Tragic Terrorist Attack in Boston

They're quotations. Quote is a verb.


I know you don't agree, you're a right winger, but can you honestly think of anyone, other than Iran or Al Qaida, that has benefitted from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

That's apropos of nothing.


You're a pinko commie leftist.


The world.

You're sounding more and more like H20Man. If you're just going to act like someone from a Monty Python sketch, there's no point trying to debate anything.

What sketch comes to mind?

Is that really of any great concern, Izzy? Way way way too much concern for the illegal invaders and nowhere near enough for the people who were truly aggrieved.

The UK government doesn't have to be a poodle. Blair was as much at fault, he too is a war criminal, and though we don't normally go to the great length of charging each soldier with war crimes, when a soldier takes part in a war crime, he or she can't be deemed anything but a war criminal.



A large chunk of the American population is tico/h2oman/finn brained. They love their war criminals/terrorists.



They consume it voraciously.

It's a wonderful life.

You hold Bush responsible for the deaths of UK servicemen? I must have missed the war he led against Britain. If you're going to blame anyone for the UK casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, try starting with the people who killed them, and if you can't stop there, try Tony Blair and your own politicians.

Blaming Bush is not only absurd, it suggests you believe your country such a lap dog of America that it can't avoid sending it's servicemen to fight in foreign wars even when it doesn't want to. What's bother in you? Bush didn't treat his vassals properly.

He brought back torture? When did it leave?

You do know the number of detainees who underwent enhanced interrogation is less than a handful don't you? Even if those tactics do constitute torture (which I don't believe) they were in no way common practice.

"Yo Blair" was simply Bush being casual with someone he considered a friend (the two were and continue to be good friends). You may not like that sort thing but it tends to be part of America. In any case, you couldn't be more wrong about it signifying contempt for the British people. That chip on your should must be getting awfully heavy.

What was the chance provided by 9/11 that was missed. The mullahs in Iran felt really empathetic for the American people and were ready to turn away from developing nukes and sponsoring terrorism. Can you really be that naive?

How do you know he didn't know what the connotation of "crusade" was in the Middle East. First of all even if he is as stupid as you would like to believe, he had plenty of advisors who weren't and would have told him. I am dead sure that he deliberately used the word, understanding full well it's connotations. You probably consider this to be stupid too, but I was glad to hear an American president remind those engaged in Jihad, that Holy Wars have two sides, and two possible outcomes.

Even if that isn't what he intended, why the hell is the West supposed to understand that jihad is a word with many meanings, but abandon "crusade" because it may have only one meaning to Muslims?

You're ass backwards as well on the rise in his approval rating. It has risen over the time he has been out of office because of the drop off in propaganda. Obama is doing his level best of keeping Bush a bogeyman against whom he has to struggle,but the average American doesn't buy it, and have had an opportunity to reconsider Bush without the Media screaming in their ears what a monster he is.

I have JTT on ignore and so don't know or, frankly, care what he has to say about Bush propaganda, but only an ignorant fool would assert that there has been a propaganda campaign over the last four year to rehabilitate the Bush image. This simply is not the case.

I'm not debating.

Yes, he can.


Blissful, isn't it?

Wonderfully so.

I do hold Blair responsible for quite a lot, but the plain truth of the matter is that there would have been no Iraq war without Bush. The war was completely bogus from start to finish. There were no WMDs, but what is most unforgivable, was the sheer incompetence of the way things were carried out.


The worst thing was the squandered opportunity. Iran was more than willing to cooperate on Afghanistan. Jack Straw had laid the groundwork, and it could have been a real chance to improve relations and cut the risk of future terrorist attacks. That was knocked on the head by Bush's inane axis of evil speech. That casual throw away remark showed more contempt for British efforts than Yo Blair ever did.

Btw, it wasn't Yo Tony, or TB or Tones, which is how one talks to a friend, it was Yo Blair, which showed exactly what all Blair's toadying had got him, **** all.

Apparently Obama is emulating the character played by John Cleese in that skit.

You don't have to rush out and confirm what we already know, Peeman. It's a wonderful life because you, and those other clowns, drift thru it without any critical thinking. Sure you know enough not to piss on your shoes/**** your pants, usually, but come on, why go thru life as a vegetable?

Again, unless you consider the UK a loyal vassal state of the US whether or not Bush was the author of the war, he's not responsible for the deaths of UK servicemen. It wasn't a war that any nation was forced to join in on.

If Bush started a war with Russia and China into which the UK was dragged, your claim of responsibility would make a lot more sense. The Iraq War was, of course, no such thing.

So, you are doubling down on your Pollyanna view of an alternate post-9/11 reality.

The Axis of Evil comments was anything but a casual throw away remark. It was quite serious and deliberate.

I suppose you think what goes on in Iran and North Korea (and then Iraq) to be merely a matter of cultural differences. We need to understand and appreciate why the Iranian Theocracy unleashed its dogs on the peaceful democratic protestors, are a major funder of terrorist organizations around the globe and seek to secure nukes to establish an Iranian hegemony in the region.

We also need to understand that the horrific conditions under which North Koreans live is simply a result of the constant aggression of the US. NK exporting WMDs, drugs and whatever other noxious contraband that can bring in a buck to support the twisted desires of the Kims, and keep the NK military happy isn't evil, it's merely the tragic results of Western Colonialist Embargoes.

And Saddam feeding his citizens to dogs and meat grinders? Who are we to judge?

How silly of Bush to name these regimes as evil, how guache.

Your odd obession with "Yo Blair" is duly noted.

BTW - I happen to agree with you that Bush failed in terms of the Iraq War once all of the shock and awe fighting was over. He mitigated some of his failure with the surge, but the effort to establish a democracy in the middle of the Arab world was screwed up to a fairly well. Rumsfeld was the architect of the failure, but Bush was president; he owns it.

You're quite right about Iraq, but what America's actins did was strengthen the hardliners and isolate the moderates. Iran was waiting to be pushed in one direction or another by America. It was pushed in the wrong direction. That's why we're worry about it's nuclear ambitions, and its dominance of Iraq. The axis of evil speech wasn't aimed at Iran, but the folks back home. He didn't understand the real consequences.

As for your faux outrage about Saddam grinding up the opposition, it was in short supply during the Iran/Iraq war. Grinding was OK then I suppose. America is quite cosy with other dictators.

The 'advanced interrogation techniques' as you call them were practiced by the Spanish Inquisition. They were a lot more forthright, they called it torture, and they knew a thing or to about torture.

As for a Pollyannaesque view of the world, you're the one who's swallowed all the bullshit. You even talk in euphemisms.

As do you, Izzy.

Terrorist #1 goes to the United States, Peeman. I've put the link at the top for you so that you can go there and have someone read the article to you.

Formerly known as the School of the Americas, which for decades trained the military and security apparatus of other countries, in large part in Central and South America, who promptly took their training home and used it to wipe out their citizens whose views the oligarchies in power opposed: social workers, teachers, nuns, union organizers, indigenous peoples, like the Maya in Guatemala. Eventually its reputation worldwide was so loathsome that they renamed it in 2001 as WHINSEC. It's still in business. Now they require eight hours (wow, all of eight hours) of lectures about human rights. The security guys turn up the volume on their iPads during those eight hours.