Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What is up with that Rand? Why did the freak squad of the reality deficient suddenly descend upon this site?

Without them, how would we know that the overwhelming liberal rated Joe Liberman was really an evil secret Neocon Joooo Republican?!

They are going to save us from Goldstein err Liberman! Oh! Thank you enlightened moonbats!

Without your ceasless nonsense posting, Goldstein err... Liberman might have fooled us all!

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 3, 2006 08:54 PM

There are simply a couple of things that you don't understand, Rand.

The first on my mind at the moment is that I have a real life. If I take a break from speaking my mind here, that has no bearing either way on anything that you have to say. In the future, if I respond, then great; if not, you can always refer back to what was said previously.

Second, what you and Lileks really don't understand about the war on terrorism is that in the 21st century, bigotry doesn't win wars. I can freely acknowledge that there are far bigger bigots among the Arabs in Lebanon and in Iraq, and the Persians in Iran. That means that they won't win either in any meaningful way. It does not mean that lesser bigotry — on the part of Americans — does not really count as bigotry. Also, if one side loses, it does not mean that the other side wins; both sides can lose.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 3, 2006 09:22 PM

Oh yeah, bigotry. That's what Israel, and the US, are practicing.

It's practically the engine of their respective war machines!

Why do you think the US has so many C-130 cargo planes? How else are we to get such massive amounts of bigotry to the battlefield from the homefront!?

Mike, you can't just toss out epithets and expect to hang an argument on the word alone. You need evidence, arguments, rationale, etc. You have none of these. Your "argument" would be just as valid if you were to replace the word "bigotry" with "ebullience", "gout", or "cake frosting". It's a null argument, it has zero semantical value, please try again.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at August 3, 2006 09:54 PM

bigotry doesn't win wars.

That's true. It doesn't come in standard calibers, for one thing and then there's the problem of that nasty residue it leaves in the breech...

Okay, Mike, I'll bite. I've donned my anti-moonbat Sou'wester and galoshes so unleash that shitstorm of lefty non sequitir and irrelevance I can smell coming. What, exactly, does bigotry have to do with the GWOT on either side?

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 3, 2006 09:56 PM

Neocon is a moonbat bigot codeword for Evil Republican Joooo.........

Lets them Jewbash and preserve the thin veneer of deniability.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 3, 2006 10:17 PM

How did you know I was talking about you?

So, you're admitting that you're a leftist troll?

How amusing. Others have commented on the other absurd (and equally amusing) features of your foolishness (i.e., bigotry). I guess we were "bigots" because we didn't like Nazis, eh?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 3, 2006 10:18 PM

What, exactly, does bigotry have to do with the GWOT on either side?

We can take it as a given that the terrorists would behave very differently if they were not deeply bigoted against Jews, and in many cases against Christians as well. So that's that side.

As for our side, what I actually meant was not the war on terrorism itself so much as Rand Simberg's and James Lileks' interpretation of it. A great example is the statement that "The only way to make any equivalence between Waco and Lebanon would be if Israel nuked southern Lebanon." That reveals a real lack of concern for the lives of Arabs; it is just so totally out of proportion.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 3, 2006 10:23 PM

Wow. Just, wow. Mike, you seem to be able to string words together in a syntatically correct fashion, indicting a kernel of intelligence (or perhaps merely conditioning) somewhere. However, when I analyze this latest "comment" I find an unbelievable lack of any hint of the influence of intellectual capacity.

You said previously that "bigotry doesn't win wars" (not in te 21st century anyway). You then clarified that by saying that you were referring to the bigotry of Simberg and Lileks. So are you saying that Rand and James cannot win wars with their bigotry? What does that even mean?

And to take Rand's comment about the incomparability of the situations in Lebanon and the Branch Dividian standoff not only completly out of context but completely out of the realm of rational understanding is just beyond the pale. To interpret that statement as an endorsement of nuking southern lebanon or anything of that sort indicates either a severe lack of comprehension skills on your part or a penchant for willingly misinterpreting the intentions of those you quote (depending on their political leanings).

P.S. Mike, you wouldn't happened to have any relatives by the name of Maxson would you?

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at August 4, 2006 02:02 AM

I agree with Rand. It's so much nicer here when everybody agrees with each other. The last thing one would want here is dissenting opinions or disagreement. That way madness lies.

Posted by David Bergiss at August 4, 2006 06:44 AM

Mike says: Second, what you and Lileks really don't understand about the war on terrorism is that in the 21st century, bigotry doesn't win wars.

Okay then, explain why we're losing, since the terrorists are intent on their bigotry of wiping us out because of who we are. Their bigotry can win, but ours can't? Now I'm really confused.

Posted by Mac at August 4, 2006 07:05 AM

The last thing one would want here is dissenting opinions or disagreement.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

(I think that's paraphrased from Bernard Baruch, but I'm going on memory alone.)

Posted by McGehee at August 4, 2006 07:07 AM

Bigotry in the face of an implacable enemy at war with you is a good thing! Otherwise you might as well get the wife fitted for a burka.

Societies faced with these kinds of enemies eventually reach a tipping point of recognition where they either go into wholesale appeasement and surrender, or they take up the tools of of propaganda necessary to focus a society's will to win, such as the U.S. did in villifying the Germans and Japanese.

Posted by Orville at August 4, 2006 08:00 AM

"I agree with Rand. It's so much nicer here when everybody agrees with each other. The last thing one would want here is dissenting opinions or disagreement. That way madness lies.

Posted by David Bergiss at August 4, 2006 06:44 AM"

I think it is so much nicer around here when we give delusional, childish fantasy nonsense equal weight with reality.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 09:15 AM

Bigotry doesn't win wars
And unsubstantiated claims of bigotry tends to lose debates by default.

Posted by rjschwarz at August 4, 2006 09:32 AM

"I think it is so much nicer around here when we give delusional, childish fantasy nonsense equal weight with reality."

I agree with Mike!

Everybody should agree with Mike!

Posted by David Bergiss at August 4, 2006 10:17 AM

And now even more delusional, childish fantasy nonsense for your reading enjoyment brought to you by the kook fringe:

http://www.worldcantwait.org/images/aug06ad.pdf

How could one even parody nonsense like this?

The fact that these nutjobs take saeriously something that mainstream normal Amerians would easily mistake for satire speaks volumes about their mental state or lack thereof.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 10:32 AM

Senator McCain: "You said there's a possibility of the situation in Iraq evolving into civil war. Is that correct?'

General Pace: 'I did say that, yes, sir.'

Senator McCain: 'Did you anticipate this situation a year ago?'

General Pace: 'No, sir.'

Posted by John McCain, Moonbat at August 4, 2006 11:04 AM

I think that some heads should roll over Iraq.

I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie before.

Posted by Anthony Zinni, Moonbat at August 4, 2006 11:57 AM

I see we have some anonymous moonbat chickenhawks caught in the act of fornication with strawmen arguments.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 12:32 PM

A direct response to Lileks' ugly stupidity from another "moonbat", Anthony Cordesman:

Qana is more than a horrifying human tragedy. It is a brutal lesson in the changing nature of modern war. The lesson is simple: limited wars must be fought in ways that give avoiding collateral damage and civilian casualties at least as much priority as destroying the enemy. Israel has so far failed to understand this in Lebanon as the U.S. to some extent failed to understand it in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Modern war is also a duel that favors the enemy actor. It is easier and cheaper to disperse, shelter, hide, and collocate, and then exaggerate and lie, if civilian casualties and collateral damage occur. The officer or official who responds by accusing such enemies of being cowards or endangering their own people is simply stupid, incompetent, and obsolete. It is equally stupid, incompetent, and obsolete to simply call such enemies “terrorists” and talk about “democracy.”
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,724/

There you go. The entire mentality is S.I.O., according to "moonbat" Cordesman. I would only add "B", for bigoted.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 4, 2006 01:09 PM

I would only add "B", for bigoted.

Yes, the "B" word. The first refuge for those who've run out of arguments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 4, 2006 01:47 PM

"There you go. The entire mentality is S.I.O., according to "moonbat" Cordesman. I would only add "B", for bigoted."

Best description I have ever heard of the so-called modern 'progressive' movement! Except I would add: childish, petulant and delusional.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 05:09 PM

Apparently Anthony Cordesman is no alchemist, since putting it into his mouth can't turn shit into gold.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 4, 2006 05:48 PM

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 06:22 PM

"I see we have some anonymous moonbat chickenhawks caught in the act of fornication with strawmen arguments."

You seem awfully obsessed with fornicatin' son...

Posted by Dave Gunston at August 4, 2006 08:15 PM

It's the Geneva Conventions that make it a war crime for an a fighting force to enter the battle field and, "disperse, shelter, hide, and collocate, and then exaggerate and lie, if civilian casualties and collateral damage occur."

So the officer and official who points this out is now "stupid, incompetent, and obsolete."? If that is Cordesman opinion, he might as well use the same words for the Geneva Conventions.

My opinion is that the UN ought to step in and shoot any guy wearing civilan clothes and manning a AAA battery or riding on the back of motorcycle carrying an RPG. If the UN did that, then the Lebanese would be safer, and Israel could stay on its side of the border. If the UN is unwilling or unable to do that, then it is "stupid, incompetent, and obsolete."

I do think the Geneva Convention ought to be updated to define terrorist and appropriately proscribe the manner for handling them.

Posted by Leland at August 4, 2006 08:16 PM

And you seem to be caught screwing strawmen at every turn Dave. You are incapbile of making an argument based on issues and facts, you have to inject some meaningless pablum like Bigotry or attempt to redirect the debate to Iraq when you have run out of even straw arguments to defend your position on Israel.

What's wrong Dave? Did you catch strawstds? If the strawspinchter fits, eh Dave?

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 08:21 PM

Leland wrote;
"I do think the Geneva Convention ought to be updated to define terrorist and appropriately proscribe the manner for handling them."

The problem with that, from the U.S. perspective, is that the Supreme Court would just once again claim that the Convention does not mean what it actually says but rather means what the Court wishes to pretend that it means and thus we would still be stuck in the same situation. You are right however that currently the law among civilised peoples, recognizes criminals and soldiers as people who can be captured and imprisoned and it offers different sorts of protections for each. Terrorists really are not either criminals or soldiers nad thus we need to develop a new branch of law to define them and prescribe the means of dealing with them. There might be something to be said for the old laws concerning piracy which basically gave any competent military or civil authority the power shoot them on sight or hang them immediately after a very brief and basic trial.

Posted by Michael at August 5, 2006 09:42 PM

Rand Simberg is a fuc*ing moron. why does anyone bother to read his drivel? Anyway now that I'm wasting my time, the idiot thinks we are doing ourselves a favor in Lebanon. Fact is we are creating a new Iraq right there where we had a decent shot at the 'Cedar Revolution' if you remember the Presidential Imbecile's words last year. Somebody please get Rand to enlist in some army will ya? He really needs the action and all he's got right now is his fingers on the keypad....

Posted by Seth at August 10, 2006 10:54 AM

Rand Simberg is a fuc*ing moron. why does anyone bother to read his drivel?

Perhaps because it's much more lucid and better written than yours? No one's making you read.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2006 11:10 AM

Seth says: Fact is we are creating a new Iraq right there

WE??? Israel's got everything well in hand. Calling Rand out as a moron...Pot? Hey, Kettle here...

Posted by Mac at August 10, 2006 07:40 PM

Post a comment