Sunday, October 8, 2006

Adnan Hajj Works For The DNC

This Story Was Brought To My Attention By John

Sure, the DNC supports the troops. Just not American troops. On their website they recently did a piece about how the GOP is hurting American soldiers. But they couldn't find a picture of an American soldier that looked worried enough, so they just used one of a Canadian that had been altered.


Anonymous said...

That could have something to do with the fact that the Bush administration has clamped down on media exposure of the Iraq and Afghani wars... where most soldiers would be more than a little perturbed.

They're doing what? Triple "tours" now?

Anonymous said...

And then could have NOTHING to do with the fact..blah blah blah.
Up to your old tricks again Za.

Anonymous said...

And then again... it's highly likely it could.

Up to your old counter-intuitive tricks again John. Has it occured to you that the reason why Vietnam was so unpopular was because of the high level of media exposure it got?

Anonymous said...

No..Vietnam was unpopular because it was run like a cluster-fuck who wanted to appease the wacked out communists at home instead of fighting a war to "Win".
Could it be that the DNC is just dishonest or lazy about this picture? I'll guess both.
Your slight of hand parlor tricks with words wont get this thread off course, Za.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me? "Maybe it isn't" isn't even an argument. You can talk about "parlour tricks with words", but you're the one doing them.

Maybe the world is made of a slice of blue-vein cheese. Oh crap, I've made an unsupported assertion, now the planet is obviously not spherical!

I think not. Until you can come up with something to counteract the fact that the Bush administration has severely clamped down on media exposure of the troops it has in Iraq and Afghanistan, your "maybes" and "perhapses" don't hold any weight.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and another thing about your sleight of hand John - you're using this to cover the point that the DNC has the facts behind it, when it comes to the troops.

The Bush administration threw an insufficient number of troops into a hellish situation, against the advice of their military advisors (firing and demoting those who disagreed with them), have given their troops insufficient or sub-standard equipment and have made them stay for periods that are three times longer than they should be, because it turned out those military advisors were right (go figure).

That's as much "supporting the troops" as pushing a bunch of second graders into a burning building is "supporting our second graders".

It's irresponsible, it lessens the US's defenses at home (home defense, as it turns out, has had its budget stripped anyway), and to top it off, it's turned the entire situation into a recruiting ground for the very people you're meant to be fighting against.

So rant about your photoshopped image, the facts are against you on all counts.

Anonymous said...

All your assertions do not change any facts about the use of a photoshopped picture. Its there. Now we can debate all day as to why; but whats the point? You believe the crap you believe and I believe the crap I believe. What you need to try and do is PROVE that my assertions of laziness or dishonesty about it.
BTW: We have to listen to your idiotic leftist wacko RANTS all the why are not my RANTS not welcome in your world? Go "F" yourself Herr ZaWackjob.
And please go kiss a fat babies ass; if you can bend your head around that far.

Anonymous said...

Well the very article itself says that the DNC weren't the ones doing the photoshopping - that they bought the image off the photographer like that. So it's highly unlikely to have been dishonesty on their part.

And your rants are welcome, just half the time the articles you use directly contradict all the intelligence we have, and the other half the time they contradict you. And then there's the 50/50 chance that your own arguments don't make any sense because your intentions contradict your conclusions (Bush was right about Iraq because... oh, perhaps the intelligence community is keeping documents from Bush that they're not keeping from you? Or is it that he was right because he's lying now? You never seem to work your way around that far, you always stop at "he was right").

See, that's a level of whackjob that most people have the common sense to avoid. On the flipside, you seem mentally incapable of disproving anything I say through either logic OR evidence - and resort solely on argumentum ad hominem (if you've forgotten what that means, look it up) and insults. And for someone so obviously superior (since apparently I'm the whackjob) one imagines it should be quite simple for you to do so.

Anonymous said...

I might point out that given that you've stated that you'd like to perform acts of physical violence against myself (the last resort of the intellectually inept - if you can't disprove them, beat the crap out of them, perhaps that'll make them shut up?), you really don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to proving yourself to be anything BUT a whackjob.

Perhaps if you used your brain more, and your testosterone less?

Anonymous said...

Excuse me? Now your making up things about me? If you remember correctly; I was using an analogy of a senario.
Do the words "what if" so and so mean anything to you?
If I did threaten you with violence; then I appologize.
You should be more concerned with violence from those whom you support.

Anonymous said...

Apology accepted.

As for "those whom I support", I've yet to see any of them advocate wars that have killed an estimated 100,000 civilians - or "long for the day" when 1.4 billion people are slaughtered.

Most of the people I support tend to turn out in favour of the rule of law, not military rule.

Anonymous said...

Your support of people who support the rule of "law" is working very well in places like Occupied Israel. (i.e the territories,Iran, Malaysia and other Muslim controlled countries)
HAHAHAHAAA!!!! I guess you should decide what law you are speaking of.

Anonymous said...

BTW: In your world; who actually backs up your rule of Law? Military or harsh language?

Anonymous said...

Your support of people who support the rule of "law" is working very well in places like Occupied Israel. (i.e the territories,Iran, Malaysia and other Muslim controlled countries)
Israel has expanded its borders to the point that it is now 3 times the size of what was originally given to the Israelis. I'm sorry - what part of Israel is occupied?

BTW: In your world; who actually backs up your rule of Law? Military or harsh language?
That would be the judicial branch of government (or international government) and the police. Only in extreme cases does the military EVER get involved.

Anonymous said...

The last time I checked; Law Enforcment; (Police); are a civilian branch of The Military.

Anonymous said...

And last time you checked, fascism was apparently left-wing (despite the fact that fascism is corporatist in nature), so let's take a dictionary out and then apply some logic shall we?

a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

So what you're saying is that the police are a non-military military?

In an equation form that would read:
Police = military - military
Now if we complete the equation what you just said reads:
Police = 0

Now given that that's a nonsensical statement, let's look at the actual word police.

The word comes from French police, itself from Latin politia ("civil administration").
In this context, civil means:
of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.

So not a militant force.

Now let's contrast this to military:
As an adjective, "military" is a descriptive property of things related to soldiers and warfare.

So if we were to make an equation of what you said based on this definition, it would read:

Police = civilian warfare.

So please tell me - when exactly did you last check?

Anonymous said...

Last checked when I saw a Police officer with a military grade sidearm. Enough said.
I guess Police in your country and mine are vastly different. You should know that definitions from a book and what actually is, are many times very different. Thats why aurguing with you makes no sense in many cases because not many things in everyday life are even closly alike.

Anonymous said...

I guess Police in your country and mine are vastly different.
This would be true - we're not over 30 times more likely to be shot by our own police than terrorists here.

Anonymous said...

That would make sense seeing that your country is more than thirty times smaller in population.

Anonymous said...

Population size wouldn't affect it much, since the figure is actually well over 30:1 police killings to terrorist killings.
30:1 is only counting the 50 largest county and police departments.

What affects it more is how readily US police go for their guns.

Anonymous said...

By the way, just so's you've got a hold of the ratios - our population is a 14th of yours. Our casualties due to police are significantly lower than a 14th of yours.