The Left Swallows The Line of The Innocent Jihadis

Over at "Terrorism News", predictably, they posted about the alleged suicide incident at Guantanamo.

Turns out the suicide attempt was staged in order to ambush the prison guards according to Yahoo News.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ten Guantanamo prisoners lured U.S. guards into a cell with a staged suicide attempt, then attacked them with light fixtures, fan blades and other improvised weapons while guards fired rubber balls and used a grenade launcher to subdue them, U.S. officials said on Friday.

Like I said over at "Terrorism News", pretty snidy for a bunch of innocent pacificists, no?

Update: Well of course this doesn't change a thing on the left. I'll give you a rather telling choice comment from Leninology by commentor johng
..the heroic fight against these evil torturers..
That's right. ALL the inmates are HEROES (and the American guards are all *evil torturers*). Even though on average inmates put on 11 pounds of weight since they are being fed properly, and stories like this: Cuba? It was great, say boys freed from US prison camp . Repeat after me there's no alliance between the far-left and Islamic holy warriors!

86 Responses to “The Left Swallows The Line of The Innocent Jihadis”

  1. # Anonymous leanne

    I am getting SO TIRED of hearing people complain about this!!!!!...... they are POW's not prisoners!!!!! They dont get a trial!! And when the gaurds start drilling their knee caps and cutting off heads with rambo knives.....we'll worry about treatment issues.  

  2. # Anonymous Pan

    The Left swallows the line of the Innocent Jihadis

    Innocent until proven guilty, cunt.  

  3. # Anonymous j0nz

    You got tourettes there Pan? you might want to get that seen to. Maybe you explain why the inmates of Guantanamo are heroes?  

  4. # Anonymous Pan

    "Maybe you explain why the inmates of Guantanamo are heroes?"

    Maybe you explain why I should.  

  5. # Anonymous j0nz

    I don't know it's just you seem to feel very passionately about the Guatanamo inmates. Perhaps you too think they are heroes? I just hope that they can give them a trial soon or deport them back. It's not fair to keep them without due legal process. But I don't see the Americans as "evil torturers" and the inmates as "heroic".  

  6. # Anonymous j0nz

    Though I do suspect a significant number of them are guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists or being such. Hopefully the Americans can come to some sort of compromise between due legal process and not letting terrorists go free to wreak havoc.  

  7. # Anonymous A

    shit answer from pissed off Pan - you hit a nerve Jonz, great post.  

  8. # Anonymous Pan

    Shit answer from Jonz more like. He implied that the inmates at Guantanamo are not innocent, I reminded him that one of the fundamental rules of justice clearly states that they in fact are innocent, and he responds by asking me to justify a statement that I didn't even make. Then he backpedals from his post with a lot of woolly bullshit about "due legal process", and some more crap about this heroes line, as if that's even remotely a response to my comment.

    There's no getting around it: innocent until proven guilty, motherfuckers. Sorry. If it applies to us it should apply to the people in Guantanamo, and Jonz' sneering about "the line of the innocent Jihadis" is ugly in the extreme.

    Do you cunts believe in justice? Then stand up for it.  

  9. # Anonymous j0nz

    Pete Pan

    Justice will be done with regards to the inmates. It's just taking a while. 9/11 Kind of shifted the goalposts.

    Anyho, this post is not about the due legal process in Cuba. It's about the left's distorted take on the world. Soon as this "suicide" story broke, there were heart wrenching stories of innocent Muslims being forced to commit suicide by the evil torturer Americans. Turns out this was no suicide, it was a staged ambush. Go back and read the way the article is presented at "Terrorism News".

    And this comment by johng seems to epitomise the incessant stupidity on the left these days. Yes you didn't say it, but it's my blog and it pisses me off when I visit the lefyty blogs and I see is three issues OVER & OVER again, ad nauseum

    1. Bush is stupid/a terrorist
    2. Guantanamo - bunch of innocent Muslims being "tortured"
    3. The war in Iraq is wrong - why? because we say so

    Change the fucking record, pleeaaase!  

  10. # Anonymous j0nz

    Thanks A ;) I annoy the left, therefore I am.  

  11. # Anonymous Pan

    "Justice will be done with regards to the inmates. It's just taking a while."

    Priceless!

    "9/11 Kind of shifted the goalposts."

    Yes, but only if you are a fucking moron.  

  12. # Anonymous Guvnor

    Well it seems Pan cannot put a proper argument over. 9/11 Did shift the goal posts, it is well known that Bin Laden had an "army" who he offered up to help the Saudis many years ago. Bin Laden had declared a war on America and the then 9/11 happened.

    Thus we have a "war on terror", so any combatants are subject to being pows until the war on terror is over. It seems this could be a long time.

    So yes the goalposts have shifted because it is a new type of war, not your average nation v nation. Since the terrorists are not abiding by any rules of engagement, it sort of throws everything up in the air.

    Problem with suicide bomber is they end up dead before you catch them for what ever acts of terrorism they carry out. The trick is try to avoid going into war zones (like those did 'innocently' from birmingham). Good idea is not to carry a weapon as you are likely to be seen as an enemy combatant if your not an American Soldier.

    Then you end up on guantanamo bay, much better than being shot though.  

  13. # Anonymous Pan

    ...and enter stage left, a moron. Right on cue.

    Seriously, what is this "new type of war" bullshit about? As if nobody ever hijacked a plane before. As if there were no such thing as suicide attacks before. As if terrorism is a new thing.

    The only new thing about all of this is the current administration's complete disregard for the rule of law and the fundamental tenets of justice. That, and the way they've managed to make all of you drool-faced idiots swallow this "new war" arsepiss wholesale.

    Guvnor appears to be very knowledgable regarding the alleged offences of the Gitmo inmates. How he knows all this, when they have yet to be charged with any crimes, is beyond me. He joins Jonz in ridiculing the longheld principle of innocence until proof of guilt, by placing the word "innocently" in quotes.

    Guvnor - where do you stand on the concept of innocent until proven guilty? And, assuming you approve of it (which is not as foolproof an assumption as I would like), how do you square that with your apparent support of the Guantanamo camps?  

  14. # Anonymous j0nz

    Seriously, what is this "new type of war" bullshit about? As if nobody ever hijacked a plane before.

    Peter Pansy, 9/11 was the first case of a hijacking commerical air liner on a suicide mission killing all passengers AND killing people as the target... x 4. 3,000 were dead in one attack. No you are right, there was terrorism, and suicide attacks before but nowhere NEAR on this massive scale. Can't you see this has changed things forever?

    Would you rather all inmates were freed, and several went on to kill 100+ innocent people? How do you square your apparent support for the jihadis incarcerated in Cuba?

    Of course there are some innocent people there in Guantanmo. But some of them were asking for it... Who would travel from Manchester to Afghanistan after 9/11? I mean fucking hell what did they expect? They walked into a war zone. They're lucky they're alive in my opinion.  

  15. # Anonymous Pan

    "Can't you see this has changed things forever?"

    Yes. It has made completely irrational idiots out of millions of people.

    "Would you rather all inmates were freed, and several went on to kill 100+ innocent people?"

    What is this bullshit question? What is your basis for this fantasy crime-spree of yours? You can't just pull shit like this out of your arse and expect me to take it seriously.

    I'll answer the question minus your weird reactionary fortune-telling schtick: I'd rather the Gitmo inmates were treated like any other fucking prisoners. Either charge them with a crime or let them go. Them's the rules, lads, sorry about that. You are basically talking about locking people up because they might possibly maybe some time do something bad at some point perhaps in the future probably. I fail to see how 9/11 justifies that fucked up shit.

    "How do you square your apparent support for the jihadis incarcerated in Cuba?"

    Square it with what? Learn English, you fucking simpleton. Anyway, my support is only for the fundamental rules of justice, so save this strawman shite for somebody else. What is your basis for this "jihadis" stuff anyway? There have been no charges of "jihadism" or any other such thing.

    "Of course there are some innocent people there in Guantanmo [sic]"

    Bzzzzzt. Sorry, close but no cigar. They are all innocent, by definition. Either "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental rule of justice and a democratic ideal that we should protect or it isn't. Right now it is being thoroughly shat upon and you don't seem to care. Do you believe in this principle, Jonz?

    "Who would travel from Manchester to Afghanistan after 9/11?"

    Honestly. Is that an offence so grievous that the perpetrators deserve to spend four years incarcerated without charge or trial? Going to Afghanistan is a fucking crime now? A crime so dangerous that the normal rules of justice need be suspended? Do you really think that is justified? Please listen to what you are saying.  

  16. # Anonymous j0nz

    A crime so dangerous that the normal rules of justice need be suspended?

    Err, yes dumbarse. With there being fatwas from Al-Qaeda that it's permissible to kill 4 million Americans in one go, I think we need to think outside the box.


    In 2003, al-Fahd issued an important and detailed fatwa on the permissibility of WMD in jihad. He stated that since America had destroyed countless lands and killed about 10 million Muslims, it would obviously be permitted to respond in-kind [4]. Al-Fahd’s ruling provided support to the previous assertion of al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith in 2002, stating that, “we have the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children… and cripple them in the hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our obligation to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, to afflict them with the fatal woes that have afflicted Muslims because of their chemical and biological weapons”
     

  17. # Anonymous j0nz

    It's actually in the Al-Qeada handbook to use the infidel's law system to their advantage if captured.

    "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" - Stalin  

  18. # Anonymous Pan

    Well, I think we would agree that anyone who kills 4 million Americans, or 4 million of any other nation's citizens, deserves to be locked up for a very long time (and, if you'll forgive my quaint pre-9/11 ideas of "justice" and whatever, charged and tried to boot).

    But the oh-so-heinous crime we are talking about here is travelling to fucking Afghanistan, not genocide. Now I don't know about you, man, but as far as unspeakable acts go - well, that would make for one really dull episode of CSI, that's for sure. I shouldn't have to point out that it isn't even a fucking crime, but I think in your case it's worth doing.

    So hey, maybe I missed it in your reply, but what are your feelings about "innocent until proven guilty" again? Good thing? Bad? Do let us know.  

  19. # Anonymous j0nz

    I shouldn't have to point out that it isn't even a fucking crime, but I think in your case it's worth doing.

    Well that did make me chuckle. To be fair, Pan, most people wouldn't have much sympathy with Muslims who decide to travel to the world's Al-Aqaeda stronghold and get captured with a Koran and an AK47, with long stragly beards, tightly wrapped turban...

    If it walks like a duck.... I mean what the fuck were they thinking? I'll tell you.

    1. Let's help our oppressed Muslim brothers and aid the jihad against the invading forces.

    or

    2. I want to go see those Snow Lions in the Afghan mountains like they showed on that infidel programme Planet Earth!

    I know where my money is....

    what are your feelings about "innocent until proven guilty" again? Good thing? Bad?

    I think it's absolutely right 99% of the time. Though, let me explain why this is not an absolute. I am going to give you a very extreme metaphor.

    Let's say the intelligence services believe that Abdul Jihad is planning to detonate a nuclear device in a major city, with possible 1 million casualties. Except this Abdul Jihad is a bit of an evil genius, and able to hide his tracks very well. Well in this case, seeing as we have potentially 1 million casualties, I will say, actually guiltly until proven innocent. The risk is far too great. When we are talking about suspicion of mass slaughter, we have to assume the worst, for the sake of the people.

    Luckliy we don't have people like you in power with your bleeding heart liberal response, you would be the terrorists best friends!  

  20. # Anonymous Guvnor

    "I'd rather the Gitmo inmates were treated like any other fucking prisoners. Either charge them with a crime or let them go. Them's the rules, lads, sorry about that."

    thems not the rules im afraid. Maybe for normal prisoners they are, but not for POWs. They are free when the war is over, but it aint. Sorry, but thats just the way it is.

    Things are not always a case of simply black & white, there is a gray area. You would have been the first to complain Pans if they have simply been shot dead at the scene. If Gitmo was closed that would be the simple solution to dealing with those who would be pows, and u wouldnt want that.  

  21. # Anonymous Pan

    "Muslims who decide to travel to the world's Al-Aqaeda stronghold and get captured with a Koran and an AK47, with long stragly [sic] beards, tightly wrapped turban..."

    Well, aren’t you all so knowledgeable about the circumstances under which the Guantanamo inmates were picked up? Where are you getting this information from? Please tell me how many of the inmates were apprehended in possession of an AK-47? To mention one famous example, there was absolutely no suggestion that the gentlemen whose story was recounted in Michael Winterbottom’s recent movie were armed, with AKs or with anything else. We already know that you consider traveling to Afghanistan an offence worthy of a potentially never-ending custodial detention. Is it now also a crime to have a tightly wrapped turban and a beard? (I know, of course, that in your fantasy dystopia the answer would be "emphatically yes", but please don’t get carried away.)

    What, precisely, do you know about the circumstances of the Gitmo inmates’ detention? If they were apprehended in possession of an AK-47, then why have they not been charged with this offence? If they were plotting terrorist atrocities against Western targets, then why have they not been charged? Either they are suspected of an offence or they are not. If they are, they should be charged. If they are not, they should be released. Being bearded in Afghanistan is not a crime, dickheads.

    "I think [innocent until proven guilty is] absolutely right 99% of the time. Though, let me explain why this is not an absolute. I am going to give you a very extreme metaphor."

    Your "metaphor" is hilarious (I think you mean "hypothetical scenario", by the way, but if I have to start correcting your English I’ll be here all fucking fortnight). Can you name a Guantanamo inmate who was apprehended on suspicion of planning such a crime? No? Then shove your "metaphor" up your cunt. As I’ve said before, if you discover that someone is plotting a genocidal attack, then by all means arrest them – we have laws for this already. Charge them, try them, convict them and detain them, too. But we are not talking about that here. There has been no suggestion that the Gitmo inmates were apprehended in the course of planning such an attack, and the fact that none of them have been charged at all, let alone charged with planning such a crime, indicates that they were not. You have reached around your back with both hands and dragged that shit kicking and screaming out of your big fat fucking arse. If "innocent until proven guilty" is right 99% of the time, and that other 1% involves a Jack Bauer scenario like the one you have spewed up above, then the Guantanamo inmates are fucking innocent as hell. Own goal, motherfucker.

    "…with your bleeding heart liberal response, you would be the terrorists [sic] best friends!"

    The Bush administration already are the terrorists’ best friends. If you have not copped that the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre is a dream recruitment tool for Islamic extremists, then you are about a thousand times stupider than I thought. And you know I don’t rate you too highly in that regard as it stands.

    Guvnor, same goes for you. Please let us into the secret of how you know so much about the inmates’ alleged crimes.  

  22. # Anonymous j0nz

    You seem to know a lot about the Guatanamo inmates.... were you... there?  

  23. # Anonymous Pan

    I'm sorry - what? Are you paraphrasing my arguments now?

    You are the one that made the claims about AK-47s, turbans and genocidal nuclear plots, not me. I was just wondering where you got that shit from, if it wasn't yer arse.  

  24. # Anonymous Guvnor

    Pan "What, precisely, do you know about the circumstances of the Gitmo inmates’ detention?"

    I will ask you the same question.

    So dont use that argument to say they are being badly done by, you cant say for sure they werent caught with AK47's can you???

    Unless of course you know something we dont.  

  25. # Anonymous Pan

    Jesus. You really are a couple of idiots.

    Look: here's how it works. You two meatheads are making positive claims about the circumstances under which the inmates were apprehended (so far, we've had straggly beards, AKs, turbans, Korans, POWs - all the way up to mad bad "Abdul Jihad" and his dastardly nuclear plot). If you are going to make claims like this, presumably you have some sort of factual basis for doing so; furthermore, it is up to you to establish that these claims are true.

    In a nutshell: you make a claim, you back it up. Specifically, how many of the inmates were captured in possession of AK-Koran combos, and how many were captured in the process of planning genocidal nuclear plots? These are the claims that have been made by you pair of fucking clowns, so it's about time you started backing them up.

    On the other hand, I do not know how, and for what, these guys were picked up. But I make no claims to that effect that I cannot back up, either, because I am not a moron. However, I do know of one specific case (cf. Michael Winterbottom) where the presence of AKs - or any other weapon, for that matter - was never alleged. This would tend to cast doubt on Jonz' assertions about the conditions under which the Gitmo residents were apprehended.

    So, not only are you half-wits squirting week supermarket beer-shit all over the fundamental rule of justice that holds an individual innocent until proven guilty, you are also admitting that you have absolutely no knowledge of their circumstances that allows you to assert their guilt, other than the fact that they are currently incarcerated without charge. All this stuff about AKs and nukes? Provide some evidence for these assertions, or else I will be forced to conclude that you have simply made it all up.

    You unbelievable arseholes. You'd be funny if this shit weren't so serious.  

  26. # Anonymous Peter

    put up or shut up pan you verbose cock  

  27. # Anonymous Pan

    Peter: "put up or shut up pan you verbose cock"

    Oh no! I've been slandered! Now everyone will know that I'm verbose!

    Contribute something or fuck off, Peter, you grammatically-impaired cunt.  

  28. # Anonymous Shabby Ranks

    "put up or shut up pan you verbose cock"
    What on earth does that mean?

    If everybody put up, sites like this wouldn't exist.
    I don't give a fuck if you're all about jihad or justice or whatever, the fact that we get angry, discuss, argue and call jOnz a cunt, means that we care about what goes in our lives.
    Even though many of your cares are deeply misplaced.
    Deeply misplaced.

    In the spirit of harmony let's all join hands together and sing ...

    "Cause we gotta little ol' convoy, rockin' through the night
    Yeah we gotta little ol' convoy, ain't she a beautiful sight?
    Come on an' join our convoy, ain't nothin' gonna git in our way
    We're gonna roll this truckin' convoy, cross the USA
    Convoy... Convoy... "

    jOnz, you're a fat misguided cunt.  

  29. # Anonymous Pan

    Shabby, you realise of course that you have left yourself open to one of Jonz' trademark devastating put-downs whereby he mercilessly lampoons your fucking fake name as if that's some sort of argument and if you'd give a fuck.

    To whit: "Shabby Wanks".

    Ooooh snap!  

  30. # Anonymous j0nz

    Pan/Ranks

    Uh-oh!

    Bush says he would close Guantanamo facility

    BERLIN - President Bush said he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay — a step urged by several U.S. allies — but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on how suspects held there might be tried.

    “Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial,” Bush said in comments to German television to be broadcast Sunday night.

    The horror! Evil Bush! World's number 1 terrorist, ra ra ra! What an "unbelievebable arsehole"!  

  31. # Anonymous j0nz

    Ah-ha thanks Pansy! I like that! Shabby Wanks!  

  32. # Anonymous Shabby Wanks

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.  

  33. # Anonymous Pan

    Ho ho! "Pansy"! ZING!

    Here, I can't understand why you are getting so excited about that Bush news story, since it flies in the face of everything you've been saying in this thread, while supporting everything I've said (albeit four years too late).

    Blammo! Another case of Drunken Blogger back-pedalling. Chalk one up on the board for me, cocksniffs!  

  34. # Anonymous Pan

    "This post has been removed by a blog administrator."

    Yeah. I guess that freedom of speech rally was quite a long time ago...  

  35. # Anonymous j0nz

    Shabby

    I don't normally delete comments but in your case I will make an exception ;)

    If you can't say anything constructive at all, then piss off. Thanks.  

  36. # Anonymous Pan

    Can we get Peter's earlier comment deleted too, then? Thanks.

    ("put up or shut up pan you verbose cock")  

  37. # Anonymous j0nz

    Yeah. I guess that freedom of speech rally was quite a long time ago...


    Yes, very funny Peter Pan! Well FYI it wasn't anything mildy interesting or anything to do with the topic.

    #33 Yes well try reading what I have actually posted rather than what you imagined I posted! See #6 & #9

    Hopefully the Americans can come to some sort of compromise between due legal process and not letting terrorists go free to wreak havoc.

    Justice will be done with regards to the inmates. It's just taking a while. 9/11 Kind of shifted the goalposts.
     

  38. # Anonymous j0nz

    Well I know it's terribly unfair however I am going to leave Peter's comment in.

    I wouldnt mind so much being called a cock, but I'm not happy about being called a "repulsive cunt" without any qualification whatsoever. How am I supposed to reply to that anyway? I don't want this to deginerate into the kind of chat you get on those left-wing hatefest sites.  

  39. # Anonymous Pan

    Don't worry, Jonz, I got to read Shabby's comment before it was deleted. Thought it was quite funny, actually.

    First of all, if you think that these concessions by Bush (and time will tell if they actually happen, of course) would have happened in the absence of the protests from "The Left" that have you so vexed, then you are deeply naive.

    Second, Bush's remarks really put paid to your arguments for the abolishment of "innocent until proven guilty" in 1% of cases. You repeatedly argued, without any factual basis for doing so, that the inmates were apprehended in circumstances which necessitated the complete suspension of proper judicial systems. Clearly this is not the case. There is no justification for this to have taken so long, 9/11 or otherwise.

    (Incidentally, I don't think you ever revealed how you knew so much about the Gitmo inmates - did you just make all that up or what?)

    Third, I'm willing to wager that should Guantanamo actually shut down, most of those incarcerated within will be released without charge, the last four years of their lives gone forever.

    Except for Ahmad Jihad, of course. He'll get the works.  

  40. # Anonymous Shabby Ranks

    Constructive!?

    "Ah-ha thanks Pansy! I like that! Shabby Wanks!"

    That'll really get the left irked.

    jOnz, you can only defend yourself with name calling and censorship. If you were able to present sensible, cognitive arguments and responses then maybe you might earn a little more respect and people would take on board the significance of what you are trying to convey.

    Dressing up your half-baked chauvinistic rantings with myriad font changes and atrocious spelling has no effect other than wanting to ridicule you.

    You have to work harder at this.Much harder.
    You can start by getting your news from somewhere other than msn.  

  41. # Anonymous Pan

    On the deletion of comments: so it actually has nothing to do with the constructiveness or otherwise of one's comment - depsite earlier claims - but instead it is about whether or not the administrator approves of one's insult of choice.

    Fantastic. So it is okay for Peter, in an entirely unconstructive comment, to call me a "cock", whereas if Shabby, in a reportedly unconstructive comment (although we'll have to take Jonz' word for it since it no longer remains), breaches all taste and decency by calling our host a "cunt".

    Man. I support your right to get offended, but you don't have to be such a fucking pussy about it.  

  42. # Anonymous j0nz

    I know it's hard, Shabby, but could you try and please stay on topic? Do you too think the inmates are heroes and the Americans evil torturers? Why all the heart wrenching stories about Guatanamo inmates? That's what perplexes me about what passes for "the left" these days... You and Peter Pan, all your "concern" for the inmates is just thinly veiled anti-Americanism. Admit it. That's the crux of the matter. You couldn't give a fuck if these inmates have killed people or not. You just want them released. You want America to loose, don't you?  

  43. # Anonymous Pan

    "You and Peter Pan, all your "concern" for the inmates is just thinly veiled anti-Americanism. Admit it. That's the crux of the matter. You couldn't give a fuck if these inmates have killed people or not."

    Fuck you, Jonz. Fuck you for resorting to these smears. Is this how starved for an argument you really are? Is this what you have to do to feel better about yourself?

    You sit here and cheerfully lie about these people who have had their human rights snatched away from them over the last four years, and you have the fucking nerve to tell me that I don't give a fuck about them?

    Shame, Jonz. Really.  

  44. # Anonymous Pan

    "You couldn't give a fuck if these inmates have killed people or not."

    Well, have they killed, Jonz? Out with it - and no more of your fucking lies and "metaphors".

    It's you that doesn't give a fuck whether they have killed or not, Jonz. You have merely assumed that they have, and that's good enough for you. Did the Winterbottom inmates kill? No they didn't. Then what reason do you have for assuming that the rest of the prisoners did?

    Spit it out, and none of your fucking around.  

  45. # Anonymous j0nz

    Why are the left more conerned about the human rights of suspected terrorists than the human rights of the victims of terrorism? It's crazy. Why are you crying over a bunch of nobs who travel from Bradistan or Manchester to do "charity work" for the Taliban?

    Get some fucking perspective please. And I really do hope they close the Guantanmo prison soon, if only to stop this incessant whining about the human rights of suspected terrorists. Get a grip.  

  46. # Anonymous j0nz

    Look Pan, how am I supposed to gather evidence that is classified and top secret? After seeing the utter deparvity of Islamic terrorism, I no longer give fundamentalist Muslims the benefit of the doubt, unlike you. I expect the worst, you expect them to be wonderful innocent human beings.

    If you was in charge of the war on terror, we'd all be fucked by now. We'd be dhimmis under an Islamic caliphate because we don't want to hurt the feelings of the extremists.  

  47. # Anonymous Shabby Ranks

    Once again jOnz, you have failed to answer the question but clumsily deflected it by attacking the questioner.
    Super!

    and the word concerned has two "c"s
    lose has only one "o"
    degenerate has no "i"
    I'm not even going to start on Guantanamo.

    and finally knob most definitely has a "k", although it is silent.
    I wish you were.  

  48. # Anonymous j0nz

    Mr Rank, do you want me to delete ALL your comments? Please try and stay on topic.  

  49. # Anonymous Pan

    "Why are the left more conerned [sic] about the human rights of suspected terrorists than the human rights of the victims of terrorism?"

    Listen, dickhead, will you please answer my arguments, instead of addressing the fantasy arguments of somebody called "the left"? It's really beginning to get on my tits.

    Personally - I can only speak for myself, not this "the left" concoction of yours - I don't hold anybody's human rights higher than anybody else's. It's called basic human decency, and it is a concept that is the exclusive preserve of neither the left nor the the right.

    "...how am I supposed to gather evidence that is classified and top secret?"

    So: you have no proof of any murders perpetrated by the Guantanamo inmates. You have no proof of AK-wielding beardos and nuclear plots. You have been running your mouth off about things of which you have absolutely no fucking knowledge.

    In short: you have been fucking lying through your teeth.  

  50. # Anonymous Pan

    "If you was in charge of the war on terror"

    Apparently you are in charge of the war on grammar.

    "We'd be dhimmis under an Islamic caliphate because we don't want to hurt the feelings of the extremists."

    Please. Save your fucking gibbering paranoia for the rest of the trembling, frightened little idiots. It doesn't impress me one bit.  

  51. # Anonymous j0nz

    Paranoia? What the fuck are you talking about? Did you not hear of the terrorist acts commited in London, Madrid, and New York? You think I'm fucking imagining it? Terrorists want to kill you because you do not submit to Islam.

    You want evidence that Jihadis want to carry out nuclear attacks?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1871716,00.html

    I'd rather overestimate the threat of terrorism, than underestimate, if it's all the same to you. Thanks.

    You live in a delusional fantasy world where "Muslim" is a synonym for "oppressed by the West" and where "Islam" is a religion of tolerance.  

  52. # Anonymous j0nz

    Pan, I don't mind the odd insult, and the occasional swear word. But that was peppered, even for you! If you can't play nicely I will have to delete your comments too. It's boring for anyone else coming along to read you spitting sulphuric acid because you're so damn righteous.

    For the record, Pan say Bin Laden as the same human rights as a suspected criminal.

    I was once suspected of stealing Mini Cheddars from Woolworths once. I don't think suspected crimes equate, some how.

    If you ask your questions nicely Pan, I will try and answer them as honestly as I can, though at present it's getting monotonous.  

  53. # Anonymous Pan

    Also for the record, your host has deleted the last half dozen comments, including his own.  

  54. # Anonymous Guvnor

    "In a nutshell: you make a claim, you back it up."

    Ok thicko! Let me explain, I did not write the article, im positng in reply to it just like you Pansy.

    So, due to that i am simply doing the same as you. So you back up what ur saying with facts. Rather than just shouting down what other people have to say for the sake of it.  

  55. # Anonymous Guvnor

    why do the left always resort to bad language and name calling when trying to take some sort of moral highground over what ever issues.  

  56. # Anonymous j0nz

    I wish I knew the answer to that Guvnor. Normally when people do that they are trying to compensate for something lacking in their lives.

    Imagine what a fun night down the pub you could have with Pan! /severe irony  

  57. # Anonymous Pan

    "why do the left always resort to bad language and name calling..."

    Why do you clowns always resort to this "the left" straw man? Argue with me, man, not some bogeyman of your own concoction.

    Anyway, my "bad language" and "name calling" offends you? Sorry ma'am. But here's a hint: if you want to get all prissy about my choice of language, try not to call me things like "thicko". Makes you look, well, a bit smarter.

    There's no point in me responding to your earlier comment since (a) I already have done, and (b) Jonz is evidently on some sort of totalitarian streak today. Maybe tomorrow he'll regain his boner for freedom of expression, though. Who knows?  

  58. # Anonymous j0nz

    You just can't help that condescension can you?

    Poor little rich kid are we? Mummy & daddy got a big house in Surrey? Do they oppress you do they? Awww.  

  59. # Anonymous Pan

    Jonz: "You just can't help that condescension can you?"

    Condescension? Oh, you mean like:

    "Poor little rich kid are we? Mummy & daddy got a big house in Surrey? Do they oppress you do they? Awww."

    Aaaaaaand scene.

    Stop deleting comments every time I mention that you are a liar. Stick up for yourself, for christ's sake.  

  60. # Anonymous j0nz

    Where do I lie, do pray tell!  

  61. # Anonymous j0nz

    That's not condescension by the way. That's called taking the piss, making a joke out of you! I prefer people to laugh. You prefer people to cower under your lingusitic acrobatics.  

  62. # Anonymous Pan

    "Where do I lie, do pray tell!"

    Here: "Muslims who decide to travel to the world's Al-Aqaeda stronghold and get captured with a Koran and an AK47, with long stragly [sic] beards, tightly wrapped turban..."

    When challenged for evidence for these claims, when asked for any factual basis whatsoever, you (eventually) responded:

    "Look Pan, how am I supposed to gather evidence that is classified and top secret?"

    One can only conclude, in that case, that your earlier pronouncements about the Gitmo inmates being AK-wielding Ay-rabs were complete fabrications. In other words, lies.

    No?  

  63. # Anonymous Pan

    "You prefer people to cower under your lingusitic acrobatics."

    And cower you do, Jonz, judging by all this comment-deleting you are doing.  

  64. # Anonymous j0nz

    Some minor points there Pan

    1. I did not state that as fact, so how can I be lying? This known as "hypothetical".

    "To be fair, Pan, most people wouldn't have much sympathy with"

    2. Are you saying that they didn't travel to Afghanistan?

    3. Are you saying they didn't have a Koran with them?

    4. Are you saying they are not fundamentalist Muslims, did you take pictures? Was they clean shaven? Did they not have a turban? How do you know?

    5. Are you saying that none of the 430 inmates at Guantanamo bay were caught with AK47's? How do you assert this preposterous, fanciful lie?  

  65. # Anonymous Pan

    The other thing is that I have no problem with you taking the piss at all. But if you remove my right to respond by deleting my comments it smacks of something a little bit more sinister. It's underhand and it's an abuse of power. Granted, it's an abuse of power on a ridiculous and semi-literate hate blog, and therefore of no consequence whatsoever, but the principle is the same.

    It also makes you seem like a bit of a coward and a hypocrite: you are happy to give it out, but will not stand for it yourself.  

  66. # Anonymous j0nz

    Pan try reading over some of the comments that weren't so abusive they were not deleted. Then try re-reading some of my comments. Please contrast and compare.

    Well done for managing no swear words, and only 4 insults. You are learning, ableit slowly.  

  67. # Anonymous Guru Nanak Dev

    Point of order
    The wearing of the turban( or beards for that matter, straggly or not)is not restricted to "Islamism" (sic)and is and has been an inseparable part of a Sikh's life. Since I, the founder of Sikhism, all Sikhs have been wearing turbans.

    Refer to Dr. Trilochan Singh's "Biography of Guru Nanak Dev."( That's me!). All Sikh Gurus wore turbans. The Sikh Rehat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct) specifically says that all Sikhs must wear a turban. According to the Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa Singh, who was a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the five Kakars of Sikhism were: Kachh (a special underwear), Karha (a steel bracelet), Kirpan (small sword), Kangha (comb) and Keski (a small turban).

    The Turban is a strong religious symbol ableit(sic) a not very offensive one. I'd be worried about my Kirpan not my Keski.

    I'm especially proud of my underwear.  

  68. # Anonymous Pan

    Oh my god, Jonz. I don't believe it.

    Okay, what was that last comment deleted for? What heinous crime did I commit?  

  69. # Anonymous j0nz

    Pan, you're still attacking me! You have charged outright me with

    1. Lying
    2. Denying the inmates to fair trial

    Wrong on both accounts. I am getting bored with this Pan. Next topic!  

  70. # Anonymous Pan

    Okay, I'll give it another go, cleaned up for the delicate sensibilities of the proprietor of "Drunken Blogging and Shit"...  

  71. # Anonymous Pan

    Dear Sir or Madam

    Please allow me, if you will, to address your points in order:

    1. With all due respect, sir or madam, it is my earnest opinion that your reply in this instance constitutes an evasion. The point remains that the situation you described was appears to have been a product of your conscious imagination. When pressed you were unable to cite evidence for any such event. You were unable to produce even a single example. Yet you used that scenario to justify your support for the removal of the inmates' rights to a fair trial. You support the denial of their rights, and when pressed to justify that denial you proceeded to tell unfounded tales of scary men with beards with guns. I cannot help but conclude that you must have intended me to accept these stories as fact, otherwise why expend any energy saying them at all? Is it your honest contention that you support the removal of the human rights of a huge group of people based purely on some supposed "hypothetical" that you appear to have plucked out of thin air with no factual basis whatsoever? I would advise most strongly against this line of argument, dear sir or madam, lest your credibility be irrevocably damaged.

    Points 2, 3, 4 & 5: I respond in the negative to all of the questions you have herein raised.

    In line with my previous statements, I do not claim any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the arrests of the unfortunate souls currently incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay sans legal rights. Since I have no basis upon on which to make such claims, I consider that it would be ill-advised in the extreme of me to do so. When you query how on earth I can "assert this preposterous, fanciful lie" you are spitting into the wind, my dear fellow, since I have asserted no such thing. I merely assert, no offence intended, that you knowingly made your own assertions without any factual basis for doing so. And in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it would appear that I am right, too.  

  72. # Anonymous j0nz

    Guru,

    I am just reading about Sikhism and how it compares to Islam, makes interesting reading.  

  73. # Anonymous Pan

    PS. RSVP.  

  74. # Anonymous Pan

    "You have charged outright me with ... Denying the inmates to fair trial"

    Come now, stout gentleman! Can we not play fair? I humbly assure you that I have done no such thing, since I do not believe that you, qualified though you no doubt are, are in charge of the administration of the Guantanamo Bay facilities (although please accept my sincere apologies if my information is incorrect).

    If I have erred in overstating the case, I apologise also. Perhaps the word "support" is a touch too strong. However, it is not, in my opinion, an exaggeration to characterise your stance, vis-á-vis Guantanamo's tenants, as one of general indifference.

    Please feel free to take issue with any of the points I have raised, and I shall endeavour to return to you the very same courtesy.

    I remain yours etc.  

  75. # Anonymous j0nz

    Blimey Pan.

    I am in favour of trying the inmates. I do not justify them as having no rights because they look guilty. I'm just saying I don't have much sympathy. That is not a crime, last time I checked?! I think it rather stupid to travel to Afghanistan. And I'm pointing out it does look rather suspicious.

    I have no evidence that they was caught with AK47's. I will retract that, not because I know it to be false, but purely because I cannot give you evidence which you so desperately yearn for.  

  76. # Anonymous Pan

    "I'm just saying I don't have much sympathy. That is not a crime, last time I checked?!"

    No indeed, sir or madam, it is not! But oh - irony of ironies - neither, my old chum, is it a crime to "travel to Afghanistan"! Yet it is for only one of these non-crimes that a fellow is liable to find himself "banged up" thousands of miles from home with no access to the normal legal procedures! Where is the justice, I ask thee?

    "I have no evidence that they was caught with AK47's. I will retract that, not because I know it to be false, but purely because I cannot give you evidence which you so desperately yearn for."

    And with that, my work here is done!

    Toodle-pip, sir or madam!

    Kind regards,  

  77. # Anonymous Guru Nanak Dev

    Indeed.

    I've been searching the on-line scriptures for Sikhism and how it compares to Western Capitalist Society .
    Interesting reading.

    It's probably a bit wordy for you Jonz so here's the gist:

    Sikhism is the fucking nuts, even if I do say so.

    What it also says is prejudice is evil.

    Jonz, you, my friend, are deeply prejudiced.

    If you are more numerate than you are literate then you do the math.

    Peace out.

    The Guru  

  78. # Anonymous j0nz

    mathS not math !!

    Jonz, you, my friend, are deeply prejudiced.

    I think I am in Groundhod Day.

    I am only prejudiced with regards to fundamentalist Muslims. I do pre-judge. I wouldn't say this is unwarranted bias though. Do you?

    Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

    Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

    Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

    Ishaq:326 “If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”

    Qur’an:8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughtered in the land.”

    Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

    I am an atheist. These verses do not sit well with me.  

  79. # Anonymous j0nz

    And with that, my work here is done!

    Toodle-pip, sir or madam!

    Kind regards,


    Phew. Blimey Pan, you are nothing if not utterly persistent!  

  80. # Anonymous Guru Nanak Dev

    Sweet cherub!
    You are in no position to even think about lecturing me on crimes against the English language.

    cf and the word concerned has two "c"s
    lose has only one "o"
    degenerate has no "i"
    I'm not even going to start on Guantanamo.


    It comes of no surprise that you are one of no faith,
    so I will spare you the vicious genocidal Bible quotes.

    I am only prejudiced with regards to fundamentalist Muslims. I do pre-judge. I wouldn't say this is unwarranted bias though. Do you?

    My point exactly.

    Enough of this stupidity now.

    Next Topic!  

  81. # Anonymous j0nz

    You are in no position to even think about lecturing me on crimes against the English language.

    I was joking! This is an Americanism, right? I say that myself...Good lord. Why is everybody so damn serious?!

    PLEASE GOD SEND ME SOME NORMAL PEOPLE! I want a normal conversation!  

  82. # Anonymous Guru Nanak Dev

    Next Topic!  

  83. # Anonymous j0nz

    Well if you want to discuss Sikhism or anything then see this: Next topic!  

  84. # Anonymous St Thérèse de Lisieux

    I am an atheist. These verses do not sit well with me.

    How can you implore God for normal people if He doesn't exist?

    I struggling to believe that you have any idea what you say from one minute to the next.  

  85. # Anonymous j0nz

    St Thérèse de Lisieux (thank god for cut & paste) I was being ironical. I am an atheist who mentions god quite lot. It would sound pretty damn shallow if I said thank me, or pretty damn hippy if I said thank the universe, so I'll stick with thank god!  

  86. # Anonymous Guvnor

    Anyway, my "bad language" and "name calling" offends you? Sorry ma'am. But here's a hint: if you want to get all prissy about my choice of language, try not to call me things like "thicko". Makes you look, well, a bit smarter.

    You will notice i resorted to that AFTER Pans had called me names. But i suppose pans has a point. i shouldnt be dropping to the level of Pans argument.

    I wont call you any names in future, not even in retaliation to your insults. i promise, honestly.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com

XML

Search