the source of the real resistance in Iraq.

    After all, by their own lights, we’re sending them to a just reward, no?

  9. Unregistered Comment by tweell UNITED STATES

    1. Minimize taking prisoners. We cannot trust what they say, so why bother listening? The papers, phones and thumbdrives on their corpses are much more reliable.
    2. If we have to take and keep prisoners, give them to the Iraqis to deal with. To be specific, build a big prison in north Iraq, give it to the Kurds, and let them deal with these turds. “Ahmed, you have been here in Gitmo for years, and have not been cooperative. You will no longer have to endure the infidels of the Great Satan. We will reward your diligence by transferring you to the prison in Kirkuk.” :)

  10. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    I said shortly after 9/11, NCLivingBrit, that the only way we would win this war was to turn the entirety of the islamic territories into a radioactive glass parking lot. I’d just as soon not see us do that, however. I just can’t sanguinely write off a few billion people that way, even if the world would be a better place afterwards.

    But unless the traitors within are eliminated, they will eventually bring us down. And until we are willing to admit that and use any and all means to prevent it we any minor temporary success in the meantime is just that, minor and temporary. Again I wish there was another way. But there never will be one, not under a human government, not even one as great (for a human government, at least) as the one we have now.

    RH

  11. hOOt Gibson Comment by hOOt Gibson UNITED STATES

    FIAR

    “….They need to be exterminated, peroid!”

    Been saying that for years, but we(our PC government) hasn’t the stones, we are to busy worrying about what the “rest” of the world and the American Press will say/think.

    hOOt

  12. jaybear Comment by jaybear UNITED STATES

    I saw these videos posted on Barknuckle Politics last night. My comment over there was that it’s too damned soon to be splashing these images all over the net. The reason for that comment is my concern that these poor soldier’s families will see these images of their loved ones in that condition….and that is NOT right, regardless of the motive behind posting the videos and images. Those poor people are hurting enough right now and we must respect that.

    O.K….got that off my chest.
    Now, this is a standard terrorist tactic, kill a captive in the most brutal way possible. Videotape it, and send it to their accomplices over at Al-Jazeera to broadcast all over the middle east. So I ask this question: Why in the name of God is al-jazeera still on the air? I can’t find any justification for their continued operation. They should have been taken down on the first day of World War III (that’s what cnn is now calling the WOT), and they should have been kept down.

    This whole tactic of taping these mutilations and broadcasting them points to a broader strategy that I mentioned yesterday in the post titled A Reminder. The islamobeasts are waging a very successful PR war here in this country. They hope that by airing these snuff tapes, they will make us fearful, they will make us bow down in fear. It shows the immorality of their philosophy and religion, that it needs to be shored up on a foundation of terror. They also know that as long as they have cair and cnn and cbs and the ny times wiping their filthy asses, they have won the war on our home front….You need look no further than the coverage given to the accusations of murder against our troops. We are saturated with images of grieving relatives, of locals pointing to damage done during coalition operations…but we don’t ever hear the names of medal winners….only casualties. You need look no further than to how the cowardly media refer to the mutilators and child killers, they call them militants and insurgents, because it isn’t PC to call them muslims or terrorists.

    My friends, we are very very close to losing this war. Our commander in chief has been and is being thoroughly discredited…our troops are being referred to as “the army of the slum”….the courts of this land bestow upon the throat slitters and disembowelers at Gitmo, the same rights as US citizens…and we are being brainwashed to wring our collective hands worrying if we are “offending” them.

    And all the time that we are concerned about the sensitivities of the murderous plague called the muslims….those very muslims are capturing our brave young soldiers, beating them, cutting open their chests, tearing off their genitals, beheading them, and giving the video to al-jazeera. Show me where that is written in the goddamned geneva convention.

    I didn’t watch those videos and I won’t, I don’t want to see those kids torn apart like that. I also don’t need to see those videos to remind me of why we are in this fight. They won’t fuel my desire to clarify who the enemy is, I only need to read the ny times or watch cnn and remember the names of their reporters to know who our domestic enemies are. They are the ones who will win this war for the muslim plague….and that’s what pisses me off today.

  13. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    I saw these videos posted on Barknuckle Politics last night. My comment over there was that it’s too damned soon to be splashing these images all over the net. The reason for that comment is my concern that these poor soldier’s families will see these images of their loved ones in that condition….and that is NOT right, regardless of the motive behind posting the videos and images. Those poor people are hurting enough right now and we must respect that.

    Indeed. And that’s why I think that Rusty’s decision to only share the videos upon request and adding the stills after a whole lot of white space and several explicit warnings is the exactly right way to go about it.

    It is, indeed, quite the dilemma. On one hand, it HAS to get out so that people can understand what we’re fighting and that there IS such a thing as “more important than American Icehole” and, on the other, we have to show respect to the loved ones of the deceased.

    I think Rusty managed to cover both aspects beautifully.

    So I ask this question: Why in the name of God is al-jazeera still on the air?

    I honestly don’t know. What I DO know is that if their paleosimian friends continue to be unable to tell the difference between them and the IDF, they’ll run out of “journalists” eventually, which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not to mention that hearing about al-Jizzmeera fucknozzles getting blown up puts a smile on my face the likes of which you’ve never seen.

  14. Unregistered Comment by twolaneflash UNITED STATES

    I’ve said it before:

    Winning the hearts and minds of communists to democracy and capitalism is like convincing children of the benefits of Halloween, Christmas, or Hannukah.

    Winning the hearts and minds of muslims to democracy and capitalism is like separating the stink from shit. Good luck with that.

  15. jaybear Comment by jaybear UNITED STATES

    The good Emperor sez:

    Indeed. And that’s why I think that Rusty’s decision to only share the videos upon request and adding the stills after a whole lot of white space and several explicit warnings is the exactly right way to go about it.

    Agreed, Rusty gave plenty of warning. I hadn’t seen the still shots that he has there.

    Hey Misha, have you ever slaughtered and dressed a deer or an elk in the field? I haven’t done that since I was 18 but I remember what a huge mess it is, I never got used to it (even after doing it numerous times). I was reminded of that after looking at the still pictures and I bring that up for a reason. Now this may sound cold but there is a technique to dressing a deer or an elk…you try to be precise, try not to wear the blood of the animal as much as possible. What these members of the muslim plague did to those two kids doesn’t even qualify as slaughter, it’s more like mincing…it looks like they reveled in the blood and gore. they wear it as a badge.

    I guess I’m too sheltered in my house surrounded by family and dog, but it’s almost impossible for me to comprehend the complete lack of a soul that these plague carriers must have to do this in front of a camera. I stopped deer hunting because I once had to track a wounded deer and kill it a close range, that really put a hook in me. I just couldn’t stand to do something like that while the animal was looking at me. It bothered me inside…..

    Now go find any mugshots of these vermin, look closely at the eyes. They are empty, devoid of any spirit or light. That’s why they have no problem dancing in the blood and gore of their cut up hostages, they are devoid of anything that defines us as human beings. We need to put an end to this blood drinking sickness called islam.

    Still pissed in Wa. state

    Jaybear

  16. DJM Comment by DJM UNITED STATES

    I’ve been thinking on this all day and, damn it, I’m still pissed.

    These Muslime slugs have absolutely no respect for America. It’s so clearly evident in the desecration of the bodies, the treatment of unarmed (and probably bound) prisoners. America is a laughing stock to Muslimes. They see mercy, compassion, and humanity as a weakness. They know the absolute worse they’ll get is a quick death and martyrdom. If captured, they’ll be given the best treatment, the best food, and the best medical care they’ve ever had in their lives.

    Just compare two recent, yet similar events:

    Two American soldiers are kidnapped. Our troops search the area. (I wouldn’t be surprised in the house searches required the home-owners consent and many “pretty please with sugar on top” requests). These two young men were beaten, cut-up, arms and legs twisted shattering bones, genitals mutilated, one was vivisected and then beheaded. Horrendous, unimaginable torture only the sickest individuals could dream up. Within just days of their abduction, the bodies turn up - booby trapped. A video is released showing disrespect and desecration. The terrorists are MOCKING us! They’re not afraid of us, they think we’re weak.

    In Israel, one soldier is kidnapped. Israel demands his safe return. When demands are not met, Israel attacks. Does this soldier’s body (and yes, I think he is dead) turn up? No. Because the terrorists are afraid of Israel. They insist the soldier is being treated well in order to buy time and gain international support. They are too fearful to toss the body out and openly mock Israel. They fear Israel’s retribution if the soldier is found with limbs twisted, bones shattered, body cut open and mutilated.

    Why, in God’s name, is our government Kowtowing to these animals? I don’t even like calling them animals - it’s an insult to every four-legged creature alive.

  17. DJM Comment by DJM UNITED STATES

    If your blood isn’t boiling by now, try this:

    http://debfrisch.com/archives/2006/07/decapped_dupes.html#more

    From Debbie “hope your child is molested and murdered” Frisch.

  18. Unregistered Comment by twolaneflash UNITED STATES

    Gefilte Frisch
    Frisch Bait
    Frisch Fries
    Frisch Meat
    Sports Frisching

    She’s such a target rich environment, the jokes just write themselves.

  19. Unregistered Trackback by Flying Above the Radar UNITED STATES

    The video surfaces…

    I maintain, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that our soldiers met their death bravely, so much so that our enemies dare not let us see it….

  20. jaybear Comment by jaybear UNITED STATES

    DJM sez:

    Why, in God’s name, is our government Kowtowing to these animals?

    Try asking Sen. boxer or kennedy or or murtha or any of the other number of individuals/organizations who insist that we are the bad guys in this crusade.

    eliminate the bastards (including those named above), all of them, here and abroad.

  21. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    Jaybear: These are true barbarians. Honestly, I think all “tribal” people are. These guys probably grew up from day 1 slitting goat throats for dinner. As people, they are more akin to Jeffrey Dahmer than to your average American. As butchers, we aren’t in the same league, because we are civilized. Wasn’t there an article here earlier about how NOT noble savages are?

    They really do not “think” in the same way we do - I don’t think they can be reformed or reasoned with at all. Best to shoot the terrorist bastards on sight than deal with the red tape entanglement if we take one alive. Truly, we should also be displaying their remains publicly to discourage them. Appropriate, culturally sensitive burials for them? Why?

    We don’t have to sink to their level (entirely), but we do need to recognize what motivates/intimidates them and use it. So far, we have killed many of them, but there should be other psychological buttons to push as well. Let them scream that they are “offended”. Sun Tzu said that if your enemy is prone to uncontrolled rage, you should antagonize him. Plus, it would be a lot of fun coming up with ways to do it! Good purposeful entertainment.

    As to getting inside the mind of a terrorist, sociopaths such as Deb Frisch may be useful. Her thoughts are pretty dark, sick and twisted. Perhaps she could provide some insight into how a primitive, violent mind works …

  22. Unregistered Comment by Lettuce UNITED STATES

    Couldn’t have said it better if you were Deb Frisch!

  23. jaybear Comment by jaybear UNITED STATES

    kwongdzu sez:

    Sun Tzu said that if your enemy is prone to uncontrolled rage, you should antagonize him. Plus, it would be a lot of fun coming up with ways to do it! Good purposeful entertainment.

    I’ve read stories about the advance to Baghdad, where our columns had HMMWV’s equipped with loudspeakers and Arabic speaking crew. They would go into towns where the fedayeen were holed up, crank up the louodspeakers and insult the fedayeen’s manhood and sexual prowess. This so insulted these idiots pride that they would rush out into the open to avenge their manhood and would be cut down. Great sport if you ask me.

    The two things that drive the arab culture are pride and honor. If we could effectively prove that these two virtues are absent in waging jihad, then I think it would be a very short war. But we would have to scrub away centuries of brainwashing in the name of “spit” allah “pork rinds” to do that.

  24. Unregistered Trackback by BlogDC UNITED STATES

    Zealots…

    Glenn Greenwald notes the following quotation from an apparently popular wingnut by the name of Misha:So keep that in mind. Should we ever make the mistake of capturing any of the perpetrators of the war crime against PFCs Menchaca and……

  25. MCPO Airdale Comment by MCPO Airdale UNITED STATES

    Glenn and the girls of the left have their panties in a twist over Misha’s post. Oh boy, we’re all in trouble now!!!
    Too bad they won’t discuss the Supreme Court’s extra-constitutional power grab by trying to make the Executive branch apply portions of the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants that were not ratified by the Senate.
    If anyone in the Executive branch had any cajones, they would have told the SCOTUS to piss up a rope.

  26. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    1) Congress doesn’t have to ratify articles in the Geneva Conventions. When the US signs a treaty it becomes law of the land. I find it hilarious (though sad) that people like you don’t seem to have a grasp of the Constitution, yet people take you seriously.

    2) The whole point of protecting a person’s rights is because otherwise, innocent people will be presumed guilty. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to the terrists that committed the atrocities you are posting about. But you can’t know if someone is innocent or guilty without giving them a fair chance to defend themselves, which they can’t do under a military tribunal. People like you simply don’t understand the rationale behind fundamental constitutional concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”.

  27. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    Couldn’t have said it better if you were Deb Frisch!

    Lettuce: These people are not innocent toddlers, or folks arguing over politics. They are savages whose entire view of life and death is different from ours. And, we are at war with them … and, they would dearly love to see us all wiped off of the face of the earth. Do you really believe they are “just people”, like the guy next door? I am not talking about most urban Iraqis here, but terrorists whose lives (from the time many of them are children - at madrassahs, boys play at mock “beheadings”) are spent training to kill us.

    I do believe some of the barbarism comes from a more primitive lifestyle where slaughter of animals in public is routine (we sanitize it, sheltering our sensibilities by moving it behind walls, in slaughterhouses). If you are immersed in that environment from the time you are born, it does make you callous toward life. Furthermore, they have determined that we are subhuman, and since they have no trouble killing animals, then they have no compunction about killing us either. In fact,Saddam Hussein deliberately and frequently took his young sons to view executions, so that he could prepare them to be ruthless killers.

    People who are not tied to one spot, people who are transient and who have no investment in or attachment to a particular place, are more likely to be violent and marauding (see the article on the “noble savage” myth). Materially, they have less to lose. Terrorists are criminals, and they are usually transient.

    Furthermore, we are in an area of the world where tribes play a role. Tribal rivalries and grudges are long standing and bloody. Vengeance is a fact of life. For all of the atrocities allegedly committed by our troops, how many more have been committed by one group of Iraqis against another? The biggest problem with withdrawing from Iraq is not that the Iraqi troops are not well trained, but that old resentments between these groups will boil over - only now they will have better training and weapons to use against each other! They are less likely to turn against themselves if we maintain a military presence there, which we may have to maintain for a very long time.

    I am not advocating violence against more primitive people. I am saying these people lack some of the “human” qualities that we take for granted. That makes it easier for them to kill without remorse. If an individual is a known terrorist, he/she should probably be summarily shot, unless he has potential use as an informant. Taking them captive only results in more grief for us. And I do believe we should use whatever deterrents we can stomach to intimidate terrorists.

  28. juandos Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Well folks I do believe Ralph Peters penning the following commentary in the New York Post has it right: KILL, DON’T CAPTURE - HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM

    Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.

    Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves

  29. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    By the way, the leftyloons are smarting over Deb Frisch’s comments, and are doing their best to flick some of their own self-generated mud onto us. Sorry guys! We don’t threaten toddlers. And if you’ve read some of the other posts here, NO ONE is into pedophilia … She’s yours, and you can keep her!!!

  30. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    One thing I haven’t heard much discussion about us that SCOTUS
    **DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION** to make any findings re Guantanamo:

    “(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider– ”

    Said Act limits all such review to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals where now Chief Justice Roberts previously found in favor of the Government.

  31. FIAR Comment by FIAR UNITED STATES

    From the frisching idiots:

    What goes around comes around. Warrior karma.

    What the fuck? This from the people crying about “disproportionate use of force” in Gaza? This sickness is not disproportionate to a rape allegation?

    Fuck you.

  32. Unregistered Trackback by Radioactive Liberty UNITED STATES

    The Face of Evil…

    The Jawa Report has some evidence of just how vile, disgusting, demented, psychotic, and barbaric our enemy is. This is who we’re fighting.

    Captain Ed says:
    We need to show that this butchery does not frighten us but steels our resolve to put a …

  33. Unregistered Comment by peterobinson UNITED STATES

    kev -

    “1) Congress doesn’t have to ratify articles in the Geneva Conventions. When the US signs a treaty it becomes law of the land. I find it hilarious (though sad) that people like you don’t seem to have a grasp of the Constitution, yet people take you seriously. ”

    Duh….
    howsabout looking at the Constitution itself?

    “Article I. Section 1.
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    Seems that the Constitution defines “Congress” as including the Senate, which shall offer the President
    “advise and consent” on treaties & must approve of said treaties with a 2/3rds vote, per:
    Article 2. Section 2. Clause 2.

  34. MCPO Airdale Comment by MCPO Airdale UNITED STATES

    kev - How many times have the Geneva Conventions been amended/modified since Congress signed the treaty?

    Have all original signatories ratified the amendments/modifications?

    Have you ever sworn to protect and defend the Constitution?

  35. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Hey I’m famous. The brainless libtard actually quoted my comment above. At least he was semi-honest enough to quote the sentance that followed it, in which I say as much as I feel there is no other way, I STILL don’t want it to happen. But of course, the “parking lot” line was what got bolded, not the part where I said I’d rather that not happen.

    Then again, asking him to understand what I really meant is grossly unfair, it asks far too much of a person with only one functional neuron (or less). In some ways my comment actually supports his “quagmire” idiotarian position far better than anything he’s EVER come up with on his own.

    I’m not holding my breath waiting for a thank you.

    RH

  36. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Well I took a few minutes to try to talk some sense into them. I’m sure I wasted my breath. But at least I tried.

    RH

  37. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    1) Congress doesn’t have to ratify articles in the Geneva Conventions. When the US signs a treaty it becomes law of the land. I find it hilarious (though sad) that people like you don’t seem to have a grasp of the Constitution, yet people take you seriously.

    Yes, they DO actually have to ratify amendments to the original document. Ratification of the original is not, contrary to what you believe, a carte blanche to add whatever you want to it and change the existing text without need for approval.

    When Congress, as they are required to do under the Constitution that you’ve obviously never bothered to actually READ (they should’ve included more pictures, I suppose), ratify a treaty they ratify it as it stands. They do not ratify any and all amendments that might be added to it at a later time.

    Back to school for you, Idiotarian.

    What I find hilarious (though sad) is that people like you somehow manage to waste the three functioning synapses that you are in possession on typing ignorant comments on Fluffy’s Interweb.

    2) The whole point of protecting a person’s rights is because otherwise, innocent people will be presumed guilty. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to the terrists that committed the atrocities you are posting about. But you can’t know if someone is innocent or guilty without giving them a fair chance to defend themselves, which they can’t do under a military tribunal.

    Your distrust of our legal system and the fairness of military tribunals is duly noted. It doesn’t further your “argument” any, but it does prove that you don’t believe in the system that you yourself are invoking.

    The only real difference between a military tribunal and any other court, the reason why they’re necessary in the case of suspected terrorists, is that you don’t have to let the whole world know about the classified and vital information that you need to present in order to fairly prosecute.

    So, in other words, the only “fairness” you’re in favor of is the kind that favors a suspected terrorist.

    Duly noted as well, without much surprise.

    People like you simply don’t understand the rationale behind fundamental constitutional concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Again, your paranoia shows. What part of military tribunals don’t you understand? What is it that makes you think that “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to them?

    The only system you seem to believe in is one under which the guilty are protected by national security concerns about the classified information needed to prosecute fully and fairly.

    You’d much rather fail to prosecute animals potentially dangerous enough to cause another 9/11 than give up your “right” to follow the proceedings on Court TV.

    Well, here’s the news for you: Thanks to the Hamdan ruling, we’re now forced to keep the detainees under lock and key until the end of hostilities as well as time allow us to declassify the evidence.

    I’m not sure that the detainees at Gitmo are all that thrilled about that outcome but, unlike you, I really don’t give a rat’s ass about them. Let them rot. Just remember that it was your activist Supreme Court that just gave you and them a lesson in unintended consequences.

    Now hop back on the short bus.

  38. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    If it was fear they sought to instill in me they failed……..those pics could have been of anybody that ever wore a uniform……most of us, God knows how many parents, siblings and friends. I feel little but a cold resolve to never be taken alive and to have a great deal of company if I am not. Sadly, as I shot our new forty-five last Saturday…I briefly thought about these dirtbags. But fear? No! But any humanity I might have felt towards them now gone…..I sooner shoot one of those than kill the fly on the wall. For I don’t enjoy killing flies…….

  39. Unregistered Comment by donsingleton UNITED STATES

    While I understand your feelings, you should not have said what you said. See this blog

  40. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    I stand by what I said. Period.

  41. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    While I understand your feelings, you should not have said what you said. See this blog

    While I understand your need to post your opinion, I really think you ought to read the posts you commit a drive-by trolling on. That would seem to be the very least you could do, not to mention that one might be led to think that you really don’t know what you’re talking about if you didn’t.

    You see, if you actually had read this post, then you’d know that I’d already read Greenwald’s post, I actually link to it in the above, and thus you wouldn’t feel a need to inform me of its existence.

  42. Unregistered Pingback by Justin Buist»Blog Archive » Burned Out UNITED STATES

    […] With that said, here’s something to munch on for a while. There seems to be, just as with the NYT SWIFT terrorist financing story, a bit of, shall we say, hyperventilating on the conservative side of all media outlets. Take, for instance, this post by Emperor Darth Misha I. Our Supreme Court recently decided that the animals who commited those gruesome atrocities [ed: recent beheadings of two US soldiers] against helpless, unarmed prisoners, are entitled to every protection under the Geneva Conventions, including the protections of articles that our legislative branch never ratified, including protection against being “humiliated” in any fashion, “humiliation” to be defined later by our unelected, dictatorial judiciary branch, no doubt. […]

  43. Unregistered Pingback by MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Pig UNITED STATES

    […] Stein hoist: Misha’s comments […]

  44. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    1) Congress doesn’t have to ratify articles in the Geneva Conventions. When the US signs a treaty it becomes law of the land. I find it hilarious (though sad) that people like you don’t seem to have a grasp of the Constitution, yet people take you seriously.

    Yes, they DO actually have to ratify amendments to the original document. Ratification of the original is not, contrary to what you believe, a carte blanche to add whatever you want to it and change the existing text without need for approval.

    When Congress, as they are required to do under the Constitution that you’ve obviously never bothered to actually READ (they should’ve included more pictures, I suppose), ratify a treaty they ratify it as it stands. They do not ratify any and all amendments that might be added to it at a later time.

    Back to school for you, Idiotarian.

    What I find hilarious (though sad) is that people like you somehow manage to waste the three functioning synapses that you are in possession on typing ignorant comments on Fluffy’s Interweb.

    Congress DID ratify the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In this treaty, article 3 prohibits humiliating treatment. That is all I was referring to. It’s been ratified already.

    If there are other modifications later than 1949 that were not ratified, and the Supreme Court ruled these must be followed, well then that’s a different topic entirely. I don’t claim to know anything about this, but YOU referred to a ban on humiliating treatment which WAS in the ratified 1949 version of the treaty.

    2) The whole point of protecting a person’s rights is because otherwise, innocent people will be presumed guilty. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to the terrists that committed the atrocities you are posting about. But you can’t know if someone is innocent or guilty without giving them a fair chance to defend themselves, which they can’t do under a military tribunal.

    Your distrust of our legal system and the fairness of military tribunals is duly noted. It doesn’t further your “argument” any, but it does prove that you don’t believe in the system that you yourself are invoking.

    The only real difference between a military tribunal and any other court, the reason why they’re necessary in the case of suspected terrorists, is that you don’t have to let the whole world know about the classified and vital information that you need to present in order to fairly prosecute.

    So, in other words, the only “fairness” you’re in favor of is the kind that favors a suspected terrorist.

    Duly noted as well, without much surprise.

    People like you simply don’t understand the rationale behind fundamental constitutional concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Again, your paranoia shows. What part of military tribunals don’t you understand? What is it that makes you think that “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to them?

    The only system you seem to believe in is one under which the guilty are protected by national security concerns about the classified information needed to prosecute fully and fairly.

    You’d much rather fail to prosecute animals potentially dangerous enough to cause another 9/11 than give up your “right” to follow the proceedings on Court TV.

    Well, here’s the news for you: Thanks to the Hamdan ruling, we’re now forced to keep the detainees under lock and key until the end of hostilities as well as time allow us to declassify the evidence.

    I’m not sure that the detainees at Gitmo are all that thrilled about that outcome but, unlike you, I really don’t give a rat’s ass about them. Let them rot. Just remember that it was your activist Supreme Court that just gave you and them a lesson in unintended consequences.

    Now hop back on the short bus.

    I believe in a system of laws, where the executive branch is not allowed to act outside of the law. Article 3 was in the version of the Geneva Conventions that was ratified in 1949.. These military tribunals obviously fall outside the range of US law, as the court has now stated (though it should have been too obvious for them to have to state).

    I don’t distrust our legal system… I think it is the most fair in the world. That is precisely why I am angered when this administration goes outside the rule of law and treats people (who are NOT proven guilty, many of whom are not even CHARGED with anything) unfairly.

    I said I don’t give a rat’s ass about the terrorists who committed the atrocities your post mentioned. This has NOTHING to do with you stating you don’t give a rat’s ass about the people locked up in Guantanamo.

    I am saying I don’t give a rat’s ass about people who did something unimaginably horrible. You are saying you don’t give a rat’s ass about a whole group of people, some of whom are likely guilty of nothing. Why can’t you see that those are two ENTIRELY different statements?

  45. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    Wow I totally screwed up the quoting in my last post. That’s now how it previewed.

  46. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    If there are other modifications later than 1949 that were not ratified, and the Supreme Court ruled these must be followed, well then that’s a different topic entirely. I don’t claim to know anything about this, but YOU referred to a ban on humiliating treatment which WAS in the ratified 1949 version of the treaty.

    The Article 3 ban on humiliating treatment was separate from the preceding sentence referring to unratified protections, the latter being, specifically, Art. 75 of Protocol I, 1977. Granted, not even Justice Kennedy would join in supporting that contention, so it’s unclear how much weight Stevens’ insanity carries.

    Or, to put it another way: I wasn’t suggesting that the 1949 treaty hadn’t been ratified, nor that Article 3 wasn’t part of it.

    You obviously misunderstood what I was saying which is fair enough. It happens.

    I believe in a system of laws, where the executive branch is not allowed to act outside of the law. Article 3 was in the version of the Geneva Conventions that was ratified in 1949.. These military tribunals obviously fall outside the range of US law, as the court has now stated (though it should have been too obvious for them to have to state).

    Only because you happen to agree with the outcome because, truth be told, it is anything but obvious.

    You see, Article 4, covering conflicts of an international character, specifically excludes animals such as our present detainees from the protections of the conventions. This was done to encourage combatants to follow the laws and customs of war which, in turn, was done to protect civilians from harm.

    Article 3, on the other hand, extends some rights to individuals caught up in conflicts NOT of an international character, i.e. an internal civil war, which is what Article 3 was written to address since at least one of the parties to such a conflict would be shit outta luck under Article 4.

    What the 5 Friends of al-Qaeda decided to do was to completely ignore this bit of background information and instead engage in a bit of Clintonesque parsing of what the meaning of “international” is, saying “inter national” means, literally, “between nations” and, since Al-Qaeda isn’t a nation, Article 3 applies.

    See? Not obvious at all.

    Under that interpretation, of course, the Geneva Conventions apply to pretty much everybody who refuses to follow the rules set down in Article 4, rules that were set down specifically to protect civilians by making the consequences of hiding among them very severe indeed.

    What the 5 Supreme Whores did was, in effect, to burn down the village in order to “save” it. There is now absolutely NO reason for our enemies to abide by the laws and customs of war since the consequences of such behavior, namely losing the protections of the Geneva Conventions, have been eliminated.

    I don’t distrust our legal system… I think it is the most fair in the world. That is precisely why I am angered when this administration goes outside the rule of law and treats people (who are NOT proven guilty, many of whom are not even CHARGED with anything) unfairly.

    So you are angered by military tribunals, tribunals that are part of what you call the most fair justice system in the world, treating people unfairly?

    Gotcha. Doesn’t make a lick of sense, but it makes for an amusing read.

    I am saying I don’t give a rat’s ass about people who did something unimaginably horrible. You are saying you don’t give a rat’s ass about a whole group of people, some of whom are likely guilty of nothing.

    “Likely?”

    Who are you? Miss Cleo?

    Listen, I don’t have a problem with giving them a fair trial, I only have a problem with the fact that it’s impossible to give them one unless we can use all the evidence. And we can’t use all the evidence in a civilian court because a lot of it is classified, which means that the only way of trying them is to use military tribunals.

    And since we can’t use military tribunals thanks to SCOTUS, then we’re stuck with holding the detainees until the end of hostilities which may be… Who knows when that may be, exactly?

    Hey, and even that is the least of the issues here. The absolutely worst part is that interrogations can’t be used anymore, thanks to SCOTUS deciding that the protections of Article 3, protections never meant for terrorists, constitute a Terrorists’ Bill of Rights.

    YOU try to run an interrogation without doing anything that can possibly be construed as “undignified” or “humiliating.” No, I’m not talking “torture” here. What the incredibly vague wording of Article 3 means, particularly in view of the amazingly creative interpretational skills of 5 of our “justices” when they wish to push an agenda, is that you can be charged with a war crime if you forget to say “please” after asking a question. Who knows? Maybe it’s an insult to terrorists’ “dignity” to be even held captive by infidels from the Great Satan. Maybe it can be argued that it’s “humiliating” to submit to the orders of a non-muslim guard?

    Obviously that faces us with some serious problems. Not only has SCOTUS completely shut down a valuable intelligence source, but they’ve also managed to render prisoners utterly worthless and, indeed, a potential problem for the captor.

    You do the math on that one.

    Still proud of the 5 robed tyrants’ decision?

    We’ll have to detain the ones we have indefinitely since we can’t try them in a civilian court of law without compromising national security, and we have absolutely no incentive to capture any more of their fellow travelers alive.

    You do have the strangest notion of what constitutes a “victory” for fairness and rule of law, don’t you?

    Wow I totally screwed up the quoting in my last post. That’s now how it previewed.

    Not your fault. The site doesn’t like nested quotes. I need to fix that.

  47. Unregistered Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag UNITED STATES

    […] Greenwald wrote this post yesterday, noting that Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler had written a post suggesting that five Supreme Court Justices be hung. Then Greenwald says: But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself). […]

  48. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    Or, to put it another way: I wasn’t suggesting that the 1949 treaty hadn’t been ratified, nor that Article 3 wasn’t part of it.

    You obviously misunderstood what I was saying which is fair enough. It happens.

    Yep, I misunderstood the relation of the two “including”s in the sentence you wrote. I apologize for insulting your intelligence earlier. It was uncalled for, and would have been uncalled for even if I didn’t misunderstand what you wrote.

    So after reading carefully through articles 3 and 4, I see where the ambiguity comes in, as you pointed out. I think it’s apparent that the writers of the Geneva Convention did not forsee the type of conflict that we are currently engaged in. The idea of the US government aprehending people found in other countries absent a war between nations would have probably been inconceivable at the time, as would have the idea of members of one country being engaged in a war with members of another country (without the countries being directly engaged in conflict). I’m not trying to defend the Supreme Court decision in this paragraph, btw. Just saying.

    So you are angered by military tribunals, tribunals that are part of what you call the most fair justice system in the world, treating people unfairly?

    Gotcha. Doesn’t make a lick of sense, but it makes for an amusing read.

    The tribunals are not carried out according to the Code of Military Justice, as far as I am aware. Not only that, but defense of said tribunals relies on the argument that this administration should be trusted to determine who should be tried by tribunal due to classified information and be restricted access to important information necessary to defend themselves fairly. Given how often the States Secrets privilege has been abused by previous administrations, and how often this administration has invoked it, I don’t think it is unreasonable to be untrusting of this power.

    “Likely?”

    Who are you? Miss Cleo?

    Considering how frequently people are released from Guantanamo without even being charged, I don’t think presuming that some of the current inmates are likely innocent is much of a stretch.

    This all being said, I do see your point about the arbitrary nature of “humiliating”. If this administration hadn’t been waterboarding prisoners with the end result being faulty intelligence, and defining torture to be limited to pain of the intensity felt during organ failure or death, I would even possibly agree with you that the supreme court decision is harmful for us.

    However, this administration has been acting completely unchecked for far too long, and generating anti-American sentiment all over the world by their actions. Anything that helps us regain some sort of respect in the international community, and lessens the hatred that Islamic extremists feel towards America, should be applauded, imo.

  49. Unregistered Pingback by Keeping up with my condemnations at The Politburo Diktat UNITED STATES

    […] Misha, of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, is advocating that the five Supreme Court Justices in the Hamdan majority be hanged from the neck until they’re dead. His homicidal formulation is a play on the more standard call of some on the Right for American journalists to be hanged — “Journalists. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required” — another death call which, it just so happens, Misha also issued just a few days ago. […]

  50. Unregistered Trackback by Classical Values UNITED STATES

    Faggots. Flames. Bloggers. (Some context required)…

    Glenn Greenwald thinks the Deb Frisch debate (discussed infra) really ought to be about Misha, for saying the following: Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required. This is at least as old as the T shirt. Well, let’s……

  51. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    You know, emperor, this whole thing is rediculous. Greenwald is a moron and a libtard; even if he thinks of himself as a “centrist” he isn’t. But he does have a point… he’s not *right* (there is a difference) but he does have a point.

    There are many things that you say — and that others, myself included, have said — that CAN be taken the wrong way. You don’t give a hoot. Fine, that’s your business. Same with things said by Ann. She said some things that made even some conservatives cringe. That doesn’t means she was *wrong* necessarily, but unfortunately AP, Patterico, etc, all do have a point… it DOES reduce the chance of her actually convincing anybody on the other side. (Then again, is subtracting further from a 0.000001% chance really that big a deal?) Nevertheless, there is something we can learn from this:

    1) No matter what you say, somebody on the other side is going to be offended. Live with it.

    2) The internet is a pathetic medium for actually getting an *accurate* message out. No inflection in your voice, no body language, just hard cold words with no idea what you really MEAN by them. Thus if somebody has the preconceived notion that you are evil, they are automatically going to assume the worst about what you say.

    3) Just the same, those on your side are going to tend to assume you didn’t mean for it to be as bad as it sounded. They will give you the benefit of the doubt, or laugh thinking you meant it as a joke. You may or may not have, but because you are right about other things (or for the libtards they *think* their DUmmie friends are right) then they will treat you with far more fairness than they will the “enemy”.

    4) What with web caches, etc, it’s impossible to fully retract a misspoken word. Thus it behooves you to CAREFULLY weigh each and every word before you send it out into the ether.

    Not that I expect you to change your style. But for the rest of us, some might want to at least consider it. Sometimes your style makes me cringe too. The fact that you are usually right is a saving grace in my book. Ditto with Ann. If the world wasn’t so incredibly partisan and totally screwed up with people who simply allow themselves to be indoctrinated and don’t seek out ANY contrarian viewpoint, much less attempt a polite debate of the issues (haven’t had one of those for what, 80 years?) then your style would be “too much”. As it is, I think most of your readers will continue to laugh… as much at the idiots on the far left who continue to be angered by you than by what you said in the first place.

    RH

  52. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    RobertHuntington-

    You have a point (not the part about Glenn being a moron, that is laughably rediculous if you’ve ever read anything he’s written).

    I read this post by Misha, and after reading the part alluding to hanging 5 Supreme Court justices, I assumed he was a moron. Only a moron would say something like that, right? Well apparently Misha is not a moron, in fact he appears quite articulate and factually knowledgable. I admit I rushed to judge him, unfairly.

    However, how do you expect people to seek out contrarian viewpoints, or attempt to politely discuss the issues, when prominent figures on one side of the debate (Ann, and to a lesser extent Misha) says things that are morally repugnant to a vast majority of the population?

    Yes, all you people who are “right”, just keep on threatening people in the media and government who are carrying out their obligations to upholding Democracy in this country. That way, you will continue to have far less of an impact on national discourse than you otherwise would have. Fine by me.

  53. LC Beth of MVRWC, Imperial Slacker™ Comment by LC Beth of MVRWC, Imperial Slacker™ UNITED STATES

    I’m just going to re-post the comment I left at Dan Riehl’s:

    Glenn Greenwald perfectly represents that which I loathe the most about the Stupid Blogosphere™–blowhards who take themselves and blogging WAY too seriously. WAY. I’m as much for ethics as anyone, but I am in ANY venture. It’s not like “blogging” should be something so extraordinary. And these stuffy “big bloggers” and “serious bloggers” are, to me, like being the champion shuffleboard player in a retirement community. You’re a big deal among a very small community. It’s pretty comical if you think about it. So who the hell does Greenwald or any other blowhard think they are? (It’s not just on the left, to be sure–they’re on the left, center, right, up, down, whatever.)

    Obviously Greenwald and these moral relativists don’t have children of their own and can’t possibly imagine the sanctity (whoops! that sounded…religious or something! LOL) of a child’s life and dignity, or imagine how fiercely a parent loves their child and will fight to the death for that child. Obviously. And obviously they can’t distinguish between Misha–who is WELL-KNOWN for his rhetoric–making comments like that, and a psychologist/university professor who makes violent and sexual references to a two year-old child. In case they didn’t know, there IS a difference.

    If Misha ever DID make comments about someone’s child like Frisch did, I can guarantee people would be ALL up his ass. But he wouldn’t do that–EVER–because he’s a father.

    Greenwald and those who equate commentary that sounds like it came from a pedophile with commentary that is honestly, QUITE COMMON in the blogosphere are either seriously stupid or they’re just totally dishonest. And really, the rhetoric Misha uses IS very common on the blogs–including, if not especially–on the left. Doesn’t Greenwald ever leave his own blog to see the violence “threatened” or “advocated” in his allies’ commentary? I doubt it. I doubt blowhards like him sully their imaginary wingtips in the fever swamps like Kos, the DUh, Atrios, and countless others. I think he’d find it quite enlightening to do so. Personally, I find it entertaining (as something to laugh AT, not with).

    Greenwald’s little tantrum is hilarious. I guess that had to do, lacking any quotes that measure up (or should I say DOWN) to some snapperhead failed university professor’s filth.

    Which reminds me–all this “I’d never heard of her!!!” bullshit misses the point. She’s a f’ing university professor (or was), and shouldn’t be teaching (psychology!) with that mentality. EVERYONE knows she was a nobody blogger, in fact we laughed about how her traffic went from almost zip to an avalanche overnight. But they are whining that “everyone” on the right was “demanding” apologies from the left. That’s utter bullshit. I’m sure there were one or two who did, but I didn’t see posts like that. What pisses me off about “The Left” is ONLY the people like Greenwald, Sadly No, and others like that “Gideon” fucktard, whoever he is. Those who act like it’s “no different” from something that is NOT the same. They’re blinded by their partisan politics. Meanwhile, there are plenty of others on the left who have posted, HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED, and who have commented at Frisch’s shitty blog condemning her. They do understand it’s not about politics, it’s about human decency.

    Get it straight, partisan Deb-apologists: IT IS NOT OK TO MAKE SEXUAL AND VIOLENT REFERENCES TO A CHILD. EVER.

    And I’ll make a threat promise (oooh, get scared!) right now: if anyone were to ever speak to me like she did to Jeff about MY child, I can guaranfuckingtee I won’t be making them a blogtard celebrity of the day, I will make it my mission to destroy everything about their lives until they are sorry they ever took a breath on this earth. But NOT their children.

    F.E.T.E.

    Grow up, moonbats.

  54. LC Beth of MVRWC, Imperial Slacker™ Comment by LC Beth of MVRWC, Imperial Slacker™ UNITED STATES

    Here’s an apology: Sorry for the overlong comment, Misha. These people make me want to hurl.

  55. Unregistered Trackback by MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy UNITED STATES

    I condemn thee!…

    Oh no, the shame! You want to literally hang people! Or crucify them! Or even commit suicide by self-immolation!

    Quick, somebody call the police!

    (See also the comments for extended–and hopefully final–remarks. Not “final&#8…

  56. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    But for the rest of us, some might want to at least consider it. Sometimes your style makes me cringe too.

    Indeed. Heck, occasionally I make myself cringe, but such is the price for refusing to carefully parse every single word you write for fear of offending somebody and no, I’m not saying that you’re suggesting that I should do that, because clearly you are NOT.

    I rant. I’m a rantblogger. I started blogging to get frustrations about idiots and their idiot sayings, deeds and rulings out of my system and it continues to be what I do. Of course, being weary of fellow traveler pundits who don’t, in my opinion, always go far enough in expressing their excellent opinions will, occasionally, lead to me going too far. That’s what happens when you get close to the line in the sand. This post, by the way, is not one such example, but there have been others.

    What’s funny is that on those occasions there has never been any shortage of fellow Right Wing Pundits calling me on it, which is as it should be. I don’t expect my own to withhold suggestions or criticism out of some silly sense of loyalty and they don’t, which is a Good Thing. It’s called honesty and we need more of it. I like honest people, even when they say stuff that isn’t necessarily nice about me. No biggie. I have thick skin and they might be, you know, right.

    But of course Glenn Dweebwald doesn’t note all of those occasions, because to him it’s not really about the Right not being critical of their own (tell Ann Coulter and Mike Savage that. They’d never stop laughing), it’s about the Right not being critical about the ones HE thinks they should be critical about WHENEVER HE thinks they should.

    Finally, it is quite frankly hysterical that he should pretend to be so completely ignorant of hyperbole. Ignorant when it serves his purpose to pretend being so, that is, as Dan Riehl points out, referring to Glenn’s illustrious defense of his client, white supremacist Matthew Hale:

    Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that “we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow.”

    “They are probably trying to take things he said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime,” Mr. Greenwald said. “The F.B.I. may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric.”

    See? He was for hyperbole before he was against it.

    Somebody with too much time on their hands might wonder why he thinks it’s OK for a Neonazi to use hyperbole, but not for a conservative.

    Me, personally? I don’t really think there’s any point in overinterpreting that, I think it’s just because he’s a disingenuous douchebag with a quite tenuous grasp of consistency, logic and reality.

    He’ll adopt any point of view that he thinks will further whatever agenda he happens to have on any given day, hoping that nobody will notice that it wasn’t what he was saying the other day.

    For his mindless followers, that seems to work.

  57. Unregistered Pingback by MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » I condemn thee! UNITED STATES

    […] Oh no, the shame! You want to literally hang people! Or crucify them! Or even commit suicide by self-immolation! (Update: and death to Kofi Annan! Yikes!) Quick, somebody call the police! (See also the comments for extended–and hopefully final–remarks. Not “final” as in an impending death, of course.) […]

  58. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    First time visitor.

    Here’s what I gather from your post:
    –the war on terror is a war between races, white and brown (hence the reference to separate but equal)
    –what is done to our side is done in the name of all
    brown people ie “Hadjis”
    –all Hadjis are responsible for all war atrocities; there is no such thing as an “innocent” Hadji
    –threfore, shoot to kill and torture at will

  59. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    continued:

    My questions:
    –Where, if anywhere, do you draw a line? Are there behaviors that should be off-limits for US troups in Iraq, or is it “anything goes”? Since all brown people are “subhuman slime,” isn’t it the latter?
    –Why are we sacrificing American soldiers in an effort to build democratic government for inhuman slime?

  60. Unregistered Trackback by The Sword of Freedom UNITED STATES

    Rottweiler Nation…

    The Iraqi insurgents are the most inhumane, subhuman enemy we’ve ever faced. . . ….

  61. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    How do we know who is an insurgent and who isn’t? How do we know who is with al Qaeda and who isn’t? Or is like in cartoon strips, where you can tell at a glance who the “bad guy” is?

  62. LC Beth of MVRWC, Imperial Slacker™ Comment by LC Beth of MVRWC, Imperial Slacker™ UNITED STATES

    War between RACES? What race is a Muslim extremist, djinn? Since when are they “brown people,” seriously? Can’t you guys come up with something more original?

    Why is it always about race for you guys? ‘Cause it’s not, for us.

  63. Unregistered Comment by jimmytheclaw UNITED STATES

    djinn its not a race thing its a mohammedan thing THEY have declared war and carried that war on for 1300 years against all of us non mohammedans. iraqi mujahideen are just carrying on the tradition of their forefathers. and pray tell how the fuck do you negotiate peace when only one side wants and respects it? stop being a dumbass

  64. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    So, back to my question: how do you know who is a Muslim extremist and who is on our side, when you are shooting to kill?

    If this is not about race, then why bring up “separate but equal”?

    And no one has responded to my question about what limits, if any, should be put on behavior by US soldiers?

  65. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    Also, are families of Muslim extremists fair game? If so, does that include females as well as males?
    Are children off limits? If so, who is a child? Do we draw the line at 13? Or 12?

    Given the distinction between innocence and guilt is difficult to make in the heat of battle, what is acceptable behavior for our troups? Should we mutilate also?

  66. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    Djinn: You are an idiot. A terrorist can come in any color. The ones we are having the most trouble with are usually young, usually male, and usually from the Middle East. They are exclusively radical Muslims.

    Since physical appearance isn’t a dead giveaway, you have to rely on observation of the person’s behavior and investigation into his/her background and acquaintances.

    One giveaway, though, is that if a person with his face covered is lofting a rocket propelled grenade at you, he is probably a terrorist. If a person is wearing hollowed out shoes, wires, and batteries, he is probably a terrorist. If he owns a copy of the al Quaida training manual, he is probably a terrorist … if her belt contains explosives, she is probably a terrorist … if he makes homemade movies that feature beheadings, he is probably a terrorist … if a person hangs out with known terrorists, he/she is probably a terrorist … if a person follows patterns of behavior particular to terrorists he/she is probably a terrorist.

    Even if all terrorists were brown, the fact that all brown people aren’t terrorists would make focusing on that detail a waste of time and resources … are you a paranoid brown person?

  67. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    Djinn: We should not mutilate. Simply kill. No, we should not target terrorists’ families. However, if they are incidentally killed because they are caught in the crossfire, we should not beat ourselves up over it either. Try to recognize that these people don’t care if they accidentally kill a few of their own when they are trying to achieve their objectives. I am sure there have been many Muslims killed in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, as well as the Spanish and Indian train bombings.

  68. Unregistered Comment by maestrospenny GERMANY

    This is one of the most mature blog postings I’ve read in a long time. No, make that EVER! Can’t you see the simple premise that by torturing these people we instantly become just like them? To torture the torturers is to become one yourself. The Supreme Court has done it’s job–it has told an Executive Branch that has gone terribly amuck that it must follow the law. I wish the Court had required more.

  69. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    See? He was for hyperbole before he was against it.

    Somebody with too much time on their hands might wonder why he thinks it’s OK for a Neonazi to use hyperbole, but not for a conservative.

    Me, personally? I don’t really think there’s any point in overinterpreting that, I think it’s just because he’s a disingenuous douchebag with a quite tenuous grasp of consistency, logic and reality.

    He’ll adopt any point of view that he thinks will further whatever agenda he happens to have on any given day, hoping that nobody will notice that it wasn’t what he was saying the other day.

    For his mindless followers, that seems to work.

    That quote from Glenn doesn’t indicate that he thinks it’s OK for a neonazi to say such things. It indicates he doesn’t think it’s ILLEGAL for a neonazi to say such things. Nice try though.

    Remember, he never said that what you wrote was a crime.

  70. Unregistered Comment by tweell UNITED STATES

    That’s an amazing number of strawmen you erected, djinn. Now, how about showing me where you got those from in Misha’s post?

  71. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    I think most of your questions, djinn, stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what Misha meant by “separate but equal”. So let me answer some of them.

    – the war on terror is a war between races, white and brown (hence the reference to separate but equal)
    – all Hadjis are responsible for all war atrocities; there is no such thing as an “innocent” Hadji
    – Why are we sacrificing American soldiers in an effort to build democratic government for inhuman slime?

    1) No, race has nothing to do with it. The reference to “separate but equal” was about the branches of the government (legislative, executive, judicial) that are supposed to be separate but basically equal, with a series of checks and balances to enforce that.

    2) No. Anybody who stands up against terrorism is innocent of it. Anybody who does not stand up, whether through fear, cowardice, or simple ennui however is NOT innocent… though not actually guilty of it. Anybody who supports in any way is as good as guilty of it.

    3) That would be because many of the Iraqi’s, unlike much of the rest of the islamic world, have stood up and denounced terrorism. Therefore they remove themselves from the implicit or explicit supporters of it and are no longer slimeballs.

    RH

  72. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Please tell me you are joking…

    That quote from Glenn doesn’t indicate that he thinks it’s OK for a neonazi to say such things. It indicates he doesn’t think it’s ILLEGAL for a neonazi to say such things. Nice try though.

    Remember, he never said that what you wrote was a crime.

    What Misha wrote also wasn’t racist. Aren’t you the same people who have been pushing “hate speech” laws? And then you defend one person for saying ACTUAL hate speech against the laws your buddies helped write, and then turn around and excoriate somebody else for saying stuff that, while rude, was not hate speech even by your own overly broad definitions?

    Whatever.

    RH

  73. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    Well, kwongdzu, it’s always nice when you catch a terrorist in the midst of committing a terrorist act, but it doesn’t always work that way. That’s why, I suppose, prior to the Hamdan decision, our government has released over a hundred Guantanamo detainees and several hundred from Abu Ghraib–they were not terrorists. I’ll say it again: the administration released them. Not Justice Stevens. Not liberal moonbats. Our government.

  74. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    RH: thanks for clarification re separate but equal. Your post raises more questions, however. What counts as “denouncing terrorism”? Especially in a situation where you have 120 degree heat, 4 hours of electricity a day and diminishing food supplies? Supposing you have young children and “denouncing terrorism” puts your family at risk? Then you are not innocent, I gather? How far are you willing to go, on a daily basis, to put your own family at risk?

  75. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    RobertHuntingdon-

    What are you rambling about?

    I never said that anything Misha wrote was racist. I don’t know Glenn’s views on hate speech laws. I don’t know how I feel about hate speech laws, I haven’t thought about it much but I generally think such laws are unfair. But that’s all irrelevant to the point I was making.

    Misha was pointing out the “hypocrisy” in the fact that Glenn thought it wasn’t a crime for neonazis to say they were at war with a judge, but he thought it was wrong to advocate hanging judges.

    My point was that this is not hypocritical. Glenn did not say that what Misha wrote about hanging judges was a crime. He also didn’t say that what the neonazis said was morally “ok”.

    It’s funny how since you can’t address the substance of the argument contained in my post, you read things into it that I didn’t say. I’m spinning my wheels here. I really hope I’m not tempted to post again.

  76. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    Tweel, Misha is saying that rule of law does not apply to a class of people–”Hadjis” or “towelheads”–because some of them commit terrorist acts. If there is another term you guys use to denote non-terrorist Arabs of inhabitants of the middle east, let me know.

  77. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Yep, I misunderstood the relation of the two “including”s in the sentence you wrote. I apologize for insulting your intelligence earlier. It was uncalled for, and would have been uncalled for even if I didn’t misunderstand what you wrote.

    No problem, Kev. I insulted yours right back and that, as far as I’m concerned, was the end of it. No harm. Now that the mutual insulting is over, I will refrain from it as well. That’s the least I can do.

    Given how often the States Secrets privilege has been abused by previous administrations, and how often this administration has invoked it, I don’t think it is unreasonable to be untrusting of this power.

    Hey, I don’t trust anybody, including myself, so I can see where you’re coming from.

    The problem isn’t my level of skepticism/distrust, the problem is that we cannot prosecute those people, fairly or unfairly, without using classified evidence and we cannot afford, as a nation, to disclose classified state secrets.

    Which leaves us, now that we’ve been told that the only way we could’ve prosecuted them without endangering national security is off the table, with having to just keep feeding them under lock and key at Gitmo until such time as we no longer have to keep the evidence secret. That may be a loooooong time from now, as a matter of fact I feel pretty certain that it will be.

    Sometimes you just have to realize that in order to get the job done, you have to trust people and/or organizations that you’re skeptical of. The only alternative is to not get it done at all.

    When faced with this conundrum, you have to do a cost/benefit analysis, in this case:

    What makes me more uneasy: Trusting the government to use military tribunals fairly or keeping the detainees at Gitmo in captivitiy until they, most likely, are all dead of old age?

    I lean towards the first option, you seem to lean towards the latter. Fair enough. You’re as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and you are no more required to agree with me than I am to agree with you.

    We’ll just agree to disagree.

    Considering how frequently people are released from Guantanamo without even being charged, I don’t think presuming that some of the current inmates are likely innocent is much of a stretch.

    If you’d said “possibly” we’d have been in perfect agreement, but that’s just semantics. It seems to me that we’re not too far from each other on the actual point here.

    This all being said, I do see your point about the arbitrary nature of “humiliating”. If this administration hadn’t been waterboarding prisoners with the end result being faulty intelligence, and defining torture to be limited to pain of the intensity felt during organ failure or death, I would even possibly agree with you that the supreme court decision is harmful for us.

    OK, now you’re just engaging in empty rhetoric. How do you know that we’ve never gotten any useful intel out of waterboarding prisoners? I’m asking here because I sure as Hell don’t know, but maybe you’re privy to classified information that I’ve never seen?

    What I do know is that you don’t use an interrogation technique if it doesn’t work. It’s not worth the time and resources, so the mere fact that it has been used seems to indicate that it does work. Maybe not all the time, but nothing does. I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t abandon the use of cars because a few of them fail to operate properly.

    Anyway, if waterboarding and other coercive techniques don’t work (and I happen to know that they do, but let’s assume that they don’t for the sake of argument), you needn’t worry about them. We’re not using them anymore. If you hammer away at a screw with a hammer and notice that it doesn’t produce the desired result, you go fetch a screwdriver. You don’t keep hitting it with the hammer, expecting a different result.

    And please refrain from making blanket statements regarding what our current definition of torture is, particularly silly rhetoric such as “limited to pain of the intensity felt during organ failure or death.”

    Interrogation is and should be conducted with an aim toward the maximum extraction of useful, timely intel. That’s how it’s done, not by carefully evaluating pain levels according to the “smiley face pain scale” used in hospitals.

    You use what works, and if it works, you use it. Always mindful, of course, that there’s no point (unless you happen to be a closet sadist, in which case you’d be chaptered out of the intel service before you could lay your hands on a detainee) in causing more discomfort than is necessary and, indeed, the fact that excessive discomfort can be downright counter-productive.

    Results, Kev, results. That’s all that matters. We’re at war here. We need to do whatever we have to do to win it in order to prevent more 9/11s, no matter how much that makes the fwench and jihadis hate us.

    I. Don’t. Care.

    They don’t have a dog in that hunt, so their opinion matters less than batshit. If I have to choose between some psychopathic muslim cleric screaming at us (which he’ll do anyway, no matter WHAT we do) and watching another 3,000 Americans (or worse) being immolated, you get one guess as to what I choose.

    The End.

  78. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    –the war on terror is a war between races, white and brown (hence the reference to separate but equal)

    Wrong.

    “Separate but equal” refers to the three branches of government and the rules under which they are supposed to operate.

    –what is done to our side is done in the name of all brown people ie “Hadjis”

    Wrong again.

    What is done to our side is done in the name of the “peaceful religion” of Islam and, before you get started on “a tiny extremist minority hijacking the religion”, kindly point me to one, JUST ONE, mainstream Islamic denomination or church unequivocally disputing that the Koran calls for holy war against and murder of unbelievers (infidels).

    In order to save you some time: You can’t. Nobody has been able to.

    –all Hadjis are responsible for all war atrocities; there is no such thing as an “innocent” Hadji

    Wrong again, since you base it on a wrong premise (as mentioned above). Oh, and before you change it to read “all muslims”, I should point out that that would be wrong too. All terrorists are muslims, but that DOESN’T mean that all muslims are terrorists.

    –threfore, shoot to kill and torture at will

    My, you really are out of your depth here.

    You shoot to kill because, lamentably, there is absolutely NO reason to capture them anymore. SCOTUS has rendered their intel value nil and, indeed, detaining them now carries a severe risk of being charged with “war crimes” based on whatever SCOTUS decides that the incredibly useless and vague terms “humiliating” and “undignified” means.

    The maximum penalty for war crimes is death, so our soldiers are now faced with a “him or me” decision, EVEN AFTER THE ENEMY IN QUESTION HAS LAID DOWN HIS ARMS.

    I don’t honestly believe that our brave soldiers should have to deal with possibly hanging and, at least, being sent to Leavenworth because they captured a terrorist alive and subsequently “humiliated” him. Much safer to just shoot BEFORE he’s in your custody.

    Too bad, but don’t blame me. Blame SCOTUS.

    –Where, if anywhere, do you draw a line? Are there behaviors that should be off-limits for US troups in Iraq, or is it “anything goes”? Since all brown people are “subhuman slime,” isn’t it the latter?

    Not worthy of an answer since it’s based on the assumption that I believe that “all brown people are subhuman slime”, something that would come as a big surprise to all of my “brown” friends.

    If you’d care to phrase the question in an honest fashion as opposed to a mindless, hyperventilating Greenwaldism, then I just might dignify it with an answer.

    And that goes for the last question as well.

    Next.

  79. Unregistered Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » No, You’re Not Being Censored UNITED STATES

    […] First off, our Imperial Welcome to all of the new commenters arriving here as a result of, we believe, this post in particular. […]

  80. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    Why, Misha, you’re not a Rottweiler–you’re just a lil ole….Pekinese. With fleas.

    Now why on earth would I think that someone who uses the term “koranimals” has a racist bone in his body?
    Quite the distinction you’re making, between skin color and faith. You meant that all “koranimals” are subhuman slime. Big diff.

  81. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    So, Kev, it’s basically fair for me to say that Excitable Glenn is aware of this post being “probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric” since to even suggest that it wasn’t in view of his own words would be, well, hypocritical?

    He just thinks I’ve been a naughty, naughty boy with a potty mouth.

    Gotcha.

    I’m devastated, I tell you, DEVASTATED!

    Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler “naughty?”

    Help! I’m dying here! How the Hell did he find out? What fantastical feats of investigative blogging did he have to accomplish to reach that conclusion after a mere four years of the Rott?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Boy, but that effeminate, terminally droll wanker Glenn is a moron, and that’s an insult to actual morons everywhere.

  82. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    Why, Misha, you’re not a Rottweiler–you’re just a lil ole….Pekinese. With fleas.

    Is that the best you can do?

    Good grief.

    Now why on earth would I think that someone who uses the term “koranimals” has a racist bone in his body?

    I don’t know. You tell me. What race is a “koran?”

    Quite the distinction you’re making, between skin color and faith.

    Indeed. You may even have noticed it in your daily dealings with faiths. Take the Christian one, for instance. What race is a Christian? What skin color does a Christian have?

    You meant that all “koranimals” are subhuman slime. Big diff.

    Quite a big one, really. Not to mention that you’re speaking out of your ass (again, I might add), when you make such a statement without the slightest knowledge as to which specific group of people I’m referring to when I say “koranimal.”

    If I weren’t referring to a subset, I’d just say “muslim” and be done with it.

    Just like this one: When I say “white trash”, I’m not referring to ALL white people and when I say “terminally stupid Idiotarian”, I’m not referring to all idiots, I’m referring specifically to YOU.

    There. Hope that helps.

    Now be careful with those strawmen. They’re highly flammable. Not that I think your mother would ever let you play with matches, but still. Just in case.

    You see: I CARE!

    Next.

  83. Unregistered Comment by LC Staci GBOR UNITED STATES

    Now why on earth would I think that someone who uses the term “koranimals” has a racist bone in his body?

    LOL, I love it when these tools cannot differentiate between RACE and a religious extremist.

    And before idiots like this scream we are attacking Muslims, they should see our thought of Phelps, who also does vile things in the name of God. Walker, that moron from California was fricken blond.

  84. Unregistered Comment by IB LC Lady Heather GLOR UNITED STATES

    LOL, I love it when these tools cannot differentiate between RACE and a religious extremist.

    Nor can they recognize Hyperbole, Irony, Satire and Humor (unless it’s directed at white, Christian, conservative men)

    No wonder most of them are so miserable.

    But having that smug, self-righteous, morally superior air about them is somewhat commendable.

    At least it gives their western civilization white guilt ridden conscience a reason to live, I suppose.

  85. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Djinn… not innocent is not the same as guilty. Want an example, look at the OJ case. Found not guilty by the criminal court, but definately considered “not innocent” by the civil court (and probably some 90% of society)… Look at Clinton, he was found “not guilty” of sufficient evil for removal from office (not that I agree, but that was the decision), but show me one honest person who truly believes he was “innocent” of perjury (lying under oath, which is a crime, as opposed to lying in general, which is immoral and wrong but usually not criminally actionable). If you can find even one, I’ll be highly surprised.

    Innocent is provably innocent. The courts never declare somebody innocent, the person is always found “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt“. Not innocent means we just don’t know… can’t prove you are, can’t prove you aren’t. Guilty (and “as good as guilty”) are provably guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    Now as to those in tough situations… I can understand being afraid. Everybody has made mistakes before in their lives because of fear. It happens, its regrettable, hopefully you learn from your mistake and move on. That said, you still have a duty to oppose it. If you are in a situation where you cannot visibly oppose it, then try to invisibly oppose it. I know that’s hard as all get out, but it behooves you to try.

    If you don’t stand up and in some way denounce terrorism, you are not innocent… but also not guilty either. You are in the grey area that deserves close watching, but nothing more. We remain suspiciously hopeful… suspicious that you might actually be a terrorist merely laying low, and hopeful that instead you are simply a normal person afraid to stand up and fight for fear you or your family would be harassed/injured/killed by the true terrorists.

    RH

  86. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    PS. “as good as guilty” is my way of defining those who may not have actually participated in a terrorist act, but whom have supported others who did or were attempting to do so, as just as bad as if they had actively participated. If you actively act or just actively support, you are the same classification, “guilty”.

    RH

  87. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    OK, “nice doggie”, run this by me again. You’re not antiArab or anti muslim, you’re anti “koranimal”. However, Islam is an inherently violent religion, so perhaps “Koranimals” are to be expected. They are(your word) a “subset”, but not, of course, NOT a tiny, hijacking minority.

    Because some muslims are “koranimals,” no muslims should expect to experience treatment at our hands according to Geneva conventions, and that’s–cont’d

  88. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    cont– their fault. Oh yes, and the fault of five Supreme Court justices.

    What do you think about the fact that our government is releasing over a hundred Guantanamo detainees without charging them, and after having held them for many years? Either our government is releasing terrorists, or–they’re innocent. What does that tell you?

  89. Unregistered Comment by kev UNITED STATES

    The problem isn’t my level of skepticism/distrust, the problem is that we cannot prosecute those people, fairly or unfairly, without using classified evidence and we cannot afford, as a nation, to disclose classified state secrets.

    I sure as hell don’t trust the administration when they make the claim that they can’t prosecute those people without using classified evidence, but I concede that they could be right about that.

    Maybe I am naive and misunderstand the legal implications of constructing courts under article 3, but the wording of article 3 seems to me broad enough where something more fair than military tribunals could be constructed, that still prevents classified information from getting out. I’m not sure the issue is black and white, with release of classified information on one hand, and not conforming to Geneva Convention article 3 on the other hand.

    Results, Kev, results. That’s all that matters. We’re at war here. We need to do whatever we have to do to win it in order to prevent more 9/11s, no matter how much that makes the fwench and jihadis hate us.

    I think one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I understand the jihadis are angry at the US for various reasons, and that this fact needs to be factored in when determining what course of action will generate the greatest results.

    Why do you think someone becomes a terrorist? Because they like blowing themselves up? The more we do to enrage the Muslim world, the more people hate America, and consequently more people are driven to extremism. The threat of more 9/11s will always be around, as long as extremists exist (read: forever). Terrorism has been in existence practically forever, it was not invented on 9/11.

    So, the goal is not to eliminate terrorism; that is practically impossible. The goal is to minimize the potential for terrorist acts in the future, and a very important part of this is preventing people from embracing extremism.

    If I have to choose between some psychopathic muslim cleric screaming at us (which he’ll do anyway, no matter WHAT we do) and watching another 3,000 Americans (or worse) being immolated, you get one guess as to what I choose.

    I think you fail to realize that this is not an either/or choice. Psychopathic muslim clerics screaming at us drives people to become extremists, and thus can lead to an increase in terrorism. I agree, IF the choice were one or the other, I would make the same choice.

    I think you should think about the fact that doing a cost/benefit analyis applies to the treatment of detainees in the war on terror, because there are short-term and long-term consequences to such mistreatment.

    I won’t even get into the fact that since the detainees haven’t legally been found guilty of anything, it’s possible that plenty of innocent people were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

  90. Unregistered Comment by Lefty Moonbat UNITED STATES

    I have to disagree with you on one point:

    All terrorists are muslims, but that DOESN’T mean that all muslims are terrorists.

    I knew Benjamin “August” Smith. I went to school with Richard Baumhammers. Believe me, these guys were terrorists. And so was Timothy McVeigh.

  91. Unregistered Comment by djinn UNITED STATES

    RH: I agree. I raised the question because I think the majority of Iraqis fall into this category. Most people living in a war zone simply want to feed their children and stay out of trouble.

  92. Wishbone Comment by Wishbone UNITED KINGDOM

    “LOL, I love it when these tools cannot differentiate between RACE and a religious extremist.”
    You’d piss yourself laughing in England then Lady Heather. We have an entire lefty/liberal “race relations” industry rubbing their hands with glee every time someone upsets Islam by suggesting they (Muslims) may wish to, perhaps, give us a hand weeding the exremists out of their “communities” (Read: ghettos). I’ve yet to find any bugger point out Islam on the world atlas.

  93. Unregistered Comment by IB LC Lady Heather GLOR UNITED STATES

    …“LOL, I love it when these tools cannot differentiate between RACE and a religious extremist.”
    You’d piss yourself laughing in England then Lady Heather…

    LOL, Wishbone.

    I cannot claim credit for that quote; LC Staci had originally said that; I only quoted her. :)

  94. Wishbone Comment by Wishbone UNITED KINGDOM

    Lady Heather…Ah well …..Two laughs for the price of one then ;) My apologies to LC Staci for misappropriating her lines . Actually it’s getting quite beyond a joke here. The loony left have quite literally cut our bollocks off here with respect to defending ourselves against extremists. I admit it hurts a lot sometimes to read posts along the lines of “The Brits have turned pussy on the issue”. I love every rock and stone of Old Blighty, but I can’t help feeling that the liberals are giving it away piecemeal to the religious fascists; All in the name of tolerance for that which will never tolerate the ideals my beloved nation was built on. I do envy America sometimes . I’d just once like to see my countrymen defend their flag the way Americans do.

  95. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    “Winning Their Hearts and Minds,” my ass. Israel has the right idea, to wit “When ya got them by their balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

    WHO THE HELL INVITED THE HIPPIES? Buncha confused little leftards coming around here, pissing and moaning. Go back to yer little holes, ya hobbit looking pissants, and let the grownups handle the terrorists and other problems. When it’s safe for you to come and play on the monkey bars again, we will let ya know.

  96. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    Well, kwongdzu, it’s always nice when you catch a terrorist in the midst of committing a terrorist act, but it doesn’t always work that way.

    No kidding. It is hard to differentiate, so we have to do whatever is prudent. Sometimes, you just have to round them up first and sort it out later.
    Yes, some people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time get compromised. Do you have a better suggestion? If you do, I’d like to hear it!

    Furthermore, I agree with those who say Geneva Convention rules should not apply to terrorists. They are not party to that agreement, and they certainly do not abide by these rules!

    As for releasing people from Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, the people still being detained were or are still being investigated to determine what part they play in the insurgency. Many people have been released. The ones who continue to be detained are suspicious or are guilty of some other crimes. Maybe you ought to read up on some of the thugs who were incarcerated at Abu Ghraib. They are not nice people!

  97. Unregistered Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel UNITED STATES

    73. Comment by djinn
    Well, kwongdzu, it’s always nice when you catch a terrorist in the midst of committing a terrorist act, but it doesn’t always work that way. That’s why, I suppose, prior to the Hamdan decision, our government has released over a hundred Guantanamo detainees and several hundred from Abu Ghraib–they were not terrorists. I’ll say it again: the administration released them. Not Justice Stevens. Not liberal moonbats. Our government.

    Well, Djinn, that was one reason we established the detention center at Gitmo: to seperate the sheep from the goats. Not that we’ve always been successful at that: quite a few of those we released from Gitmo (and Abu Ghraib, for that matter) were later recaptured or killed by our forces on the field of battle, after they rejoined the ranks of the terrorists. It’s probably safe to say that, at the cost of letting some of the guilty go to fight another day, we’ve established that the ones who are left at Gitmo aren’t among the ranks of the innocent.

    The Guantanamo Bay facility was intended as an alternative to the punishment the Geneva Conventions prescribes for people like Al Qaeda: that is, summary execution for any combatant caught out of uniform on the battlefield, masquerading as a civilian, or otherwise engaged in gross violations of the laws of war. But, since imprisonment at Gitmo has been deemed cruelty by you and your fellow leftists, and the Supreme Court has ruled that we follow the Geneva Conventions in dealing with captured jihadis - to the extent of unilaterally extending the protections of that document to persons specifically outlawed by its provisions - then I suppose we’ll just have to stop taking prisoners.

    We’ll just have to deliver summary justice to every suspected jihadi we encounter on the battlefield, just as the Geneva Conventions say we’re supposed to…and not worry too much about the guilt or innocence of each jihadi suspect. While, per Hamdan, keeping the jihadis we already have in custody for the rest of their natural lives, even without trials, if that’s how long it takes to win the War on Terror.

    Congratulations, Djinn. You got what you wanted.

  98. Unregistered Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel UNITED STATES

    Oh, and here’s a great comment from Patterico’s blog, where the “Misha is just as mean as Deb Frisch; why won’t you condemn him too?” debate is in full swing:

    I believe Misha’s “rope” comment is as mean and threatening as the Pace Picante Sauce ad campaign — which featured the lines “This stuff is made in… New York City?!” “Get a rope.” — and I condemn both equally.

    I feel obliged to point out that although the Pace Picante Sauce ads have been in wide distribution for several years, it appears that Mr. Greenwald still has not found the time to denounce them.

    Comment by Shad — 7/12/2006 @ 1:37 pm

    :lol:

  99. Unregistered Comment by IB LC Lady Heather GLOR UNITED STATES

    #94 Wishbone–

    It’ll be okay, y’all have that bulldog, phoenix from the ashes spirit…

    oh! and you never will be slaves either! :)

    I’m still keeping the faith.

  100. LC Guido Cabrone Comment by LC Guido Cabrone UNITED STATES

    Israel has the right idea,

    Agreed. It’s rather difficult to aim homemade rockets while singing “Hellfires keep falling on my head”

  101. RobertHuntingdon Comment by RobertHuntingdon UNITED STATES

    Wes, that was funny… and Pace is, somehow, still a really good sauce. That despite the incredible marking blunder they made in moving the production site outside of Texas… nu joisey I think wasn’t it?? Guess they figured now that the Texans have come up with a decent sauce now we can make it elsewhere… but of course, it completely invalidates the best commercials they ever had.

    So on that account, I condemn Pace Picante sauce for airing a commercial a decade ago without realizing that 10 years down the road it would no longer be true… what BASTARDS!!! :wink:

    RH

  102. Unregistered Comment by LC Wes, Imperial Mohel UNITED STATES

    Robert, I think I’ll reserve my condemnation of the Pace Company for making their salsa in New Jersey, if that is true.

    I mean, New freakin’ Joisey? Say it isn’t so!

    Gag. Blecch. Urk. Rope, tree, lying carpetbaggin’ CEO of salsa company, some assembly required.

    (Yes, Glenn Greenwood, that is also hyperbole. Unless I find out that New Jersey salsa gave me cancer or something, in which case all bets are off.)

    Now excuse me while I go throw out some salsa. And vomit.

  103. Unregistered Pingback by Inoperable Terran » Uhh, ok UNITED STATES

    […] Misha ain’t so lucky - Greenwald’s called for everyone right-wing to immediately denounce Misha for this post because otherwise Deb Frisch was PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED in joking about raping a 2 year old. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY, as Jeff likes to say. […]

  104. Unregistered Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » What an Asstastically, Tedious Little Clusterfuck Glenn Greenwald is UNITED STATES

    […] Now, if all that sad and effete, terminally droll writer of posts so long and devoid of sense that they make Al Gore sound positively riveting had had to say was that he found this post, mentioning our righteous disgust with the five blackrobed and unelected tyrants that recently decided to parse their way to a Terrorists’ Bill of Rights, disgusting as well as over the top in our choice of hyperbolic ranting, then he could’ve joined the chorus of others who’ve done the same over the last four years or so. Take a number. Line starts over there. […]

  105. Alan K. Henderson Comment by Alan K. Henderson UNITED STATES

    Hey Misha, you got a Malkin Award nomination from Andrew Sulllivan.

  106. Unregistered Trackback by CatHouse Chat UNITED STATES

    Misha’s in the thick of things again……

    (and this is late, due to problems with TPad yesterday…) … which is at it should be. In many ways, he puts words to my outrage and disgust at those evil vermin who killed our soldiers, and my frustrated displeasure…

  107. Unregistered Pingback by I didn’t actually type it, okay? at PunkAssBlog.com UNITED STATES

    […] Hopefully by now you’ve read Glenn Greenwald’s enjoyable critique of wingnut-in-underoos Emperor Darth Misha’s call for an old-fashioned lynching in the wake of Hamdan: Five ropes, five robes, five trees. […]

  108. Unregistered Trackback by Jon Swift UNITED STATES

    Shooting Frisch in a Barrel …

    Deb Frisch learned the hard way that sometimes the virtual hunter can become the prey when the conservative bloggers sighted her in their crosshairs. …

  109. Unregistered Pingback by Random Numbers » Blog Archive » New term for the Blogosphere UNITED STATES

    […] Update:  In case anyone was wondering, this started when Glenn Greenwald, the losingest lawyer in New York (ed–Is ‘losingest a word?  Who cares? ) wanted to compare this rant by His Majesty with these ….disturbing thoughts by Deb Frinch.  […]

  110. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    This is for djinn: This video says it all: http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/07/12/american-jihad-and-the-baltimore-terror-cell/

    This is the best way to identify terrorists: surveillance and inside knowledge of their operations. Hence the outcry over the deplorable behavior of the NYT and the irritation at the whiners concerned more about a potential intrusion on their privacy than the ability to effectively thwart terrorism.

  111. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu UNITED STATES

    Wil:

    “When ya got them by their balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

    Precious! :)

  112. Unregistered Comment by afritah UNITED STATES

    this is for djinn, also.
    i imagine this sort of activity is out of bounds for american troops, particularily since the little grrl in question had a DoB of March 28 1993.
    for the mnathematically challenged among you, that means she was still 12 at the time of the attack.

  113. Emperor Darth Misha I Comment by Emperor Darth Misha I UNITED STATES

    i imagine this sort of activity is out of bounds for american troops, particularily since the little grrl in question had a DoB of March 28 1993.

    That’s a rhetorical question, right? I mean, assuming that events took place as alleged (there hasn’t been a trial yet), there really isn’t any room for debate as to whether it’s out of bounds or not.

    Rape and murder is always wrong, no matter who does it and no matter who the vic is although, to be sure, a ton of layers of nasty are added to it when the vic is a 12-year-old girl. But the baseline remains: It’s always wrong, and whoever does such a thing, in my humble opinion, ought to be hanged. Without the benefit of a long drop. I’d want the pig to suffer.

    OK, I just realized that I have to add an exception to the “always” in the above.

    I wouldn’t see anything wrong in taking somebody found guilty of a crime like that and raping him to death. Over the course of several days. An eye for an eye, and all that.

  114. Unregistered Comment by afritah UNITED STATES

    ha ha!
    good answer, mighty emperor.

    now suppose that you are a tribesman of the little girl that got raped. and you are perfectly aware that you will never access the perpetrator to administer that “rape to death”, eye-for-an-eye, justice.
    In tribal cultures, such as yours, each tribe member has the same weight–a grandmother is the same as a warrior, the grandmother for her accumulated wisdom. the warrir for his fighting skillz. traditionally, in your culture, you must kill a member of the other tribe for every member of your tribe killed.
    also, in the case of rape, genital mutilation is required.
    which is the worse demon?

  115. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte UNITED STATES

    Israel has the right idea, to wit “When ya got them by their balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

    Why not? It has worked for women for millenia.

    afritah, what in hell are you talking about? Misha is not a member of any “tribe” as far as I know. I have met the man, he is civilized.

    You, however, seem to belong to some internet-geek sub-set. Probably despised by other geeks and made fun of.

    I suggest you write out your argument, then have someone proof-read it for a point. IF they find a point, then post it. Your post above does not seem to have one other than accusing Misha of being a savage.

  116. Unregistered Pingback by Never Yet Melted » Left Blogs Hurl Brickbats at Right Blogs UNITED STATES

    […] On Tuesday, Greenwald indulged in a little gamesmanship, first pooh-pooh’ing the significance of last weekend’s ravings in Jeff Goldstein’s Comment section by deranged (then University of Arizona Psychology Instructor) Deborah Frisch (who subsequently resigned), and then proceeding to claim rhetorically the moral high ground in order to equate an obvious exasperated rant by Mischa of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler with Dr. Frisch’s sinister and highly disturbing comments, applying imagined violence and sexual acts to Mr. Goldstein’s children. […]

  117. Unregistered Pingback by L’Affaire Frisch: Part II at Blog P.I. (beta) UNITED STATES

    […] Glenn Greenwald is a relatively recent addition to the leftosphere’s A-list, and he got where he is today by writing posts like this reaction to the Frisch controversy. By way of comparison, he makes an example of this post by the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler’s Misha.  It’s not a hard post to make an example of. […]

  118. Unregistered Pingback by damnum absque injuria » Weekend Doucheblogging HONG KONG

    […] Yeah, and so what? For a while there, Bill Quick and I weren’t exactly on speaking terms, but we were still on each other’s blogrolls. Even the ultimate cupid stunt, Debbie Schlussel, remains on mine, albeit identified as such. Judging by his own blogroll, which he prefaces with the phrase “Blogs I Read” (a representation very few bloggers would ever make about their blogrolls) does Greenwald really agree to be held personally responsible for condemning every arguably offensive statement ever made by Andrea Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Atrios, “Reason,” National Review, John Cole, or any of Kevin Drum’s commenters, to name just a few of the most obvious examples? He wrote a post today discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan and here is what he said: […]

  119. Unregistered Pingback by justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » The Glenn Greenwald Postmortum UNITED STATES

    […] And that was that.  Until the Champion of Liberal Goodness, Glenn Greenwald, gets involved by condemning the enitre Right of Center blogosphere becuse no one jumped on Emperor Darth Misha for being, well, Emperor Darth Misha.  What part of that name doesn’t shout Hyperbole May Happen Here (and the word “boob” )? […]

  120. Unregistered Pingback by Sadly, No! » Shorter Anti-Greenwald Irregulars UNITED STATES

    […] When last we left our story, Glenn Greenwald had tolchocked Misha for advocating the lynching of five Supreme Court justices, and shamed the right-blogosphere for their usual relaxed and carefree attitude toward advocacy of murder, genocide, and the dismantling of the American political system in favor of an authoritarian one-party state. […]

  121. Unregistered Pingback by Political Games » Blog Archive » Answering the Prisoner Question UNITED STATES

    […] What really got the liberal panties all bunched up were the military tribunals we were using to try these bloodthirsty criminals. According to them and their ACLU minions, dangerous enemy combatants need to be tried in a civilian court with all of the delays and hassles inherent to it. Well what the heck, why not invite them to your grandma’s house for dinner? They’re about equally good ideas! What these idiots don’t understand is the Islamofascists represent the biggest threat to our nation in its history. We need to be able to protect Americans against all enemies, and we can’t allow vague, quaint treaties [which were never ratified by our legislature by the way!] allow this subhuman enemy to hurt us. Besides, as Emperor Darth Misha I of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler points out, the terrorists haven’t bothered to follow the Geneva Convention and continue to torture and kill our brave soldiers in the field. Misha is discussing the recent ruling by the court [and believe me, there will be a post on that problem later!] saying that we can’t run military tribunals, and we have to follow the Geneva Conventions. […]

  122. Unregistered Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » They Love Us! They Really, Really Love Us! UNITED STATES

    […] LC Nick informs us that the Almighty Loseweek Newsweek has cast its benevolent glance upon our humble Empire: Angered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, prominent right-wing blogger nicedoggie.net calls for “Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required.” Classy. […]

  123. Unregistered Trackback by Snoop InfoSystems SWITZERLAND

    The final proof that right-wing blogs arrived in the press…

    If all the bloggers lament that blogs don't have a real influence when it comes to the dead-tree and online press, this is the glaring proof that this isn't quite the case.

  124. Unregistered Pingback by The NonSequitur » Blog Archive » The Horror UNITED STATES

    […] The odd thing about Kurtz’s otherwise shallow two-party analysis (e.g., on the right they scream journalists and supreme court justices should be hanged until dead, but on the left, there is also criticism of journalists) is the partisan translation of the left complaint. But that translation hardly follows from Kurtz’s own description of the left complaint. The problem, according to Kurtz’s imaginary lefty, is journalistic shortcomings. […]