(Via LC & IB Jeff G.)
The al-Qaeda Times are busy masturbating like monkeys on crack over their superior skills and fantastic photography. In the middle of this auto-erotic Jizzmavaganza, they find the time to praise this photo:
Joao Silva for the New York Times
The caption to the photo is the real kicker:
A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.
Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”
That sack of putrid shit, Joao Silva, is standing right next to a terrorist in clear and open violation of the Geneva Conventions, shooting at U.S. soldiers, and all he can think is “cool! I better get a snapshot of THAT!”
And all the al-Qaeda Times’ Michele McNally has to say is “incredible courage.”
What courage? The courage to stand idly by while a terrorist pig is getting ready to send a bullet through somebody’s son, husband and/or father? The courage to do nothing but grab your camera in hopes of a Pulitzer? The courage to ACTIVELY AID AND ABET AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Because it can’t possibly have to do with the terrorist and his rifle. There is no chance in Hell that the murdering swine would ever turn his rifle on one of the terrorists’ most valued allies.
Somewhere there might be a little girl or boy left with nothing but a picture of a father that will never come home again, a father that will never tuck them in again, a father who will be nothing but a fading memory as the years go by. No trips to the ball park, no graduation pictures with daddy beaming proudly, no father on her arm as she walks down the aisle.
And all of this because of one sniper and one Joao Silva, photographer for the al-Qaeda Times, whose only thoughts were of the perfect picture and the award that might follow.
It’s “incredible”, alright, but it has nothing to do with “courage.”
Hopefully, one day Mr Silva will get himself in position for another “perfect picture”, only to discover the effects of high explosives going off in his immediate vicinity. Hopefully, he will suffer. But if he doesn’t, he’ll still suffer in Hell.
For a long, long time.
UPDATE: Much to nobody’s surprise, we learn that Lady Gwendolyn, Queen of the Douche-osphere, would’ve done the exact same thing as Joao Silva and sees nothing wrong with it. To both Lady Gwendolyn and Joao Silva, we can only echo LC & IB Uncle Jimbo in saying that if you’re the kind of shitsack who’ll stand by while a terrorist shoots somebody, then you’re a terrorist too. When you further aggravate the offense by using the situation to enrich yourself, you’re a particularly vile and amoral terrorist as well.
No, there is no “gray” there. If you witness a crime and do nothing to prevent it, you’re complicit. Every bit as complicit as the swine who pulls the trigger and you should expect to suffer the full consequences thereof, no matter how much the traitor pigs of the al-Qaeda Times shower you with accolades and wax poetic over your “courage.”
And that’s all there is to say about that.
LC & IB Patterico isn’t impressed with the al-Qaeda Times either, and even less surprised. He thinks back on the interview in which Bill Musab al-Keller clearly stated that his paper isn’t neutral in the war, and delivers the following scorching observation in reply:
you notice he didn’t say which side he’s on.
Ouch.
Of course, if Bill Musab al-Keller had declared which side the al-Qaeda Times are on, he’d be guilty of belaboring the obvious.
Entries (RSS)
This makes my blood boil.
That “reporter” or “photographer” has a nice warm place reserved , right close by the fires when they finally punch off this planet.
They should be tried for treason , and if not immediatly executed , locked away for a long LONG time.
It would be perfect poetic justice , however to post the pictures from a grainy home made video when the subject of his photo decides that he is no longer usefull and removes his head.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:04 amWell, I WAS going to comment….and suddenly realized I have no words.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:40 amThis is all one can expect from the MSM.
I would like to meet this man for a beer. I doubt he would like what would follow.
The split tail is not even worthy of a comment but I will still make one. I will not let my dog fornicate with her. I like Jack and would hate to see him get a disease.
Wonderful MSM…….Makes me puke.
Semper “pissed off” Fi
July 17th, 2006 at 2:58 amThis is all the proof we need that the msm is officially not on our side.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:07 am[…] Shorter Misha: “Blar-har! Puny human Greenwald. Hey, let’s run that old rope/tree graphic again.” […]
July 17th, 2006 at 4:43 amBoss, whatever happened to the plan to outfit these pukes with the GPS enabled cell phones?
Hey, we’re taking fire from over there, and we just found a journaljizzmer cell phone!
clickety-click
On the way!
July 17th, 2006 at 5:20 amThe really sad part is that it’s not compositionally sound as a photo. He’s not filling his frame and law of thirds? What law of thirds? (You can get away with ignoring the thirds rule if you fill your frame, but he’s done neither, which makes this a snapshot rather than decent photography.)
Not only is the man aiding and abetting the enemy, he’s an incompetent boob behind that camera.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:09 am“Be a big help and pass me some more ammo, Joao. Quickly, I’ve got their range!”
July 17th, 2006 at 7:47 amThat would have hastened the end of the slimes if he openly admitted to be the enemy.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:59 amAnd this means… what?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:01 amI think they mean “courage” in that it isn’t very safe, or smart, to be on the opposite side of a barrel from a US soldier. (Or not. It is the al-Qaeda Times, after all)
I’m surprised the room from which that sniper is firing is still intact.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:40 amSins of Omission…
The most recent example that’s been creating a lot of buzz is this–> and some of the responses are found here, here, and here. I’m probably going to repeat what many others have said, but in short, this is my view: If you manage to snap a picture of…
July 17th, 2006 at 8:52 amOf course, if this terrorist “sniper’s” position had been spotted by nearby US forces, and they proceeded to lob a few M-203 rounds into the room and turned ol’ Joao into hamburger, the NY Times would be screaming that US forces “purposely target” journalists….
July 17th, 2006 at 8:56 amMiami Harold, you beat me to it. Just imagine the screed of outrage about how American forces treat the poor civilians they wantonly target without reason (see, the guy’s not in uniform, and he’s not actually shooting the rifle. He just noticed it sitting there and decided to use the telescopic sight to see if he could find a Taco Bell because he’s really jonesin’ for a CrunchWrap Supreme…yeah, that’s it…he’s just an innocent civilian, not a terrorist) if seconds after this photo was snapped a large, Deliberately Manufactured Explosive Device touched this terrorist tit in a most intimate way.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amHey, Emperor, did you notice the obsessed minger wankers from “Sadly, No” (aka, sadly, we’re total idiots) are now keeping an eye on you too?
Hey, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe you will distract them for awhile and give poor Goldstein a break. He could probably use it.
RH
July 17th, 2006 at 9:49 amActually, the US command in Iraq has already declared civilians with camcorders who are making terrorist propaganda films to be terrorists.
The US army even staged a few fake IED attacks on unsalvageable vehicles in order to shoot the bejesus out of these jackels when they showed up at the burning wrecks to make victory movies.
This journalist needs to be found, and turned over to the Iraqi police for helping the terrorists make propagande.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amI’ll bet you half a stale donut that this picture is rigged; just as false as the ones we get from the palestinians.
Still, it’s just one more example that the AQ Times is an enemy propoganda rag.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:08 amMore From The al Qaeda Times…
The New York Times, once again, shows their loving support for Islamic terrorists.
……
July 17th, 2006 at 12:26 pmwow checking out that trackback by “sadilyno” I come across this gem of stupid:
But Staring down the barrel of the (aptly named) Soviet Third Shock Army knowing you are dead if they decided to roll across the border isn’t bravery What has Brando done besides smoke a Bong in his parent’s basement?
PS why hasn’t Brando signed up to die with Michael Mooron’s “minutemen” in Iraq? Maybe he is a Pussy LIKE THE REST OF YOU FUCKING LIBERALS.
Miles of rope
A forest of trees
Liberals
(a few tires too)
Some assembly required
There Now I want my denouncement in triplicate
July 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pmIf that shot wins any awards, I may just take up sniping myself. (For any NYT lurkers out there, this is known as hyperbole)
This Sunday’s Doonesbury showed that at least some of the older liberals are capable of introspection, and not simply projection. It featured a career feminist lamenting the fact that young women no longer want to be known as “feminists” She realized that all of the relevent battles for women’s rights in America had already been won decades ago, and that the slow death of the women’s movement was not due to it’s failure, but rather it’s sucess.
The same could be said of almost all Activist Reform movements; there hasn’t been segregation, a draft, or sweatshops for a looong time, and yet they rage on against Western Civ in the hope of building Utopia on it’s ashes. Biting the hand that feeds them and calling it “Truth to power”
Of course the Jihadists have thir own vision of “Utopia” and the de-facto alliance between them and the Left is a result of each side seeing the other as the useful idiot. In their moral and intellectual destitution, the Left sees a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq, replete with Helecopters being pushed into the sea, along with another major terrorist attack on US soil, as the only way to get Americans to vote the Neo-Cons out of power. “It’s all for the greater good, Comerade.”
Meanwhile, on the American street, I have watched the Anti-War protest marches dwindle from hundreds down to half a dozen graybeards, while at the same time, attendance at my local firing range has gone nowhere but up. (And this is a California university town!)
When Leftist opinion brokers talk about “Failing to win hearts and minds” and “No exit strategy” they should take a look in the mirror first.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmAhhhh, they hypocrisy. The fact that the NY Times fucking labels this as “courage” shows their admiration for the murdering savages (not in uniform, thus violating the Geneva conventions) who most probably is aiming at civilians is a point that doesn’t even phase our leftards, like “sadly no brains”. If I dared to venture in that slum of a blog of his, I would put money he supports this AMERICAN newspaper for labeling our soldiers as all kinds of things. One of the defenses is the photographer was NOT American. Fine. But just ignore the caption given by an AMERICAN newspaper, who is very critical of the troops for AMERICA.
Fuck the retarded far left and their stupidity. What do we expect? For them to find common sense? Suport our country and fucking condemn the terrorists? Fat chance. That would require a change of heart, conscious, and the growing of a brain. There’s a better chance at finding a unicorn and seeing my dog fly than that.
I’m sick of these assholes putting political idealogy in front of supporting their country. It is no wonder many long time Dems left their party. Who wants to be associated with a bunch of far left liberal assholes. I sure as hell wouldn’t.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pmI hope that this SOB is pushing up daisies or whatever passes for flower in Iraq today.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pmBesides, the fact that he’s not American only means that we can’t charge him with treason. It DOESN’T change that he’s an amoral, soulless waste of protein nor does it, amusingly, change the fact that he’s an accomplice to terrorism by his inactivity and therefore eligible for a trip to Gitmo.
Don’t think so?
Imagine the oodles of useful intel that could be gleaned from his archives, not to mention the knowledge about the terrorists and contacts to them that he HAS to have in order to be able to operate like that among them.
And it could take a LOOOONG time to extract all of that information from Mr Silva. Not that it matters. Since most of the information needed to prosecute and determine whether he could be let go afterwards would be classified, we’d have to keep him behind razor wire until the end of hostilities, thanks to Hamdan.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pmwow checking out that trackback by “sadilyno” I come across this gem of stupid
[…something about ‘irony’ from our comments]
Actually, the irony in Misha’s apprehension of the Joao Silva affair is that Silva is a South African citizen born in Portugal, who freelances for the Times and other papers.
Like, you know, not American and not a Times employee.
Then again, if y’all want to be angry, I’m certainly not one to interfere.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pmThe NYT forgot the music….Where oh where are the Dixie Chicks…
July 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pmAnd I state that Silva is an American where, exactly?
Reading comprehension isn’t your strongest suit, is it? Is it one of your suits at all?
Not that his nationality is relevant, as I helpfully tried to explain in the comment above yours.
Oh, and explain how this freelancing thing works again. He gets paid by the al-Qaeda Times, his photos are published with the byline “for the New York Times”, yet the fact that he doesn’t have an office in New York somehow means that there’s absolutely no employer-employee connection between him and the al-Qaeda Times, in fact it’s ironic to even suggest there’s a connection between the two at all?
Interesting. So if I were to pay an enterprising “freelancer”, say, a grand for torching a particularly troubling neighbor’s residence, I’d not in any way be culpable or connected to the act, nor would it be proper to suggest that the “freelancer” was, in any way, to be considered in my employ?
Well, I don’t have any troubling neighbors and, even if I did, I wouldn’t do it anyway. Somehow I don’t think your brilliant defense would work too well for me in court. Sadly, no it wouldn’t.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:26 pmAnd it could take a LOOOONG time to extract all of that information from Mr Silva. Not that it matters. Since most of the information needed to prosecute and determine whether he could be let go afterwards would be classified, we’d have to keep him behind razor wire until…
We really have to come by here more often. This is like pure manna from heaven.
Argh! Hate! Kill!
July 17th, 2006 at 3:26 pm‘Might be best you don’t.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmI’m not your shrink, so I’ll let the others explain the messy details that you don’t get, to make your statement.
That idiot is courageous alright, just like I’d be a hero for stepping on the third rail.
Except he is said to be shooting at my countrymen.
That makes him an enemy. Period. If I had a way I would have killed him, then taken a picture.
The photog’ and the story serve the other side. That means, they are enemies, along with their friends.
Is that you?
Stace, did you get my pictures from the anti Times demonstration?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmFunny, some of us were thinking the same thing. It’s been forever since we had some good trolls to sink our teeth into…;)
July 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmFunny, some of us were thinking the same thing. It’s been forever since we had some good trolls to sink our teeth into…;)
Hey man, we have a blog to run. Those checks from Kos are schweet!
Catch you via Trackback sometime…
July 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWhatever,
July 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pmFor Argh! Hate! Kill! ,, kos is the prime trailerpark to park your mind and let the emotions pour.
You won’t be tormented by facts there. Enjoy.
But drop back by when you can, chew-toys are getting sparse.
Sadly NO Brains, you little fucking chickenshit, terrorist lover. Please hang out here more. I felt assaulted by stupidity after visiting your site during the whole Frisch mess. Even Kos has criticized the sociopathic, unhinged, American hating, ex prof. with pedophiac thoughts you defended. It was way to much.
But you displaying your immature stupid thoughts here and watching your ass get handed to you is quite amusing.
Come back, bring you whiney self here any time so I can witness you get slaughtered from verbal judo.
Oh, and pssst, terrorist admirer Glenn Fuckwald, I condemn MYSELF, so don’t get your pansy ass self in a righteous rant. Take a break and go visit that vile creature you defended in court, for ya know, using so called hyperbole.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm[making sad face, paddling a rubber-bandy paddleball]
Serious, yo. Attacks against America don’t just write themselves!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmWhen I posted the link yesterday in the “Ever Found Yourself Wondering… what a Nuclear Fisking™ looks like? with the Jeff’s commentary: “Sleeping with the Enemy” (http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1057#comment-31303) I didn’t think it was going to be troll bait…:lol:
Still I can’t help but wonder if the Times can’t be nailed for aiding and abetting a crime of treason…
Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”
So this is now the new & improved defintion of press nuetrality as sported by Bill Keller, eh?
Amazing! Amazingly clueless that is…
Does Keller think EVERYONE is as dumb as a Democrat who thinks the sun rises and sets out of Howard Dean’s rectal orifice?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pmIf right-wing bloggers were photo editors…
The right-wing blogosphere is all atwitter over this photo of a Shiite sniper supposedly firing towards U.S. positions in Iraq. In particular, this comment has been repeated ad infinitum: Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such…
July 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pmAhh, that sharp lad at Blogumentry is obviously looking for an upward spike of visitors to his site: That’s right. Apparently, the right wing blogosphere thinks photographs of the enemy are a new development; a morally reprehensible act limited to the New York Times. Also, journalists should now take active part in the war and beat snipers with their weapons of choice (cameras, pens, laptops, etc.) rather than observe or report on events. Do not seek to document or understand - only seek to kill.
What a sea of dangerously uninformed idiocy. That’s how we got into this mess. So let’s have a little fun! How might these right-wing bloggers comment on other memorable photographs?
Ahhh, so funny and yet such cluelessness is so damned dangerous…
Does this moron think he could carry on with his idiotic attempt at establishing a sense of self if this shooter’s side does end up imposing sharia on us all?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:33 pmif this shooter’s side does end up imposing sharia on us all?
jaundos, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I won’t live in a country under sharia. And I ain’t moving!
July 17th, 2006 at 7:09 pmYeah, Juandos, Blogumentary is just about as sharp as a brick. Despite being a waste of fifteen minutes of my life that I’ll never get back, I left the following comment on his site:
July 17th, 2006 at 8:03 pmNow where is a good fraggin’ when you need one?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAnd a fine comment it was, indeed. When I was there, (and read it), no moontard had yet replied to it…
July 17th, 2006 at 8:44 pmMore frothing at the knee caps from the great army of America’s defenders, firmly lodged in front of their computers. Let there be no photos made of any terrorist, particularly when they’re using weapons! Because any decent human, particulary the BraveHearts commenting here, would throw down their cameras and leap on top of that jihadist, killing him with our own teeth if necessary. Even the press, even free-lance photographers must put aside that tiresome, petty “objectivity” (read- treason) when it comes to terrorists. They must join us in our grr-grr-kill-kill approach.
There is only one thing the press can do - print the good news and the good photos. Anything less reflects the worst kind of treason. And we don’t mean that as a figure of speech. If you ain’t with us, you’re aginst us. We’re absolutely right and anyone that doesn’t agree with us is dangerous, an extreme threat, probably insane and should be exterminated. Hmmm - kind of sounds just like how those terrorists look at things.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:00 pmSounds a whole lot like a case of equivalency here. Which I reject out of hand. Would I kill him? You bet, as fast as I could. A lead lobotomy works wonders. Why? Because he would kill American soldiers…I used to be an American soldier. I do not seek fairness, I do not seek reward…I seek survival of those I call my fellows. So while alleged neutrals can seek to profit from such ventures, do not be surprised when they are taken to task for it. But, yes, I would take this dude out…then the terrorist. I call it rendering aid and comfort to the enemy. They can call it any God damned thing they want…..as for good news….I’d like nothing better than to see some in our media.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:12 pmIndeed. Well here’s my response to LC West, reposted here for your enjoyment. Incidentally, except for his dig up there, I found his comment to be really reasonable. His tone says, “We can have a conversation.” Too many of you just jump to violent, emotional responses. On with my response:
July 17th, 2006 at 9:19 pmHey, Blogumentary! Welcome back! Glad to see my post over at your blog wasn’t the waste of time I first feared it was…
Well, we tend to jump to those “violent, emotional responses” because that tends to be the quickest way to the right blogosphere’s newest badge of honor: a Glenn Greenwald condemnation. I’m still eagerly awaiting mine; it will be a sign I’ve been taken seriously as a commenter. Or at least as a troll.
Yeah, “desperate yet determined,” that’s the point: the photographer made the terrorist sniper look heroic. And just what is that heroism, in this context? I don’t think you can sufficiently “demonize” the people who have indiscriminately slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians to what, bring back that fascist thug Saddam and his rape rooms and his nerve-gassed Kurds?
Yeah, Blogumentary, it’s a striking image. Sergei Eisenstein’s The Battleship Potemkin and Aleksander Nevsky also were striking films, with similar striking imagery, yet that still doesn’t change the fact that they were made as propaganda pieces for the glorification of thugs and tyrants.
Also, there’s the real possiblilty that somewhere beyond the muzzle of that Dragunov is a dead American soldier…or a hapless Iraqi civilian who got in the way. Which brings me to:
I think we’d still have the same questions about the photographer, actually. Just how did Silva get to hang out with the insurgents, and get all those pictures from their viewpoint, if he didn’t share their values and goals? If Silva wasn’t sympathetic to them and their objectives, he would have gotten the Daniel Pearl treatment, no matter what kind of “thrill seeker” he supposedly is. Remember, we’re talking about an entire photo montage featuring “desperate but determined” Iraqi “freedom fighters,” kids standing triumphantly on burned-out American armored vehicles, etc. If you look at the entire series of photos, Silva - maybe with some help from his editors - makes the Iraqi terrorists look like the French Resistance during WWII.
So I guess it still begs the question: Why did the New York Times hire as one of its stringers a man who by all evidence must be sympathetic to the enemies of its own country? And why did they run what amounts to enemy propaganda without a shred of even context, much less condemnation?
No, what “people want” is to see both sides of the story. Where are the similarly heroic pictures in the New York Times of American heroism under fire? Or for that matter, where are the pictures of Americans building schools and hospitals, repairing water treatment plants and power plants, or any of the myriad of things our military and civil authorities are doing to rebuild Iraq and help its people, while taking fire from the “desperate but determined” insurgents? From what we’ve seen, the Times isn’t really interested in those photographs and stories. Nor are AP, Reuters, the BBC, etc…)
While “the people” may want to see images and stories of war…too many news organizations, like the New York Times, are totally uninterested in publishing anything that contradicts the story that, for whatever reason, they want to tell.
Again, the New York Times, in particular, has a record of whitewashing and apologizing for this nation’s enemies going all the way back to Walter Duranty’s coverage of Stalin’s purges in the 1930s. They also have a track record of attempting to undermine everything the current occupant of the Oval Office attempts to do - including undermining the nation’s security and the War on Terror - out of, if nothing else, resentment that “their” candidates didn’t win the past couple of Presidential elections. (For instance, surveillance of international banking transactions, which the Times revealed publicly despite pleas from political opponents of the President to keep quiet.)
And, while questioning everything the President does to defend the nation against attack…the Times unhesitatingly accepts and publishes at face value enemy propaganda and calls it a “snapshot” of life in Iraq. And praises the “courage” of the propagandist.
Given that the New York Times seems to have so brazenly chosen sides - chosen the other side! - in the War on Terror, why shouldn’t we question its editorial judgement? Or question those who, for whatever reason, defend what is an indefensible act on the Times‘ part?*
(*Please note that I’m not accusing you of treason, Blogumentary. I think you’re actually one of those I described in my prior post as taking moral equivalence to an extreme. Which probably hurts a little, too. Sorry.
As for the New York Times, on the other hand…well suffice it to say I’m a proud owner of one of Misha’s notorious “Rope, Tree, Journalist” T-shirts.)
July 17th, 2006 at 10:39 pmI was just thinking that.
I wouldn’t call it funny, but then, I have higher standards when it comes to humor.
I found all of his punchlines to be inferior in the extreme. In fact, I suspect he did not mean them to be funny at all and he really does belive we think that way.
Of course I also notice that DJ Allyn also seems to think that way and he actually talks to us on a near daily basis.
Except they expect you to pay protection money and obey alot of extra laws to make your life a living hell. Oh, and the fact that any muslim can claim anything about you and a sharia court will take thier word over yours without question.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:00 ammaxxdog (#38) says: “jaundos, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I won’t live in a country under sharia. And I ain’t moving!“….
Well sir that line I offered was a bit tongue in cheek…
Your attitude reflects mine until I run out of ammo or worse…
Deathknyte (#46) says: “I wouldn’t call it funny, but then, I have higher standards when it comes to humor“…
Ahhh DK, I have to work on my attempts at, “ironic humor” a bit more it seems…
Wes, Imperial Mohel (#39) on his note to Blogumentry offered up a beautiful but polite bitch slapping to the sadly ignorant lad…
Sadly though Blogumentary in his response (#44) proves that with liberalism, ignorance is marrow deep and body wide but he does expose it with pride…
Pathetic!
July 18th, 2006 at 4:56 amI was referring to Blargumentary’s punchlines.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:28 amI think Bacon is right and the picture is completly staged.
Who fires on both knees? For that matter why is the muzzle sticking out the window? Why is the muzzle resting on the window sill? (Bacon says something about the harmonics will screw up the shot, FIIK). Why is his right hand sitting over his left which is on the trigger? That cannot be a comfortable position to shoot from.
Any other opinions?
July 18th, 2006 at 6:33 amBack to the RightwingDeathBeastKneeJerkViolentResponse to libratfeelgoodintellectandfactfree clueless droolings of Blogumentalcase:
Fuck you with a broken glass encrusted Cluebat you vapid, suppurating pustule on the cancerous ovipositor of the DebFrisch, the would be pedophilic ball breaker of your coming New and Improved One World Utopian Socialism.
Side with, defend or empathize with the enemy…
You ARE the enemy.
Here’s your thirty pieces of silver and some rope.
You know what to do….
July 18th, 2006 at 8:31 amCould be, DK…but whether or not it was staged - and granted, that looks to be a very awkward grip on Homeboi’s part - it’s still enemy propaganda, served up without comment by the New York Times. Other than to praise the “courage” of the photog.
On the other hand, I never understood why American gangbangers shoot their Glocks sideways with the ejection port sticking straight up into the air. Maybe Silva’s homie there is demonstrating some sort of “gangsta sniper style” position that would look really cool to an Iraqi…
Anyway, judging by the way the Times’ stock is plunging on Wall Street, “thirty pieces of silver” may be all the paper is worth by the time the elections roll around…
July 18th, 2006 at 9:43 amThat was priceless, Jon! Who’s taking bets on whether he gets the reference or not?
RH
July 18th, 2006 at 10:54 amthirty pieces of silver and some rope - so that’s what passes for humor here? oh well…
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” - Thomas Jefferson
July 18th, 2006 at 12:55 pmBlogumentalidiot, why yes, yes it does. Take your pompous ass over to Sadly No Brains and find out their lame attempt of trying to copy IMAO or here. At least we’re funny.
Shoot, if you’d like, I’ll put you in a human slingshot, and shoot your ass over there to join Mr. Sadly No Brains in his mom’s basement to help him out. Maybe you guys can replay the DNC convention during the elections where they hired professional comedians that were just so funny and representative of the Democratic party. I heard they really cracked up at their darling Whoopi Goldberg. Eh, fricken Slimfast, now they have no humor at all. They just didn’t get her jokes. Poo on them.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThanks for the offer, but I prefer to replay the RNC for sheer escapism!
July 18th, 2006 at 5:05 pmI propose that we substitute a new slogan for “Rope, Tree, Journalist…… some assembly required”:
“Tar, Feathers, Journalist…… some assembly required”
Why? Because the Left-wing traitorous Journalist swine would probably enjoy martyrdom. Humiliation, on the other hand, would hurt those self-centered nincompoops more than jail time or death. It would go a long way to destroying their (over inflated) self-image. Hanging is too good for the little bastards.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:27 pmYou are probably right, Schofield.
BTW, frogumentally, Jefferson lived through a period with a REAL dictatorship IN THIS COUNTRY (or what would become it, at least). You haven’t. Your moronic attempt to equate his words with today’s situation is, at best, utterly laughable. As worst, it is lunacy that almost rivals that of the treason times.
RH
July 18th, 2006 at 5:37 pmyou guys are really a piece of work.
i’m returning to the real America now, where we have something called Freedom of the Press. have fun in your little paranoid, psychotic, insular fanclub world!
July 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pmAwww did we evil right-wing death beasts scare poor widdle frogumentalry off? The sorrow and the shame exceeds my ability to express (with a straight face, that is)…
And if you *really* think we don’t believe in a free press you are obviously dumber than a box of rocks. Without freedom of speech there would be no freedom of the press. Without freedom of speech I would not be able to call you a clueless idiot — which you are, but that’s beside the point — because the “thought police” would be after me (and you) in no time flat for daring to express any opinion not officially sanctioned by the “great leader”. Almost like the demoncrats and Joe Lieberman.
There is a difference between freedom of the press, however, and seditious and treasonous shilling for the enemy. And, unlike the fourth estate who view themselves as the unimpeachable fourth branch of the government, WE THE PEOPLE have the right and DUTY to inform them of their mistake by hitting them in the pocketbook when they cross over the line. Furthermore the REAL government has EVERY right to call them up on charges of treason, sedition, and illegally disseminating classified materials. There is a process for challenging an unjust or illegal maneuver by the executive branch — should one REALLY occur, unlike the total horse hockey excuses for attacking Bush that are espoused by the treason times. They are known as the legislative branch and the courts, btw, in case you weren’t intelligent enough to figure that out on your own.
One does NOT have to splash a suspect program all over the front page of the treason times to challenge its constitutionality. A simple call to a few dozen senators and representatives could have done the exact same thing without seizing executive power to themselves — much like they CLAIM Bush is doing, only far worse because unlike Bush they have NO right to said powers. Even IF they were right (they aren’t) it would still be a case of a pot calling the kettle black. With them being wrong, it’s far worse. It’s treason. Which is why we call them the treason times or the al-queda times. They are, essentially, the paper of treason, and they deserve to be called on it. Harshly.
RH
July 19th, 2006 at 12:51 amBlogumentry:
The First Amendment allows the press to publish anything they damn please. It doesn’t entitle them to escape the natural consequences of doing so. The press’s fondness for cozying up to thugs, murderers, and swine is why newspaper stocks are such a lousy investment.
I, personally, am against hanging the self-important little twits. It would only bolster their fantasies about “speaking truth to power” (you’ll notice that they carefully avoid speaking ‘truth’ to any ‘power’ likely to actually react as a real fascist would … by making them vanish between two days). Tar and feathers or (in extreme cases) horsewhipping should be sufficient to express our contempt.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:42 amBloggedupmentalcase, there was absolutely no humor intended in that remark. Had you the sense God gave a goose and even a mild acquaintance with Reality, you would have known that. Either grow up, get a Clue, repent and recant your treason… or use that rope.
Thanks, Robert, but how ’bout dis:
Too much like that visual of Hildabeest and Reno naked mud rastlin’? I condemn myself for that vile offense to refined retinas everywhere.
See, Frogmental? Now that’s humor!
July 21st, 2006 at 12:25 am