A General Misunderstanding

[DesertFox]

General (Retired) Michael DeLong
The New York Times
16 Apr 06

AS the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, I was the daily "answer man" to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I briefed him twice a day; few people had as much interaction with him as I did during those two years. In light of the recent calls for his resignation by several retired generals, I would like to set the record straight on what he was really like to work with.

When I was at Centcom, the people who needed to have access to Secretary Rumsfeld got it, and he carefully listened to our arguments. That is not to say that he is not tough in terms of his convictions (he is) or that he will make it easy on you (he will not). If you approach him unprepared, or if you don't have the full courage of your convictions, he will not give you the time of day.

Mr. Rumsfeld does not give in easily in disagreements, either, and he will always force you to argue your point thoroughly. This can be tough for some people to deal with. I witnessed many heated but professional conversations between my immediate commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Mr. Rumsfeld — but the secretary always deferred to the general on war-fighting issues.

More (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16delong.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

[DesertFox]

This is exactly what I've thought all along. Generals who didn't get their way are now whining about it. Very unprofessional.

[Trau]

I think it's more "I told ya so" than whining.

[DesertFox]

"I told ya so" makes no sense. The only thing we didn't do right in going into Iraq was to not do it much sooner.

[Trau]

And we go back to ignoring that Iraq is in chaos three years after the war "ended".

[MichaelS]

Someone like Rumsfeld can have the full strength of his convictions and still be wrong, as Iraq has demonstrated.

[Justaguy]

"I told ya so" makes no sense. The only thing we didn't do right in going into Iraq was to not do it much sooner.

WOW... That's a pretty amazing statement! Is that meant as hyperbole?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

MichaelS:
Someone like Rumsfeld can have the full strength of his convictions and still be wrong, as Iraq has demonstrated.

:moo: Someone can have the full strength of his convictions, & still be wrong, as MichaelS has just demonstrated.

[DoctorDoom]

One senses in Traull, MikeyStupid and others a longing for a return to Saddam's glorious reign, with its mass murders, rampant torture, men being fed to plastics shredders, Saddam building palaces while his people starved, his hell-spawn raping any woman that gives their ay-rab schlongs a tingle, children being kept in prisons, and Iraqis living in stark terror of saying an unapproved word.

Go away, you bloody twits. You don't have a f**king clue about what's going on in Iraq. Your lips are locked to the glutei of the hate-America, bash-Bush crowd of treasonous scum in the RAT party and the drive-by media.

You're not impressing anyone but each other, and that obviously doesn't take very much.

[Pendragon_6]

How many of Rummy's critics are writing books?

[The_Sonarman]

How many of Rummy's critics are writing books?
I think you're on to the truth, Pendragon. I see these defiant little retired generals "outing the truth" as farming for a book / movie contract. Norman made over a million on his..... they must figure something similar for "their story".

[Telit laikitiz]

:moo: Someone can have the full strength of his convictions, & still be wrong, as MichaelS has just demonstrated.

Yeah, what she said. ditto.

[Maggie_T]

One senses in Traull, MikeyStupid and others a longing for a return to Saddam's glorious reign, with its mass murders, rampant torture, men being fed to plastics shredders, Saddam building palaces while his people starve, his hell-spawn raping any woman that gives their ay-rab sclongs a tingle, children being kept in prisons, and Iraqis living in stark terror of saying an unapproved word.


Yeah. Got to love these anti-violence, compassionate Pharisees.

Oh, well. As one anti-America/Bush demonstrator once said: "Saddam created universities. I like that kind of dictator."

To each his own. :rolleyes:

[Trau]

Have I ever said this war should never have happened?

[MichaelS]

One senses in Traull, MikeyStupid and others a longing for a return to Saddam's glorious reign, with its mass murders, rampant torture, men being fed to plastics shredders, Saddam building palaces while his people starve, his hell-spawn raping any woman that gives their ay-rab sclongs a tingle, children being kept in prisons, and Iraqis living in stark terror of saying an unapproved word.

Go away, you bloody twits. You don't have a f**king clue about what's going on in Iraq. Your lips are locked to the glutei of the hate-America, bash-Bush crowd of treasonous scum in the RAT party and the drive-by media.

You're not impressing anyone but each other, and that obviously doesn't take very much.There goes BrickBoy, once again making assumptions over something of which he knows nothing about.

However, I accept you el Ladrillo, because I can't possibly expect you to understand anyone else's stance on any particular subject when you can't even figure out your own.

After all, what does BrickBoy care about what happens to Muslims, or rather the "goat-raping barbarians (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=331021&postcount=6)"? As I recall, the solution was simple...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M1.jpg

<center>
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Plus.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Equl.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M3.jpg</center>Gotta figure in the Doomster skull that Muslims killing Muslims simply saves us the trouble. And, hey, if Hussein made life hard for a few "Muzzies", more power to the ole bastard.

Now, don't be mistaken, the Brickster's not alone. WJ must now be a card-carrying member of AI (http://amnesty.org/) with his sudden streak of compassion for the Iraqi populace. And yet it seems like just yesterday the Junker was laying blame (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=293250&postcount=9) at the foot of "the majority of muslims" for the rise of "islamofascistic terrorists" and that the appropriate solution for such was to, in all simplicity, "kill them all". Really, what should we care about those that "lack what it means to be human"? As Junker says (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=388843&postcount=5), he "never wanted to 'liberate' anyone", much less any of the "Iraqi civs" to which he refers when justifying the commencement of eradication or "splodeybots" when longing for its completion.

C'mon fellas. Stop vacillating and embrace your hatred. Be honest with yourselves, and stop trying to exploit the humanitarian excuses to rationalize a war that, deep inside, you wish was amped up to 11, one which would wipe Islam and its hate-filled followers from the face of the planet. Even those that were treated with such disdain by the totalitarian regime of the Dammer. It's not about WMDs or al-Qaeda or the UN or any ham-fisted supplication to human rights. That's all static, background noise to the primary endeavor. Basis for war: They're Muslim. Bottom line. Case closed. No more need be said. In fact, it should have gone without saying.

Your kowtowing fallback position of philanthropy rings as disingenuous at best, hypocritical in the least, and in all cases, just pathetic.

[ThomasMore]

There goes BrickBoy, once again making assumptions over something of which he knows nothing about.

However, I accept you el Ladrillo, because I can't possibly expect you to understand anyone else's stance on any particular subject when you can't even figure out your own.

After all, what does BrickBoy care about what happens to Muslims, or rather the "goat-raping barbarians (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=331021&postcount=6)"? As I recall, the solution was simple...
Gotta figure in the Doomster skull that Muslims killing Muslims simply saves us the trouble. And, hey, if Hussein made life hard for a few "Muzzies", more power to the ole bastard.

Now, don't be mistaken, the Brickster's not alone. WJ must now be a card-carrying member of AI (http://amnesty.org/) with his sudden streak of compassion for the Iraqi populace. And yet it seems like just yesterday the Junker was laying blame (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=293250&postcount=9) at the foot of "the majority of muslims" for the rise of "islamofascistic terrorists" and that the appropriate solution for such was to, in all simplicity, "kill them all". Really, what should we care about those that "lack what it means to be human"? As Junker says (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=388843&postcount=5), he "never wanted to 'liberate' anyone", much less any of the "Iraqi civs" to which he refers when justifying the commencement of eradication or "splodeybots" when longing for its completion.

C'mon fellas. Stop vacillating and embrace your hatred. Be honest with yourselves, and stop trying to exploit the humanitarian excuses to rationalize a war that, deep inside, you wish was amped up to 11, one which would wipe Islam and its hate-filled followers from the face of the planet. Even those that were treated with such disdain by the totalitarian regime of the Dammer. It's not about WMDs or al-Qaeda or the UN or any ham-fisted supplication to human rights. That's all static, background noise to the primary endeavor. Basis for war: They're Muslim. Bottom line. Case closed. No more need be said. In fact, it should have gone without saying.

Your kowtowing fallback position of philanthropy rings as disingenuous at best, hypocritical in the least, and in all cases, just pathetic.

Why don't you take a look at what is happening across Iraq? Aside from Fallujah, Baghdad and a few other cities in the Sunni Triangle, most "Muzzies" are trying hard to put their country back together, and there are an awful lot of them who appreciate what the Americans have done. I am not talking about Syrian or Iranian agents, I am talking about the vast majority of the Iraqi public.

But that doesn't get into the evening news because it isn't anti-American and it doesn't "bleed." Do a little digging, and you will find quite a different picture of Iraq.

As for hatred, it sound to me like you are projecting...

[Maggie_T]

Have I ever said this war should never have happened?

Your constant bleatings and lamentations against it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

[Maggie_T]

As for hatred, it sound to me like you are projecting...

No kidding. Imagine if he defended America and Americans with the same passion he defends Islamofacists. :rolleyes:

But liberals don't like America, or Americans, any more than Islamofacists do. No wonder liberals are always defending the latter. They have so much in common.

[DoctorDoom]

MikeyStupid drooled on himself as he had his mommy type:

There goes BrickBoy, once again making assumptions over something of which he knows nothing about.I've forgotten more than you'll ever know, ignorant troll. And you repeatedly demonstrate that what you DO know could be written in 6" letters on a 3" x 5" card.

[Trau]

Your constant bleatings and lamentations against it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

No, it actually doesn't. My "lamentings and bleatings" have been against the way the war was conducted.

I love how you guys have pretty much ignored MichaelS's destruction of your humanitarian argument for the war. It says a lot.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Now, don't be mistaken, the Brickster's not alone. WJ must now be a card-carrying member of AI (http://amnesty.org/) with his sudden streak of compassion for the Iraqi populace. And yet it seems like just yesterday the Junker was laying blame (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=293250&postcount=9) at the foot of "the majority of muslims" for the rise of "islamofascistic terrorists" and that the appropriate solution for such was to, in all simplicity, "kill them all". Really, what should we care about those that "lack what it means to be human"? As Junker says (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=388843&postcount=5), he "never wanted to 'liberate' anyone", much less any of the "Iraqi civs" to which he refers when justifying the commencement of eradication or "splodeybots" when longing for its completion.



I see you're a fan. I don't even read my old posts, but apparently you got a lot of time on your hands, you sick little single white female stalking sonofabitch. Its fine with me. In fact, its endearing. Go back. Read all my posts. I stand behind every one. No regrets. And I'm glad you included this one (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=293250&postcount=9)as your first. I hope everyone here re-reads it.

The terrorist is not the problem. Otherwise, I'd believe in a police action like Bubba and LongJohnSilver (http://www.scottcsmith.net/john_kerry.jpg). At least the terrorist has follow through and the belief in their own convictions. I blame greater islam. Wherever it is and wherever it goes. It gives rise to the splodeydope, it puts the bomber on its shoulder like some kind of twisted bar mitzvah when the dj puts on the haga nagila.

I say its time to embrace our WW2 roots. I say its time to pull another full-on recreation of Dresden. I say you're exactly right, Michelin Man, you got me pegged. You got me summed right the fuk up. I HATE islam. I despise it principally and essentially. I despise its gay book. I despise its hypocrisy. I want to see either a reformation or a revolution and if I don't, SOON, I want to see full-scale reign of death similar to Nagasaki and her trendy sister, Hiroshima.

If they can't figger their shit out and their shit is the cheif exportation of death and mayhem, their number one raw material, what they produce, what they espouse, then, hammer 'em the fuk out, the Price Club version, wholesale.

You know, I'm thinking of filming a movie. I want you to be the first to see the trailer for it. Its a porn. Yeah, that's right. Its about Islam. And its about the splodeybots. Starring role. When they off a bunch of little kids and old ladies at S'barros, its gonna shoot right to the wocka wocka bow wow, 72 ho bags going 360 on Mohammad Atta. Multiple angles. Up close money shots. The whole thing. It'll be better than Behind the Green Door. When mullahs go wild. Instant access, all jazeera. Behind the scenes of their fun little 'heaven'. While they perform clitorectomies and beat their wives down here, up there, all of a sudden *no restraints* its all porn, all the time, 24/7. That's a killer religion, eh? And I'm gonna shoot it, straight to video.

Just not sure who's gonna be the pizza boy yet...

[Wyatt_Junker]

No, it actually doesn't. My "lamentings and bleatings" have been against the way the war was conducted.

I love how you guys have pretty much ignored MichaelS's destruction of your humanitarian argument for the war. It says a lot.

The problem with dipshit is that I don't disagree with his *aha* moment. He's got me pegged.

Here's the real problem. You two, apparently, are the humanitarians. And when it comes to the Iraq War, it has been a humanitarian's wet dream. Iraq sanctions clocking 50,000 dead per annum for the last 10 years. And according to Madeline Albright, that was just fine, if it contained Saddam. But, insert a war, that suddenly stops that, allowing humanitarian aid to get through to the hospitals and delivery rooms and saves a net 40,000 Iraqi lives per year and, according to you, if its not 'a gross evil, its wayward incompetence'.

I don't back down from my statements. I want more Islamic ruin. And I don't apologize for it. I wanted to see a whole hell of a lot more than the 'shock and awe' that we got. I am pointing out the rank shit in both of your arguments. Forget mine. I'm sticking to 'em. I'm good with a ton of war dead as long as it gets the job done and our boys home.

[Trau]

The problem with dipshit is that I don't disagree with his *aha* moment. He's got me pegged.

That you own up to it only reveals you to be the blacker.

Here's the real problem. You two, apparently, are the humanitarians. And when it comes to the Iraq War, it has been a humanitarian's wet dream. Iraq sanctions clocking 50,000 dead per annum for the last 10 years. And according to Madeline Albright, that was just fine, if it contained Saddam. But, insert a war, that suddenly stops that, allowing humanitarian aid to get through to the hospitals and delivery rooms and saves a net 40,000 Iraqi lives per year and, according to you, if its not 'a gross evil, its wayward incompetence'.

Your problem is that you assume I would never have gone to war with or deposed Saddam Hussein.

I'm sure Jesus would approve heartily of your bloodlust.

[Wyatt_Junker]

On taking the leash off the United States military...

From the Intellectual Activist (http://www.tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1084)

On the full use of American military might...

From the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/101dorxa.asp?pg=2)

[Wyatt_Junker]

That you own up to it only reveals you to be the blacker.

Which would make our vets in WW2 what... Blackiest?


Your problem is that you assume I would never have gone to war with or deposed Saddam Hussein.

You would have gone to war with Saddam Hussein? Just 'you'? What... in a cage match in a tub of jello?


I'm sure Jesus would approve heartily of your bloodlust.

And I'm certain that if I could spare one Jewish child at a pizzeria from getting sploshuned by braining the Hamas A holes who were planning it, financing it and encourging it *right up the chain of command* even if it meant garroting 10 necks for every one victim, I would have made a Godly decision.

The problem with you and your religious reactionarism, besides the fact that you admitted using it to get a hookup on awhile ago, is that you would allow 10 terror perps to walk free out of superstitious scrupulosity(which is also a sin, Catholic), even if it meant one Jew bit the dust. If I prophesied from God Himself what Hitler was gonna do in 1929 and handed you a gun and drove you to his address, you'd decline even God's own invitation to assassinate him, sparing millions of victims out of some kind of stupid ass 'bloodthirsty' excuse.

Guess what? We don't need to prophesy about Hitler. Read about Iran. Read about Hamas. Understand Syria. Get the knowledge, the self-proclaimed threats and follow through of world wide islamic terrorism right now and understand that we can save lives through overwhelming firepower. And ditch your showy and pretentious flim flam 'faith' and superstitious pharisaical sham, for you don't know who Jesus is, let alone what His name(Salvation) means. Because to you, we should not act. And in your theology, Hitler should have been spared. Indeed, he should have not been assaulted at all.

Here (http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/) is the new Hitler. We can put a bullet in his head right now. You want to refrain from 'all that gross and really really unkind stuff' and 'all that icky bloody stuff' cause its 'not real religiony and stuff' and in the process you get to keep your halo from sliding off your pointy head.

[Trau]

Which would make our vets in WW2 what... Blackiest?
I don't accept that they had the same intentions as you.


You would have gone to war with Saddam Hussein? Just 'you'? What... in a cage match in a tub of jello?

Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. :rolleyes:

And I'm certain that if I could spare one Jewish child at a pizzeria from getting sploshuned by braining the Hamas A holes who were planning it, financing it and encourging it *right up the chain of command* even if it meant garroting 10 necks for every one victim, I would have made a Godly decision.
If those ten necks belonged to innocent people, that is disgraceful. Going up the chain of command is something else entirely.

The problem with you and your religious reactionarism, besides the fact that you admitted using it to get a hookup on awhile ago
What the hell are you talking about?

is that you would allow 10 terror perps to walk free out of superstitious scrupulosity(which is also a sin, Catholic)
You're going to have to define "superstitious scrupulosity". And I have never claimed to be free from sin.

even if it meant one Jew bit the dust.
And where did I say that terrorists should not be locked up?

If I prophesied from God Himself what Hitler was gonna do in 1929 and handed you a gun and drove you to his address, you'd decline even God's own invitation to assassinate him, sparing millions of victims out of some kind of stupid ass 'bloodthirsty' excuse.
How the **** would I know God spoke to you? It's questionable to act on a death sentence given to myself by "God (read: possibly my own psychological disorder)" that one supposedly given to someone else.

Guess what? We don't need to prophesy about Hitler. Read about Iran. Read about Hamas. Understand Syria. Get the knowledge, the self-proclaimed threats and follow through of world wide islamic terrorism right now and understand that we can save lives through overwhelming firepower. And ditch your showy and pretentious flim flam 'faith' and superstitious pharisaical sham, for you don't know who Jesus is, let alone what His name(Salvation) means.
I have never argued against the fact that terrorists are evil or dangerous, Genius.

Because to you, we should not act.
What have I said that has led you to this conclusion?

And in your theology, Hitler should have been spared. Indeed, he should have not been assaulted at all.
If I knew Hitler was going to do what he did, I'd have no problem pulling the trigger myself, divinely revealed or not. There'd be no question of his intent or guilt.

Here (http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/)is the new Hitler. We can put a bullet in his head right now. You want to refrain from 'all that gross and really really unkind stuff' and 'all that icky bloody stuff' cause its 'not real religiony and stuff' and in the process you get to keep your halo from sliding off your pointy head.
You want to murder innocents in the process.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I don't accept that they had the same intentions as you.


So, mine were 'blackier' then?


Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. :rolleyes:


Your obsession with Saddam aka the 'failed Iraq war' is nearly homo erotic at this point. At least, when one is second guessing so much, that's the only conclusion left that makes any sense.


If those ten necks belonged to innocent people, that is disgraceful. Going up the chain of command is something else entirely.


IOW, you believe the WOT should be a police action, an AOT(arrest on terror), and that we should pinpoint our response with such absolute precision that anything short of that equates to becoming terrorists ourselves. Right?

And just where do you stand on the actions of Mossad after accounting for what happened at Munich?

And just where do you stand in our response against Germany, especially the firebombing of Dresden? And just where do you stand in our response against Japan? Is America a terrorist nation then, by your 'logic'? That is the very line terror states use agaisnt us today. A historical bastardization for sure, but it serves their purpose when they murder US civs abroad or here. Do you agree with the terrorists? It appears you do.

Your responses are typical. And when one is presented with their own argument, from an equal and opposite vector, they usually cringe. I use it on idiot turbo libs all the time. I call it mirroring. I take your argument and present it back to you, gift-wrapped, except I change the direct objects and nouns while keeping the verbs the same. If you don't like my responses, then you don't like your own logic when it is applied to you directly. Why? It is because you are either a hypocrite or suffering the effects of advanced dipshititis.


You're going to have to define "superstitious scrupulosity". And I have never claimed to be free from sin.


Since you are a Catholic, it is when nuns take a vow of celibacy and then, whenever they think of a peepee, they start firing off hail marys rapid-fire, the faster the better, like an auctioneer until the 'bad voices' go away. They are not practicing their faith, but rather are engaged in a sick little merry-go-round of religious superstition. Your arguments are eeriely similar to their frustration.


And where did I say that terrorists should not be locked up?


Whatever, wardon.


How the **** would I know God spoke to you?


That's some of the real 'blackiest' language I've heard you say, Mister Stock Phrase Religion Man of our Marvelous Diocese of the Mysterious Apparition of Cliche.


It's questionable to act on a death sentence given to myself by "God (read: possibly my own psychological disorder)" that one supposedly given to someone else.

Tell that to Abraham, Isaac.


I have never argued against the fact that terrorists are evil or dangerous,

Or bad. Or, real real bad.


If I knew Hitler was going to do what he did, I'd have no problem pulling the trigger myself, divinely revealed or not. There'd be no question of his intent or guilt.


Then read the links I gave you about Iran and get on board, bitch.


You want to murder innocents in the process.

Yeah, sure I do. Its the top thing on my list. The more the innocent, the more I get off. Everytime I hear about a civvie death, I bake cookies.:crazy:

I'll tell you what I don't want to do; to allow more innocents to die by not taking any action at all due to scrupulosity and dead faith superstition that tells you war, where collateral damage happens(unfortunately), is wrong. Because that's the logic of John Jigolo Kerry. We didn't win WW2 by that logic and we won't win this one by it either. If anyone should suffer collateral damage, it should be the very cultures that bred the hostility in the first place, and once it gets to the point it already has with Islam today. Its the identical logic that we used against Germany. The Reich, or 5% of the controlling interest in Germany, made decisions that created global unrest. Yet we attacked Germany anyway and didn't let superstition or liberal scrupulosity get the better of us. And yet today, when polling the double-dealing Palis, over 65% of them believe it is perfectly okay to splodey up Jewish mothers pushing their baby strollers in Tel Aviv.

Why should Ted Koppel call the men and women who fought Hitler the 'Greatest Generation' and heap 'false' praise upon them when only 5% of Germany deserved annihilation? At least, according to you. And today, when 20 - 30% of Iran actually wants and threatens an attack on Israel and the United States, while simultaneously proving they have the means to do it, we go limp. Libs agree with the mullahs. We are the great satan. We are warmongers intent to use our imperial might and inject our hegemony further into the region. We are the guilty ones, not Iran, not Lebannon, not Syria, not Saudi Arabia.

We have more of a clearer justification for war than we did in WW2 based on shameless, outspoken poll data and numbers alone and all I hear from you is how evil America would be to just barely defend herself if one casualty stepped into the line of fire. At least keep your logic straight. If you are going to have that kind of scrupulosity, then at least apply it to our soldiers who fought in WW2 also, or shut the fuk up.

Read the links about Iran. Hitler has a beard now. And no pantalones this time. He sports jammies instead. And its not 5% of Germany this time. Its anywhere from 10 - 15% of islam itself that are whahabbist assholes and another 20 - 30% that are zombie droids, following their lead. It is the very culture of islam itself. Not terrorism. And if you think Gitmo was bad with the barking dog and Lyddie England slapping Hodgey on the ass, you got a nuther thing coming. Try this one for size; try death scenarios at iterations that go up by a global factor of a thousand or more for every one of ours post mortem and then get back to me on your hyperactive etiquette about what we should and should not do to quash the problem. And what that would translate into? With one billion 2 hundred million slams on those kinds of percentiles, it would turn their own mullah's quaint braggadocio of 'seas of blood' on its head. Muslim death would be the new McDonald's ticker. 200 million served!

It would be right out of Revelation. I don't wish it. In fact I pray for a revolution first, or, that democracy would break out and become addictive in order to avert that kind of slaughter at factory discount levels(although I'm skeptical). The fact is, if Haji gets too excited and just can't contain his glee and prematurely ejaculates by nuking a city for Allah, it would mean death to islam to the power of ten neat thousand. And if that happens, it is islams fault for year upon year and precept upon unchallenged precept of social and cultural lies morphing into societal ills translating themself into unchecked terror. I would rather we save the ones who didn't start it than the ones who did. For that is how you define an innocent. Unfortunately, for libs, its just the opposite. To the turbo-lib, whahabbism will all just go away. It will fade. Its just a bad dream, man. Fire up some Baez. Let it be. Put in the Wizard of Oz. Turn the volume all the way down. Then put on Floyd's Dark Side. Turn it, all the way up. Now, grab a big bowl of Funyuns and sit back and hit the strobe light. Turn it, all the way up to high speed. Then, flick the motor on the disco ball, all the way down. Get ready for some answers man, to just like, assault you, man. Deep stuff about the world. Things like peace, love and self-esteem and shit. And don't forget to repeat the affirmations of Garcia and Tupac and Public Enemy. And then rock out cuz its like how to be about nothing at all and just hang out, to become one with everything, the pretty flowers, the stuff caked under the rim of the toilet, to be all for one and one for all, like to be one with Osama and channel his energy back to him with thoughts of 'chill' while you get the chakras flowing and rub yer nipples counterclockwise with crystals. Its like foreign policy and shit, like heavy crap man. Yeah.