May 8, 2007

Cheering For The Other Side (Update: A Hoax)

Please read update below.

Usually I address silly or misleading comments within the thread itself, or an update to the original post. However, in reference to the foiled plot against Fort Dix by a cell of jihadists captured yesterday by the FBI, I found one comment so asinine that it deserves its own thread. Commenter iraqwarwrong wrote:

Ok so, let, me get this straight. Were allowed to go over there and kill like a whole hunk of them every day, but they're not even allowed to come here and try to kill are soldiers?

Newsflash- soldiers is waht are for killing in war's. That's legimate targets.

Well, duh. So was the Pentagon on 9/11 but that didn't give al-Qaeda the right to attack it (and the use of civilian aircraft violated the rules of war, too). The military is a legitimate target during wartime ... by an opposing military in uniform and representing a nation-state. Terrorists don't conduct legitimate attacks when then operate outside the rules of war, regardless of their target.

And even if it is a "legitimate" target because of its military nature, why would someone defend the terrorists attacking our own soldiers? Of course they're not "allowed" to come over here to kill our men and women in the armed forces. Why would we "allow" it?

Most people who oppose the war in Iraq do so from sincere concern for the well-being of our nation. A small percentage, like iraqwarwrong, have revealed themselves to be on the other side. And yes, that means I question his patriotism.

UPDATE: Steven Den Beste writes to say that the Iraqwarwrong blog, which this commenter uses as his home page, is an elaborate hoax. This commenter has been showing up here for at least the last month with that ID, objecting to several posts, but this is the first time I've responded. I should have checked the website first.

I'll say this right now -- if someone thinks that this is the way to convince people to support the war, they are very much mistaken. This is puerile, as is most of the website in question, with its made-up testimonials from people who have sincere opposition to the war, such as my friend The Commissar from the Politburo Diktat (not made up, see next update).

Needless to say, this commenter has been banned.

UPDATE II: Why don't I delete the post? My philosophy is to let it all hang out -- my mistakes as well as my triumphs. I'm hoping that the latter will far outweigh the former at the end of the calculation, but I'm not going to cheat the scorecard in the meantime.

UPDATE III: The Commissar says the quote was not made up ... so is this a hoax or not? It's not on the level, which is the safest way to put it. At any rate, I was wrong about that point.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (20)

Posted by Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:01 PM

Please read my email soonest.

Posted by David [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:08 PM

Posted for CPT Jimmy (my brother-in-law):
Just as a point of discussion, referring to Islamic terrorists as "jihadists" accords them legitimacy that, to Muslims, justifies their actions - true or not. They would be more correctly termed "irhabists" - those who commit irhab (which means, roughly, terrorism). It's like calling them "freedom fighters" vs terrorists. One connotes legitimacy and the fight against evil and the other is evil.

I'm getting tired of people referring to the terrorists as jihadists. I've already started changing all our material here at the NTC to reflect what I wrote above. We need to stop legitimizing their actions in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Posted by Eno [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:12 PM

It really shouldn't be too surprising, Captain. These people are completely anti-military under all circumstances. Still caught up in the forty year hangover of Vietnam, they see everything through their own rose colored glasses. The U.S. military and intelligence services are always bad, and the "victims" of the third world are always "good". By dehumanizing those persons in the service of their country, any attack on them is wonderful. Any action they take is deemed deplorable.
This twisted morality is echoed by many in the Democratic party. Cheering for the other side is a morally acceptable position because they have judged our military (and all who support them) as wilfully evil or stupidly decieved. (See John Kerry's speech).
What is suprising about commenters like this, is he is too ignorant to realize he is far more judgmental of his perception of morality than the most right-wing fundamentalist christian.

Posted by msr [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:14 PM

Your point is well taken, and the corollary used to creep me out. Up until 2000 I worked a few blocks north of the White House, and took the Metro Blue-line to work every day from the south end of town. This subway line includes a station under the Pentagon, which as you note, is a legitimate target under certain circumstances.

A large part of the passengers on the Blue line were military and civilian employees at the Pentagon. The military, in uniform, frequently included colonels, and even the ocassional general. However, there are also foreign military that visit (work?) at the Pentagon, and they would also quite often come in uniform. The subway cars could see quite a variety of passengers.

At the time of being "creeped out", we were taking "police action" against Yugoslavia over Kosovo (?), busily bombing their troops and the Chinese Embassy. I was always tempted, but ultimately too afraid of being questioned by the FBI myself, to go up to a senior officer and ask him "if a Yugoslavian officer, in uniform, walked up to you on this train, pulled out a pistol, and shot you, would we have to treat him as a prisoner of war?"

Posted by Partisan [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:16 PM

Jihadists is the right term. The fact that other muslims think that makes them legitimate is their problem. Jihad itself is the problem, kowtowing to their definitions solves nothing.

Posted by GarandFan [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:17 PM

I'm sure iraqwarwrong will also demand that these individuals be tried in a civilain court of law, rather than put up against a wall and shot.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:24 PM

I thought this iraqwariswrong must be a parody.

That he consistently writes "waht" for "what" on the website pretty much tells you all you need to know.

I agree, Captain. I'm anti-anti-war with the best of them, but iraqwariswrong is a waste of time at best.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:31 PM

OT but related...

Captain, do remember the finding of the disk with a number of plans for US Schools at a terrorist training camp in Iraq?

so many liberal democrats want to ignore the serious threats we face, because of a political bigotry for Conservatives - Republicans, they enable the danger to all.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:43 PM

NOTE TO MUZZIES: Police and Soldiers practice being on guard. And, they shoot back.

While the basic "modus" for the towel heads (aka: diaper heads), is that they aren't looking for ENGAGEMENT. So, there ya go. You get to see the difference. Where people who PROTECT THEIR NATIONS, AND THEIR STREETS, are up to most of the tricks in the book the terrorists use. And, when they're not using them, they get used by the mafia types.

So, yes. I'll actually agree with the guy who "went wrong" analyzing Iraq, by stating it's a "field day opportunity" for the crazed muslem warriors. Nope. Just a quick step to paradise.

While the good that comes out of this? Sure puts people on their toes!

What's missing, because Bush pussy-foots with the House of Saud, is calling the terrorist jerks, who are recruited through this assinine religion; to commit not just suicide, but murder, along the way.

It's hard to fathom where these fools come from. Given how early in life most kids you know what to know about sex. And, don't take "heaven" as the answer, when you tell them that's where they're gonna find virgins.

Here? You should hear Robin Williams spouting off on the "virgin problems.' I guess he's met a few. And, he doesn't want to stick his dick in virgin terrain ever again. Even if you get in, you just can't handle the tears and the recriminations, to follow. Let alone the stalking.

We should tell those pieces of crap that end up dead, they'll be stalked by the devil forever after.

All the muzzies prove? Yes, you can keep people idiotically dumb. That's why they've got no traditions with books. All they need in one. No tradition with art. Because they're forbidden to even see a woman in the nude.

A long time ago, when Jack Parr was on TV, he had this intersting man, on. His name, was, I think Alexander King. Who told good stories. And, who had also lived in Africa. One night, there was a knock on his door. A woman was having difficulty birthing. And, when a white man is in Africa, he's considered a "know it all" in the best sense.

So, knowing his life would be at stake if he said "no," he went ahead. And, into the room with the screaming woman. You bet. He saw her bottom! But he was forbidden to see her head. So, her whole head was covered. And, he reached in and pulled the baby OUT. The muzzies just didn't know what to expect from "down there."

So even a minimal education would help ya out.

I still don't see a way around the "stink" we opened in I-R-A-K. Where Paul Bremer really upset any chances of having a SECULAR arrangement emerge. Instead? The pot of gold is HUGE. And, these people will fight over it to the last man.

And, yes. It's sad to see that Iraq went from a SECULAR state, headlong into a competitive religious lunacy. Soon to be divided into 3 parts.

If you think Dubya knew what he was doing, he fooled ya.

While I think the Man Upstairs is aware that the Saud's want more real estate.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 12:54 PM

i was pretty sure that guy wasn't for real.

Posted by Adjoran [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 1:29 PM

I don't think it's such a "small percentage" at all.

Sure, there are many people of good will who are merely war-weary and have succumbed to the withering attacks from the media and the far left, but the hard-core "antiwar" left is reflexively anti-American at heart.

They are the ones cheering Hugo Chavez now. In the past they cheered Castro and Ortega, and thought Gorbachev "more of a man of peace" than Reagan.

Their lineage goes back to the apologists who felt poor, sweet ol' "Uncle Joe" Stalin was merely misunderstood.

They may not be an absolute majority of the Democratic Party today, but they are calling the shots.

Posted by Dizzy [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 3:25 PM

I don't know if this IraqWarWrong blog is actually a parody. It has been operating steadily for a few years now and attracts the most moronic community I have ever seen.

I think a satirist would have lost interest or exposed his joke by now. They might just be that mind bogglingly dumb.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 3:38 PM


It would seem to me that someone who is able to put together a blog and maintain it over a period of years would have the ability to write at slightly better than a second grade level, but perhaps I'm wrong.

It would mark the first time that I've ever overestimated the lunatic left and probably the last.

Posted by Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 3:40 PM

Dizzy, there isn't any doubt about it. The author of the blog admitted it to me in private email about 3 years ago. (And the writing style was much, much more literate.)

A lot of the "moronic community" is also playing down.

I am a bit surprised that he's kept it going this long. You can never tell what entertains people, I guess. (And some people wonder why I have been able to keep blogging about anime for 2.5 years.)

Posted by Dizzy [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 4:05 PM

I go back and forth in my opinion that it is a parody. If it is one, I agree with you that he should stop. There are quite a few anti-semitic and racist comments that are allowed to fester.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 4:25 PM

I can't believe you guys wasted your time by going to his site (and boosted his "stats").
Wasn't it clear from his jiberish that he was a nutjob?

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 4:57 PM

In eygpt, they put the Sandmonkey in jail for four years. After a trial!

So, as far as the stuff we get to hear in America? I'm glad there are sounds coming from all over the map. It meets the requirements of the First Amendment. When it's working, you're hearing stuff you hate. People learn to cope.

As to the Iraq "thing-y" being all black or white, I'd beg to differ. It's one of those things where people have developed a distaste. With the loss of confidence occurring in OUTCOME.

What's ahead that would ever satisfy anyone?

The arabs are fighting over the gold. That's all. The pot is, in fact, THAT BIG!

Shows ya, we're not really influencing any team, over there. The kurds? Want us there. But they want much more than that! And, they've got "assimilation problems."

The Shi'a? Yup. They HATE the Saddam'ites. Otherwise known as the Baa'thists. But just an internal ID for Sunnis. (Different countries label these characters "differently." In some places? They're called the Muslim Brotherhood.)

But to have something as big as all get-out, you're not doing it on a shoe string.

And, it isn't about a cave-man, anymore, either. The Bin Laden's are the 2nd "family." Where the Saud's are the "first." And, when Osama's older brother, Mohammed died young, it was Faisal, himself, who sent in one of his own, to "halp" the family survive with an "elder" who understood "the business."

Osama was all of 22, when he went to Afgahnistan. It was the mid-80's. With Ronald Reagan in the White House. (And, yes. Z'big-new's plans, from the Carter White House, was adopted. What were those plans? To bankrupt the soviets by giving them an unwinable war. "Just like Vietnam.")

Yup. HOUSE OF BUSH / HOUSE OF SAUD. Very informative. While most of us were not even paying attention.

The money it takes to run a worldwide terrorist ring starts from the heart of Riyadh, though.

Maybe, like Icarus, they just got too close to the son? (Sun.) It will be an informative day, when their "wings melt off."

anime is not worth the price of admission. But there ya go. A man. And, his toys.

While I miss the Steve Den Beste of old. Who used to pick me up, every time I fell off the Bush bandwagon.

Nope. Not happy, now. Not since James Baker came back. How could anyone give that sheister such a ring side seat?

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 8:27 PM

I'm sort of at a loss here. iraqwarwrong seems to be a minor troll at best, and he can be safely ignored. Captain, we have people who write entire epistles using dislocated sentences, are off topic on most of their content, and we endure them. What was it about this guy that earned the ban?

Posted by Jim [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 8, 2007 9:49 PM


1 I really don't think the use of the terms "sandmonkey", and "diaperhead" are productive.

2 As long as we're talking about the house of Saud... you of course know that the Bush's aren't the only ones neck deep with that bunch of cleptocrats. The Clintons are involved with them as well. So, it's not really intellectually honest to only tie all of that to the Bush family.

3 Do you support the troops and their mission in Iraq or not? Really... I'm interested, because I can't tell. Sometimes it seems like you do, and other times it seems like you're way out in left field... literally. Like Michael Moore left Field... or Cindy Sheehan left field.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 9, 2007 9:00 PM

"Sandmonkey" is a PERSON! It's possible you may know him as the BLOG: THE BIG PHARAOH.

He's been arrested in Egypt. And, TRIED. He's now in jail for four years. For "insulting islam."

And, Jim, we sent troops into Iraq to get rid of Saddam.

It was the rest of the "picture" we were not shown; but has now been shown to have failed.

Chalabi was the first goon. With members trained by the CIA. he got into Iraq while Tommy Franks was still there. And, his goons LOOTED.

So the first big miss-step again comes from the CIA. And, how really off the mark they've been.

Then? We sent in Paul Bremer. Who really loused things up.

The other thing NOT explained to the American People is the fact that there's plenty of oil wealth going into terror. And, Iraq is a prime target. With very nastry families vying for it ALL.

Saddam, in fact, sat on it all. But he lost his head.

In Iraq, it seems, their religious beliefs are taking them down the toilet.

Saddam was SECULAR. And, he made sure the lunatics didn't get out of line. We have no system in place, to replace this.

If you go back and look at the Shah of Iran. You see something similar. The people were enjoying life away from their religious kooks. But that's changed. And, now they've lost their middle-class status. Their schools. And, especially the opportunities that once existed for their women, as well.

Can't wish these things back into place, again.

And, the more people learn about "how" the Saudi's got inside the Bush family; will come when more people get exposed to the books arleady out there.

This Bush has had more failed businesses in his life, than you can shake a stick at. But the Saud's came in and sponged up opportunities.

Yes, just as they did with Burt Lance. His worthless bank, BCCI. But, the real kahuna was Dubya. Where they sponged up the dry wells of Harkin Energy. Done quietly.

Quiet doesn't quite translate to "deniability." But all we've got so far are lots of puzzle pieces. And, when you get more information, they fit together, better.

For the life of me I have no idea why Bush has gone on record to provide the palestinians with their own state. This was never done, before, in America. Not even by Bill Clinton!

It's one of the reasons the Man Upstairs is working miracles. To stop the Saud's plans to get more territory. And, to stop Bush from being the Saud's Realtor.

All politicians LIE. He's better at in than Jimmy Carter. But then everything you know about Jimmy Carter you learned after he left office.

With Z'Big'New's plans to bankrupt russia (by forcing them into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan). Into place.

Short term? It made sense in the 1980's. But the roads where all the military equipment went? They're the same roads the heroin sellers use to sell their crap.

Just because journalists slept through these stories, doesn't mean the truth isn't out there. many a time it comes along and bites the least suspecting people on the behind.

PC is a fool's game, while you're at it. And, you're the one who took a blogger's NAME, and turned it into something else. What's so attractive about sticking one's head in the sand, Jim?