If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Treason Lobby ~~ The Rest Of The Story!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I know you folks have heard the term "Treason Lobby" but I thought I would ask your indulgence and post the rest of the story...if it is just too long I won'b be offended if the mods cut it back to the original url...anyway, here she is: Ann Coulter (she is a bit of a hottie...but then I'm a 'blond' sort of guy!)
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/092502p.htm
Why We Hate Them
September 25, 2002
"I'VE BEEN TOO busy fretting about "why they hate us" to follow the Democrats' latest objections to the war on terrorism. So it was nice to have Al Gore lay out their full traitorous case this week. To show we really mean business, Gore said we should not get sidetracked by a madman developing weapons of mass destruction who longs for our annihilation.
Rather, Gore thinks the U.S. military should spend the next 20 years sifting through rubble in Tora Bora until they produce Osama bin Laden's DNA. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task," he said, "simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."
Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox.
Gore also complained that Bush has made the "rest of the world" angry at us. Boo hoo hoo. He said foreigners are not worried about "what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."
Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry – wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention.
Stewing over the "profound and troubling change in the attitude of the German electorate toward the United States," Gore ruefully noted that the German-American relationship is in "a dire crisis." Alas, the Germans hate us.
That's not all. According to Gore, the British hate us, too. Gore said Prime Minister Tony Blair is getting into "what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of his alliance with the U.S. ("Serious trouble" is British for "serious trouble.")
That same night, James Carville – the heart and soul of the Democratic Party – read from the identical talking points on "Crossfire": "The Koreans hate us. Now the Germans – you know that's one against Germany. You know what? You know what? If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the damn world, it would be a lot better thing." (Hillary Clinton on James Carville: "Great human being.")
Perhaps we could get Djibouti to like us if we legalized clitorectomies for little girls. America is fighting for its survival and the Democrats are obsessing over why barbarians hate us.
The Democrats' scrolling series of objections to the war is utterly contradictory. On one hand, liberals say Bush is trying to build an "empire." But on the other hand, they are cross that we haven't turned Afghanistan into the 51st state yet. This follows their earlier argument that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam "quagmire."
The "empire" argument is wildly popular among the anti-American set. Maureen Dowd said Dick Cheney and "Rummy" were seeking "the perks of empire," hoping to install "lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket by the Tower of Babel." She warned that invading Iraq would make them hate us: "How long can it be before the empire strikes back?"
Ah yes – we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction.
Gore, too, says America will only create more enemies if "what we represent to the world is an empire." But then he complained that we have "abandoned almost all of Afghanistan" – rather than colonizing it, evidently. He seems to think it is our responsibility to "stabilize the nation of Afghanistan" and recommends that we "assemble a peacekeeping force large enough to pacify the countryside."
And then we bring in the lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket?
After tiring themselves out all summer yapping about how Bush can't invade Iraq without first consulting Congress, now the Democrats are huffy that they might actually have to vote. On "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton objected to having to vote on a war resolution before the November elections, saying, "I don't know that we want to put it in a political context."
Yes, it would be outrageous for politicians to have to inform the voters how they stand on important national security issues before an election.
Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the Democrats would not have enough information to make an informed decision on Iraq – until January. The war will have to take a back seat to urgent issues like prescription drugs and classroom size until then. The Democratic Party simply cannot rouse itself to battle.
Instead of obsessing over why angry primitives hate Americans, a more fruitful area for Democrats to examine might be why Americans are beginning to hate Democrats."
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2002/092502p.htm
Why We Hate Them
September 25, 2002
"I'VE BEEN TOO busy fretting about "why they hate us" to follow the Democrats' latest objections to the war on terrorism. So it was nice to have Al Gore lay out their full traitorous case this week. To show we really mean business, Gore said we should not get sidetracked by a madman developing weapons of mass destruction who longs for our annihilation.
Rather, Gore thinks the U.S. military should spend the next 20 years sifting through rubble in Tora Bora until they produce Osama bin Laden's DNA. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task," he said, "simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."
Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox.
Gore also complained that Bush has made the "rest of the world" angry at us. Boo hoo hoo. He said foreigners are not worried about "what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."
Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry – wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention.
Stewing over the "profound and troubling change in the attitude of the German electorate toward the United States," Gore ruefully noted that the German-American relationship is in "a dire crisis." Alas, the Germans hate us.
That's not all. According to Gore, the British hate us, too. Gore said Prime Minister Tony Blair is getting into "what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" because of his alliance with the U.S. ("Serious trouble" is British for "serious trouble.")
That same night, James Carville – the heart and soul of the Democratic Party – read from the identical talking points on "Crossfire": "The Koreans hate us. Now the Germans – you know that's one against Germany. You know what? You know what? If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the damn world, it would be a lot better thing." (Hillary Clinton on James Carville: "Great human being.")
Perhaps we could get Djibouti to like us if we legalized clitorectomies for little girls. America is fighting for its survival and the Democrats are obsessing over why barbarians hate us.
The Democrats' scrolling series of objections to the war is utterly contradictory. On one hand, liberals say Bush is trying to build an "empire." But on the other hand, they are cross that we haven't turned Afghanistan into the 51st state yet. This follows their earlier argument that Afghanistan would be another Vietnam "quagmire."
The "empire" argument is wildly popular among the anti-American set. Maureen Dowd said Dick Cheney and "Rummy" were seeking "the perks of empire," hoping to install "lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket by the Tower of Babel." She warned that invading Iraq would make them hate us: "How long can it be before the empire strikes back?"
Ah yes – we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction.
Gore, too, says America will only create more enemies if "what we represent to the world is an empire." But then he complained that we have "abandoned almost all of Afghanistan" – rather than colonizing it, evidently. He seems to think it is our responsibility to "stabilize the nation of Afghanistan" and recommends that we "assemble a peacekeeping force large enough to pacify the countryside."
And then we bring in the lemon fizzes, cribbage and cricket?
After tiring themselves out all summer yapping about how Bush can't invade Iraq without first consulting Congress, now the Democrats are huffy that they might actually have to vote. On "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton objected to having to vote on a war resolution before the November elections, saying, "I don't know that we want to put it in a political context."
Yes, it would be outrageous for politicians to have to inform the voters how they stand on important national security issues before an election.
Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the Democrats would not have enough information to make an informed decision on Iraq – until January. The war will have to take a back seat to urgent issues like prescription drugs and classroom size until then. The Democratic Party simply cannot rouse itself to battle.
Instead of obsessing over why angry primitives hate Americans, a more fruitful area for Democrats to examine might be why Americans are beginning to hate Democrats."
0
Comments
Surely the concept has never been considered 'there' and we, US, have another first on our hands.
Thinking of the TL as 'sheepherd to the beguiled flock on the way to slaughter.'
But not everyone enjoys mutton pie...no flames now, that is not an insult, just a statement of fact.
Shame on you Greenhat especially for even tacitly catering to such drivel. Guess you don't even believe in what you supposedly signed up to defend in the first place.
Yep, frree speech and differing opinions are a bitch arent they? guess we should burn the Constitution next since its nothing more than an irritant who want everyone to mindlessly repeat the warmongers littany.
Sad, very sad the lot of you!
How many other clandestine individuals met in Brussells, in current past history?
A link, perhaps?
Yup. Clandestine individuals would see the validity of that particular political quagmire... :eek:
Go away child and leave the discussion to the grownups.
Reality is a bitch, also, isn't it?
Ever respond to the post concerning seizure of nuclear material heading for Iraq? :rolleyes:
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32806
MUCH easier to avoid reality, isn't it???
Im sure you were loving even the whiff of such a report however early in the situtaion it is to decided what is truly what.
Let us not forget the PKK also has a terrorist agenda all their own.
Just as you would wait for the DNA analysis of the blood spatters on the wall directly behind your head before you deigned to consider that the shotgun pointed at your face might suggest a danger to your person, correct?
It's not how rightwingers describe people who exercise their democratic right to have an opinion, is it?
The mental stuff is not quite up to snuff today?? Trying to make the old four banger hit on all eight cylinders?
Clandestine, attempts to clandestinely avoid the issues by responding with an insult... Don't tell me, you need a guide to the real world...
Well, if its all you have, bring it on.. To think, the whole world could be watching and the best you can do is insult another man...
Because you lack or the issues you espouse lack, well, its probably the former and the latter??
Ummm are you familar with the Homo rhodesiensis, that is a primitive hominid who resembled the Neanderthal... I read they had enough sense to come in out of the rain...
Actually, Uncle Joe, the rant is more in the lines of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type. The quote that appeals to me the most is: "Ah yes – we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction."
Coulter isn't calling for any American citizen's First Amendment rights to be curtailed. She is pointing out the contradictions in those who fail to recognize that sometimes action is required to stop evil.
*awaits more insults*
What would make more sense - I am certain - would be for the United States to kneel and subjugate itself to Sodam Insane, and surrender unconditionally.
Yes, I am certain, the clandestine person's purpose would then be fulfilled... :rolleyes:
From a historical point of view, terrorist organizations have been successfully dealt with in only a couple of ways.
1. Total or close to total extermination. Both the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the USSR for most of its history were rather good at this. In addition, Israel took this approach in the post-Munich days. It works.
2. With small organizations, law enforcement track-down and jailing has worked pretty well. However, for larger organizations, it has yet to work. As a matter of fact, jailings can improve recruitment.
In addition, some organizations simply grow old and die out, failing to continue to recruit as their "cause" no longer inspires hatred.
Now, the interesting thing is that giving into their demands has never worked. And pending the outcome of the experiment regarding the IRA, diplomatic solutions have never worked. Pretty much the same with the Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world.
I do however believe in meeting the needs of civilians, particularly in developing countries, with more than foreign imposed and backed regimes, extraction of indigenous resources for further economic hegemony, and military invsaions as a clean-up tactic when our pet regimes no longer heel when we command.
All these things which you seem to so freely advocate along with your less than convincing chums here are only playing into the hands of these said terrorist organisations and providing them fresh invective to recruit even further disenfranchised civilians to the terrorist cause.
I reamin unconvinced by your demand for war.
Clandestine
I think you have it turned around.:rolleyes:
http://rightwingnews.com/john/leftyguide.php
Anything you say, Neville... :rolleyes:
So tell us, are you really the spawn of the whore of Hanoi?
Jane Fonda your philosophical mommy?
But youre free to believe that the "reality" these hawks espouse is the only realistic perspective, that's your right entirely. I subscribe to more reasonable and constructive means of conflict resolution.
Like... surrender.
I think your mistaken. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Greenhat laid it out pretty well as regards terrorist...the only way to get rid of thiem is extermination, etc.
(Ann is a hottie though don't you think?)
Yes I think Greenhat states it perfectly.
No comment on the "hottie" issue.;)
I would agree with that as well as demonstrated as much by Bush and Sharon and the likes of Arafat and Saddam.
Why do you link them as though it were all the same issue?
Sharon/Arafat and containing saddam and his agenda are seperate arguements. I know the israelis have a stake in it, because saddam reportedly is backing hizbollah.
Ive seen you use one to argue the points your making about the other. It seems as though you sometimes rationalize that the US should step away from the idea of acting in iraq because of the sitution in Israel. Your not the only person I see doing this.
Israel operates independently as far as I can tell and saddam using WMD is a different issue all together. Resolving one has little to with resolving the other as far as I can tell.
Im fairly new to all this but this is my summation for now.
But how does the world "reason" with saddam husein?
The US and Israel have had nukes for some time but dont pose a threat with them at this time. In my opinion.
I heard one analyst state that in the past, such as the cold war. Two nations would stand down because of the threat of mutual destruction. But what do you do when youve got a group that has no reguard for such things? And they obtain WMD?
What is needed now is some calm reason and concrete evidence. I have no problem with a total disarmament of Saddam, but i do not support the kind of suffering which we will only increase if we take the "invade them regardless" attitude that is being represented of late so strongly on these boards.
There is more than one way to skin a cat and that is part of what i spend my time dealing with in policy circles but like Greenhat, I am not at liberties to share proposals until things are more concretely known and that will come through inspections.
Mark my prediction that if after thorough unfettered searching they turn up no WMDs, it will the hawks crying cover up and lies and then the shoe will be on the other foot. So simply remember this point when and if we arrive to that set of circumstances if you are as unbiased as you have claimed.