London-based New York Times reporter Alan Cowell was no fan of Tony Blair's support for George Bush and the Iraq War -- he particularly enjoyed repeating left-wing anti-war mockery of Blair as "Bush's poodle."
New Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown's milder approach to the terror threat appears to be more up Cowell's alley, judging by his favorable "news analysis" on Brown Wednesday: "Brown's Reaction to Terrorist Threat, So Different From Blair's, Reassures Many."
"Before Gordon Brown took power as Britain's new prime minister, there was much talk about whether the electorate would warm to the dour, methodical and detail-driven Scot, particularly after so many years of soaring oratory from his predecessor, Tony Blair
"The answer came more quickly than anyone thought, with the foiled terrorist attacks in London on Friday and at Glasgow Airport on Saturday, just days after Mr. Brown took office.
"For his admirers, it seemed, Mr. Brown’s very dourness offered an antidote to the theatrical Mr. Blair.
"In a somewhat wooden address to the nation on Saturday and in an interview with the BBC on Sunday, Mr. Brown played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with Mr. Blair’s apocalyptic view of terrorism."
The text box read: "Some Britons seem to have tired of Blair's apocalyptic view."
"'Gordon Brown has got off to a flying start as prime minister,' Peter Riddell, a political columnist for The Times of London, wrote Tuesday, saying Mr. Brown’s poll ratings for strength and leadership were 'soaring' after the thwarted attacks.
"He received high marks from civil rights groups as well. 'So far, at least, Mr. Brown has passed the first test of his administration,' Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said Sunday. 'He has not played politics with the terror threat, and has treated this weekend’s events as an operational rather than a political matter.'
Cowell didn't mention an apparent example of political correctness in the new administration. An article in Britain's Daily Express newspaper reported the Brown administration has banned the use of the term "Muslim" when discussing the terrorist plots:
"Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word 'Muslim' in connection with the terrorism crisis. The Prime Minister has also instructed his team -- including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith -- that the phrase 'war on --terror' is to be dropped. The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more 'consensual' tone than existed under Tony Blair."
Yet Cowell lamented Brown has not gone far enough:
"In some ways, Mr. Brown has not shed the past. Part of his first response to the foiled attacks of recent days was to blame Al Qaeda, even though security officials shied from that depiction.
"Ultimately, too, he will be under pressure, as Mr. Blair was, to balance civil liberties against more draconian security measures."
This isn't the first time Cowell has warned of "draconian" security measures to combat terrorism
For a fuller version of this piece, visit Times Watch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Comments Policy
Clay,You would think that t
July 5, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Dave RClay,
You would think that the British would, above all others, appreciate the pitfalls inherent in going the way of appeasement.
If the fact that Mohammed is now the second most popular name for male children in that country hasn't yet managed to jerk their heads out of the sand, just what, exactly, is it going to take?
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
Mr. Brown played down the t
July 5, 2007 - 14:43 ET by motherbeltMr. Brown played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization.
Well, there you have it. Mr. Brown is apparently more in tune with President Clinton than Mr. Blair was (even though the media thought they were "soulmates"). After all, after the 1993 WTC bombing, Clinton warned everyone not to "overreact."
The American MSM will love Mr. Brown.
motherbelt
July 5, 2007 - 14:53 ET by Dave RAfter all, after the 1993 WTC bombing, Clinton warned everyone not to "overreact."
Perhaps if William Jefferson Clinton had overreacted (or done anything at all, for that matter) the attacks on 9/11 may not have even happened.
Help Fred defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary-Obama Axis, & win the White House in '08.
hopefully...
July 5, 2007 - 15:10 ET by LionKingHopefully, the British will wake up and LEARN from history. Apathy to terrorism is what emboldened them to attack in the US. I would hate for the West to have to endure another 9-11 at the hands of terrorists.
[All in all, I do not see that terrorism achieves anything except the killing of many innocents.]
Dave, we may never know how h
July 5, 2007 - 15:11 ET by ForeverOnTheRightDave, we may never know how history would have changed if Clinton had been a man and done something, hopefully intellegent and effective. If 9/11 had never happened we may not have had to go to war against terror. I pray that no Dem finds a way to swindle their way into the White House with the help of the MSM lap dogs. If that happens we will find this country retreating from the war and even more vunerable to terrorism because they will see us as weak and unwilling to defend ourselves.
Yet, his minimalist approach
July 5, 2007 - 14:48 ET by shannon20Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with Mr. Blair’s apocalyptic view of terrorism.
So, I guess if they don't think about it or talk about it, it will just go away. Everyone knows the terrorists are just mad at the US and they will give them a pass for having a Pu**y for a Prime Minister and distancing themsevles from the US. Good plan, Let me know how that works out.
Isn't Alan Cowell the same id
July 5, 2007 - 14:49 ET by TEIsn't Alan Cowell the same idiot who alleged that the physician terrorists were part of the "disenfranchised" class in England?
"In a somewhat wooden ad
July 5, 2007 - 15:20 ET by ThisnThat"In a somewhat wooden address to the nation on Saturday and in an interview with the BBC on Sunday..."
Observation: It's nice to see the UK PM speaking with the same clarity and emphasis of President Bush, isn't it? When is President Bush going to be afforded the same kind words when he speaks?
"Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word 'Muslim' in connection with the terrorism crisis".
Pathetic. Let's don't upset them. The only way to get good relations with this murderous crowd is to appease them. How about demanding that the Muslim community change its behaviour, and start condeming these terrorists, and in fact stop teaching hate in their mosques, and even start turning these maniacs in to the law?
"Civil rights groups are estatic. He has not played politics with the terror threat, and has treated this weekend’s events as an operational rather than a political matter".
One way to look at politics is "the authoritative allocation of values for a society". Politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. So, if the UK gives up all of its authoritative values, then this will keep the PM in the good graces of various civil rights groups. Great. On the other hand, the enemy is using politics to the extreme, but that's ok as far as the defeatists are concerned.
This whole article is another example of how many in the MSM simply want Western society to cease its existance, as long as the enemy is kept happy, and as long as there is no effort or conflict on our side to retain and strengthen our values. Wave the white flag, Cowell, you traitor.
Ahhh the NY Times...
July 5, 2007 - 15:35 ET by c5thenThey would much rather have had the staid and stoic Neville Chaimberlain as PM than the hysterical and excitable Winston Churchill. If only Neville had prevailed and they could have pacified tha Nazi's by not mentioning the words "german" or Nazi in combination with all the bombings every night.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
The apocalyptic view of ter
July 5, 2007 - 15:45 ET by gopsteveThe apocalyptic view of terrorism...Well, duh.
I suppose there is the "tender" side of terrorism we should focus on!
Notice to the new PM...Being "nice" and "sensitive" doesn't stop those extremists trying to wipe out the West...I imagine it only emboldens the enemy.
apocalyptic leftoids
July 5, 2007 - 17:13 ET by bulbasaurWhat a dreadful irony, that these clowns can squeal about Global Warming coming to kill us all! And about Ronald Reagan committing Genocide on the Poor! And about George Bush murdering a Billion Iraqi Civilians!
And now they want to officially mandate that all terrorists be referred to more sensitively as "hooligans."
These clowns invented apocalyptic hysteria.
New York Times the Idiot Rag
July 5, 2007 - 18:25 ET by Lame CherryLike Nance Pelosi not doing a thing in office, Gordon Brown has really been a solid rock in the terror attacks:
His first order of business was to hold a meeting where his cabinet offered nothing, did nothing and is doing nothing.
His second order of business was to disappear like Nance Pelosi.
The Scots are good needlers in getting jobs done when they have a boss on top telling them what needs to be done. That is why the Highlanders were such fear inspiring soldiers is they never gave up until the other side was all dead. Gordon Brown though is clueless like a rock with hair on it. It may be comforting now when something happened, but when the day comes the Brits need something accomplished it will be to late as liberal Brown is not a leader.....he is just there.
You might remember America had a Clinton like that and how it ended in disaster.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Well, To be fair. Blair's
July 5, 2007 - 18:36 ET by LeonWell,
To be fair. Blair's so-called "apocalyptic view" hasn't really made England any safer.
Has it?
The UK seems to be considerably more dangerous and at risk for terrorist attack today than ever before.
In light of the increased terrorism under Blair's watch (aka Bush alliance) do you really find it strange that people are looking for a different approach to terrorism?
It has made people aware of t
July 6, 2007 - 12:39 ET by Dan The Man 2It has made people aware of the danger and more alert and ready to rat out terror cells. It is hard to tell if an action has made a situation worse or better. In recognizing the perpetrators of 911 and going after Al Quada and then terror perpetrators have we made America safer? There has not been another successful attack since3, there will be but how many more and what severity would there have been. No we must recognize evil for what it is and confront it at all costs.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
I'm going to miss the staunch
July 5, 2007 - 18:37 ET by bigtimerI'm going to miss the staunch support and brilliant wit of Mr. Blair...
Liberal socially yes....Defender of his country and facing reality is something the leftists just do not get...nor will until it hits them in the arse and is too late...again.
....Fools....greedy leftist fools....world-wide...
Sad.
Personally, I'm looking forwa
July 5, 2007 - 18:42 ET by LeonPersonally, I'm looking forward to Blair's regret-filled, self-loathing tour...ala Colin Powell.
You know, the one where he travels around trying to say he knew it was a disaster all along he just didn't know what to do so the public should forgive him because he desperately wants to go down in history as a somebody and not a dancing fool.
I like those kinds of tours. Got my fingers crossed for the Rumsfeld revisionist lecture series.
Leon ???
July 5, 2007 - 18:48 ET by LionKingSo, have you always had contempt for Blair, even when he was Clinton's buddy? Or, is it just because he chose to support the US after 9-11 and our noble endeavor to combat worlwide terrorism?
[You have proven yourself to be a liberal-pussy so I do not expect you to understand the concept of taking the fight to them instead of allowing them to bring it to us.]
I don't have any contempt for
July 5, 2007 - 18:56 ET by LeonI don't have any contempt for Blair. I like him a lot. However, I can also see how the British felt used by America and why they're happy Blair is gone.
Where did I show any contempt? I merely said I can't wait until he goes all Colin Powell on us in a desperate attempt to seek redemption. I'll be shocked if you can show me one instance where I showed personal contempt for Blair. Just a one.
Hey hey no need to get uncouth. Have a little class. There's no age verification on this site and you're throwing around the P word. You don't know who's reading this. You could be corrupting the very young minds you're all hoping to attract to your agenda in the future. Have you no foresight? Good God.
PS taking the fight to Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Now it does, but we created that environment.
If our plan was to destroy Iraq and sacrifice their citizens and our troops to lure Al Qaeda into Iraq, than we've done a great job. However, that wasn't the stated plan. Oh yeah, and terrorist attacks are on the rise annually! YEAH! So where do we take the fight now? Where do we go next? How do we know when we're done?
Leon ???
July 5, 2007 - 19:01 ET by LionKingThat is contempt...you not only anticipate that he will be self-loathing, you are relishing it.
Yes that's not contempt.
July 5, 2007 - 19:04 ET by LeonYes that's not contempt.
That's me looking forward to his admitting he was wrong.
And yes, I do relish it. The same way I relish Colin Powell. You know why? Because it's great to hear smart people admit that I've been right all along. it's great to hear that the lies were lies. And, the more of these types of used speakers we can get, the more the truth comes out, and the more I know I was right to not be a blind sheep. Believing and defending lies.
That's all. It's not contempt, it's desire for personal satisfaction.
Leon...get a clue
July 5, 2007 - 19:09 ET by LionKingOkay...allow me to educate with facts. Try reading this link to explain what contempt is.
Reading is fundamental.
Yawn.
July 5, 2007 - 19:10 ET by LeonYawn.
thanks, Leon
July 5, 2007 - 19:17 ET by LionKingThanks, Leon. The most intelligent thing you've said, ever!!!
I accept your concession.
LK, What reaction do you e
July 5, 2007 - 19:30 ET by LeonLK,
What reaction do you expect when you're attempting to get into a lame debate over the definition of a word.
Leon, lame debate???
July 5, 2007 - 19:37 ET by LionKingI challenge you on having contempt for one of the bravest political leaders in the world and then you try to deny it when by your very worlds you hold him in contempt. I am compelled to demonstrate your contempt by having to define the word for you.
You are the one who trivializes a debate by refusing to accept the accurate characterization of your words. If you prefer to recant or change your wording, that is your perogative, but it is unacceptable to just claim you have no contempt.
[It is always better to choose your words carefully.]
You do not understand anythin
July 5, 2007 - 19:03 ET by bigtimerYou do not understand anything but what you are paid to do Leon...which you are and always have been one of the better ones here that I have seen when it comes to spin....the who me attitude?
The enemy/terrorists were in over 64 countries before Pres. Bush took office Leon...he said it was going to be a long fight....
Long.... Leon, as in years.....
...forget it...been there done that with all you trolls...just sorry we waste our time with you guys....
Being an enemy within during a time of war is pathetic....sorry sometimes people die and fight for people like you and your ilk and your leftist political leaders.
He said the war on terror wou
July 5, 2007 - 19:09 ET by LeonHe said the war on terror would be a long fight.
But his entire admin. said Iraq would be a short fight.
Don't forget to keep the two seperate, since they are. Different goals and such.
How am I an enemy? Please explain how exactly I've supported terrorism. Seriously, go right ahead. And I want specific examples. No unfounded talking points. Actual facts.
Proceed with the defense of your tired, sickening claim.
Oh, and BT, do me a favor and
July 5, 2007 - 19:13 ET by LeonOh, and BT, do me a favor and answer the last three questions in my post you responded to.
It would be helpful to know that you know the actual goals of this 'long' plan. I mean, to support it so staunchly you must know what the ultimate goal is. When are we done? Where do we go next? What do you consider to be victory?
Please please please a real answer is all I ask.
....google it yourself leon..
July 5, 2007 - 19:43 ET by bigtimer....google it yourself leon...or better yet try using common sense....
I am not wasting time with sending you or your ilk anymore links...not today anyway...not in the mood.
Haha BT. Google it? Don't
July 5, 2007 - 19:51 ET by LeonHaha BT.
Google it? Don't you know it by heart? You support it and you don't even know what it is.
This post is a great example of denial. Perfect.
I don't want your links. I want to hear you say it. What do you believe the goal to be? What would you call victory?
To be so resolute in your support, you should know these answers. It should be no problem for you to rattle them off.
Google it? haha. Please. Keep running away from reality. When you can answer those simple questions, then we'll talk. Until then keep on passing the Kool Aid.
Leon: The actual goals of his
July 5, 2007 - 19:44 ET by Mica the MagnificentLeon: The actual goals of his 'long range plan' is to defeat the Islamofascists before they come to your neighborhood and kill you and your family.
Geez!
Mica, I know the tagline,
July 5, 2007 - 19:52 ET by LeonMica,
I know the tagline, I want to know what that means.
From what you've said, it looks like the goal is to kill every single Islamofascist. Is that the goal? Really?
Leon
July 5, 2007 - 19:56 ET by BlondeYep.
Islamofascist = Jihadist.
Google either. Read their mission statement.
Then try your Pollyanna routine.
Blonde, Long time no see.
July 5, 2007 - 20:01 ET by LeonBlonde,
Long time no see. I was hoping I was done with you after our fun fun evening basking in your personal embarassment.
Well, I'll give you credit. At least you've had the courage to admit the truth. The goal is to kill every single Islamofascist. The GOAL is to kill every single Islamfascist. Wow.
Fantasy world must be fun.
That's rich, Leon.Idiotic, bu
July 5, 2007 - 20:04 ET by BlondeThat's rich, Leon.
Idiotic, but pretty bloody funny.
What do you not understand about the jihad?
The goal o fthe islamofascists is to convert or kill every living human being.
Including you. So why don't you go sing Kumbaya some more?
Oh Blonde. Don't forget to
July 5, 2007 - 20:11 ET by LeonOh Blonde.
Don't forget to stop by the cheese cream factory next time you're in Philly.
I would love to actually believe in such a simple world view. I mean, I really can't imagine believing that defeating terrorism is as simple as killing every terrorist. It would be so sweet if my world were this dialectic. If I didn't have to contend with things like reality.
As they say ignorance is bliss.
PS you do realize the kill every terrorist thing is hilarious right? You do realize that if that's our only plan, then we're in big trouble. I think it's going to require a little more finesse and precision than your kill every terrorist plan
PPS (first of all, I don't even know how this is possible. Do we win in Iraq and then just take our troops and start working our way through the middle east, up through Europe, through all the former Russian countries, then down through Southeast Asia killing all the terrorists along the way?...that's quite a plan - very practical. PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING!)
Leon ???
July 5, 2007 - 20:17 ET by LionKingHere is a simple and direct question: What's your solution to terrorism?
LK, Don't derail the threa
July 5, 2007 - 20:22 ET by LeonLK,
Don't derail the thread. I promise that when we establish BT's solution to terrorism, I will give you some of my ideas.
You guys are great at challenging the left for not having a plan, but I'm yet to hear one from you. So, lets stick with this for now. I'll be happy to espouse my beliefs once I've heard BT's.
I want to hear the details of this VICTORY plan I've heard so much about. Blonde seems to think it means kill every terrorists, although the logistics of such a plan are mind-boggling and impossible. BT's seems to think it just means VICTORY. No explanation needed. Unfortunately, this is not a strategy. So while we wait for her to break down the strategy that she supports, I'll collect my thoughts and be ready to answer your question, once I get mine answered.
thanks, Leon
July 5, 2007 - 20:29 ET by LionKingJust as I thought. I tried to keep it simple for you. You look like such a fool by avoiding a simple question. I wasn't expecting a 5 point plan, I just wanted a simple answer from you.
How about one these:
If you do not like one of these choices, just answer the question.
more crickets for Leon
July 5, 2007 - 20:54 ET by LionKing<crickets chirping>
psssst LK, I ignore off-to
July 5, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Leonpsssst LK,
I ignore off-topic posts. Just for future reference. You don't need to do the crickets chirping. We get it.
I got a new one. Crickets chirping is so over-used it's painful.
How about this one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - @
(it's a tumbleweed...)
Ha.
Terrorism is off topic ???
July 5, 2007 - 21:10 ET by LionKingSo, you've decided that terrorism is off-topic in this thread. WOW!!!
You are pathetic, morally corrupt, and intellectually dishonest.
I actually tried to reason with you and when you are pinned, you pull this kind of crap. You are a simpleton-troll and I am ashamed for wasting my time on you.
Do not bother replying to my posts and expecting a response...I will no longer waste time you or Monty. Ouch, that must sting...being lumped with deranged Monty.
Wha-chu talkin bout leon? T
July 5, 2007 - 21:10 ET by botgWha-chu talkin bout leon? This thread is about the PM of England and you've gone off then complain that someone else has derailled your derail?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Exactly bot...I almost posted
July 5, 2007 - 21:16 ET by bigtimerExactly bot...I almost posted that earlier to him but what good would it do, he came in right after I posted about Blair and has done what good trolls are paid to do...derail the thread....
LOL...too funny really.
After-all...It's his job, it's what he does...old as it gets depending on one's mood.
Translation: Thank you for
July 5, 2007 - 21:20 ET by LeonTranslation:
Thank you for changing the subject botg. People were about to notice that I can't even define what my plan for VICTORY is. I'm sure I believe it, I just don't know what it is.
Wha-chu talkin bout Leon?
July 5, 2007 - 21:25 ET by botgWha-chu talkin bout Leon?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
botg, I disagree. If you
July 5, 2007 - 21:24 ET by Leonbotg,
I disagree. If you read my post at 18:56, it was quite on topic.
The resulting responses and my having to defend my positions has changed the course of the thread. The Newsbusters were steering this ship, I was just responding as necessary.
BT wants to tell me that I'm an enemy of America because I don't support VICTORY, then she can't even tell me what VICTORY is. That's a serious charge she made, I just had to make sure I was right in thinking her attack was empty. And I was.
Wha-chu doin Leon? answerin
July 5, 2007 - 21:27 ET by botgWha-chu doin Leon? answerin rhetorical questions.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Leon: It looks like your sand
July 5, 2007 - 20:17 ET by Mica the MagnificentLeon: It looks like your sandbox is almost full, but I'd like to enter briefly.
You don't have to kill every Islamofascist, but you do have to kill enough of them and their leaders to scare the hell out of anyone contemplating joining the nutcase movement.
Or you could be a lib and support them.
Bingo Mica.......and he knows
July 5, 2007 - 20:23 ET by bigtimerBingo Mica....
...and he knows that full well, just doing his trollster job.
Btw...I had a post kind of like yours here and decided to just forget about it with him, he will go on and on and on....as you well know...
LOL.
ok Mica, Nice work. That'
July 5, 2007 - 20:25 ET by Leonok Mica,
Nice work. That's a start. Allow me to continue on this thought process. Baby steps right?
Ok so we don't have to kill EVERY terrorist, just ENOUGH.
1) So how many is that?
2) When we will know that we've killed enough?
3) How we will know when they're scared enough (cuz they don't seem very scared now - in fact, they seem less scared than ever before)
4) How many countries will we have to go into to kill enough terrorists (you know, considering they're on every continent and all)?
5) Don't you think invading all these countries might cause more terrorists?
Answers to Leon's questions:1
July 5, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Mica the MagnificentAnswers to Leon's questions:
1) Enough to drop screening at the airport
2) When they go to their famly reunion and nobody's there
3) When bleach won't get the stains out of their sheets
4) Everyone that harbors them
5) Yes. And we will kill them too
Perfect. Couldn't have wi
July 5, 2007 - 20:47 ET by LeonPerfect.
Couldn't have wished for a better response.
Too funny. Man, I'd love to be in the field trying to fight terrorism and getting that memo.
"Don't you think invad
July 5, 2007 - 20:54 ET by Jerry"Don't you think invading all these countries might cause more terrorists?.."
Maybe, maybe not. Depends upon how eager they are to die. One thing is for sure though. Killing terrorists REDUCES the number of terrorists. GUARANTEED.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Well, Leon,Let me see if I ca
July 5, 2007 - 20:21 ET by BlondeWell, Leon,
Let me see if I can dumb it down enough for even you to comprehend. Since you seem to find the War on Terror "hillarious".
Many of the islamofascists are currently drawn to Iraq like flies. And to Afghanistan. It makes a perfect killing ground for us to exterminate as many of them as we can in one place. If you even had a clue, you'd know it's easier to kill an enemy in a concentrated environment than one off. Hmmm...how many to Al-Q guys have we nailed there? Did you see the Michael Yon piece about the Al-Quaeda murdering a whole village of Iraqis?
As for your little PPS note....grow up. Read. Learn some realpolitic. If this is what you think I've said, you're not only a troll, your just downright ignorant and churlish. Oh, of course, I suspect you're one of those libs who thinks the War on Terror is a bumper sticker slogan, a la the Silky Pony. Well, Silky Leon, I've got news for you. The next time it happens, don't whine about no one protecting "us".
You were the one who asked the question. Too bad you don't like the answer. Nice try though, for trying to ascribe things to me that I didn't say. That's about as lame an argument as I've ever seen.
Done with educating the Silky Troll-Boy for now.
<crickets chirping> fro
July 5, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Blonde<crickets chirping> from the Silky Pony Boy.
Got caught with his pants down about his ankles slinging around a bunch of idiocy. I called his hand and he folded. How typical.
Philly cheese-boy indeed.
Pay attention to me!! ME!!!!
July 5, 2007 - 20:55 ET by LeonPay attention to me!! ME!!!! ME!!!!!!!
PS in case you haven't noticed your not the only one trying to get a piece of the lovely LEON.
Wait your turn quietly.
Yellow Silky Pony Boy Leon
July 5, 2007 - 20:59 ET by BlondeWrong answer, Leon.
You're supposed to answer my points. Not hide out until I call you out for the big fat yellow stripe down your backside.
More trollish whining from the little Silky Pony Boy.
Sheesh...what a baby.
Never mind...I could hardly care about what you might have to say.
Nite, nite, Yellow Silky Pony Boy.
I haven't even read your orig
July 5, 2007 - 21:02 ET by LeonI haven't even read your original post. Sheeesh. Can't you see I've been busy.
It's tough being me.
Please, allow me to read your post, and I shall respond.
By the way, what's Silky Boy? To be frank, it's kind of creeping me out.
John Edwards, Jr.....Yellow S
July 5, 2007 - 21:05 ET by BlondeJohn Edwards, Jr.....Yellow Silky Pony Boy.
Bawahahahaha.
Later, Silky Pony Boy of the cerise variety.
Blonde, Any stats at all?
July 5, 2007 - 21:13 ET by LeonBlonde,
Any stats at all? It all sounds like generalizations to me. In reality, we have no idea how many Al-Qaeda are in Iraq, although the highest, credible estimate I've heard is 10% of the insurgency. That leaves an awful lot Iraqis fighting us also. What do we do with them?
If they're [terrorists] all going to Iraq, why are there still bombings all over the world? Why are there more terrorist attacks in the world? How we gonna get those guys?
So now you've revised your argument. We don't have to kill all the terrorists, just all the terrorists in Iraq (who, consequently, are pretty much indistinguishable from Iraqi insurgents).
Ok, so how does killing all of the Al-Q (very hip word choice - so NOW) in Iraq defeat terrorism? What do we do about all the other continents? Why would an Al-Qaeda cell in Thailand care about what happens in Iraq? They're just going to stop what they're doing when we crush all the terrorists in Iraq?
I'm sorry, you can call me stupid all you want, I just don't get it. Short of invading every country in the world, i don't see how your kill 'em all & scare 'em plan is possible in any way. It seems wildly optimistic and dangerously unrealistic.
So sorry, Silky Yellow Pony B
July 5, 2007 - 21:25 ET by BlondeSo sorry, Silky Yellow Pony Boy,
You are not allowed to misdirect the terms of the debate.
You were the one who attempted to put words to my argument. If you think I am going to try to defend something so stupidly attempted on your part (that you ascribed to my POV), you are out of your mind. Nice try though.
Secondly, I haven't changed my argument whatsoever. You, however, are trying your bloody hardest to make it seem that way. Too bad, so sad...no joy.
You are the one on the hook here to ANSWER questions, Silky Pony Boy. Not the other way around.
Give it a shot....you don't get to ask any questions until you answer the ones posed. By even attempting this old tried, blued, screwed and tatooed debating tactic....you realize you've already lost the debate.
So try again, SYPB.
Sheesh, you little libs are soooooo easy.
Blonde, You only asked two
July 5, 2007 - 21:39 ET by LeonBlonde,
You only asked two questions and they don't really prove anything within the context of our discussion, but I'll answer you anyways.
1) How many Al-Q have we killed in Iraq?
I don't know, how many? I know about 11,000 insurgents have been killed, but I haven't seen any stats showing how many Al Qaeda. Do you know?
2) Did I see the piece about al-qaeda killing an iraqi village?
Yes. It's one example. Lacking statistical signifiance.
Happy? Ok good, can we please get back to your plan for the war on terror and how we going to kill every terrorist in Iraq and then kill every terrorist in the world?
Progress. You answered ques
July 5, 2007 - 21:46 ET by BlondeProgress. You answered questions.
However, SYPB, the debate was never about MY plan. Nice try at deflection. You lose again, SYPB.
I never once stated the plan was to kill all of the terrorists in the world, now did I? You ascribed that position to me.
Care to try again? I think you might consider withdrawing at this point, Leon. You look like a pluperfect idiot.
Uh Blonde, You might want
July 5, 2007 - 21:52 ET by LeonUh Blonde,
You might want to review the thread. Allow me to jog your memory.
Here are the exact posts that began our discussion. You'll notice your recollection is quite wrong. I didn't ascribe any position to you. You jumped into a thread and proclaimed exactly that the goal was to kill all the terrorists.
Care to try again? I'm sure you will after reviewing the opening of our discussion. Notice how you open your post with YEP.
Blonde, I do feel bad but you should just leave me alone after 8 pm. It never works out well for you.
Leon Says:
July 5, 2007 - 19:52
Mica,
I know the tagline, I want to know what that means.
From what you've said, it looks like the goal is to kill every single Islamofascist. Is that the goal? Really?
reply »
Blonde Says:
July 5, 2007 - 19:56
Yep.
Islamofascist = Jihadist.
Google either. Read their mission statement.
Then try your Pollyanna routine.
YSPB,You are really thrashing
July 5, 2007 - 22:16 ET by BlondeYSPB,
You are really thrashing about in overtime this evening.
I said "Yep" in reply to your question about the "GOAL is to kill every Islamofascist". I never said it was our reality, nor our strategy. But to kill them all would be an excellent outcome.
You, however, kept trying to ascribe numerous other things to my "Yep" response to your "Goal" question. Sorry, no dice, Silky Boy. Bad debate tactics to try to put words in an opponent's voice. Never works out.
But just to put the icing on the cake, or the cap in your knee, take your pick....you keep whining about bigtimer's definition of victory. So I shall share with you one of my favorites...from a poster here named Mr. Bishop....a Ranger who's been there and done that. Here is how he chose to define victory:
Is that clear enough for you, Silky Yellow Pony Boy?
Okay you two, don't make me s
July 5, 2007 - 22:25 ET by Airforce_5_OOkay you two, don't make me send you to your rooms. Silky Yellow Pony Boy??? I got to go back and read the thread.
Build The Fence
Read away, AF.It's kind of si
July 5, 2007 - 22:28 ET by BlondeRead away, AF.
It's kind of silly.
Just make sure to start from
July 5, 2007 - 22:35 ET by LeonJust make sure to start from the top :)
Oh Blonde, The night time
July 5, 2007 - 22:33 ET by LeonOh Blonde,
The night time can be so cruel. Well, at least you took your time to attempt a reply. You're tenacious I'll give you that.
Sadly, the posts following the original posts I cut and pasted belie your diluted contention about differentiating between ultimate goal and plan. You argued clearly and fortunately the conversation is here for all to read.
Highly creative approach though. I think you're learning a thing or two from me. That's a backpeddle of a much more superior nature than I would generally expect from you. Bravo, and Bravo!
Now that's progress! If you work hard enough, perhaps you can move from apprentice spinmeister to journeyman spinmeister. A girl can dream.
Unfortunately, I did notice one tragic flaw in your argument that you should have left out. The Bishop quote. He's a kill 'em all guy. In fact, his quote means, kill all the terrorists until there are none left to kill you. Right? I mean, that's how I read it.
So now I'm confused. What do you believe? First you jump into this thread and argue that the plan for the VICTORY is to kill all the terrorists. Then you say you didn't say that, but you just meant that was the goal. But then you quoted someone saying that the plan for VICTORY in the war on terror is to kill all the terrorists until they can no longer resist.
Very confusing Blonde. I mean, it's clear enough for me. You believe (like Bishop) that VICTORY in the war on terror means killing all the terrorists. Are you sure it's clear enough for you? You seem to be a bit conflicted.
This is where we should end I think. You're probably just tired. I'd just forget about this little chat. I promise I won't bring it up ever again.
Toodles. Thanks for the fun, just try not to let your hatred of me blind you from the discussion in the future.
Wha-chu admittin' Leon?I thin
July 5, 2007 - 22:36 ET by botgWha-chu admittin' Leon?
I think you're learning a thing or two from me. That's a backpeddle of a much more superior nature than I would generally expect from you. Bravo, and Bravo!
Now that's progress! If you work hard enough, perhaps you can move from apprentice spinmeister to journeyman spinmeister.
Leon, here you are saying you are the teacher of backpeddling and spin. Put plainly denial and lies.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
B, You set him up perfectly,
July 5, 2007 - 22:39 ET by botgBlonde,
You set him up perfectly, sorry i jumped on your set.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
No prob, Bruce.I vowed to giv
July 5, 2007 - 22:55 ET by BlondeNo prob, Bruce.
I vowed to give it up for something (I can't remember)....but sometimes I just have to stomp the living crap out of a stupid troll.
Sorry.....I know it's not very becoming.
But the leaps of liberal logic just make me shake my head!
Yeah you really got me on thi
July 6, 2007 - 07:08 ET by LeonYeah you really got me on this one Blonde! haha.
Could you point out the part where you 'set me up'?
Too funny.
Well, Your Honor, the Prosecu
July 6, 2007 - 22:05 ET by BlondeWell, Your Honor, the Prosecution rests its case.
Leon is a reading-deficient troll.
Absolute proof of that fact is noted above. The Silky Pony Boy tries to ascribe a quote to me that has nothing to do with a thing that I said (yet again!).
Sorry, Leon....I had nothing to do with the line that I "set you up" . That was another poster who made that statement. Re-read the above posts carefully. Don't gag, Leon. You hopped all over it with two feet. Sorry, little troll.
So, Silky Pony Boy. I have to say the so-called conversation with you last evening was more than amusing. Your thrashing about, and trying to ascribe numerous positions to my (non) statements....was rather funny. I wanted to say "hillarious", but I reserve that for you, Leon....now known as "Silky Pony Boy". You, and John Edwards, find the War on Terror to be a bumper sticker (but you were the one who referred to it as "hillarious"...hence the YSPB moniker).
I find you to be amusing, in a silly sort of way. Particularly when you try to make a point.
Troll on.
Wha-chu slinggin Leon?
July 5, 2007 - 22:50 ET by botgWha-chu slinggin Leon?
I promise I won't bring it up ever again.
Leon, You mean this conversation where you admit that you are all about backpedding and spin. THIS conversation where you admit that you are full of bull? You won't bring it up again?
Don't worry I will.
Leon,You are deficient.You cu
July 5, 2007 - 22:52 ET by BlondeLeon,
You are deficient.
You cut and pasted one reply from me....where I said "Yep". Then....all of the rest of this dialog was you attempting to put words in my mouth. Silly Yellow Silky Pony Boy.
To what are you referring about a backpeddle here, YSPB? Sheesh, I have to laugh at your liberal leaping logic. I've been shoving your stupidity down your throat all evening.
You read me exactly correctly, Pony Boy. Which is why I quoted Bishop. You kept whining for a "definition" of victory....and I gave you one. Yep again, SYPB....kill them all , until they're all dead and their toys are all broken or they submit. I guess you missed that point, eh? The GOAL, Pony, the GOAL.
Just so we're clear, I mean exactly that....kill as many of the islamofascists as we possibly can...or force them to submit. Are you clear on that? Crystal Clear (I'd imagine if Tom Cruise asked you that, you'd cream your pants, but you'd get it). I never once said a thing about anything other than that. Kill as many as we can. Of course you're confused....you keep trying to maintain two sides to the conversation. Without success, I might add. Pay attention, Pony Boy. I say what I say....don't pay any attention at all to what you hear me say in your own little wharped mind. Nice try at the end there, Pony Boy.
Nighto.
BlondeSo if I read you 'e
July 6, 2007 - 07:15 ET by LeonBlonde So if I read you 'exactly' correctly, and you believe the plan should be to kill as many terrorists as possible, than what was the point of your last four or so posts where you claimed I put words in your mouth? This is the debate we've been having the entire time. Your plan and BT's plan for VICTORY is to kill as many terrorists as possible. Ok, we've established this, you've finally admitted it, after admitting it originally, then trying to backpeddle and saying that' not what you meant, but it was what you meant and that's why you pasted Bishop's quote. Phew! That's a mouthful, you sure are a confusing! What two sides of the conversation have I tried to maintain? I've been very clear this entire time. It's you who's been doing the old bobbing and weaving. Yes, you do say what you say and I've responded to everything that you've said. For those of us that can read rationally, your posts are a lesson in misunderstanding and irrationality. You go back and forth claiming you believe something, than you don't, then you do, then I made it up, then you do believe it. Blonde, you're too easy. You argue with anger and vitriol and as such, you lose your train of thought repeatedly. It's a bizarre style and it's even more bizarre that you think you put me in my place. I encourage you to really, actually re-read the thread. I think you'll see things differently in the morning.
Ha Ha,Not, Pony Boy.That's a
July 6, 2007 - 22:13 ET by BlondeHa Ha,
Not, Pony Boy.
That's a lovely bit of liberally twisted logic for all here to see.