If one assembles large amounts of kindling and firewood in to a pile, pours gasoline on the pile, and then orders 10 guys to stand around the pile smoking, is the subsequent fire an unplanned "accident"?
Posted by euzoius at January 14, 2007 12:28 PMThis past week I have heard statements very similar to those made to sway American about the dangers existing in Iraq three years ago. Although these statements are not new, I have heard a escalation in the rhetoric.
I guess all we can do is sit by and watch the middle east blow up. Bush just might get his Armaggendon yet.
Posted by Judith at January 14, 2007 12:40 PMTh mrl qvlnc dctrn nvrbly prtrys th S s bng th mlfctr s f wthstndng mlgnnt frcs ws smhw vl n tslf. f th xstnc f cvlztn s prvctn t th brbrn thn th lft wll prps th mscrnts b ppsd. Hwvr hstry tchs tht th fbl nglctng t prpr fr th cntngncy f scltn s vn mr ncndry t th crvn fxtd wth r dstrctn.
[Editor: ignore=off]Welcome, Colonel Gardiner. Everything the Bush administration is doing reminds me of their run up to going to war against Iraq. They are throwing gasoliine on the brush and then will cry victims when the match strikes the fuel and starts a raging wildfire. Bush and Cheney are too invested in getting their wars on that they will never let reality and their abject failure to stop them now.
Posted by Mary at January 14, 2007 12:57 PMwelcome, colonel. do we know for sure that iran is operating clandestinely in iraq? seems they would hardly need to, the nascent government is leaning their way anyway. this would certainly be the case if we move to marginalize al-sadr and support al-hakim instead.
Posted by benjoya at January 14, 2007 01:05 PMMy only observation regarding this particular post is this fragment:
"First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran."
Given all that is known about the Iranian regime: why is it necessary to create outrage?
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 01:06 PMGiven all that is known about the Iranian regime: why is it necessary to create outrage?
because they haven't done anything that could be interpreted as a casus belli. iran hasn't invaded anyone, they're not tied up with al qaeda like the sauds and pakistanis. you can't bomb a country just because the president plays to his redneck base. thank god.
Posted by benjoya at January 14, 2007 01:18 PMWelcome Colonel Gardiner.
Any signficance to replacing General Casey with Admiral FAllon? And if you think it is significant or not explain a bit...plus how soon will that take place?
Lastly, could you keep us updated when these other elements come into place that you mentioned we should be on the lookout for. Thanks.
Posted by emal at January 14, 2007 01:32 PM"because they haven't done anything that could be interpreted as a casus belli."
Actualy, I do think that that little incident during President Carter's term in office and the continuing beligerence (and support for terrorism) of the Mullahs since then is "casus belli."
P.S. And let us not forget that whole wipe-Israel-off-the-map-thingy, shall we.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 01:40 PMActualy, I do think that that little incident during President Carter's term in office
Oh, let's reach back nearly 40 years for a reason to go to war today.
You really want our kids thrown into another war that badly?
Posted by Stranger at January 14, 2007 01:45 PM"Oh, let's reach back nearly 40 years for a reason to go to war today."
Jimmy Carter was President from 1977 to 1981. You should at least be able to manage basic arithmetic.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 01:49 PMIt's easy for the US to start a war, not easy to end one (if Iraq is any indication/Kosovo/Somalia too). Is it just possible that a group of people want a Big War. Again, the PNAC/Israeli Lobby seem to have a plan for just that. The Armageddon Christian Nuts (Bush/Rove) think the Bible is calling for one. If we are to be led by madmen, our destiny is already on the books. Will there be anyone to venture past the blogs to give the clarion call? What person will reveal themselves as the one who's "had enough". Geez, Chuck Hagel seems more forcefull than any Democrat, with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy. This is it....now is the time for a good man to step up and tell the truth, every day, on TV, in the Print, wherever it needs to be, and yell it, and don't stop.
Posted by T2 at January 14, 2007 01:52 PMwhy is it necessary to create outrage?
Well, there's a question you might want to put to your chosen leaders, 'bagman.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2007 02:03 PMIs anyone else as confused as I am about who Bush is supporting in Iraq: Sunni or Shia? Let's see: Maliki's Shia government is OK, but Iran's support for Shias isn't. The Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is least likely to be aligned with Iran, is an enemy. But the most likely Shia cleric to be aligned with Iran, al-Hakim, is a friend. Chalabi, who's a discredited friend of Iran, remains a friend. But it's the foreign jihadists operating under bin Laden's direction in Iraq who are our real enemies—so things are becoming clearer. Even though there were even fewer of them there before we invaded. But we killed Zarqawi, who was a Salifist and not really a true blue al Qaeda, so things got better until they got worse. And Bush thinks Muqtada al-Sadr will attack Detroit any minute, even though he's not al Qaeda, which is predominately Sunni. The Saudi Wahabists are still our friends even though they're [unofficially] supplying Iraq's Sunni militias, who are killing US troops.
Huh?
Posted by Leslie at January 14, 2007 02:07 PMiamcoyote,
Well, Hello! We have not had an opportunity to trade "back-and-forth" in quite awhile.
As my welcoming gift to you, I will ignore your post and permit you an opportunity to re-post a more coherent thought.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 02:10 PMBagley, I will happily remind you of your jackass comment two months from now, when WWIII starts. What is with you trolls? Are you just fucking stupid? A war in Iran means the draft. I hope you don't have any offspring of draft age. Actually, I hope you don't have any offspring, period.
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 02:29 PMThank you colonel, for your contribution. The world thanks you.
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 02:31 PMtempus,
Well, Hello! It has been a long time since I heard from you.
"A war in Iran means the draft."
Still the joker, I see. (Have you been talking to Charlie Rangel?)
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 02:34 PMYes Bagley, war is a very funny joke. Let me guess, you’re actually Dick Cheney in crotchless underwear.
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 02:38 PM"Let me guess, you’re actually Dick Cheney in crotchless underwear."
tempus, it is so nice to have you back in this little teapot on the internets.
So, when do you graduate from the third grade?
"Yes Bagley, war is a very funny joke."
In my experience, no. (Been there, done that.)
Anything else?
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 02:45 PMOh, and Bagley, you might just read, assuming you can read, what Sen. Hagel had to say.
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 02:46 PMSo, when do you graduate from the third grade?
Why would I. I can join the Republican Party now.
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 02:49 PMThanks for the heads up on the impending Bay of Figs invasion.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 14, 2007 02:53 PMsm, yr pnts r xcllnt; hwvr, wld rg tht ny mltry ctn gnst rn nd Syr wld g dwn fst nd hrd. Smltnsly, ll rq mlts wld b ntrlzd.
W mst rmmbr tht rn s bsclly Wstrnzd, thnks t r pst ctns. Thrfr, th crps hv bs f 'pcfd' (frndly/brnwshd, tc.) n ll mjr rnn cts.
gn, th rsn fr th cntnd lw lvl rq grrll ctn t xst ws t cntr n rq/rnn llnc. W hv vr 550k rmy rglrs; vr 200k Mrns; nd th r Frc nd Nvy. sng th Ntnl Grd ws smply crp dcptv ply f 'strtchng' th rmy, tc. Th Ntnl Grd mks s lk wk; whch s th dsrd dcptn. Th rnns r fllng nt ths mnd st jst s r rhd vtrs hv. Fr ny rnn fght pstrng s xctly wht th crp by dsr; nd f th crp bys wnt t crt n rnn ncdnt, wll, thy'v hd lt f prctc, nd fr dcds.
Ths, ny rnn pllg wld b fst nd frs, nd vr qckly. Whn th dst sttls, y'll s th l cmpny flg flyng vr rn.
[Editor: ignore=off]"Oh, and Bagley, you might just read, assuming you can read, what Sen. Hagel had to say."
Hagel is a bit player. Nothing more.
"I can join the Republican Party now."
Haha! Good one, tempus. Do you have anymore?
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 03:06 PMBagley, et. al, can we please stick to discussing what Colonel Gardiner is writing about here?
Thanks.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 14, 2007 03:07 PMSorry, Steve,
My inital post was hi-jacked by the ever-so-entertaining denizens of TLC.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 03:09 PMColonel Gardiner, thanks for this important post. Thanks to the Left Coaster for offering it as well. It's critical that people in your position and with your expertise outline the realities and the bottom line of Mr. Bush's escalation speech from last week. Not only is it an escalation in Iraq, but with Admiral Fallon and another carrier group tasked to the region, it is an escalation of U.S. Middle Eastern policy that has starkly dangerous ramifications for this country, now and in the future. Your insight is invaluable to add to the discussion. It dovetails nicely on Senator Hagel's comments, especially those offered on Charlie Rose last week. As you say in your post, the president can protest, but the facts of military escalation against Iran prove otherwise.
The moral equivalence doctrine invariably portrays the US as being the malefactor as if withstanding malignant forces was somehow evil in itself. If the existence of civilization is a provocation to the barbarian then the left will propose the miscreants be appeased. However history teaches that the feeble neglecting to prepare for the contingency of escalation is even more incendiary to the craven fixated with our destruction.
Baggy, link please, because I know you didn't write the above. Sounds more like Scout
Posted by Judith at January 14, 2007 03:18 PMSorry Steve. My bad.
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 03:24 PMCol. Gardiner, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on what type of catalyst event might be severe enough to give the current admin the cover to go ahead with a strike on Iran.
It's obvious, with the troop buildup, the movement of carrier groups, the rearranging of military leadership, etc, the admin is hell bent on provoking Iran into some sort of response. Absent any popular or political support for such a move, the admin needs an excuse in order to circumvent congress. I wonder, will Iran refuse to be goaded into out and out war?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2007 03:32 PMHere is something to mull over. What would the Democratic Congress do if Cheney/Bush successfully provoke an armed assault by Iran on American forces or citizens?
Do you think Congress would entertain anything less than some sort of counter-strike?
And if they agreed to a counter-strike (in any form), would they not defer to the judgement of the Commander-in-Chief and his minions?
And isn't it impossible to assume Congress would attempt to define or limit any such counter-strike or measure of "self-defense"?
If Congres is going to do anything to reign in the President and Vice President, they had better not wait until February.
Posted by gtash at January 14, 2007 03:35 PMJudith,
I did not post the paragraph.
gtash,
Iran -- in and of itself and through its proxies -- has been executing armed assaults on American citizens since Carter was in office.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 03:42 PMThank you for the insights Col. Gardiner. I posted in another thread below that there was an excellent interview hour last night with Tom Ricks & Michael Gordon for an hour with Tim Russert. There just aren't enough pieces available in MSM that depart from opinion and focus on the facts which is why many of us are hungry for your analysis.
I would be curious who it is in Congress that you see as having the better insights and analysis of the options. An aside, our intelligence and its analysis is certainly less than optimum for Iran - at least in part because Valerie Plame Wilson & her team are not involved. (couldn't resist that one). Thanks for coming by.
I don't understand. Military action against Iran runs contrary to our interests in the region. Why do it?
Posted by Chris at January 14, 2007 04:16 PM
Cheney, Hadley, and Kristol pretty well told us on the Sunday Morning shows today. They view the manufacture of IED's to be a justification to knock out IED manufacturing facilities in Iran.
Also, there is the question of what is a win? Cheney asks if the Americans have the "stomach" to win. What he is saying is that a win is defined as the creation of a compliant puppet government that will always accede to US wishes and nothing less will do. He is simply asserting that to win, US will have to be willing to create a genocide that will reduce all resistance to death.
The question that should be presented to the US is whether the American people are willing to act genocidally to create a compliant puppet government in Iraq. The whole concept is abhorant. The truth is we are in Iraq until we subjugate and kill the Iraqis until we replace their national will and create a compliant puppet government.
As an American, I think the win would be a crime because it cannot be obtained without a genocide.
Posted by Nobody at January 14, 2007 04:21 PMFrom the Oliver Stone movie, JFK...
"There were Admirals?"
I still don't understand. The Iranian regime isn't giving military aid to the insurgency. How is attacking them going to help?
Posted by Chris at January 14, 2007 04:29 PMwhy can't we just bomb iran, syria and north korea nuclear type and just for good measure bunkerbust venesuela, nicaragua, oh yeah cuba too, you may as well add for desert: vietnam and at least be even for what the world has been doing to the US king since he was born.
Bob in Petaluma
Posted by paintmequick at January 14, 2007 05:30 PMnbdy, sm vry gd nsghts. Hwvr, mrcns hv tctly spprtd gncd, n n frm r nthr, snc WW. Ths rngs frm nbrn nfntcd, nks, (WW nd DP), vrs crp pllgs n Cntrl nd Sth mrc; Vtnm, . Tmr (Crtr, f ll ppl), lbrght wth hr rq mbrg nd th stmtd lss f 500k rq chldrn; nd cld vn gt fr mr bstrct, yt jst s rl, by ncldng th dstrctn f ll S scl nstttns, nmly fmly, dctn nd Chrstnty. Th lttr s crtcl n tht wtht sld nstttns t tch r chldrn crrctly, w tch thm t trn t lk mllns f cyts: nsn.
spps tht t cld b rgd tht w hv bcm s dply mbddd n n-Blshvksm, tht w nw cll ncnt rlgs systms, b thy pgn r tr Chrstnty, 'xtrm.' Bt tht's wht mn bt rwllnsm. Tht s, w r th xtrmsts, bt cll th dnky lrds 'xtrmsts.' Jst crp.
Jdth, rlly, rd yr qt nd ws thnkng wht bnch f mn-md trsh, nd y cnnct m! Jst shckng, fr sr.
[Editor: ignore=off]Actualy, I do think that that little incident during President Carter's term
Ooooo! More war! I wonder how much more we can spend on war? Why, the sky is the limit. I too will feel much safer when we avenge the emabassy in Tehran...which was revenge for the United States overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government...which was revenge for the Iranian parliament nationalizing oil...which was revenge for foreign oil companies screwing Iran. But, I am not surprised that Bag'orons (contraction of Bagley and Moron) understanding of these events is so limited. It's much like his understanding of democracy, christianity, and social systems in the United States. Severely flawed, to say the least. And distilled to catch-phrases he can grasp.
So we send carrier groups and Patriot II missle batteries into the area. Who the hell are we tring to kid? The only confirmed kill with a Patriot system is our own (coalition) aircraft. They are a danger to us, no one else. It is a hugely flawed system. Carriers? With that hyper-cavitating torpedo and a missle system that evades radar, we may regret fucking with them.
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2007 05:32 PMColonel, is there any feasible way that America can withdraw from the Middle East fiasco, including thwarting the game plan of the PNAC?
Posted by tempus at January 14, 2007 05:58 PMThe world is at risk. Democrats won't stop Bush. Obviously the best course of action is for the American people to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Washington D.C.
Posted by studs terkel at January 14, 2007 06:00 PMBushco is insanely looking to provoke a hot "engagement" with Iran through miscalulation or "accident", precisely as it tried (and failed) to do for months and months with Saddam before the actual invasion. If some American soldiers or sailors are killed or injured, that's all they'll need.
Nothing can be accomplished by extensive bombing missions other than wanton destruction (i.e. Lebanon, summer of '06) and the entrenchment of ALL existing and future generations of Iranians into blind hatred of America.
Perhaps some Neo-con Right Wingers may develop erections while watching the exciting bombing and destruction and screaming "NUMBER ONE!!!", but this will just result in more collateral damage at home.
We won't be able to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Regimes aren't going to be "changed" solely by air strikes, they are only going to be stregthened. History 101. And we obviously have no ability whatever to invade Iran.
Another hyper-insane hole-digging operation, cheered on by the most mindless turds of the country, exactly what one would expect after watching six years of BushAmerica and its supporting sidekicks.
Posted by euzoius at January 14, 2007 06:06 PMOf course Iran is seeking to influence events in Iraq. They are the country right next door. Guess what, Syria is seeking to influence events in Iraq as well. So, is America, Britain, Saudia Arabia, China, Russia, etc. Every country has an interest in how Iraq comes out and the interests are not necessarily aligned. Frankly, if we are finally starting to realize this then the Administration is far dumber than I thought they were. So, they ae either idiots or they are looking for a reason to expand the war, which would be beyond idiotic and borders on criminal.- In short, what a bunch of dopes.
Posted by Wiliam Jensen at January 14, 2007 06:08 PMHi phidipides.
You seem to be ignoring the rest of my post, as well as the last 20-odd years.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 06:17 PMHi Bagley,
I can place these events in the context of Cardinal Richelieu. History doesn't start 20 years ago. Perspective is very important. Otherwise, decisions may resemble those being made by the Mad King, idiot son of George. They appear to be expedient, but the long term consequences could be devastating.
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2007 06:50 PMOne might wonder how many Iranian subs are parked in Venuzuela? My guess is that if we attack Iran, Iran will sink American shipping worldwide. Especially oil shipping.
Posted by Nobody at January 14, 2007 07:00 PMOk I'm new here and it took me a second to catch it, but I get it now. 'Scout' is one of the Sadly, No! guys isn't he? That site is hilarious.
Posted by Chris at January 14, 2007 07:12 PMSadly, No, Chris. scout is in earnest.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2007 07:26 PMRaw Story's posting a story out in Monday's NYT by David Sanger - last 3 weeks Bush has issued orders to pen a third front in war to capture AQ Iraqi insurgents. This one in Iran...
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Monday_New_York_Times_US_opens_0114.html
Bush never even put on his glasses to read the Baker Hamilton report, he used December while Congress was in recess to start the engines up against Iran.
Constitutional crisis here we come.
Hello phidipides,
"I can place these events in the context of Cardinal Richelieu."
You have been surfing wikipedia. (Unfortunately, wikis are not a substitute for an actual education.)
"They appear to be expedient, but the long term consequences could be devastating."
You seem to be channelling Neville Chamberlain.
Regards,
Bagley
P.S.
"Iran will sink American shipping worldwide."
With three diesel-powered submarines, this is unlikely.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 07:36 PMNeville Chamberlin---God, your material is more lame than peter's, and that's saying something. Back to the 1930s "appeasement" canard, eh? The all-purpose stupid wingnut argument, and you bought a life-time supply of it.
Bits and pieces of fecal matter burped up from years of gorging at right-wing internet shit troughs---and then hilariously projecting about the limited "education" others and their wikpedia use!
Howsaabout listing all those act-of-war attacks on Americans by Iran and their dates---and feel free to include the embassy attack in 1979! Go wild!
Posted by euzoius at January 14, 2007 07:56 PMThe investing angle if this happens? Gold and oil.
Posted by muckdog at January 14, 2007 07:59 PMeuzoius,
But....but...Neville Chamberlin was a real, live person...right....please do not tell me I am wrong...
...and...and...he did make a pact with the Nazis (re: evil)....right...please do not tell me I am wrong....
....oh, could I be wrong: there was no Neville Chamberlin! Oh, my what shall I do?
But on a lighter note...
"Bits and pieces of fecal matter burped up from years of gorging at right-wing internet shit troughs..."
Do you actually have an argument to make or are you just here to be insulting?
Regards,
Bagley
P.S. Sorry, Mr. Soto, but this kind of "devolution" on the part of your regular Leftists seems to be part-and-parcel of the discourse here at TLC.
Posted by Bagley at January 14, 2007 08:04 PMuRcoyote: A contemporary Gulf of Tonken incident could be a belly dancer on an ultralight doing a John Denver, and in the process accidently scratches the paint on a US Navy Zodiak.
After exchanging insurance cards, 1000 cruise missles are unleashed on Iran.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 14, 2007 08:57 PM Are you *sure* that Scout is serious? Look at his use of words like "neo-Bolshevikism" and "donkey lords." That's gotta be a dupe right?
Bagley, I'm curious what you would have done in Chamberlain's shoes, rather than take the Munich Agreement?
Posted by Chris at January 14, 2007 09:02 PMScout is a true believer, you know like Martin Luther on acid.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 14, 2007 09:10 PMI'm just...wow....how can anybody be...wow.
"nukes, (WWII and DP)"
Thankfully, as of this writing there has never been a 'nuclear genocide' in world history.
"various corp pillages in Central and South America; Vietnam, E. Timor (Carter, of all people)"
Those actions were typically covert because they wouldn't have flown with the general public. Majority opinion turned against Vietnam as an accurate accounting of the carnage reached the American public. Same goes for Iraq. And E.Timor was mostly Ford/Kissinger.
"and I could even get far more abstract"
We aren't talking abstract, we're talking about the unprovoked initiation of physical force against flesh-and-blood civilian populations in full view of the entire planet.
"yet just as real, by including the destruction of all US social institutions, namely family"
Uhm...300+ million Americans and growing, but none of us have families. If you are talking about the increase in the divorce rate, that is in no way comparable to stuffing 6 million Jews in a gas chamber. Even speaking abstractly.
"education"
Education as an institution isn't being destroyed.
"and Christianity."
Christianity as an institution isn't being destroyed.
"The latter is critical in that without solid institutions to teach our children correctly, we teach them to turn out like millions of coyotes: insane."
There aren't millions of insane coyotes.
"I suppose that it could be argued that we have become so deeply embedded in neo-Bolshevikism"
We aren't embedded in neo-Bolshevikism.
"that we now call ancient religious systems, be they pagan or true Christianity, 'extreme.' But that's what I mean about Orwellianism. That is, we are the extremists, but call the donkey lords 'extremists.'"
Any increase in mankind's perception of our place in the universe over the past few thousand years is a hallucination brought on by the clever manipulation of language?
I shouldn't have done that but I couldn't resist.
Posted by Chris at January 14, 2007 09:29 PMNeville Chamberlin
Talk about a Wikipedia moment. And Neville is especially relevant because.....well, he really isn't in this instance.
So Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler. The parallel you draw is 180 degrees-out of the situation in which we find ourselves. Actually, Iran is more like England of the time. They attempted to appease the Mad King, idiot son of George, and offered up their nuclear program in an attempt to bargain after we went into Afghanistan, which the Mad King ignored and then promptly invaded the Sudetenland...uhhh, Iraq.
Sorry. You'll have to do much better with your knowledge of history and diplomacy. Spend a few years reading and we can talk.
Posted by phidipides at January 14, 2007 10:07 PM
The misapplication of historical analogy isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is the inability to see an obviously bad decision in the first place. Like starting a war against Hitler to prevent a bunch of Germans from unifying with Germany. Or trying to invade and occupy a country in the heart of the Middle East. Or trying to start a war with Iran while trying to occupy a country in the heart of the Middle East.
If the people in charge are as short-sighted, we could be in big trouble.
Posted by Chris at January 14, 2007 11:06 PMHürriyet ("Liberty") Newspaper :
http://hurriyet.com.tr/english/5752920.asp
Squadron of 24 F-16 fighters lands at US base in IncirlikAccording to the USAF ...
A certain silence which had reigned over the US Incirlik Air Force base in the Turkish city of Adana for the past 3 years came to a close today.
After an absence of 3 years, a squadron of 24 US F-16 fighter jets landed at Incirlik yesterday, reinforced also by an early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes meant for mid-air fuel replenishing. The F-16s which landed at Incirlik yesterday began flight training runs in Adana this morning, although authorities did not comment on whether the jets will be staying at Adana for a long duration or only temporarily.
According to another Turkish newspaper ...
http://thenewanatolian.com/tna-21049.html
The limitation on night flights will partially be lifted at the request of the U.S.Posted by sysprog at January 14, 2007 11:32 PM
Chris, we've tangled with scout before. He's been banned several times, but won't stay away. The coyote bit is a jab at me, because I don't let him get away with his insanity. Think Gary Ruppert on acid, joining a cult and spewing every conspiracy line you've ever heard in one free association paragraph worthy of entry in the DSM-VII. Wrap it all in a thick coating of misogyny and gay bashing, and you have one of the freakiest trolls around.
The funniest part? He calls himself a Democrat.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 15, 2007 05:42 AMChrs, s tht y’r crs. Cyt s crrct tht gt bnnd frm ths st, bt fr crtczng pltcls. Fr nstnc, clld t Pls fr bng ‘whr.’ s ths trm t pnt t sprtl whrs; n hr cs, spprtng th pgn rtl f kllng nbrn nfnts, glrfyng ll frms f sxl ctvty tsd f mrrg, nd cmng frm gngstr bckgrnd, t nm fw tms f nfmy t f mny. Th tm bfr tht hmmrd nn Rchrds fr mny f th sm trsh thnkng.
ll f th bv pnts r rght t f Blshvk thnkng f th trn f th 20th Cntry. Lnn, Trtsky nd th yng Stln hd hnd n dstryng th fmly, prmtng nbrn nfntcd, hmsxlty, dstrctn f mrrg nd dctn, mng mny mr thngs. Th ldr Stln rvrsd sm f ths plcs, bt nt ll.
Th sm plyrs tht spprtd Lnn nd th Blshvks LS spprtd th yng crprtns n bth th S nd rp. Mst f ths plyrs wr Jwsh, bt nt ll. Ths mny plyrs plyd BTH sds f vry dlgy, bcs, n th nd, dlgy dsn’t mttr, nly mny. D y s?
Thy sw wht wrkd n Blshvk SSR, nd wht csd prblms. n cmbntn wth th p nd cmng ‘scnc’ f psychlgy (Brnys, th nphw f Frd, fr nstnc, nd Wtsn, nthr crp tl) th pwr lt, sng th cvr f dmcrcy, nctd vry-sngl-Blshvk plcy tht w tdy tk fr grnt rck. Bsd th bv, t ws pr Blshvksm fr llwng wmn t vt, dvrc, nd t bcm xpltbl n th wrk frc.
Nn f th Blshvk flshnss s ‘prgrssv.’ ll f thr thghts r sld, rght t f hstry, pgn hstry. Ths ds NT mn tht Mrx, wh ws nt Blshvk, ws flsh r stpd, s h ws rght n trgt n mny f hs sclgcl nlyss. Hwvr, gv n dlgy t grp f mn, nd thy wll mk dmnlgy t f t vry sngl tm, FR SLF GN.
ll f th bv s fnd wthn th ncnscs f mdrn crp/mny hndlr wrld hgmny. sk th rqs nd th fghns, fr strtrs.
Cyt, hs Jhvh hmmrd n y yt? By th wy y’r stll xprssng yrslf, thnk nt. f wr y, wldn’t psh ny hrdr, fr w, s spcs, r shrt tmrs.
Chrs, d yr wn rsrch n ll f th bv; dn't tk my wrd n nythng, nt tht y wll. Try nt t py ttntn t trlls tht wr whr fc s th mlln cyts hvn't cl bynd th mny gd.
Chris' response to scout was pretty darn good, i think / at least i read it / i dont usually follow the other troll/response/exchnges / just dont have the time for tedium
welcome, Sam Gardiner
Yes, scout, I was watching the History Channel the other day and happen to see early footage of Lenin, Trotsky, and the young Stalin marching in various Gay Pride Parades.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 15, 2007 07:16 AMtk, y'r t mch; whr th hy s 7? n vctn t Hndrs? Prbbly.
bn, jst rd yr cmmnt, nd nw gt t. Whn rd Jdth's qt frm y, ddn't knw th cntxt.
Kth, ll rhds r drctd t cyt's st f flshnss. Chck t t; sh lvs t tlk bt flwrs, snsts, tds, wls, gls, vltrs, nd, f crs, vmprs, nythng bt pltcs, bt, tht's trll fr y. yh
[Editor: ignore=off]Yes, scout, I was watching the History Channel the other day and happen to see early footage of Lenin, Trotsky, and the young Stalin marching in various Gay Pride Parades.
And wasn't Lenin stunning in his bare-butt chaps!
Squadron of 24 F-16 fighters lands at US base in Incirlik
I would think they are there to support the troop escalation. Like the Russians in Afghanistan and our own policy in Iraq in other areas, turn Baghdad into rubble and move the population into tents. Pre-rubbleing everything will quell the insurgents. And those tent cities have never been a hot bed of radicalism. The civilian deaths will be nothing more than collateral damage. They aren't real people.
Posted by phidipides at January 15, 2007 08:01 AM"And wasn't Lenin stunning in his bare-butt chaps!"
You watch the History Channel too?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 15, 2007 08:28 AMYou watch the History Channel too?
You bet! All of us Broke Back Mountain Hollywood left-coast liberal faggots have voted it the best on cable. Trotsky jumping into Stalin's arms when the mouse ran across the floor was quite memorable. EEK! A mouskie!
Posted by phidipides at January 15, 2007 09:05 AM"in her case, supporting the pagan ritual of killing unborn infants"
Uhm...lemme guess, you are talking about abortion? It's not a religious ritual. And it's very much consistent with core Christian principles to get one at the early stages of pregnancy and has been recognized as such throughout the history of the religion.
"glorifying all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage"
No she doesn't.
"and coming from a gangster background"
...doesn't make you a 'whore.'
"All of the above points are right out of Bolshevik thinking of the turn of the 20th Century."
No they aren't.
"Lenin, Trotsky and the young Stalin had a hand in destroying the family"
The family structure wasn't destroyed in Russia.
"promoting unborn infanticide"
It's inconsistent with both science and Christian principles to refer to abortion as 'infanticide.'
"education"
Education blossomed in Russia under the Bolsheviks.
"The older Stalin reversed some of these policies, but not all."
So the original Bolsheviks are the bad guys, and Stalin is the good guy?
"Do you see?"
Isn't that what the dude kept saying in "Red Dragon" when he had the guy glued to the wheelchair?
"In combination with the up and coming ‘science’ of psychology"
Psychology is a science in the sense that physics and biology are science.
"the power elite, using the cover of democracy"
So people voted for these things, even though they were against them?
"enacted every-single-Bolshevik policy that we today take for granite rock."
No they didn't.
"Beside the above, it was pure Bolshevikism for allowing women to vote"
The roots of the women's suffrage movement in the US and elsewhere very much precedes the Bolshevik movement.
"divorce"
The push for this also precedes the Bolshevik movement.
"and to become exploitable in the work force."
Also not from the Bolsheviks.
"All of their thoughts are solid, right out of history, pagan history."
No they aren't.
"This does NOT mean that Marx, who was not a Bolshevik, was foolish or stupid"
As opposed to being stupid but not foolish. Or foolish but not stupid.
"However, give an ideology to a group of men, and they will make a demonology out of it every single time, FOR SELF GAIN."
So what do you get out of this?
"All of the above is found within the unconscious of modern corp/money handler world hegemony."
The unconscious? Doesn't that concept come from Freud?
"Ask the Iraqis and the Afghans, for starters."
So things were better in Afghanistan under the Taliban?
"Try not to pay attention to trolls that wear a whore face as the million coyotes haven't a clue beyond the money god."
I think I've seen a Bosch painting depicting that exact image.
Posted by Chris at January 15, 2007 09:07 AM
The inside of this troll's head is a Bosch painting, Chris. Just so you're not surprised, scout fancies himself a prophet as well. He's also inordinately interested in everyone's children. Get the picture?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 15, 2007 09:36 AMchrs, y mst rtcht p th lvl f bstrctn, t lst tw clcks. n f th prblms wth ny blg s tht dn't knw th xprntl cntxt f th wrtr. r y, lk, hgh schl? r jst cyt cln.
ll f my pnts r mst vld; 'v dn th rsrch, nd y mst d yr wn. Th nt hs mny srch ngns, s, tk ny f my cncpts, rll p yr slvs, nd bgn th wrk.
My bckgrnd, cdmclly, s hstry, sclgy nd psychlgy. xprntlly, tchr nd plc, svrl dcds f ch. hv dn yrs f rsrch n ll rlgns, nd hv fcsd pn Chrstnty s th nly trth. sy th bv nly t prvd cntxt n trms f knwldg pthwys.
Whn y'r qlfd, pls cm bck wth smthng mr thn 'n t's nt, bt FL tht t's ths.' Tht's wht mn by 'hgh schl.' r, by ssctn, jst wtch cyt fr hgh schl ntcs, s sh s pr. Chck t hr st.
[Editor: ignore=off]cyt, 'll bt yr kds r ll n cntntn/pprtnty clss schl nw, rght? Th ppl dsn't fll fr frm th dprvd tr.
Chrs, cyt s pctr f pr Blshvk trsh; sh lwys tlks bt hw bd hr kds r, nd hsn't cl bt wht t d. Ths s cltrl Blshvk trt f scl chs: k, stdy f Stnsm. Fr scl chs crts dl cndtns fr crprt/mny hndlr mss cntrl. Thr s nthng nw ndr th sn.
Frthr, th sbmt tht th rhds f cyt bbbls wr crtd by th crps t llw thm t ld s nt r prsnt sttn f spprtng crp hgmny vr ll scl cltrs.
cyt, hw d y lk m nw? nd, ys, th bv s xprssd n rnst, nt frm spt.
[Editor: ignore=off]You show up scout, I gotta leave.
Why Steve and Mary don't cut you off immediately I'll never know!
Sam Gardiner welcome!
Sorry this thread got hijacked by the usual suspects!
Posted by Seven of Six at January 15, 2007 10:33 AM
Coyote, you are my new friend. I have composed a song in your honor. I have decided to call it "Donkey Lord."
Here goes:
"Try not to pay attention to trolls that wear a whore face, the million coyotes haven't a clue beyond the money god.
Donkey Lord! Donkey Lord!
The pagan ritual of killing unborn infants, comin' from a gangsta background!
Donkey Lord! Donkey Lord!
A trait of social chaos, a study of Satanism, expressed in earnest, not from spite
Donkey Lord! Donkey Lord!
History, sociology and psychology, experientially, several decades of each.
There is nothing new under the sun!
There is nothing new under the sun!
The oil corp flag will fly over Iran!
There is nothing new under the sun!
neo-Bolshevik Donkey Lord!
You make my head hurt!
You make me say ouch!
Has Jehova hammered on you yet?
Please, please just leave me alone!"
Tips are appreciated but not mandatory.
Posted by Chris at January 15, 2007 11:18 AMYou got my props, Chris! Come on over to our site, you'll fit right in.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 15, 2007 11:27 AMChris, you're a genius! I am now in the process of choreographing a dance to go with the song. Since scout has also dubbed me Demon Queen, perhaps we could fit that into a chorus somewhere?
Did you come over from Sadly, No? I've been lurking there forever, enjoying teh funny from afar.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 15, 2007 12:19 PMchrs, y'v gt my rspct, lbt bgrdgngly:)
Stll, gr wth kky 7, pls tk t n vr t th dmn st. n th scnd thght, y my hv t mch pwr fr hr spdr hl.
[Editor: ignore=off]Welcome Colonel Gardiner. From my readings about Iran, as well as my friendship with Iranian ex-pats, I understand that:
60%+ of Iranians were born after the Khomeini government took over.
The vast majority of Iranians are pro-Western, and friendly to Americans, even when our government is sabre-rattling. And they'd prefer different government leadership.
The Iranian government, while supportive of Hizbollah, has not been known to be supportive of Al Qaida. And it sought to provide assistance to our intel efforts post-9/11. And likely did provide some measures that helped.
Considering all this, I've developed the impression that, despite its anti-Israel posturing, that a nuclear Iran wouldn't pose any greater threat than most current nuclear states, and we have more to worry about from a nuclear North Korea, China and Pakistan.
Do you think the current anti-Iran stance of the Bush administration is driven by ideology more than strategic planning? More by the concerns of Israel's government than our military analysts? More by oil market concerns than all others?
All the warnings provided by Seymour Hersh point to a coming confrontation with Iran, despite White House denials. Can you suggest ways that we, as citizens, can successfully limit the endeavors of the group in the White House to provoke a confrontation with Iran?
and have focused upon Christianity as the only truth.
I have no difficulty discussing political matters with people who have religious beliefs. But I've generally found that followers of the 'Only' religion are incapable of participation in the give-and-take of meaningful debate, as they often prefer to engage in discourses with a paternalistic attitude, enlightening the rest of us with their certainties.
I've never fully understood why they find it entertaining to do so. Personally, I find it distracting, due to its propensity to hijack comments threads and reduce them to personal flame wars.
If that's what Jesus, (and Buddha, Moses, etc) were really about, and this behavior meets with their approval, such messengers of 'the only truth' will continue to succeed in proselyizing in behalf of secularism. Which runs counter to what the Bible instructs.
Which suggests there's more egoism at work than the promotion of faith. Further, since blogowners don't pay for the server space for faith promotion reasons - unless they state so upfront - I think it unmannerly for guests to impose their beliefs within such forums to the point of nuisance.
It just doesn't add up to 'only truth' to me. It's more like a junky trying to convince others engaged in conversations that have nothing to do with drugs, to become addicts.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at January 15, 2007 06:16 PMscout, Aren't you being held in a Missouri jail on a million dollar bond?
Posted by Seven of Six at January 15, 2007 06:16 PMRemember the Dubai/U.S. Ports deal?
Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which alongside the Sultanate of Oman, sits across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran, at the east end of the Persian Gulf. Much of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
So, what have Bush, Cheney and the neo-con-poops been up to over the past several years in this strategic oil location?
The Dubai/U.S. Ports deal for one.
And Free Trade Agreements initiated with the UAE and Oman, giving them favored trade status...in return for what? An expanded U.S. military footprint in their countries? Both sea-based (port access) and land-based (expanded air bases, staging areas)?
In other words, just as the neo-con-poops had "plans" for Iraq, dating back to the early 1990s, they also had "plans" for Iran, which they are presently in the final stages of actualizing.
So, I wasn't surprised to read of these Bush "trade" agreements (initiated several years ago), with strategically placed countries at the Strait of Hormuz, because the neo-con-poops have been quietly putting into place their assault teams there.
Assault teams? In the UAE and Oman?
The way I figure it, Iran will use (from their side of the Strait of Hormuz) both artillery and missiles to stop any oil tankers from passing through the strait in case they come under attack.
Thus, our naval forces will have to transport landing forces across the strait to seize control of a beachhead on the Iranian side, which presumably will negate any Iranian artillery barrages. At the same time, our air forces will attack Iranian artillery sites while also going after any missile batteries they can locate and destroy close to the Strait of Hormuz.
Of course, these UAE/Oman Free Trade Agreements could just be based on economic considerations, but I doubt it. The neo-con-poops would have used these as bait to get the UAE and Oman to let them use these countries as staging areas for their future war plans with Iran.
Just a guess.
Posted by The Oracle at January 15, 2007 08:17 PM