Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
She killed someone recently?

I mean, other than a debate opponent, and rhetorically speaking?

You said "openly advocate."

Not sure if that changes anything (as I don't follow her too closely) but it isn't the same as actually killing.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A curious article. Worth the 2 minute read:



the whole thing is here

This discussion is about as interesting as the Obama discussion. Meaning not at all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
That said, I have little doubt the campaign staffers could be stupid enough to have reviewed the blog entries in question and not found them offense. It has to do with the type of person that wants to work on liberal campaigns. They tend not to get bent out of shape over people insulting the religious.

Edwards' wife apparently spends some time in the blogosphere. So perhaps she recommended them, and because of who she was no one in the campaign thought to look into it.

Total speculation on my part.

[Replaced_Texan]

My dad spent a good hunk of the Vietnam War treating wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.

This makes me sick.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What is lost in all her clamouring is that the rightie blogs initially took her to the woodshed because she went back and edited a fair number of "controversial" blog entries - not including the one's that just disappeared - right after she joined the Edwards campaign.

Her (disgusting) anti-Catholic and anti-Christian vitriol was seized upon later on by the MSM as being at the heart of the matter, but that is not really where it started.

Now Marcotte is dismissing all of that as "server error" - which, although ludicrous, would seem to infer that she shouldn't exactly be the person in charge of the blog for a serious Presidential candidate.

What she actually said -- per RT's link -- is less ludicrous:

• Some vocal conservatives were accusing me of "scrubbing" my posting history at Pandagon, apparently on the theory that I was trying to hide inflammatory material. The evidence for this accusation was that I had mockingly rewritten a one-paragraph post, but since that was clearly not enough to get a real shitstorm going, there was a bevy of wild accusations that I had deleted much of the archives of Pandagon. What the right-wingers had really discovered was a very different, embarrassing secret. With all our server and software changes over the years, we at Pandagon had hopelessly scrambled and in fact deleted months and even years of the blog by accident. Some blog posts had funky URLs; others had the wrong author. We'd never fixed the problem because no one could figure out a way to do it that didn't involve thousands of manual corrections.

Since it's a group blog that she joined well after it's inception, this is conceivable.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's looking increasingly like you're eating TaxWonk's lunch today. What with getting the Ottoman thing right and understanding our role in Afghanistan a bit more.

But, I'm still betting on TaxWonk to come back in the later rounds with a K-O.

I tired of Spanky long ago. Chalk him up for an ennui-induced TKO.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I asked Taxwonk a question. How was that eating his lunch? Either he meant to say Iraq, which was a simple typo, or he knew something about the Ottomans that I didn't. I had heard that during the sixteenth century (or maybe the seventeenth century) that the Ottomans had tried to hook up with their Turkish brethren in Central Asia (the Uzbeks) to fight the Persians while the Persians controlled Afghanistan. They would hit them from the north while the Ottomans hit them from the west. There is no question that the Uzbeks and the Persians went at it in northern Afghanistan (at the same time the Ottomans and Persians went at it), the only question is whether they coordinated, or even had help from the Ottomans. The Ottomans and the Uzbeks were Sunni and the Persians were Shiite, so there was a religious reason and an ethnic reason for them to join up. I heard once that the Ottomans sent the Uzbeks troops and technology (when I was reading about Turkish nationalism - Landau’s book Pan-Turkism) but since then I have never heard about it again (I was never able to find a reference to it on the internet nor did Pope mention it in his book "Sons of the Conquerors). In fact I have never heard much about that war (Uzbeck v. Persian), but the Turks must have been somewhat successful because there are a lot of Uzbeks and Turkmen in Afghanistan now (I have also wondered why the Ottomans, in all the conquering, didn't focus more on bringing in more turkish lands into their empire). Since that happened before the British were there, I thought maybe that was what Taxwonk was referring to when he said the British must have learned from the Ottomans. Or maybe he was confusing the Ottomans with their Uzbeck brethren - hell, I don't know, that is why I asked the question.

The distance from Baghdad (which, when the Ottoman's held it, was always insecure) to Kabul is about as far as the distance from Istanbul to London, and the chances for the Ottomans to take either were about the same.

The Ottoman's goals for expansion were more focused on the area to the north of the Black sea and on the south and east of the Caspian. They never held the Caucuses or Baghdad either securely or for a lengthy period, but they held areas around the sea of Azov for long periods and always wanted the Black Sea to be an Ottoman lake. Of course, their biggest and most elusive goal was usually expansion in Europe, which was both close and a very good, relatively stable political counterweight to the generally unruly and independent minded parts of the empire in Egypt and the Levant.

A big reason the Ottomans didn't expand toward Turkish areas was that the bordering Turkish tribes and states weren't very happy about the idea of being Ottoman subjects. The Cossacks in particular were a royal pain in the neck to the Ottomans.

(In light of the above comments from you, though, I think you've thrown in the towel with Wonk - so, its backwards not to 0.5 to 65,536.5).

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
I did not link to the Variety article, as I didn't think there was much else interesting in it.

As for the quote, I am not sure that it is anti-Israel. He doesn't say that Israel would be wrong to bomb Iran. He says that that is the most likely non-peaceful event on the horizon. He is probably right.
o

On the other hand, someone could argue that, when taken together in context, Iran's (i) statements that the "Zionist state is coming to an end" and that Israel will be "wiped from the map" and (ii) pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite universal condemnation from the international community - is really the harbinger.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
When millions of so-called "Christofascists" openly advocate either your conversion to their religion or death by beheading, then no. Until then, the term is idiotic.

Speaking of Islamofascists, you gotta love womyn's rights in Dar-al Islam



Yes, one term is more vulgar than the other.

I don't know if there were millions of Christofacists involved in the French and Spanish Inquisitions, the pogroms in Russia, the Glorious Revolution or the Protestant Reformation.

I'm also not sure if branding, the Iron Maiden, drawing and quartering, breaking upon the rack, burning at the stake, etc. count as being substantially equivalent to beheading.

Can you clear that up for me so I know whether the term is more or less offensive?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
.... What the right-wingers had really discovered was a very different, embarrassing secret. With all our server and software changes over the years, we at Pandagon had hopelessly scrambled and in fact deleted months and even years of the blog by accident. Some blog posts had funky URLs; others had the wrong author. We'd never fixed the problem because no one could figure out a way to do it that didn't involve thousands of manual corrections...

So she's not just a bigot - she's an incompetant bigot.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Really? "Death" or "Forced Conversion"?

Do you have a recent cite for this?

Ann Coulter.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
She killed someone recently?

I mean, other than a debate opponent, and rhetorically speaking?

I'm sorry. When did you start reserving the term "Islamofacist" exclusively for those who had actually killed a person based upon his/her religious belief?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A curious article. Worth the 2 minute read:



the whole thing is here

Well, I have to give you credit for acknowledging that race is a political and social construct. Props to you, Slave. No joke.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't know if there were millions of Christofacists involved in the French and Spanish Inquisitions, the pogroms in Russia, the Glorious Revolution or the Protestant Reformation.

I'm also not sure if branding, the Iron Maiden, drawing and quartering, breaking upon the rack, burning at the stake, etc. count as being substantially equivalent to beheading.

Can you clear that up for me so I know whether the term is more or less offensive?

I know you are old as dirt, but you have anything for me since, I dunno, the Iranian Revolution of 1979?

I'm guessing not, since folks like you are always trotting out incidents from centuries ago when trying to morally equivocate Christianity (or Judaism) with Islam.

Whereas, yet another typical day in martyr-land:

Ynet news 2.20.07:
A suicide bombing in central Israel was narrowly avoided on Tuesday say security forces after the Palestinian man and his accomplices were arrested and the explosives uncovered.

Police and security forces operated extensively to thwart the attack throughout Tuesday afternoon and evening following intelligence information of a terrorist who had already infiltrated into Israel and was planning to carry out a bombing in Israel’s coastal plain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So she's not just a bigot - she's an incompetant bigot.

What did she say that makes her a "bigot"? She obviously disagrees with Catholic doctrine.