A Glaring Double Standard

Update: This article was published today on Iraq.net. The editor added a picture of Margaret Hassan and sent regards from Baghdad. Also published by the Arab News.

What a glaring double standard. The Arab world is enraged over the shooting of a wounded, apparently unarmed Iraqi insurgent by a uniformed US soldier.

There is no similar outrage for Margaret Hassan. Is it because she was an Anglo, a woman, or because she was killed by a Muslim?

The video of the soldier shooting is proof, we are told, of America’s evil. And the kidnapping, torture and murder of Mrs. Hassan is then proof of what- that America is evil! Muslims wouldn’t do that unless evil America forced their hand.

Bombing children, defiling mosques, kidnapping civilians, executing poor workers and cleaning women point blank: these are not discussed, broadcast with frequency, or the source of much anger. Videos where a masked man shakes a bloody head while the curtains flutter do not evoke such fury. Why? The identity of the victim or the perpetrator?

All tactics of the insurgents are excused. Hide among civilians. Justified. Wear civilian clothes. Justified. Shoot from the holy mosque. Justified. Feign death to draw soldiers in (the way one marine died the day before the incident). Justified. Wave a white flag as a ploy. Justified. Booby trap dead bodies. Justified. That’s just Fallujah.

Moving outward- Deliberately killing Iraqi civilians daily. Justified. Bombing churches. Justified. Bombing cafes. Justified. Using schools as arsenals. Justified. Attacking the police. Just fine.

The rules of war don’t apply to the insurgents, only the Americans. And if one horrible act occurs at the hands of one American soldier, the world howls.

The insurgents’ constant inhumane tactics are acceptable. The American rules of engagement prohibited shooting unarmed combatants: this prohibition was followed by thousands of soldiers, thousands of times. After the shootout at the mosque in which the man was wounded, a call went to headquarters to send a medical team out to pick him up. Its American policy that wounded fighters are given good medical attention. Many are being treated now. A wounded American soldier found by the enemy fighters would be tortured to death after being paraded on al-Jazeera. And that would be fine.

The last war in which Arab militaries fought was the Iran/Iraq war and executions were systematic. That was fine.

Al-Jazeera, marketing arm for anti-Americanism globally, is showing the shooting nearly non-stop. Yet they refused to show the last tape of Margaret begging for her life because it was too disturbing. How bad of a shape was she in? Is that why her bruised and battered body is still alone and unrecovered? They refused to show her execution: the shooting of this woman in the head is not a “war death,” although carried out by those the US military are fighting. Broadcasting terrorists’ messages to inspire fear in the Iraqi people is thought impartial journalism though. Except in Iraq, where al-Jazeera has been suspended numerous times for acting as a tool of the jihadiis.

Why so little regard for Iraqi civilians when they are killed by Muslims but when a unarmed fighter is killed by an American soldier, the Arabs suddenly love the Iraqis?

The soldier will be tried. The facts will come out. A punishment will be issued because the US has respect for the Iraqis and enforces the rules of engagement. If the soldier was wrong, Americans will say he was wrong, loud and clear. Tomorrow when Iraqi children are again deliberately targeted by these terrorists-not freedom fighters-what will we hear from the Arab countries, not even muted mumblings. Is it a lack of courage or a lack of concern? Why is there more sympathy for the guy in civilian clothes who was shooting from a mosque than for Margaret?

Elections are coming to Iraq. The Iraqis will rule themselves.

Saddam stole 21 billion dollars from the mouths of starving Iraqi children. The UN closed its eyes. He filled mass graves and torture chambers and the world stood silent. Now as the Iraqis struggle for self-determination, for security, and for freedom from both the US and the terrorists, the Arabs back the suicide bombers. Habit perhaps.

For years, some Iraqis may harbor deep resentment toward the US for its mistakes. The successes of the insurgents, all those dead civilians, will be remembered with anger as well. Perhaps the greatest number of Iraqis will recall how they were devalued by their “brothers” and forsaken in the greater cause of anti-Americanism.

Said Jane Novak @ 9:58 am
| Permalink

1. Jane, execellent post, as usual. My only concern is that this country will prosecute our troops for doing the job that was asked of them. If one is guilty of an atrocity, then prosecute to the fullest extent. But to prosecute only for the sake of geopolitical expedience is unforgivable. Our military will only fight and, if need be, die for a righteous cause, not for a “dog and pony show” aimed at placating people who’s motives and agendas our contradictary to our interest.

   Comment by Tim — 11/18/2004 @ 10:26 am

2. Excuse me, might I interject here for a second? That piece of trash was nothing more than a corpse when those Marines walked into that room.
   He assisted those scumbags in the brutal murders of dozens of innocent civilians just by showing up as support.

   No, that Marine will walk away from this unscathed except for the wounds he recieved in combat.
   He has my full admiration and respect.

   Comment by BD1 — 11/18/2004 @ 12:23 pm

3. Note To Dan
   Thanks for the touching tribute. Jerk. UPDATE: And Jane piles on.Do me a favor, go over there and tell her that when she says things like this:What a glaring double standard. The Arab world is enraged over the shooting of

   Trackback by Cranky Neocon — 11/18/2004 @ 12:46 pm

4. The Muslim Double Standard In Iraq
   Our good friend Jane has this article posted at Iraq.net and at her blog. Here’s a teaser:All tactics of the insurgents are excused. Hide among civilians. Justified. Wear civilian clothes. Justified. Shoot from the holy mosque. Justified. Feign death …

   Trackback by The Jawa Report — 11/18/2004 @ 2:54 pm

5. The Muslim Double Standard In Iraq
   Our good friend Jane has this article posted at Iraq.net and at her blog. Here’s a teaser:All tactics of the insurgents are excused. Hide among civilians. Justified. Wear civilian clothes. Justified. Shoot from the holy mosque. Justified. Feign death …

   Trackback by The Jawa Report — 11/18/2004 @ 2:54 pm

6. I should have put apparent before shooting but the article is really directed back at the Arab media who is howling for this guy but had no tears for his victims.

   Comment by Jane — 11/18/2004 @ 3:57 pm

7. Oh And HEY THERE BD1!

   Comment by Jane — 11/18/2004 @ 3:57 pm

8. Oh, Please! - The statement that there was no outrage for the Murder of Margaret Hassan from the Iraqi people is simply untrue!

   Comment by splog — 11/18/2004 @ 5:24 pm

9. The article discusses the reaction of the Arab media including al-Jazeera toward the murder of Hassan and Iraqis.

   Comment by Jane — 11/18/2004 @ 7:19 pm

10. A Glaring Double Standard
    In A Glaring Double Standard, a published piece at Iraq Net, Jane of Armies of Liberation deftly balances passion and intellect in a compelling read that defines and questions the

    Trackback by Carnivorous Conservative — 11/18/2004 @ 8:49 pm

11. Yes I saw the protesters at the time. I guess the article wasn’t clear enough in that it was supposed to be critical of the international (especially ME) media in sympathizing more with the insurgents than their vicitms. You’re the second person who made that point. Re the Muslim issue, would the rest of the Arab world be quicker to criticize the insurgents if they were not Muslims, but Hindu lets say. I get your point that the acts they committed basicly disqualify them as Muslims. RE the Anglo thing: woops.

    Comment by Jane — 11/19/2004 @ 8:32 am

12. Hey wait a minute-I’n NOT an Anglo? Cool, do I get a racial discrimination card to play? What am I then? I’m having an identity crisis.

    Comment by Jane — 11/19/2004 @ 12:26 pm

13. Hi Armies of Liberation ( yet to sign up) ,
    as usual the old glaring US standards are in evidence.

    On the record is the mass infanticide of Iraqi children by US-UK sanctions regime, at least 500,000 between 1991- 1996. Then there is the continuing toll of weird cancers and other abnormalities attributed to Depleted Uranium munitions form Gulf Farce I, and also from the longest continious bombing campaign in history - the 10 years of US-UK missions over Iraq (not Kurdistan, that was left to the Turkey, the Pentagons client), an average of a bombing mission every 3 years, equivalent to 2-3 Hiroshima bombs on a defenceless population. Such are the morals of the west in its genuine efforts to spread the advantages of its values, just like Agent Orange over Vietnam.

    The US and its ‘mistakes’, its benevolence on an’ unreceptive population’, gosh the only cure total violent destruction. Such are their regard for Iraqi civilians. It really brings a tear to the eye the way the US wants to bring democracy to Kuwait, Haiti, Panama, Palestine.
    The solution is simple, go home and leave everyone in peace to get on with their lives.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/19/2004 @ 5:31 pm

14. Of course this sort of outrage, the excution of Margaret Hassan, plays right into the hands of the extremists.

    http://www.counterpunch.com/fisk11182004.html

    As anyone who follows events knows, Margaret was probably executed by US-CIA dirty tricksters.

    ‘Why so little regard for Iraqi civilians ?’ - then please tell us, if you have so much regard for Iraqi lives, what are the casualty figures for Iraq since the US carried out its illegal invasion ?

    Have you forgotten about the 500,000 Iraqi infant deaths due to US-UK Sanctions, which the both govt knew about but carried on regardless.

    How many people have the Iraqi Resistance killed compared to the US, since the US began its homocidal onslaught on the innocent Iraqi population back in 1991 ? Please give me a rough idea, I am eager to compare both sets of casualty figures, the US govt and its Allies versus the Terrorists. Just roughly.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/19/2004 @ 10:20 pm

15. It’s comforting to see that the “let sanctions work” crowd is back to complaining about the sanctions (which have since been lifted, over France’s objection). That’s didn’t take long.

    Also, it’s funny how the UN sanctions are now the “US-UK” sanctions.

    Comment by Buzz Crutcher — 11/20/2004 @ 10:24 am

16. And the starvation of Iraqi children is still the US’s fault when Saddam took 20 Biliion from their mouths.

    Comment by Jane — 11/20/2004 @ 11:10 am

17. Is Iraq Worth It?
    I’m furious at the press coverage of Iraq. I found this Strategy Page report, for example, absolutely fascinating.November 20, 2004: The war in Iraq is costing the United States some $160 million dollars a day. The Iraqi government has been…

    Trackback by Insulted — 11/20/2004 @ 1:03 pm

18. A Double Standard
    Jane Novak notes a double standard in the outrage over the Marine who shot an insurgent vs. the treatment of the insurgents who killed Margaret Hassan (link via Tim Blair). I don’t have all the facts on the shooting, so

    Trackback by Jake Savage — 11/20/2004 @ 1:46 pm

19. As well as the double standards, people seem to have short memories.
    Remember the concern that was expressed on the is blog for the child victims of the Beslam outrage in Russia.
    Didn’t the mass infanticide of Iraqi children come up as of little or no concern to the users of this site ? Surely double-standards.
    The only concern they expressed was to deny the facts, like Madeleine Albright US Ambassador to the UN, who consindered the premature deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to US-UK sanctions regime to ‘have been worth it’. She made this statement on the US ‘60 Minutes’ TV programme, a statement she later denied making. Not a case of double standards but something much worse.

    I am still waiting to for Iraqi casualty figures. I won’t count those Iraqis tortured, sexually abused and murdered in US Gulags. I believe there are 255 cases pending, of which 45 involve murder. The old Saddam regime would be proud of such standards.

    The Lancet claims 100,000 deaths alone in the latest US-led illegal terrorist assualt on this defenceless Third World country.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/20/2004 @ 3:01 pm

20. Also here are some thoughts of people who actually knew Margaret Hassan
    http://www.counterpunch.com/oberg11172004.html
    http://www.counterpunch.com/fisk11182004.html
    http://www.counterpunch.com/hylton11192004.html

    Just to be cheeky, see what Stan Goff thinks about debating with Neo-cons
    http://www.counterpunch.org/goff11102004.html
    I got a premonition of deja vu reading the good Stan

    Comment by joe90 — 11/20/2004 @ 3:32 pm

21. For Joe90

    In WW2 RAF Bomber Command was aimed directly at civilians, its weapons,
    training, doctrine and employment was to destroy cities, it bombed for the
    better part of 4 years.

    The average bombload of a Lancaster bomber was 8000 lbs and often over 1000
    bombers were dispatched to a single city (in the case of Hamburg, bombers
    were sent there, around the clock, for several days running).

    The USAAC carpet bombed urban industrial areas for the better part of 3 years.

    The average bombload of a B17 was 4000lbs.

    With all of this sustained and heavy bombing, directed largely at civilians,
    only 600,000 German civilians were killed by allied bombing in WW2.

    The US is supposed to have killed 100,000 civilians, whilst using a lot less, and much smaller, precision guided weapons aimed at military targets.

    Quite frankly, the Lancet survey fails the bullshit test and fails it badly.

    Comment by Harry Tuttle — 11/20/2004 @ 4:24 pm

22. Your ridiculous ‘facts’ and numbers are among the reasons liberalism is now seen as overtaken by Stalinist apologizers. Still can’t accept the fall of Saddam, eh? Only a hateful and despicable human being would be so angry at the sight of a people fighting for their freedom from despotism.

    Comment by mikem — 11/20/2004 @ 4:34 pm

23. It’s funny that Harry quotes an obvious crime against humanity, Bomber Harris’s useless strategic bombing campaign against defenceless German population centres.
    Crimes of the Air were not addressed at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals for obvious reasons, beacause they were our crimes, not theirs.
    As for The Lancet Report, it was a report not a survey, was rigourously peer reviewed, likewise its methadology. I am sure if you have spotted anything amiss, please be my guest, the rest of the world awaits your findings, where and what?

    Unlike yourself, I have always objected to despotic regimes like the former Saddam regime in Iraq. That is why I object to the despotic regime in ‘Liberated’ Kuwait, and why I object to the destruction of democracy in Haiti by the US govet, who only turned up once the democratically elected Haitian govet had been destroyed with US help and its President, Aristide kidnapped and deported by the CIA. Bertrand Aristide is still Haiti’s legal head of state

    As for characterising what I have to say with various epithets from a very limited lexicon, well who cares. If you have anything of substance to say, I am sure you would say it.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/20/2004 @ 5:12 pm

24. German population centers were hardly “defenceless”. German anti-aircraft guns brought down plenty of Allied warplanes. The M-109 was a formidable fighter and over Germany the 109 was not limited by fuel as it was in the Battle of Britain.

    Frankly, we didn’t kill enough German civilians. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, the German population supported the Nazis so they deserved whatever punishment they got.

    BTW, when you have as much antipathy for Pol Pot, Castro and the other leftist supported despots as you do for those whom the US has supported, you’ll have some credibility. Until then, you’re just another lefty wanker.

    Comment by ronnie schreiber — 11/20/2004 @ 8:20 pm

25. BTW, the Lancet paper was indeed a survey of the Iraqi public, not a review of hospital or morgue records. They extrapolated from the survey.

    If you dig into their paper you see that based on their own confidence values, the survey indicates that at the low end perhaps 10,000 Iraqi have been killed and at the high end 100,000, so even the authors of this paper admit that there is a high degree of inaccuracy. Furthermore, all of their figures show a 95% confidence rate and an increased death risk factor of 1.1-2.0 Statisticians say that those figures are essentially meaningless, particularly with a confidence factor as low as 95%. A risk factor of 1.1 is essentially no risk at all. When epedemiologists are looking at health studies, they are looking at risk factors above 2 for meaningful differences.

    Had the Lancet editors not been trying to politicize science, this paper would never have been published.

    Comment by ronnie schreiber — 11/20/2004 @ 8:26 pm

26. Ooh, touched a nerve!
    Dear Doctor Mengele, sorry if I am boring the pants off you, but what are the actual figures for Iraqis murdered due to the US government, from Gulf Farce I to the present (in contrast to the number of US citizen deaths attributable to the Iraqi govt over the same time frame)? As a doctor, I am sure the welfare and well being of humans are uppermost in your mind so you won’t mind answering my question, given your obvious adherence to medical ethics and standards.
    I keep asking this question, because I know you have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart (as the examples of Haiti, Vietnam, Kuwait, Palestine etc remind people the world over of your continuing recurrent benevolent ‘mistakes’; your desire to do good but what poor local material you have to work with; to spread democracy if only it wasn’t for locals being annoyed by the way you keep blowing them all to bits; hearts and minds ; Negreponte. enough said ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz…….)

    Comment by joe90 — 11/20/2004 @ 10:38 pm

27. Also, it’s funny how the UN sanctions are now the “US-UK” sanctions.

    Well the US-UK were doing the sanctions - the others were doing the profiteering.

    Comment by Melanie — 11/21/2004 @ 12:11 am

28. Right here we have a beautiful illustration of the leftist true believer. When confronted by a factual response to his assertions, he ignores the facts and goes on to other elements of his faith’s catechism.

    Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. They aren’t, however, entitled to their own set of facts.

    joe90 hates America in the same irrational way that Jew haters hate Jews.

    Comment by ronnie schreiber — 11/21/2004 @ 12:14 am

29. Here is that report by the US based medical magazine, The Lancet
    http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf
    that estimates the number of extra deaths in Iraq over the 14.6 months from the start of the Pentagon’s illegal terrorist invasion to the report’s statistic gathering.
    You will see that they estimate 100,00+ and not as low as 10,000 as some have stated here on this site.
    My, my, only 10,000 murders. Even that is still an horrific thought.

    As for irrational over-emotional responses, what a beautiful illustration.
    I am sure if you have anything of substance to say you would (as I like to encourage reasonable discussion).

    Comment by joe90 — 11/21/2004 @ 3:31 pm

30. Would someone please place an order for joe90’s tin-foil hat? I haven’t read all of his drivel but from what I’ve seen it appears he’s under the misrealization that the US/UK is still in charge of the UN. Just because we’re members doesn’t mean we’re the cause of the problems.

    For example, take a look at the recent and unprecedented “no-confidence” vote Kofi Annan has just recieved. This is the largest monetary scandal in world history EVER. All at the expense of the Iraqi people.

    It’s a real shame that France, Germany, Russia and China don’t understand that terrorists carrying a WHITE FLAG just before they blow up soldiers might actually be a VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS FOR WAR. But hey, I’m sure you have a conspiracy theory for that as well.

    As for characterising what I have to say with various epithets from a very limited lexicon…

    Does it make you feel superior to call people simpletons? Does it get you off? Strange fetish there bud.

    And as for Joe hating America: I don’t think that he hates America. He’s just a defeatist with a smarmy attitude towards anyone that doesn’t see things the same way he does. He’s not the first one I’ve seen that believes he is enlightened and therefore somehow superior to the rest of us. To him the choice is obvious. (…and no, I’m not trying to Freud you. If anything I’m Sherlocking you.)

    …and I’m still trying to figure out your angle on Kuwait. Wasn’t that supposed to be the Gulf War I thing where Saddam thought he was hilter and started taking what he “thought” was his?

    Comment by Jeremy — 11/21/2004 @ 4:45 pm

31. There you go again bringing your sadistic-sexual pre-occupation into an otherwise family-like discussion. You have a mind like a US Gulag, you do.

    ‘Liberated’ Kuwait was and is a dictatorship, so much for Gulf Farce I and all the dead bodies, and sanctimonious claptrap from corporate journalists. Saddam as ‘Hitler’ thing is the standard demonisation of a target of western aggression. Funny you should bring it up, but what international laws did old Saddam break that the US Government hasn’t in its ongoing attack on Iraq?

    As for being a defeatist, about what ? I am about as mystifyied by this alligator as I am by the rest of what you allege about me. Though that’s probably the rub (as Shakespeare would say), the last hope in an extremely limited repertoire of corporate journalist tricks, attack the person, not the argument. I always know two thing when that happens I am right, you are wrong. If you had anything worthy of merit you would present it ergo etc (sorry that might be 3 things, though like the US Military, I don’t do body counts, or that sort of unpleasant thing).

    You could always try addressing the question of ‘double standards’ or would that entail you joing myself in being a defeatist?
    100,00 murders, at least, and counting in the latest bout of US Government mass murder of defenceless Iraqs.
    Cakewalk, anyone? Mission Accomplished ?

    How about terrorist flying warplanes and dropping bombs on defenceless people ; or the spraying of cluster bombs; or depleted uranium munitions; or do you have an excuse for these war crimes too?

    Comment by joe90 — 11/22/2004 @ 4:12 pm

32. Your 10,000 to 100,000 “murders” as you would call them are called called other things by other people. Some would call them “collateral damage” or “civilian casualties”. If anything your statement of “mass murder of defen(s)eless Iraq(i)s” is incorrect as a mass murder constitutes a single event. Unless, of course, you’re considering everything that’s happened in Iraq since early 2003 a single event. That, of course would make you just plain wrong.

    The last time I checked “terrorists” didn;t have warplanes. You’ve nuanced another word. How derogatory and insulting of you.

    Lets see what’s next? Oh yes, get your euphamism right: cluster bombs dont “spray” they drop..on enemy targets and cluster bombs haven’t been used since we initially attacked…and Bullets spray.

    If you consider people dressed in all black including, carrying mortars, AK-47’s, rocket launchers, IED’s (high powered mind you), grenades, and the occasional knife used to slit other defenseless civilian’s throats as “defenseless Iraqi’s” and those trying to defeat them as terrorists you’ve really got to check your priorities Joe.

    As for the depleted Uranium Rounds:
    You have launched upon a farce. The only thing lethal about DPR is being on the recieving end of a sharpening, high density round. It should be treated as a lead shell with a much more “taboo” name. The “burn gas” is nothing worse than the lead poisoning that would occur were a lead shell used. The uranium used in these shells, DU, is what’s left over when the high radiation uranium (U-235) is extracted from the original element. It is actually a safer element than natural Uranium (U-238). For the DU myth debunked you can go here.

    I would be lying if I said I enjoyed your misdirection. It really feels like your malice for anything associated with America’s presence against what most people consider terrorists really oozes from your work.

    Comment by Jeremy — 11/22/2004 @ 11:55 pm

33. Link did not work. go here:
    http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

    Comment by Jeremy — 11/22/2004 @ 11:56 pm

34. Cakewalk continued.
    Unprovoked aggression is the Crime of Crimes, as defined by The Nuremberg War Tribunal after the events of WWII. The Judge in charge, if mememory serves me, was an American. I am quoting US legal expert opinion. Althought these new international standards of behaviour and custom were initiated and defined due to the unprecedented horrors visited upon non-combatants in WWII. Some of this legal activity led to the setting up of the UN, an institution dedicated to preventing wars and mainting the peace, and resolving dangerous issues via diplomacy. This is why it is hated by the world’s leading terrorst rogue state, the US.

    Nuremberg is the reason why the US government is the world’s largest terrorist organisation. Unprovoked aggression against Iraq. It was also a cowardly attack because it made sure, via its vicious sanctions regime, that it would be attacking a defenceless Third World country. The UN was turned into an institution for war and mass death by the US and UK, and not used for peace, reconciliation and diplomacy.

    Complaining about the behaviour of the Iraqi Resistance Movement is all very well and good, but the responsibility for the horrors of Iraq are primarily borne on the guilty shoulders of the war criminals of the US governent. Every order followed in Iraq by US military personnel are illegal and never rise above the moral level of WWII Nazis.

    Just to clarify a few points. The reason the US leads with violence the world over, is because it has no political support anywhere in the world. It is a military superpower, yes, but politically these days it is a non-entity (and its economy is heading that way as well due to anti-nationalistic US corporation and their offshore profiteering).
    Also, apart from the violent racist arrogance of the Neo-conmen and their anti-Chritian Fundamentalist supporters (What would Jesus Do? What he did, and what he told his followesr to do is renounce violence, turn the other cheek etc), Iraq was attacked because the sanctions regime had worked and was complete and also old Saddam boy was going to start flogging his oil in Euros. As anyone knows, the only thing that is keeping the US economy from a major crash is the use of US dollars in the global oil economy (that and the Chinese and Japanese loans etc).

    Your attempts at posing as the forensic Bar Room lawyer have been pretty hopelss so far.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/23/2004 @ 3:19 pm

35. Wow!

    You took a horribly long time to say:

    “BUSH=HITLER!”

    “BUSH=CHRISTIAN CRUSADES!”

    “BUSH=OIL!”

    “EUROPE HATES BUSH!”

    It’s the same old diatribe. Just slightly better grammar. And didn’t you say:

    I am sure if you have anything of substance to say you would…

    I’m not a bar room lawyer and I have no idea about forensics, but I can tell when someone can take a simple phrase or statement and twist it to suit his needs. Your attack has no substance.

    the violent racist arrogance of the Neo-conmen and their anti-Chritian Fundamentalist supporters

    You forgot facist.

    Comment by Jeremy — 11/24/2004 @ 12:59 am

36. You’ve now reduced yourself to just writing gibberish.
    What you had said up to this point didn’t have much connection to reasonable discussion, now even your statements are breaking up into playground nonsense.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/24/2004 @ 3:06 pm

37. I’m just simplifying your commentary into bite-size pieces that don’t require a lexicon to decipher.

    Comment by Jeremy — 11/25/2004 @ 4:01 am

38. For whose benefit?
    If anyone is unsure or uncertain about anything I have said, all they need to do is ask me. I don’t need vulgar simpletons to translate or interpret for me.

    Now your down to one sentence explaining a service no-one asked for (see above), the intellectual content of which I’ve already gave my opinion on.

    It seems you want the last childish word. Be my guest.

    Comment by joe90 — 11/25/2004 @ 2:34 pm

39. I doubt what I’ve been saying is childish and I resent being called a vulgar simpleton. If you prefer your last words to be those of a derogatory insult then I would suggest you look in the mirror to find sophomoric response.

    This will not be the last word though. I’m sure you’ll be back. You seem to believe your articulation qualifies you as a superior being and your hubris will force you to impress upon us your arrogance once again.

    Maybe the next time you intend your quest for a cakewalk to prove the ignorant nature of this site’s occupiers you should come armed with something besides your sharp tongue and hubris.

    I guess the last childish word is up to you then? Will your pride allow the opportunity to slip through your fingers?

    Unless you provide more of your evidence, I am done. Are you?

    Comment by Jeremy — 11/26/2004 @ 2:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice - it will appear shortly