Edit

Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Jan 16 2009, 10:03PM – Link

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11

As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question…

…Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.

_____

I repeat… “Cuckoo Clock”

BTW you do know that the other posters at TWN know you’re a joke as well, right? Or have you lost all perspective?

“Look, GEO, you’re an asshole. It can’t be denied.”
____

yeah, but I have human DNA left in my bloodstream.
____

“I imagine you’ve spent a confused eternity always skirting around the edge of intelligent conversation.”

No I gravitate towards it that’s why I’m repulsed by you.

Well well, the ignorant buffoon has absolutely NOTHING to say on topic, but he can definitely lie about what was said on a thread at TWN.

I invite anyone that cares to, look at the link he provided, and read the thread in its entirety.

Look, GEO, you’re an asshole. It can’t be denied. You’ve proven it on this thread. And on the other threads, all you offer is superficial crap. You’re a world class natterer, I imagine you’ve spent a confused eternity always skirting around the edge of intelligent conversation.

Like I said, Taylor deserves better than you superficial little coffee klatch assholes. Perhaps thats why I never heard of Taylor, or her blog, before she posted over at TWN and linked to her site.

“High end finish carpenter” = unemployed nail pounder with enough free time to spend all day pushing the BS line that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

you’re a high end something all right.

see copious spewing BS here:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/003834.php

you don’t get to the top of your field without an ego… (and a foul mouth I assume)

You don’t like it? Shove it.
_____

thanks for the suggestion… I’ve got the perfect spot in mind… very shady, brace yourself.

Are you sure you’re not a 30 yo dude from Jersey?

Then you have undoubtedly never been exposed to a true high end aspect of the trades. If you’ve spent any time reading Architectual Digest, you’ve seen my work. And its a sure bet you’ve heard of a number of people I have done work for. And yes, I’m proud of it, and you don’t get to the top of your field without an ego. To tell you I’m a “finish carpenter” could mean packing a nail gun around some tract shooting baseboard on crackerboxes. Betsy asked, I told her. You don’t like it? Shove it.

Ogenec…

You’ve said absolutely NOTHING this entire thread. Screw the archives. Why in God’s name would I expend the time to research your bullshit?

Do either of you yahoos ever say anything intelligent, or is this crap the best you got? You’re like a couple of hemorhoids that are starting to itch.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 28 2009, 12:58PM
@ Washington Note by Steve Clemons:

“After all, Obama was created and marketed by the same media machine that greased the ways for the criminal acts of the Bush Administration, from the theft of two elections, to the cover-up of the true nature of the 9-11 attacks”
____

Cuckoo Clock

But over here, you just come across as a three-year old with early onset Tourette’s.
______

That Sir, puts you in the running for best post quote of the year… but it’s only March.

That point, by the way, is utterly unoriginal. We’ve heard it here many times before, and from people who write, spell, and think much better than you do. And not only is the argument unoriginal, but it’s internally inconsistent as a matter of logic. In one breath, you concede that Obama was handed a catch-22. In the very next breath, you assert that he is a “trojan horse.” The first comment suggests that his policy “mistakes” are well-intentioned, however incompetent. The second suggests quite the opposite: that he is a man of war masquerading as a man of peace, and his professions of peace are mere obfuscations designed to conceal his real, Bush-like tendencies. Either line of attack can be true. But both cannot simultaneously be true.

So, yes, check the archives if you want my response. Because your “arguments” (and I’m being very charitable) are not worth any of my brainpower. And your puerile, adolescent, faux-manly man tirades don’t impress me either. That stuff may work over at the circle jerk you’ve got going at The Washington Note. I bet you’re quite the man there. But over here, you just come across as a three-year old with early onset Tourette’s.

thanks for the research notes… In my book anyone who refers to the President as “a piece of shit” deserves at minimum, to be discounted for the ret of his/her opinions. Which is what I will do.

POA: “I am a “high end” finish carpenter in central California”

I have NEVER heard a carpenter or any craftsperson refer to themselves as “high end” (they let others say it, if it’s true)

Perhaps you will tell me how Obama’s policies in the Middle East, thus far, are polar to, or less agressive than, George Bush’s?

The rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program, which, BTW is perfectly LEGAL in regards to the NPR Treaty, is IDENTICAL to Bush’s in regards to exagerating the threat. IN FACT, the EXACT SEMANTICS are being used to describe Iran’s “illicit” nuclear program that are being used on the AIPAC website. Care to underscore for us what is “illicit” about Iran’s nuclear program?

And what are the differences, thus far, in our relationship with Israel? Considering that Obama just committed to the continued aid sent to Israel, right on the heels of BLATANT AND UNDENIABLE WAR CRIMES committed by Israel, do you see a shift in policy there? I think Obama’s silence during the Freeman castration says volumes, don’t you agree? As does our Secretary of State’s deafening silence about an American citizen being gravely injured in a foreign country by foreign troops, SHOT IN THE HEAD AT CLOSE RANGE, while peacefully protesting the ILLEGAL THEFT of Palestinian land.

And, uh, do you see Obama’s actions in Pakistan as less agressive than George Bush’s? Is it not true that he has ESCALATED the drone attacks, as well as escalated the rhetoric?

“War monger” is YOUR term, not mine. It is not a term I would apply to Obama. I think he is stuck in a huge catastrophic catch 22 handed to him by George Bush. But the fact that he is not to blame for the situation does not diminish the volatility of the situation. Nor does it give us reason to believe he is anymore prone to deal with it competently than George Bush did. I see many reasons for pessimism, not the least of which is this horseshit about simply relabeling combat troops in Iraq, as if calling them by another name makes them less than combat troops.

But regardless, let me say that your suggestion that I expend the time to “check the archives” to get a firm grasp on your opinions is lazy crap on your end, and extends far less courtesy to this debate than I have extended here. I have at least tried to explain my position, where all you have done is snivel and moan like a ginnie with with a burr under its packsaddle. You don’t like my posting? Don’t read my posts.

In the meantime, what exactly is inaccurate about the following?

“Running on a platform of peace, the lying piece of shit is escalating our military adventure in the Middle East, ignoring Israeli war crimes, maintaining a combat presence in Iraq, and staffing his cabinet with zionists, neocons, defense industry insiders, lobbyists, and Bush loyalists”

And no, I will not “check the archives” in search of your answer.

“Note, before this piece of shit Obama was elected, I on numerous occassions stated that I believed he was fraud, a trojan horse backed by the same powers that put the pathetic George Bush, and the satanic Dick Cheney in power.

After all, Obama was created and marketed by the same media machine that greased the ways for the criminal acts of the Bush Administration, from the theft of two elections, to the cover-up of the true nature of the 9-11 attacks, to the invasion of Iraq. Obama is proving me right. Running on a platform of peace, the lying piece of shit is escalating our military adventure in the Middle East, ignoring Israeli war crimes, maintaining a combat presence in Iraq, and staffing his cabinet with zionists, neocons, defense industry insiders, lobbyists, and Bush loyalists.

America was conned. This guy is every bit as dangerous as George Bush and Dick Cheney. Maybe more so.

As for the substance of my comment, it’s clear that you were making a moral equivalence argument: that, when it comes to torture and Middle East strategy, Obama is indistinguishable from Bush. Which is so ludicrous on its face as to not warrant a response. But if you want one, you can check the archives. I’ve commented plenty on Obama’s legal defense of Bush/Cheney, torture, and the war in Afghanistan.

By the way, you are guilty of the charge you falsely accuse me of: rather than answer the charge and rebut it, you resort to insults and more performance art dialogue. Dude, those are like dummy flares — once you throw ‘em out, I know I’m locked in on the target.

Plus, I’m pretty confident you wouldn’t be quite so aggressive if were having this conversation face-to-face. But since we are confining this conversation to the virtual world, I’m constrained to point out that there’s no point using ten-dollar words if you can’t spell ‘em. “Saccharin” has two “c”s, not one. I ignored it the first time as a typo, but you did it again, so it’s clearly a misspelling. And “chauvanistic” is spelled “chauvinistic.”

OH MA GOOOOODNIS! Quite the lil ol legend in yer own MIND there aintcha!

“Quilting bee” was a tongue in cheek observation about the amount of women posting here. It was certainly chauvanistic, which is kinda out of character for me. For that I apologize. But does it rise to the level of giving you cause to snivel? Not in my opinion.

Like I said; comical. And hypocritical.

Regardless, honestly, I really don’t give a shit about your opinion. Your assertion that I have accused Obama of being “a war-monger like Bush because of his Af-Pak strategy” is absolute straw, and I suspect you offered it because thats the best you’ve got. And it ain’t much.

Now Hillary, THERES a hawk that might just give Bush a run for his money.

In any event, the reason I’m disinclined to comment is because my position on these issues is pretty clear. You can check the archives, as torture and Afghanistan have come up repeatedly here. Bottom-line: The notion that Obama is a war-monger like Bush because of his Af-Pak strategy, or that his legal positions on executive privilege give the lie to his positions on torture, is arrant nonsense. And indicative of an inability to grasp nuance, such as the difference between legal and policy constraints.

As Betsy found out, I return courtesy with courtesy.

You want to discuss the topic on this thread, or do you want to selectively, (therefore hypocritically), whine about my rudeness while ignoring the rudeness of one of one of your clique members?

I raised a number of points, above, ABOUT THE TOPIC, and posed some questions, ABOUT THE TOPIC. So stop whining. Its a hell of a site more than some of you did.

AliceP says:
29 March 2009 at 11:02 pm

((((wait, could it be? – is Mark Haverty in the house?)))))))
______

How about Miss Malevolent?

((((wait, could it be? – is Mark Haverty in the house?)))))))

______

Wow! now that would be something… but Haverty had manners as I recall.

My question to you is the following. Are you here to debate issues, or is this just performance art? Assuming it is the former, is it not possible to ease up a little bit on the invective? What you decry as shallowness, others see as courtesy and mutual respect. And, yes, since this is a community, folks feel free to talk about less weighty topics once in a while. I rarely join these discussions, but I do appreciate them.

In-depth discussions and a sense of community fostered by shared interests are not mutually exclusive. So I hope you will stay. It sounds to me like you have much to contribute.

Edit

This is a good point that isn’t “shallowness,” POA.

The Obamaites go to war

by Justin Raimondo, March 29, 2009

The idea that anything has really changed, at least in the realm of foreign policy, with the ascension of Barack Obama to the White House, is now completely debunked by the administration’s latest pronouncement on the “Af-Pak” war. I quote from the “white paper” that accompanied the president’s spiel:

“The ability of extremists in Pakistan to undermine Afghanistan is proven, while insurgency in Afghanistan feeds instability in Pakistan. The threat that al-Qaeda poses to the United States and our allies in Pakistan – including the possibility of extremists obtaining fissile material – is all too real. Without more effective action against these groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan will face continuing instability.”

That’s from the introduction to a curiously obtuse document, one that never tries to justify its various listed “objectives” with anything other than the most perfunctory scaremongering – precisely what the Bushies used to do. Remember the mushroom-cloud rhetoric that clouded the debate over the Iraq intervention? Averring that the mere possibility Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons posed such an imminent threat that definitive evidence was beside the point, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice famously declared:”We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” These nukes, the White House and its allies claimed, could pass into the hands of terrorists, who would then have the capacity to nuke New York. In making the case for war with Iraq, the Bushies consistently conjured this fear of radioactive horror, the mental detritus of late-night sci-fi movies, Cold War memories of the Cuba missile crisis, and “duck and cover” drills in the schoolrooms of the Fifties and early Sixties.

This nuclear threat to the United States, supposedly posed by al-Qaeda hiding in the Pakistani hinterlands, is nowhere mentioned in the white paper except in that one instance. In fact, there is zero evidence that Pakistan’s 40-or-so nukes are in any danger, and none is cited. The idea that al-Qaeda and its allies are about to seize control of Islamabad and commandeer the country’s nuclear arsenal, is the sort of fantasy one might expect to find in a paperback thriller, or The Weekly Standard. As recently as a year ago, Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opined that Pakistan’s nukes were well-protected and there was little likelihood of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. This could be because, as Richard Sale reports,

“So while the nukes of any country are allegedly in danger of hijacking, apparently the new safeguards are such that the slightest error in procedure renders the weapon null and void, a system much like the one the Russian used with their portable nuclear weapons systems.”

More here.

While Obama didn’t go nuclear, so to speak, in justifying his Af-Pak fever, he followed in the footsteps of his predecessor in waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 as the one reliable way to whip up war hysteria:

“So let me be clear: al-Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”

While bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership recruited Mohammed Atta to carry out the 9/11 attacks from their safe haven in Afghanistan, the actual planning took place in Hamburg, Germany, where Atta and his cell of al-Qaeda cadre set up shop for years before the plan was executed, and various meetings in Malaysia, Florida, and Maryland.

continues….

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/03/29/af-pak-fever/

I rest my case about the shallowness. First, where did I advocate pulling all the troops out of the Middle East? In fact, I commented on what I felt may be a very premature pull-out from Iraq.

As far as Israel goes, pulling all support is impossible. But certainly financial aid should hold conditions, beyond Hillary murmuring something about settlement expansion being “unhelpful” right on the cusp of Obama announcing further billions in aid to Israel. In fact, the expansion is illegal, as is raining white phosphorous on civilian populations. You don’t think there should be some conditions on the billions we give them?

Should I follow your example, and make some asinine shallow observation about your comment, like “The only thing I got out of her post is that she thinks we should continue to pay Israel to fry Palestinians in white phosphorous, shoot American citizens at protests, expand settlements, and do anything thing they want to, illegal or otherwise, because they know no matter what they do, we will still give them billions of dollars”

And as far as “sticking our heads in the sand”, isn’t that EXACTLY what we do in regards to Israel’s actions, the fact that we have killed over one million Iraqi non-combatants, the fact that we have completely poisoned their urban areas with DU dust, the fact that we have displaced almost a quarter of the population, and that, much to Taylor and section 9′s chagrin, (one would think by their comnments), set women’s right back to the stone age in Iraq? Prior to 1991, Iraq had one of the most liberal and open atmospheres of the Middle Eastern countries, with women enjoying all the educational and work place rights that men had. So don’t spit this “bury our heads in the sand” crap at me. Americans are pros at burying their heads in the sand. Me? I try to do the opposite.

I actually think that POA and Section 9 made some important points that deserve debate. But I’m not crazy about the way they chose to make their points. I assume they are here for discussion; otherwise, why bother to post? But you’re unlikely to encourage folks to join issues with you by insulting them as you have, POA.