September 01, 2003

BLOWHARDS

Suicide as a method of empire-building? Well, itís never worked before, but Jemaah Islamiah is willing to try:

Terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah has drawn up plans for a suicide bombing campaign designed to transform Asia and the Pacific region into Islamic provinces.

The scheme is revealed in a 40-page manifesto - the Pupji book or General Guide to the Struggle of JI - which also shows that Jemaah Islamiyah is a well-formed organisation with a constitution, rules of operation, and leadership structure.

The book refers to "love of Jihad in the path of God and love of dying as a martyr" as one of the group's 10 guiding principles.

It shows that JI is not just a loose amalgamation of extremists which can be paralysed by the arrests of senior figures.

Events since the Bali bombing also demonstrate that the group has moved to embrace suicide bombings as a preferred method of achieving its aims.

This, of course, is in direct violation of Pattonís Law:

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 1, 2003 10:34 AM
Comments

And compare Patton's war record with that of these skinny little fucktards. Jesus.

Posted by: Amos at September 1, 2003 at 10:38 AM

Patton certainly knew his shit, even if he was a looney who believed he was a reincarnation of Alexander the Great; another of his lines: "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 1, 2003 at 11:21 AM

Let them blow the crap out of themselves, better them than us. I'd like to see Sukanoputri start to do more than token gestures against JI and other groups.

If it wasn't for the strong lobbying of Australia the silly cow would still be doing nothing. Given her lineage being in the top job and making herself and her family rich is the only real policy she favours.

Posted by: Jake D at September 1, 2003 at 11:22 AM

What time today are we meeting at the Pitt Street ADF recruiting office. I'm really looking forward to signing up together with Tim and his luncheon mates.

Come on Tim I hear the girls love a man in uniform. I heard Miranda and Janet will be there to cheer us all on.

I'm really excited that we'll all be together standing tall defending the realm. You'd be a great example to the kids and would put all those gutless lefties to shame.

Oh that's right, just like VP Cheney you have other priorities.

Be careful eating lunch now today, don't want you choking on a chicken bone do we.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 1, 2003 at 11:38 AM

I love it when I get insults about my bravery from someone who doesn't sign his real name.

Posted by: tim at September 1, 2003 at 12:00 PM

IMPERIALISTS!!!

Posted by: mo skrilla at September 1, 2003 at 12:35 PM

Sometime soon the phrase 'suicide bombing' has to change.

Given that it is now an acknowledged tool of warfare - it should be described as it is - terrorist mass-murder attack. Against the rules of warfare. Against the rules of even the most rudimentary standards of human behaviour.

And - attention limousine lefties who regard such 'activism' as being justified because of various grievances - it's also against their own rules - the rules of Islam.

Calling such neanderthal, semi-human atrocities 'suicide bombings' only takes their glorified language of 'the love of dying as a martyr' at face value.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 1, 2003 at 12:36 PM

So Tim are you going to be there or not.

Or will you just send one your proto attack dogs around as we know what a chicken hawk you really are.

The problem in this country is that media thugs like you Tim are allowed to roam the nation at will attacking anyone who dares to question your supposed monopoly on what is politically right thought and discourse.

You and your ilk overwhelming dominate the airwaves and print space of most private media companies here in Australia. Any dissent to your line of thought at any of your - as yet - uncontrolled media outlets is immediately attacked on a personal level with little attempt to deal with the issues of the debate. Meanwhile you trot out this line that the media is controlled by liberal elites. Oh that's right the new term is "progressive media".

You and your ilk really are a pack of brownshirts that represent to a growing number of people a clear danger to our democratic freedoms. It's you and your ilk who are the real elites and the keepers of a political rightness that's based on lies, distortions, half truths and downright fiction.

You speak on any subject you choose with the conviction of the most extreme preacher you can imagine. And you speak such utter rubbish about subjects you have no expert opinion on other that what you read in Quadrant or some other trashy right wing magazine paid for by the slush funds your hero's in crony capitalism kick in.

Face it Tim you are a fraud to intellectual thought and a chickenhawk in the extreme. You send other people's sons and daughters to fight your wars and call anyone who doesn't agree with you a coward, a traitor or any other term of abuse you can come up with between your endless long lunches where you and your ilk gather to tell each other how politically correct you are.

Go enlist Tim and do something real for your country for once.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 1, 2003 at 12:57 PM

How seroiusly can take a group that calls it's manifesto "The Puppy Book"

Posted by: Pete at September 1, 2003 at 01:20 PM

Yeah, Blair, your ilk doesn't match your shoes.

Posted by: slatts at September 1, 2003 at 01:32 PM


Its the old chicken and the egg syndrome eh big hawk? You as a bird of prey should be quite familiar with the intricacies of the fowl life cycle.

A country's military force is created to protect its citizens and its territory from outside attack. However it relies on those same citizens to ensure that it recieves the resources to exist.

So if Tim is doing what the majority of Australias are up to - earning a living and living peacefully and heaven forbid speaking his mind- he is doing his bit to support said system.

However your argument sort of falls flat when you refuse to identify yourself. This puts you in the category of troll - perhaps even chicken troll instead of Big Hawk. Care to sit on that fact until it hatches?

Posted by: Rob at September 1, 2003 at 01:49 PM

It's my ilk that's the problem. And all the time I was blaming my urk.

Posted by: tim at September 1, 2003 at 01:50 PM

No mention of Big Hawk's military record as of 10:57 PM EDT...

BTW it's almost elk season here in New England.

Posted by: Roger Bournival at September 1, 2003 at 01:57 PM

Enough of trolls - I love this part of the article:

"This talks about combat operations in which education and training is imperative in subjects such as physical fitness and weapons training, tactical thinking, strategic thinking, leadership and vision. "

I mean the leadership thing is without question. If you have a bomb strapped to your person you will always find yourself out in front - way way out front all alone but leading never the less.

Posted by: Rob at September 1, 2003 at 02:12 PM

What's the old quote...."those who will not fight for their freedom, are the lowest form of life"....or words to that effect.

Posted by: wallace at September 1, 2003 at 02:17 PM

Troll quality has declined appreciably of late, no?

Posted by: Kranky at September 1, 2003 at 02:17 PM

"Got ilk?" (I believe only the Americans will get that one.)

Posted by: scott h. at September 1, 2003 at 02:31 PM

My family name is Scottish and when I was young, reading the clan history, old Bartolf was always described as "the first of his ilk" - I've always wanted to be the first my ilk. Tim if you and I are of the same ilk and you are older than me it means that I can't be "the first of my ilk".

DAMN!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Russell at September 1, 2003 at 03:03 PM

Paying taxes and been on the frontline are vastly different concepts.

Only a right wing flake would dare to equate serving under fire with paying taxes. Do you really regard paying taxes as that onerous as to equate it to been shot at. Maybe that explains why the right wing want to cut taxes so often?

Timmy boy has no intention of serving a single day in the armed forces, just like most of his fans here also would never dare go near a recruiting office.

Let's face it, Tim Blair is the very definition of a chickenhawk, and should just come clean and admit he is not brave enough to go anywhere near a recruiting office, Meanwhile he works day and night promoting the deployment of Rummy's cannon fodder to do police duties in a land where we have no business to be at all.

Did you idiots learn anything in history classes. Or did you just think the crusades was a game of dungeons and dragons with fair maidens at night to sooth and heal your wounds.

Meanwhile, with your weapons of minor destruction you think you can lord it over anyone, anywhere at anytime - no matter what the consequences are.

Get down to that recruiting office today Mr Blair and show us your true colors. Or are you just a yellow belly snake in search of easy prey with your poison pen.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 1, 2003 at 03:18 PM

One benefit of the suicide bombers is that they're completely discrediting the "if someone really cares, they're right/should get their way" insanity that has been plaguing the West for the last few decades.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at September 1, 2003 at 03:37 PM

Yes I am a right wing flake. Coming from you that is a compliment and I take it gladly.

I much prefer it to being a left wing dictator apologist. All those left wing boys have generated way too high a body count for my liking. You see I have learnt my history lessons too :)

Posted by: Rob at September 1, 2003 at 03:38 PM

The quality of trolls is declining? I'd say Big Hawk provides a fresh, new, _absofrickinlutely jaw-droppingly insane_ aura to trolling that I, for one, must applaud warily. Very warily.

Posted by: Flynn at September 1, 2003 at 03:44 PM

The "If you support the war, then sign up yourself" argument is not uncommon, especially among people not accustomed to thinking things through. It resolves to, you cannot support a war unless you oppose the division of labor.

An analagous argument is, "If you support eating, then grow your own food."

This argument is stupid even by the low standards set by the anti-war crowd.

Posted by: Tim Shell at September 1, 2003 at 04:13 PM

Big Hawk, I thing you miss the point! About much of the discusion here. Please "tell all" your service record. Mine is 05/01/1972 - 04/01/1992 R.A.N. btw I beleave most anti-war poeple are more anti-military.

Posted by: Fred at September 1, 2003 at 04:28 PM

Anyone else find it odd that so many anti-war types do military recruiting?

Posted by: scott h. at September 1, 2003 at 04:31 PM

I encourage you all to join the army to take part in any future wars, which are wrong.

Posted by: scott h. at September 1, 2003 at 04:32 PM

Have you signed up yet Big Hawk? Or are you supporting the IslamoLoonies? Sounds like it.

As for the Crusades - read some history books. You may learn something - for example, how the Muslims overran Europe as far as the Danube River. It took about 700 years to drive them from Europe, hopefully it won't take so long this time. Providing of course, that the Europeans have enough guts to tackle the task at hand, which I doubt.

Posted by: dee at September 1, 2003 at 04:50 PM

I encourage you all to join the army to take part in any future wars, which are wrong.

Best troll-slap yet!

Posted by: Evil Pundit at September 1, 2003 at 05:00 PM

I second the previous comment. Jolly good shot Scott!

Posted by: Rob at September 1, 2003 at 05:07 PM

You hear the chicken hawk bullshit alot from logic-challenged leftys.

No one is allowed to have a say in the defense of the nation unless they are in the army? Effectivly he's advocating military rule! Jesus, what is with these idiots and dictatorship? They love it!

Hey moron, why don't you put your money where YOUR mouth is and go live in one of your socialist paradises? Or some islamic wonderland like Algeria? Go on, fuckhead, impress us.

Tell you what, YOU go live in minority Christian Ache, I'LL join the army.

Deal, moron? Let's see how you like your little muslim buddies.

Posted by: Amos at September 1, 2003 at 09:24 PM

I don't have to justify shit as I'm not the one calling for war. It's Tim Blair and his pathetic collection of brownshirts who have to put themselves on the line if they are going to call for war to solve our problems.

Again how anyone can equate paying taxes to been on the front line is truly astounding. It really does show how shallow the right wing are if they think paying takes is so dangerous as to be equal to that of been a real soldier under fire.

How truly sad to think that you have reduced the division of labour to such a point that been a taxpayer is all you have to do to be a true patriot in this dumb arse war.

The funny thing is that by that reasoning all those tax dodgers out there can now be called unpatriotic scum. I dare you Tim to say that to his employer Kerry Packer - Australia's leading example of how to pay little or no taxes.

In the meantime Mr Blair I challenge you to show all of Australia how brave you are and to go down to that recruiting office tomorrow and sign up. Even an intellectual lightweight like you must be of some use in Iraq washing dishes and doing your bit for god and country.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 1, 2003 at 09:26 PM

Hey Chicken Hawk... do the words "Go- And - Get -Fucked - you - First - Year - Arts - Undergraduate " have any resonance with you?

Posted by: BIG KNOB at September 1, 2003 at 09:39 PM

me a first year arts graduate. what a joke - I did a real degree. it's dimwits like your hero Tim Blair who did the arts degree, and probably like most of his peers never paid a cent for it.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 1, 2003 at 10:39 PM

Listen up, dickhead- I did an arts degree, then went and served in uniform for sixteen years, was shot at twice and blown up once, then paid for a qualification that earns me some real dollars.
I had no trouble with being shot at, abused or getting in fights when I was being paid to do so, and I doubt if any current members of the military or law enforcement have either. Our forces are there to get involved where and when need arises, and it is whining leftist bottom feeders like you who abuse the shit out of them for doing there job, then squeal like one of the boys from "Deliverance" has invited you to share body fluids with him whenever you are threatened.
I wouldn't piss in your ear if your brain was on fire.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 1, 2003 at 10:54 PM

When did I say anything against those that serve. My beef is with those that want war but don't serve. Just like your crooked President and Vice President. Both of whom made damn sure they never went near a real war. And then he has the hide to put an airman's flight suit on and pretend to be a Top Gun.

So get your facts straight on this argument.

Again the challenge is to Tim Blair to show us all how truly brave he really is, and to stop been the chickenhawk that he is.

He's the one that wants war, so he's the one that should go and fight in it.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 1, 2003 at 11:10 PM

"And compare Patton's war record with that of these skinny little fucktards. Jesus."

"Truly, Allah is beginning to feel like a Cubs fan."

Posted by: Ernie G at September 1, 2003 at 11:16 PM

Hey Big Hawk.

I reckon there will still be a few bars open full of arts students discussing Iraq, Cuba and the like. How about YOU go down to one and tell them all that their degree is a joke, not like yours. Go on then, whats keeping you.

Big Hawk, Shite Hawk more likely

Posted by: Dave at September 1, 2003 at 11:28 PM

The "chicken hawk" argument betrays the contempt for democracy felt by many on the anti-war left. They somehow argue that only those able and willing to serve in the armed forces are entitled to be in favour of war. So I guess if you are disabled but have hawkish views then your views don't count.

Kind of reminds me of the theme to Robert Heinlein's science fiction story Starship Troopers, where only serving soldiers are allowed to vote.

Hasn't Big Hawk heard of Clemenceau's quote, issued during WW1, that war was too important to be left to the generals?

Posted by: Johnathan at September 2, 2003 at 12:08 AM

Or Jack D Ripper's more prescient comment that war is too important to be left to the politicians. It might soon be time to stop worrying and love the bomb.

Posted by: ZsaZsa at September 2, 2003 at 12:23 AM

Big Hawk:

No more anti-war protests from you and your ilk until you have the guts to join the circus.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at September 2, 2003 at 01:28 AM

Big Hawk:
You say that your "beef is with those that want war but don't serve".

Who really wants this war? From "this" side? Do you think if we withdrew militarily the war would cease? If we were to pull the troops from Afghanistan/Iraq, the war would stop? The attacks would cease? The radical Islamists (or whatever one wants to call them) would agree to a cease fire?

From my view (and the majority perspective, I think, in the U.S.) we have been ignoring these threats for 30 years or so. There is a fundamental struggle going on within Islam, as noted Islamic scholars have outlined, between the radical elements that see a return to Islamic glory and world domination only by driving out the infidels that have corrupted Islam and the Islamic world. They see glory in killing infidels - Westerners, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and other Moslems who do not adhere to their sectarian beliefs.

Unfortunately, negotiation and compromise with these elements is impossible.

The chickenhawk charge might make you feel better; but it would be better if you had some answers as to how we should meet this challenge.

For what it's worth: I served 3 months in the U.S. Marines but had this nasty tendency of passing out on the 3- and 5-mile hikes (mitral valve prolapse). I would keel over in the middle of a march. Perfectly treatable with antibiotics but not a good condition to have in combat.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at September 2, 2003 at 01:59 AM

"Terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah has drawn up plans for a suicide bombing campaign designed to transform Asia and the Pacific region into Islamic provinces.


The scheme is revealed in a 40-page manifesto - the Pupji book or General Guide to the Struggle of JI - which also shows that Jemaah Islamiyah is a well-formed organisation with a constitution, rules of operation, and leadership structure. "

...it's like their own version of the Protocols! Except real.

Posted by: oh at September 2, 2003 at 02:11 AM

Is there some rule that trolls are not allowed to show any knowledge of punctuation?

Posted by: Bruce at September 2, 2003 at 02:35 AM

For the record, and to rescue my shattered reputation, I don not have an arts degree.

Posted by: tim at September 2, 2003 at 02:40 AM

As usual, Big Hawk (aka "Billy"), puts words in peoples' mouths, exaggerates to the extreme in doing so, then asks how you can believe that sort of thing.

No one equated paying taxes with getting shot at. No one. I read the post three times. The point, valid and reasonable in a democracy, is that everyone has a role to play in ensuring the continued functioning and advancement of said democracy. The argument that one must enlist in order to make a valid decision about the use of force suggests an incredibly concrete view of the way the world works. Democracies function better in part because non-military personnel are involved in the decisions of military. It provides for a more objective viewpoint, not less.

If we extend Big Hawk's (aka "Billy's") logic to its conclusion, then only former military personnel could be elected President, because otherwise they would be unable to legitimately order any use of force. In America, that means we can get rid of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, etc as Presidents, because they never served. And we'd be sorrier for it today.

Talk about not thinking through a position.

P.S. As someone else stated, no one is "pro-war" in the sense of enjoying war, watching caskets come home, etc. However, that does not mean that war is automatically excluded as an option, and in some cases, it is the most necessary of choices (which means that all choices must suck). We can have a legimate debate about whether war was necessary in this case, but to engage in "chicken-hawk" name-calling demonstrates that you are likely not ready for that level of discourse.

P.P.S. I admit I received an Arts degree, but to borrow from Mark Twain, I haven't let that interfere with my education.

Posted by: Jerry at September 2, 2003 at 03:14 AM

Jerry:
Well thought out post.

One correction (lots of people make it): Old Abe served in the militia and fought in the French & Blackhawk Indian War. Not really "official" U.S. Army, I guess. I don't believe he saw actual combat.

Hope he took out a couple of Frogs, though .

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at September 2, 2003 at 03:21 AM

I _love_ the analogy of "if you don't serve in the military you can't argue for war." It works in _so many instances_:

* If you aren't a police officer, you can't decry crime.
* If you aren't a doctor, you can't advocate vaccinations.
* If you aren't a teacher, you can't insist upon punctuation (which seems to be quite true for trolls).

I would _love_ to have the mind of Big Hawke, but I unfortunately have been schooled, so I have to think "He who says 'A', says 'B'."

Posted by: Biggie Fries at September 2, 2003 at 03:36 AM

It is rather, er, odd, that if you served in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, some (many?) on the Left then called you a Nazi, baby-killer fascist.

Now, some 30 years later, if you DIDN'T serve in the military during the Vietnam War, you're a Nazi, fascist, chickenhawk, hyprocrite.

Hmm, notice a pattern here?

Funny, I don't recall the chickenhawk charge during the 1990's when Mr. Clinton was sending American troops into 30 different combat situations. Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia. . . .
Lots of people who didn't serve in the military supported those, admittedly smaller, interventions. Principle still applies, no?

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at September 2, 2003 at 03:51 AM

Well the solution is to not advocate war. Ever. This the only way to avoid being a hypocrite or a warmongering fascist.

Unless, of course, we rename the soldiers we support "activists." That way we can cheer them on without actually supporting war.

Posted by: Sean at September 2, 2003 at 04:49 AM

My beef is with those that want war but don't serve.

So how was your stint as a human shield in Baghdad?
What? Supported peace but didn't go?

Coward

Posted by: Monkeyboy at September 2, 2003 at 04:56 AM

Monkeyboy: Beauty! That one hurt, didn't it Big Hork? Time to bail for another thread, goof, once your bottom lip stops trembling. Poor baby, are all the bullies picking on you? Well boo fucking hoo. Get used to it, bitch-boy.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2003 at 07:48 AM

It's 8.07am on the dial and the challenge remains for the big brave Tim Blair to put his big balls where his big mouth his and get down to Pitt St bright and early where he can present himself to the ADF recruiting office and sign up.

But of course he won't be doing that, he's got another long lunch to attend to today, where he and his fellow travelers can whine over another bottle of expensive wine about those nasty lefties out there who are engaging in "reputational rape" of all the Honest John's in the world.

Mr Blair you are a fraud and a coward. You expect other people to fight your wars and then when challenged you retreat behind the same old tired arguments that it's not your job.

So just what is your job.

As one letter writer said today in the SMH, it's time that one of Howard's ministers is sent to Baghdad to do a tour of duty and put their own sorry arses on the line. You can't expect to lead the people from the rear. We need leadership out at the front in this great war against of civilization, not at the rear enjoying endless long lunches.

Come on Timmy Boy show us what big balls you have to match that big mouth of yours.

Miranda promises to be there to wave you off.

and on your marks...... attack me back

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 2, 2003 at 09:18 AM

Big Hawk:
The attacks against you are directed at your silly argument that - were it to be applied across the board on every other issue - would require that every person who supports a cause give up their lives and join that cause or movement. That's nonsensical.

Many liberal (and some non-liberal) Americans support, for example, affirmative action. Your demand on them would be that they give up their jobs for a black American. How could they argue for a policy that they themselves don't actively work for? How can they demand others sacrifice their jobs for a minority if they themselves don't make that sacrifice?

It's been noted that you yourself - in your cause for peace and the safety of the Iraqi people - don't personally go to Baghdad as a shield protecting the residents from harm. Are you a hypocritical bastard for not doing so?

By your own very standard, you would be.

And since you're so devoted to eliminating hypocrisy wherever you personally find it, why not lead this crusade and remove it firsthand? Start with yourself. E-mail us from Baghad; then you can begin again your efforts against Blair.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at September 2, 2003 at 09:58 AM

Big H, you show the most tenacious stupidity, you just keep hanging in there with some "challenge" while diplaying an inability to address any of the points leveled against you.

I know the futility of my request but attempt, at least for a moment, to deliver a structured and coherent argurment. God only knows what you'll come out with but at least you may be entertaining rather than just plan dull.

Posted by: Jake D at September 2, 2003 at 10:24 AM

Big Hork: Still waiting......... When you manage to staunch the flow of blood from your arse-hole, as a result of the wedgie delivered by MonkeyBoy, we'd love to hear your reply. I'm serious, for once we'd actually like to hear your comments. MonkeyBoy's post gets better with every reading. Guess we know who the real coward is here, don't we chickenshit? Actually, you probably are better off not replying to MonkeyBoy. You're already a mega-hypocrite. No sense making the situation any worse for yourself.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2003 at 10:30 AM

Big Hawk:

What your argument lacks in breadth and depth it certainly makes up for in repetition.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at September 2, 2003 at 10:41 AM

Big Hork: Got tired of waiting for you to summon the courage for a reply to MonkeyBoy, so I did one up for you. You owe me big time !!! Anyway, here it is:

" MonkeyBoy; Nice try, making me out to be the hypocrite to deflect the heat away from Timmy. If you had bothered to do your homework, you would have discovered that I did in fact go to Iraq with the intention of acting as a Human Shield. Unfortunately, Saddam washed me out because I failed the medical. Something about flat feet. Needless to say, I was devastated. Unlike Tim, I was willing to put my ass on the line for my beliefs. MonkeyBoy, you should be ashamed of yourself for making light of the Human Shields in a pathetic attempt to discredit me. I wonder what the relatives of the thousands of Shields who gave their lives in Iraq think of your sick humour. The challenge i issued to Timmy Boy now is extended to you as well, MonkeyBoy."

Big Hork

Not bad, eh, Hork. Remember, you owe me !!! Shit, I almost forgot. You're still a goof.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2003 at 11:24 AM

Why the hell would I want to go Baghdad and protect Saddam. I've always said Ari had it right on when he trotted out that bullet all those months ago in that show and tell session.

Why was it so hard for the US with a military machine costing half a trillion a year to get one bullet into the head of one bad guy.

Amazing how incompetent the world's largest military machine is.

So go diddle yourself - I ain't no human shield for anyone but myself and my family.

In the meantime, when it comes to war and wanting other people to go to war, big mouths like Tim Blair must set the example for us all.

Or is it just like your hero Prez and his crooked VP, that when it was their turn they had other priorities.

Makes me sick to see that yellow belly Bush sending young kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off, so bigmouths like Tim Blair and his mates at the clubhouse of hate can sprout out crap justifications for the stupid arse war you have started and once again won't be able to finish.

Those young kids didn't sign up to die in Iraq, they signed up to defend America, and the answer everyone wants to hear, is when exactly was Iraq a direct threat to the US. None of the S-11 hijackers came from there - as we all know they mostly came from Saudi Arabia. So explain why the hell are we in Iraq.

Meanwhile, you had your chance in '91, but Bush daddy couldn't help the Shiites finish the job even with some lousy air cover.

And now here we are 12 years later and a bunch of poor kids are out there in the streets of Iraq reduced to cannon fodder by that slime bucket Rumsfeld - who can't even be respectful to Vietnam conscripts.

Yes it is a fucking war, that you fucks started and now haven't got a fucking clue how to win.

So come on Timmy Boy get down to Pitt Street and show us all how truly brave you are.

ps: as to supporting affirmative action - I do my bit every day working for myself - having removed myself from wage slavery long ago. And yes if you want to support affirmative action then of course you have to accept that you might miss out on a job due to the need to contribute to the greater good.

Dimwits like the above poster know so little about the modern economy. The only thing that kept any level of control on wages in the 1990s in the US was affirmative action and the flow on effects of NAFTA. Since then companies have learnt that women and minorities make great managers, who don't spend all day at lunch and can still be employed for far less that white men. So go learn your facts before trotting out more rubbish about something you just hate for no other reason than dimwits like Tim Blair told you to hate it.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 2, 2003 at 12:48 PM

I thought the UN was irrelevant?

Posted by: Miranda Divide at September 2, 2003 at 12:58 PM

Big Hawk:
My gawd. You're a whackjob.

Kinda thought so but since I'm relatively new to this site, I wasn't sure.

That last incoherent, rambling message (affirmative action kept wages in control in the 1990s? - we've had affirmative action programs for 30 years) certainly settles things.

Well, I gave it a shot folks. Abandon hope all ye who engage in a dialogue with this gentleman.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at September 2, 2003 at 01:20 PM

Like the nutjobs at train stations who fight with "the voices in their heads" so is our dull troll, Big Haa. Pay it any attention and it'll keep coming back.

Posted by: Jake D at September 2, 2003 at 02:26 PM

Thanks Mike!
sure put me in my place.

By te wat hawk, the "kids" in Iraq are defending America, we Americans understand that you fight a war over there rather than fight a war in your kids schoolground.

Unlike you, I'd much rather go now than have to go to back to Baghdad in a few years with Seattle Police or Chicago Fire stickers. 3,000 in one day is enough thanks.

Posted by: Monkeyboy at September 2, 2003 at 02:30 PM

Thanks Mike!
sure put me in my place.

By the way hawk, the "kids" in Iraq are defending America, we Americans understand that you fight a war over there rather than fight a war in your kids schoolground.

Unlike you, I'd much rather go now than have to go to back to Baghdad in a few years with Seattle Police or Chicago Fire stickers. 3,000 in one day is enough thanks.

Posted by: Monkeyboy at September 2, 2003 at 02:30 PM

Big Hork: Wow, that was brilliant. Like Robert Fisk on crack. Was it me you were referring to with the " go diddle yourself " comment? Listen up, we've got a nice arrangement working here, but I guess I need to remind you of it again; It's your job to provide the hypocrisy, lies and non-sensical, bullshit accusations. I look after the insults. Stop trying to do my job for me, we're a team, remember???

MonkeyBoy wasn't talking about your failure to go to Baghdad having anything to do with protecting Saddam. But I think you realize that, it was just the best you could come up with. As for your " I ain't no human shield for anyone but myself and my family," I thought Tim and the rest of us were the selfish pricks? Guess you carry the honours on that one as well. Lucky for you the U.S. and British soldiers in Iraq aren't selfish pricks, because they are in effect acting as human shields for you, your family, and the rest of us fortunate enough to live in western democracies. While I'm sure you're quite a " warrior," I suspect your family is far better served by the efforts of the coalition in Iraq, then they ever would be if you had to deploy into " Human Shield Mode."

You ask " when exactly was Iraq ever a direct threat to the U.S. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from there ...." Well I can't think of a better candidate to be behind the next 9/11 than a Saddam-led Iraq. I know many prominent leftist assholes (as opposed to non-prominent ones such as yourself)have claimed that the Americans had plenty of world support and goodwill following 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. These hypocrites claim the U.S. was supported because it was attacked first, so the justification to retaliate was there. The whole point for them to concede this is only to aid in vilifying the U.S. for invading Iraq, and invasion that is " illegal," and " immoral " in their eyes, because it didn't offer what Afghanistan did. As I have posted before in other threads, this is pure horse shit. Most of these same anti-Americans didn't support U.S. action in Afghanistan, they argued against it vociferously, even AFTER bin Laden ADMITTED he had carried out the 9/11 attacks. Some said there still wasn't sufficient PROOF to justify a military assault on Al Qaeda. Some of these evil idiots even claimed Afghanistan was " all about oil."

My point here is this; Even with irrefutable evidence that Al Qaeda had committed a devastating slaughter on American soil, along with irefutable evidence that bin Laden was responsible, and was in Afghanistan, along with thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists, and finally, accompanied by a refusal of the Taliban to hand bin Laden over, people like you said it wasn't enough.

So now, lets suppose that the Bush administration (or even Clinton for that matter) had come forward before 9/11 to argue that Afghanistan was to be the base for a horrific terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and the U.S. therefore was going to invade Afghanistan pre-emptively. Tell us, Big Hork, would the " moral outrage " from the left be any less than it was over Iraq? Of course not. How could you argue otherwise? You and your dink pals on the left slandered the U.S. over Afghanistan AFTER the Towers were taken down.

Bush and Blair realized how foolish and irresponsible it was to leave Saddam in a position to emulate bin Laden's success. Why suffer another 9/11 type attack, hoping that the World would back you in going after the terrorists, when you've already played that game once, in Afghanistan. As I said in another thread, why let dishonest individuals offering dishonest arguments deter the U.S. from doing the prudent thing, the right thing, in Iraq? It bears repeating, the U.S. had already been forced to battle through this moral charade over Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I could go on and on, Hork, but you're a lost cause.Don't bother with your patent, textbook comebacks about Saddam not being a threat, or linked to terrorists. We've heard them all before, they were some just shit then, they're so much shit now. You know what I'm talking about. Things like " Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists hate each other, because Saddam's Iraq is a Baathist, secular, family run dictatorship, so they are ideologically opposed." Meanwhile, next door in Syria we have a Baathist, secular, family run dictatorship that just loves Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. And guess what, the terrorists just love the Assads right back, especially Hizbollah, with the decidely un-secular " Party of God." English translation of its name. Or how about this one you might want to try out, the one that goes " Saddam would never use WMD against the west, but an invasion of Iraq might prompt his WMD to " fall into the hands" of terrorists in the ensuing chaos. " The no-leftist bullshit translation of this one reads something like this: " If the U.S. invades Iraq, Saddam might " give " (there won't be any "falling into the hands of," crap)WMD to the terrorists that the left said he had no relationship with, other than as sworn enemies."

I've also mentioned this before, but you need to hear it. It is only the arrogant, smug, extremely stupid left that believes unprotected civilians in Seattle, London, Chicago or Frankfurt would somehow fare better than the unprotected Kurds at Halabja if WMD were surreptitiously dispersed in these cities. WMD experts stated the Japanese cult that released Sarin in the Tokyo subway WOULD HAVE KILLED THOUSANDS THAT DAY, had they not been so inept in their method of dispersal.

Big Hork, you keep right on cheering for the bad guys. You're not very good at it, but they do appreciate it.


Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2003 at 02:52 PM

Well, Big Hawk, it looks like you've never done anything in your life except avoid responsibility and punctuation. Think that makes you a better person?

Posted by: John Nowak at September 2, 2003 at 03:41 PM

Sarin in Tokyo hey. Guess that's why the dumb arse Japanese police forgot to raid the idiots when they had the chance months before the attack. As to the rest of your rant, i guess we should just shoot arab babies on birth - given that they'll probably just grow up to hate you and want to kill you.

This is your own nightmare that you have created after years of propping up shitty govts the world over. Just look at all your new buddies in the 'Stans.

Posted by: Big Hawk at September 2, 2003 at 04:14 PM

>Guess that's why the dumb arse Japanese police forgot to raid the idiots when they had the chance months before the attack.

Preemption is good.

>As to the rest of your rant, i guess we should just shoot arab babies on birth - given that they'll probably just grow up to hate you and want to kill you.

Preemption is bad.

Big Hawk, a paragraph needs a unifying theme other than "Ignore me because I can't think coherently."

Posted by: John Nowak at September 2, 2003 at 04:27 PM

Big Hork: I'm perplexed by your comment, " This is your own nightmare that you have created after years of propping up shitty govts the world over." (I know this is off topic, but you could sure use someone to come in and help prop up your shitty posts). Anyway, didn't know I was so influential. I thought I was just a low level civil servant, living a middle class life.

I also don't know where your " lets shoot the Arab babies at birth," comment came from. It certainly had nothing to do with my post. Actually, I'm an advocate of what the Americans are currently doing in Iraq, and it has nothing to do with baby-killing. It's called " Killing the bad ones after they've grown up."

Thanks for sparing most of my " rant " from any further of your merciless, insightful slice and dice commentary that we have all come to know and fear. I'm sure you had plenty of profound rebuttals for my points, but decided to save me the embarrasment. I want to go on the record here and now and say I think its a fucking travesty that you don't have your own blog.

Anyway, at least you know I've got your back, Big Hork. Everyone else here thinks you're a remedial, annoying, uninformed left wing head case. But you and I know better, right, 'cause we're buds now. We know they're wrong. You're just fucking stupid, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Mike at September 2, 2003 at 05:22 PM

Hook in Mike. Out-fucking standing. little horse you are one dumb-arse piece of shit. The collapse of the Soviet Union didn't teach you diddly squat, did it?

Habib - a fatwah on this infidel!

Posted by: Razor at September 2, 2003 at 08:22 PM

Big Hawk, why should Tim Blair have to serve in the armed forces just because he favours taking down Saddam Hussein? Why should a person have to join up in order to hold a particular viewpoint you happen to disagree with?

There is something totalitarian in the mindset of those who make the chickehawk point. I tune out the views of such folk since they cannot argue the case in rational terms.

There is a case for non-intervention in Iraq - such as it will make problems worse, not better; it will vastly increase State power, etc. But the likes of Big Hawk prefer to make cheap personal attacks.

There are other battles to be fought besides those in combat gear, such as the battle for ideas. And Tim is rather good at that, which probably is why "peace" advocates like Big Hawk get so riled.

Posted by: Johnathan at September 2, 2003 at 10:14 PM

Hey, littlehawk, if Tim was in Bali on 10/12/02, he would have been on the front lines.

You fail to realize that. The world is the front line.

Stop thinking conventionally.

Posted by: Sandy P. at September 3, 2003 at 04:32 AM

Khamenei and Kim Jong-Il realize how foolish and irresponsible it is to leave Bush in a position to repeat himself. Why suffer another Iraq-type attack, hoping that the world would back you in going after the superpower, when you've already seen that game dozens of times since world war two. Why let dishonest individuals offering dishonest arguments deter these states from doing what they see as the prudent thing, the right thing, against the U.S.? It bears repeating, others had already been forced to battle through this moral charade over Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, El Salvador, Chile.....

Posted by: chubbyblow at September 3, 2003 at 05:16 AM

Big Hork posting as Chubbyblow: In the pre-Internet days, if someone took a pounding in the school yard, they came back with their big brother to even the score. On Internet blogs, when one is thoroughly pummeled, a la Big Hork, the fall back is to go into alias mode. Big Hork/Chubbyblow would probably characterize this strategy as " tactical withdrawel." Seems a little more like that familiar " coward " thing to me. Sorry to expose you like this Big Hork, especially since it took you all day to come up with your whole paragraph.

And what a paragraph!!! Hork-Blow, you have already established that Khamenei and Kim Jong-Il are the type of leader you admire. A post is always in trouble if it takes the reader a few minutes to decide which side the writer is on. Your post qualifies there.

Another tip for you, goof; If you're trying to discredit the Americans, its always a good idea, when you're trotting out your impressive examples of U.S. duplicity, to omit those examples where American military action left the country of record in far better shape than before intervention. That would be Panama and Grenada, but I'll go easy on you over them, because I have no doubt that you truly know nothing about either situation.

Have the Americans been guilty of foreign policy crimes in the past? Of course. None of them remotely involve the current U.S. President or British Prime Minister. Those of us who believe in the facts and reasoned argument are willing to concede points that may not advance our arguments. On the other hand, you, and your fellow ultra-lefties resort to fact omission, fact misrepresentation, outright lies, and shameless hypocrisy, virtually every time your inane beliefs are challenged. If you don't like being criticized, try debating honourably for a change. (It would also help if you weren't wrong 98% of the time, but that's a seperate issue).

One more point. It involves the "borrowing" of my comment " Why let dishonest individuals offering dishonest arguments deter these states from doing what they see as the prudent thing, the right thing, against the U.S."

I didn't know it was " dishonest " to oppose a country that beats journalists to death, not only their own, but foreign ones as well. I didn't know it was " dishonest " to oppose a country that jails and executes political opponents and newspaper editors who publish non-flattering commentary against the regime. I didn't know it was " dishonest " to oppose a regime that threatens to kill women who fail to comply with the religious edicts of the ruling theocrats, and sometimes acts on the threat.

I was also unaware that it was " dishonest " to oppose a country that has starved to death 2 million of its citizens during the 90's, and still can't (in reality won't) feed its own people. It is of course " dishonest " to oppose a country that has kidnapped and held captive for decades citizens from a neighbouring country, and launched numerous small scale military attacks on that neighbour. It is also " dishonest " to oppose a country that routinely threatens to unleash war on its closest neighbour, as well as that neighbour's primary protecter. And, it is " dishonest " to oppose a regime which has acquired nuclear weapons for the sole parallel purposes of using these weapons themselves, or exporting them to rogue states, and possibly terrorist elements.

Boy, those Americans sure are " dishonest." I realized long before your post that Iran thinks it is " right " and " prudent" to murder journalists and political opponents, and oppress and brutalize women. I also realized before you enlightened me, that North Korea believes it " right" and " prudent" to starve its citizens, and threaten to trigger a nuclear holocaust on its neighbours. It was very courageous of you to go on record and admit that you agree with these maniacs. If anyone deserves honourary citizenship in these countries, it is you, Chubby Hork. No, make that actual citizenship.

Chubby Blow/Big Hork, you're out in No Man's land, completely entangled in the barbed wire of your own pathetic, absurd, ridiculous arguments. And I'm loading the ammo belt into the machine gun .......

Posted by: Mike at September 3, 2003 at 08:58 AM