Comments Posted By Jazz
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments


This essay was the first thing I read in 2009, and I'm glad I did. Thanks for all of the terrific reading in 2008, Rick. I look forward to the new year and hope you keep on here, but if it needs to slow down to allow for other opportunities, I'm sure we'll all understand.

Here's hoping for the best for us all.

Comment Posted By Jazz On 1.01.2009 @ 06:48


I've never seen the show and don't plan on watching it this year, but it doesn't particularly bother me if you write about it. I just sort of gloss over TV stuff generally.

Comment Posted By Jazz On 23.12.2008 @ 06:45


"Dealing with a nation as if we were already at war with that nation is a hellofa lot different than invading that nation."

Please at least be intellectually honest enough to not back off from your statements on some twisting of semantics. Those two descriptions are barely different. Being "already at war" with a nation involves, sooner or later, either invading them or being invaded or fighting them on somebody else's property.

As to understanding "jihad" it's very different than understanding Islam, unless your brain has been rotted away by overdoses of Ann Coulter and Rush. We have a mosque here in my home city with a *huge* membership. The vast majority of them are not even of middle eastern lineage, and in their street clothes I bet you couldn't pick most of them out of a lineup. Fine people, quite a few of whom I work with, who are horrifed by the actions of the few radicals who are causing all the trouble.

"maybe you can provide us with your enlightened suggestions on just how we can defeat terrorism."

Glady, though I typically find that these types of conversations with closed minds are fruitless, I feel obliged to keep shouting at the ocean. How do you deal with terrorists? The same way the Brits did last week with that bombing plot. (Even though those chuckleheads had a plan that would have been almost impossible to pull off. They were still looking to try and needed to be dealt with.) You use good intelligence and special operatives, you investigate them, find them, prosecute them, and either lock them away or execute them. They are criminals, not a nation unto themselves. You deal with them like criminals and treat it as a federal police action matter. I seem to recall you righties were all cheering the Brits wildly for that one. Keep notes on it. That's how you deal with them.

"You seem to take offense at my term “Islamonazis”"

I take offense at all of the attempts by you and your ilk at painting the entire Muslim world with one brush. It may be true that the solid majority (though hardly all) of terrorists are Muslims. It's also true that they are a group that only numbers in the thousands out of more than a billion people. It is equally true that the members of the most violent gangs in America's inner cities (crips, bloods, m3, et. al.) are blacks and hispanics. That does not, however, mean that we insitute a plan to ship all of the minorities out of America. We're at "war" with gangsters... not all African Americans or Mexicans or Cubans, etc.

"you could give us the terrorists specific complaints against the U.S. I would imagine it will include a “laundry list” of all the human rights violations the U.S. is guilty of (in your mind) against the Muslim world."

Again, gladly, though it will do no good. There are undoubtedly quite a few complaints that some of the more radical elements in the Islamic world have agains the West and the United States in particular, but number one on almost every single list would have to be Israel, and you already know that. The righties just don't admit it, that's all. And of course, by simply admitting it, I will now once again be tarred with the broad, knee-jerk brush of saying I'm an anti-semite, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anyone who even suggests that it might be time to reexaming the United States policy regarding Israel is some sort of traitor who needs to be executed, apparently. But there's your answer since you asked. That's their number one complaint.

Be sure to keep the oxygen turned on in the echo chamber, retire05. Lack of fuel to the brain can cause serious and permanent damage.

Comment Posted By Jazz On 21.08.2006 @ 08:18

Oh really, Rick? Let's take a look at what Bondservant said in comment number two.

"I am a firm believer that our position in Iraq will be a strategic placing when we battle with Iran …as for leaving Iraq, if we give up and let it go, Iran will take it over and we might as well say western civilization is soon to be a thing of the past."

Notice the "when" (not "if") we "battle with Iran." And failing to do so will be the end of "western civilization." That doesn't sound to you like a statment that all out war with Islam in Iran is not only inevitable, but neccesary and presumably will lead to some good result?

How about TD in post number three?

"The signs are OK - we have 160,000 combat experienced troops on Iran’s eastern frontier; as well as assets and troops surrounding Iran. We are ready to move if needed."

And GwainsGhost in the very next post?

"I agree with the commenters above. Iraq is the strategic staging ground for the inevitable confrontation with Iran. Once Iran is dealt with, as it must be, Iraq will stabilize. Then we can turn our attention to the real problem, Saudi Arabia."

Holy crap, that one's got us attacking everyone over there, including the Saudis?

And for Pete's sake, go back and read retire05's comment at 3:37 pm. All of the frankly demented rambling about the "islamonazis" who have been waiting 1200 years for a chance to attack the United States and a laundry list of countries we apparently need to invade and bring to their knees.

Seriously, Rick. While perhaps not spelled out in exact words in response to this particular post, you certainly spend enough time cruising the wingnut blogosphere to have seen it all before. What do you think they are talking about? They're talking about (and simply eager for) a holy war. And you're claiming that they DON'T think this is going to solve all of our problems with Islam? Then why the hell would they be suggesting it, Rick?

Nice try? Right back at ya. I know you have a kneejerk reaction to defend anyone who's defending the neocon principle of democracy at gunpoint and the defeat of Islam, but these people continue to preach a mindless, violent "solution" to a problem that calls for a completely different approach. You don't defeat terrorism with armies. I would hope that we're finally starting to learn that, though the cost of the lesson has been ungodly high.

Comment Posted By Jazz On 21.08.2006 @ 07:21

While the original post was thoughtful and raises a lot of valid questions, I find the comments section far more alarming and dismaying. It seems that so many righties have now bought into the fantasy that we are actively engaged (or at least desperately need to be) in a holy war against the religion of Islam across the planet, and that somehow a "final battle" against the nations of Iran and Syria is going to magically solve the world's problems, terrorism will cease, everyone who survives in the middle east will convert to Christianity and flowers and peace will spread across the world.

This is a fantasy. Do you know how many Muslims there are in the world? Hint: it's in the billions, not millions. And the majority don't even live in or near Iran and Syria combined. The vast majority of them also apparently don't feel like they are involved in a war of conquest.

Even if this fantasy were true, the prospects of a war with Iran, either now or in the near future, are too horrible to contemplate. You seem to think that we can just declare war, turn on the machine, and Iran and Syria will fold up like a cheap suit. It boggles the mind to see such war mongering, oversimplified minds at work.

Comment Posted By Jazz On 21.08.2006 @ 06:29



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page