Sep
30

Madame Curveball




Posted at 18:18 by Gavin M.

Here’s a cautionary tale about Middle-Eastern dissidents who seek to advance their causes — even after the lesson of Iraq — by making common cause with American right-wing extremists and their phony ‘human rights’ campaigns. (Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi is the daughter of Iranian political prisoner Siamak Pourzand, and was recently an organizer, with Michael Ledeen, of the extraordinarily fishy Secular Islam Summit.)

From Michelle Malkin’s HotAir, 9/25/07:

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi is the English editor of Iran Press News and a lifelong Iranian democracy activist who, along with her family, has been battling the mullahs since they took power in 1979. Like everyone else who isn’t a student of Columbia University, she was locked out of yesterday’s forum on the campus featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Had she been allowed to confront Ahmadinejad she might have been able to ask him what the regime has done with her father, who has been a political prisoner since 2001.

Once again, this is from David Horowitz’s FrontPageMagazine blog, 9/28/07 (regarding the fake photo used as the poster for Horowitz’s ‘Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week’):

From: Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi [email address redacted] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:26 PM This photo was taken of a woman in 1992 in the town of Arok in Iran. It was smuggled out by the photographer in the early 2000’s…this woman was in her early 20’s and if it was used by some filmmaker, it would have been because the photographer gave it to her to use. My old partner from Iran Press News was the person who was given the photograph…it first came out in Iranian websites before it came out in the western press. Ralph Luker, a professor who blogs on the History News Network is calling Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week “Hate Your Neighbor Week.” Apparently Ralph’s neighbors are Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and Zawahiri.

Also once again, this is from comments at Southern Beale, 9/27/07, at 11:27 PM. The first comment by ‘Ban’ appeared one minute after the above email was sent, and several hours before the email and its claims were published:

typical of leftist turds who want to discount the misery of Iranian women. This is NO actress you fuckwits. This was a woman in her 20′s in the city of Arok in Iran and the photo was taken in 1992 and the photographer GAVE IT to Tamizi.
Ban | 09.27.07 – 11:27 pm |


You’re nothing but cultural imperialist westerners who have NO clue as to what goes on in the middle east and only want to scream about your own misery to drown out the sounds of the real pain around the world. SHAME ON YOU FASCISTS.Why don’t you move to Iran so the Mullahs can give you a taste of what your free speech will cost you.
Ban | 09.27.07 – 11:32 pm |


Wow…you guys really believe your own lies. Tamizi was given the photo by the photographer you self-congradulatory American smart ass. What do you think? That Iranians are liars and we make this stuff up? Who died and made you such an expert on our part of the world Ms. Southern Belle?
Nasi | 09.27.07 – 11:37 pm |


Oh yes, these silly entitled people sit on this side of the world nice and happy, fat, ignorant, arrogant and think that we have to lie about the filth of the Mullahs. Wait till they come and get you, because they are coming and by the time you wake up, it will be too late and then you will be wondering why you treated us like sand monkeys. Racist.
Somaya | 09.27.07 – 11:40 pm |


Ban, don’t you think posting under five different names is a little disingenuous? Do you really think I don’t know how to look up an IP address?
Southern Beale | Homepage | 09.28.07 – 7:30 am |


[...]


Actually it wasn’t just me posting Madam. I contacted a group of my friends who all live in the US to show them what racists you people are and how much you want to support the Mullahs by acting like the Mullahs do not stone women to death in Iran. THAT is why you have people baragging you…because I told them to give them a piece of their mind. Just to show that you American leftists will do and say anything to support the Islamo-Imperialists.
ban | 09.28.07 – 11:16 am |


[...]


Well, Ban, you’re all living really close together because you all have the same IP address and it’s in Virginia, not the Middle East but whatEVER. Keep up the fairy tales.
Southern Beale | Homepage | 09.28.07 – 12:44 pm |

These are the people who will soon be appearing everywhere as ‘experts’ to make the case for war with Iran. (Apparently, among other things, ye shall know them by their trail of Internet sock-puppets.) Since Malkin’s HotAir jumped all over Glenn Greenwald for a lesser and more ambiguous offense, perhaps the healing can begin with an update on their Zand-Bonazzi interview.

On a related topic, Matt Yglesias picks up on the lavishly-funded Freedom’s Watch group (next target: Iran policy) via the NY Times, but as usual, things are probably worse than Matt immediately believes. Because what’s this? Apparently, Freedom’s Watch is partnered up with these people — the same dirt-grade, yell-in-your-face Bush loyalists who were out fomenting attacks on war protesters on the 15th, and hanging out at the White House on the 18th. The White House reception makes a bit more sense now, at least. (The ones who wear actual brown shirts, by the way, are the Vets For Freedom.)

If you’re not thoroughly weirded out yet, check out the famous names involved with Freedom’s Watch — a group which, according to its founder, “has more funding than MoveOn.org and other George Soros operations.”


Hanx! J—, Lesley, M. Bouffant, DiffBrad!


157 Comments »

  1. Jillian said,

    September 30, 2007 at 18:37

    Y’know, I was just telling somebody the other day this really funny dream I had….

    I dreamed that we threatened to invade Iran, but that the whole rest of the world told us not to. We still went and sent part of our army into the smallest corner of Iran, just to see what would happen.

    Well, the members of the Security Council all got together with us to try to head off a full-scale war. We all held a conference in some German city…I think it was Munich….

    When all was said and done, the Security Council agreed to let us take Iran, because we promised we wouldn’t invade any more countries. And Gordon Brown triumphantly announced to the world that there would be peace in our time!

    Isn’t that the freakiest dream ever?
    At the end, the

  2. Jillian said,

    September 30, 2007 at 18:37

    The communists put typos in my comment. They’re like that.

  3. Hysterical Woman said,

    September 30, 2007 at 18:57

    Because imperialist are against invading countries.

  4. FGFM said,

    September 30, 2007 at 19:06

    I just posted a video of Bradley Blakeman of Freedon’s Watch over at YouTube. As an extra bonus, you get Melanie Morgan babbling about Soros supposedly giving “billions of his ill-gotten gains” to “some of the very organizations” like MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and International ANSWER while the camera pans over the sparse crowd.

  5. J— said,

    September 30, 2007 at 19:19

    Surrender is not an option. Victory is America’s only choice.

  6. Paddy Mac said,

    September 30, 2007 at 19:32

    I just love how George Soros, refugee from Communism, self-made billionaire entrepreneur, becomes a bogeyman to our wackos because he uses his freedoms to advance his political beliefs. Everything about the man comes from their iconography of heroism, yet his liberalism just drives them nuts. I wonder how many of them consciously understand how badly he repudiates their simplistic worldview.

  7. unrelatedwaffle said,

    September 30, 2007 at 19:38

    Irony is completely lost on these people. If this woman were an American Muslim whose husband was locked up at Guantanamo, Mishie would be shitting her pants trying to keep her quiet (or pushing to have her sent away as well). What the lefties in any country should be aware of is that the U.S. doesn’t want to bring you democracy. They want to bring you McDonald’s and take your natural resources, then prop up a nice familiar face from your country to oppress you in our stead.

  8. Pere Ubu said,

    September 30, 2007 at 19:50

    Along with the above they’re once again playing the “Ahmadinejad is a hostage-taker” game.

    I tell you – at this rate, the election of 2008 won’t be so much about the clusterfuck of Iraq as the clusterfuck of Iran.

  9. RandomObserver said,

    September 30, 2007 at 20:12

    Why do I see more investigative reporting here than in major newspapers?

    You guys deserve a lot of credit. When the Gathering of Eagles made claims about their numbers at a protest you called the people providing the estimate (or not providing) to check it. When people make claims about photos you dig up old posts to fact-check. I see more of that sort of investigation here than on most blogs (including establishment blogs, which typically do zero investigation) or mainstream media sources. Plus you guys are funny.

    You need to have a Boston get-together so I can buy you some beers.

  10. mikey said,

    September 30, 2007 at 20:15

    Ok, I’m starting to get it.

    The Iranian people are oppressed by a tyrannical leadership of cruel mullahs.

    Some of them are imprisoned, some are even KILLED.

    This is terrible. Something has to be done.

    Hmm. The only thing I can think of is to KILL thousands of oppressed innocent Iranians.

    Yep. That’ll solve the problem.

    Next week. We solve the worlds economic problems by blowing up banks.

    Stay tuned…

    mikey

  11. Not A Troll said,

    September 30, 2007 at 20:34

    Ban’s a girl?

    MIND BLOWN

  12. Righteous Bubba said,

    September 30, 2007 at 20:39

    Didn’t Iranian troops remove babies from incubators?

  13. Matt T. said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:03

    Man, I don’t understand this at all. So they put this photo up for their little wingnut circlejerk and claimed it was a picture of a for-real stoning that went on in real time.
    “Not so,” says reality. “It’s taken from some Dutch movie from the ’90s.”

    “Well,” says the wingnuts, “it doesn’t matter because that really goes on, like, every third day in Iranistan.”

    “Ah, says the sane world, “then own up to the fact that you sorta lied about the source of the photo, as we all agree that throwing rocks at people is Very Bad.”

    “BLARGH!” scream the Lunatic Right. “You want women and gays in Iran to be stoned with rocks because you deny it’s happening by arguing with us over this picture, which we never said was an actual for-real stoning that went on in real time.”

    “Do what?” says Matt T. Is that how this whole thing has gone? Am I missing something, or has the wingnut fringe finally gone completely out where the buses don’t run?

  14. Sadly, Cambridgeport said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:09

    You know, when she explains it, it makes so much sense.

    Americans are only despised around the world because we despise ourselves. If we would have the will to believe that we are truly the greatest society in all of human history and can do no evil, everyone else would love us too.

    We really are spoiled and selfish for not giving the world that chance – and for being so stingy with our love-bombs. Whoops! more self-loathing.

  15. Southern Beale said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:24

    Y’all will be really amused to see what kinds of comments this post and the resulting sock-puppetry has generated over at the Nashville blogs … Like, Matt, who writes: “Here is why you shouldn’t trust a muslim. I know, we are supposed to give a human the benefit of the doubt, but there is so much for them to gain and so much for us to lose. Muslims can lie to a non-muslim or non-believer and it is called “taqiyya”. You can see “taqiyya” at work every day.”

    Elevating the conversation, one eeedjut at a time …

  16. Jillian said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:30

    Every time I see some wingnut frothing at the mouth about “taqiyya”, the first thing I think it “taquito” and then I get hungry.

    Not you, Beale – I know you’re just quoting one of them. But still. Now I have to figure out where I’m going for dinner.

    Mmmmmm…………..flautas!

  17. mikey said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:38

    Well, Jillian, seems to me you are ideally located to get your mouth around some Boliche or maybe a Cubano sammich.

    Cuban food is really yummy!

    mikey

  18. Southern Beale said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:39

    Flautas? Aren’t they bigger taquitos? Nooooo!!!!!!!

  19. Vic said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:44

    Our devious plans to let gay people get married so we can stone them as they exit the chapel are working perfectly! This will be an excellent boost to our stocks in Soros-owned bridal boutiques and rock-tumbler manufacturers.

  20. Drew Johnston said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:52

    “Taqiyya” is one of those ideas that makes some ‘wingers pitch a tent, in spite of the fact that none of them understand what it means. I wish that one of these idiots would do as much as a simple Wikipedia search.

    The relevant Qu’ran passage reads as follows: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith, but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” In other words, taqiyya doesn’t mean that a Muslim can lie without repercussions, it merely allows one to conceal his faith to save his life (or another person’s life).

    I’d explain that to the Malkin/Horowitz crowd, but I’m sure that they’d simply infer that I was a covert Catholic lying on behalf of the papacy.

  21. g said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:53

    You can see “taqiyya” at work every day.”

    Sounds like a pretty typical workplace, then,

  22. Sadly, Cambridgeport said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:55

    But some Muslim person said that he wanted to see the Muslim flag flying all over the world! That = fascism!!!

    Plus Iran has SOLDIERS marching in UNIFORMS just like HITLER did! And there was that long truck that maybe had a MISSILE!!

    Oh noes if we don’t conkor Iran, Iran is gunna conkor US!!!!!

  23. El_Cid said,

    September 30, 2007 at 21:58

    The “taquilla” is Spanish for the box office, or where you buy your tickets. The righties are apparently afraid that the Jihadists are plotting to takeover TicketMaster and ruin their opportunities to catch the Hannah Montana! Live! tour.

  24. El_Cid said,

    September 30, 2007 at 22:08

    Oh noes! It appears my offhand reference to Hannah Montana since I had just seen another ad recently turns out to have been perfectly parallel to this exact situation — a fictional horror story turns out to have been completely made up.

    Miley Cyrus, the fourteen year old cutie that is the star of Hannah Montana was stunned when she logged on to the World Wide Web and got to take a look at a scan of a popular teen magazine saying she was preggers. Turns out it was all made up (the story was fake and the scan was fake) and now the young starlet has been forced to make a public declaration of her sex life.

    Except, if this had anything to do with right wing politics and somehow the right wingnuts could use this to help push a war with Teh Mooozlims, they’d be shouting about the truthfulness of this story and how whether or not the scanned image was faked or not it still said nothing about how we had to bomb Ay-ran to stop them from impregnating our young performing artists.

  25. steve ex-expat said,

    September 30, 2007 at 22:09

    When the media start using Banefsheh to make the case for a war with Iran, they won’t even question her credibility.

  26. Smiling Mortician said,

    September 30, 2007 at 22:29

    Fun fact: my spellchecker wants me to change Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi to Bananafish Sand Boners.

  27. mikey said,

    September 30, 2007 at 22:35

    Fun fact: my spellchecker wants me to change Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi to Bananafish Sand Boners.

    Which, as most anyone here can attest, would make an excellent name for a band…

    mikey

  28. Marita said,

    September 30, 2007 at 22:40

    One should never argue with one’s spellchecker, Smiling Mort. Bananafish it is!

  29. Lesley said,

    September 30, 2007 at 22:42

    Ban’s name will be Mud with Iranians once the bombing of her own people start. It’s she who said “70% of Iranians who are in fact under the age 30″ have “nothing but disenchantment and acrimony toward the Islamic Republic’s version of Islam today.”

  30. mikey said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:13

    70% of Iranians who are in fact under the age 30? have “nothing but disenchantment and acrimony toward the Islamic Republic’s version of Islam today.”

    Here’s the problem.

    I have nothing but disenchantment and acrimony toward the bush administration. But that in no way means I think some other nation should bomb america. I just don’t see how that creates real solutions…

    mikey

  31. J— said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:23

    A FrontPage Magazine article cowritten by Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, Elio Bonazzi and Alireza Saghafi and published January 27, 2005, includes the stoning image in question. Here’s the conclusion of “Tehran’s Killing Fields“:

    Iran as a nation is today sending the world a message of self-destruction and annihilation. Death is constantly brought about by stoning, public executions, floggings, and massive drug addiction and diseases such as HIV. Death is also promoted through the political and financial support offered by the Islamist regime to the suicide bombers of Hamas and Hizbollah. The construction of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb, is actively pursued by the Islamic Republic, which wouldn’t hesitate to use it to annihilate Israel. The West has hesitated far too long to face the situation in Iran; inertia and appeasement have contributed not only to the constant deterioration of the living conditions of Iranians, but also to the weakening of security of not only neighboring countries, but also the West, which is the ultimate target of the mullahs’ Islamist fury.

    Now is the time to inject a culture of life into Iran, and to counteract the nihilism of the Islamists with a message of optimism and hope for a better future. The only way to achieve that is by creating the conditions for a regime change promoted by Iranians inside and outside Iran who put party politicking and festering ideological grudges aside. This will clear the way for an internationally monitored referendum to choose a secular and democratic supplant for the mullahs’ primitive, vicious and sadistic regime.

    Here’s a good one (emphases and bracketed text in the original):

    This is not my usual fair, but it’s been bugging me since it was sent to me by Iranian activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi. This highly disturbing video of a woman being stomped and stoned to death was presented to me as having been taken in Khatoon-Abad, Iran [This is wrong. See Update and Comments.]. When I asked about the provenance of the video and what the woman had done, this is the answer I received: “It would have been either pre-marital sex or adultery. We don’t know. We don’t know her name, age or crime but it’s 99% sure that it’s got something to do with sex or THEIR labeling her with such a crime.”

    […]

    Update: Correction, this video is from Iraq, not Iran. I remembered that video when I saw this one, but assumed this was video of an entirely different incident. This may actually be a different video from the one I saw originally, taken from a different cell phone and angle. Everything else in the post still stands, of course.

    From Sadly, No!’s favorite Red Sox fan, Solomon (June 21, 2007).

  32. Some Guy said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:24

    “Like everyone else who isn’t a student of Columbia University, she was locked out of yesterday’s forum on the campus featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”

    Sounds reasonable to me. I don’t think Columbia is a state-run school ( I could be wrong) but they have a right to not let authorized persons (ie, tuition payers) use their facilities.

  33. steve said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:25

    Do these people honestly believe that some Islamic state is going to take over America, ala Red Dawn? That we’ll just wake up one morning and find our country under the control of Iranian paratroopers who will round us all up and force us to learn Arabic and swear eternal allegiance to Ahmadinejad?

    Also, why is it that when you question them they go off on how the Seculsr Liberal are rooting for the Isalmofacists? But then they complain about how much the Secular Liberals hate religion? It’s a wonder their heads don’t explode.

    Whatever they’re smoking I want to stay far away from it — it seems to really fuck up your reasoning. . .

  34. mikey said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:36

    Really. We spend more on defense (nearly a trillion dollars if you count it all) than the next 40 nations COMBINED! If we can’t protect ourselves from IRAN, for fucks sake, we really need to consider the value we’re getting for our defense dollar…

    mikey

  35. g said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:55

    why is it that when you question them they go off on how the Seculsr Liberal are rooting for the Isalmofacists? But then they complain about how much the Secular Liberals hate religion?

    I think the logic of this – if “logic” is a word you can use with these guys – is that liberals hate our country so much that we would root for whoever invaded it, even if the new regime commits the same or worse transgressions than the ones we deplore, and that, further, although American women are a bunch of baby-killing bare-midriffed lesbian sluts, we are so committed to political correctness that we would willingly don burqas so as not to offend Islamic men with the sight of our female faces.

    I think that about covers it.

  36. J— said,

    September 30, 2007 at 23:57

    I should add that the authors of the 1/27/05 FrontPage Magazine article make the same claim about the image’s origin: Arok (here spelled Arak), 1992, smuggled.

  37. MrWonderful said,

    October 1, 2007 at 0:47

    “Fun fact: my spellchecker wants me to change Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi to Bananafish Sand Boners.”

    Fun schmun. I’ve tried it. It’s not as much “fun” as it looks. The sand is very abrasive, for one thing.

  38. Some Guy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 0:52

    “steve said,

    Do these people honestly believe that some Islamic state is going to take over America, ala Red Dawn?”

    These people believe that Red Dawn is a documentary sent from the Alternate Future to teach us the err of our ways before it is too late.

    “mikey said,

    Really. We spend more on defense (nearly a trillion dollars if you count it all) than the next 40 nations COMBINED! If we can’t protect ourselves from IRAN, for fucks sake, we really need to consider the value we’re getting for our defense dollar…”

    It turns out that the Osprey project, which I figured to be long-since canceled, was forced through and completed and will be used in Iraq.
    The Osprey is like a larger, more expensive, less-capable H-60. This is the program that has had fatalities in the R&D phase. It’s so bad that the Army pulled out of the project, which is now going to be used pretty much exclusively by the Marines, who expect to loss an average of at least THREE a year.

    Yay for the military industrial complex. Who cares that Americans are going to die using our product? We made money, and that’s all that counts.

  39. mikey said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:09

    Oh hell yeah. There’s a million examples.

    The american infantry rifle is a fifty year old design with reliability problems and a fairly crappy round. Nothing new (except DMR, which uses the same round, or in some cases is an up-modded M14 firing 7.65NATO, both with VERY limited distribution) is even in the pipeline.

    Antitank rockets, and even the RPG29 are using 2 stage shaped charge warheads that can defeat the most advanced reactive armor. Nobody knows what to do about it. We’re down to putting cyclone fencing around our armored vehicles in hopes the rounds will detonate early. Kind of a hillbilly workaround.

    MANPADS have gotten more effective and cheaper. Believe me, as a highly militarized nation that depends heavily on domination of the air, you will hear a great deal more about them in coming years.

    Technology moves very fast. Military procurement moves at a glacial pace, and for all the wrong reasons. The army resisted the M16 to the point they sabotaged a side by side test, believing the intermediate cartridge to not be manly enough for our army. Today, they are resisting any advances, ironically fighting to KEEP the M16. What they are defending is the status quo. The contracts are all issued. Don’t fuck around with the revenue stream.

    mikey

  40. M. Bouffant said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:20

    Not sure what I did, but you’re welcome, & thanks for the link!

    Loved this sign in the video:
    Ahmadinejad visiting the World Trade Center site is like asking Emperor Tojo to visit Pearl Harbor….WHAT’S NEXT?

    Well, let’s see. Tojo wasn’t the emperor, Hirohito was. No one asked Ahmadinejad to visit the site, he asked to go. (Quite possibly for propaganda purposes, thinking he would be turned down, & look good for his audience. We, of course, played right into his hands, for our propaganda purposes.)
    Oh, one other thing? Iran had nothing to do w/ the 9/11 attacks, unlike Tojo & Pearl Harbor. Although Bananafish Sand-Boners’ friend Michael Ledeen thinks “Iran was behind the attacks, uh, probably.” He seems to think Iran is behind anything & everything terror related. So why did we invade & occupy Iraq again?

    And while I’m very sympathetic to Zand-Bonazzi, because of her father’s horrifying situation in Iran (not unlike the 67 year old female UCLA professor who returned to Iran to visit her dying mother & was arrested & detained for “espionage”) her implication that it will take more attacks on the U. S. for “leftists” to wake up to stonings, hangings, torture, etc. is both absurd & cynical. What’s the connection between more Al Qaeda attacks & the realization that the Iranian gov’t. is theocratic scum?

    One might also wonder if Bananafish is not so much opposed to the atrocities of the ayatollahs as she is, perhaps, angry that her family was removed from a position of wealth & power at the feet of the Shah. So many of those who come to the U. S. after the brutal but “anti-communist” (or anti-anything America is against) regimes they supported are overthrown suddenly become very “concerned” about the human rights abuses of the new regime, though they were more than willing to overlook the abuses of those w/ whom they were allied. Do you think she might want Shah Junior (currently living in Virginia, I believe) restored to the Peacock Throne? The article linked in the post says: Pourzand was arrested on 24 November 2001 then sentenced in May 2002 to eight years in prison for “undermining state security through links with monarchists and counter-revolutionaries”. I’m sure the Iranian gov’t. likes to demonize dissenters w/ the “monarchist” tag as much as our gov’t. likes to question the patriotism of American dissenters, but there might be a grain of truth there. Just speculation, requires some research.

  41. M. Bouffant said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:31

    MANPADS? Are those for brave, honorable warriors who wet their pants at the sight of a woman wearing a veil?
    Oh, no, it’s MAN-Portable Air Defense System. Whew. You had me worried for a minute there, mikey.
    Rifle stuff here.

  42. g said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:35

    her implication that it will take more attacks on the U. S. for “leftists” to wake up to stonings, hangings, torture, etc. is both absurd & cynical.

    In fact, if you will recall those halcyon days before 9/11, no one in our government or the mainstream media gave a shit what the Taliban was doing to human beings – mostly women – in Afghanistan; it was only a few liberal women’s rights groups that cared.

  43. Pere Ubu said,

    October 1, 2007 at 1:55

    Bananafish Manpads WHAT?

    I’m confused

  44. Notorious P.A.T. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 2:23

    Do these people honestly believe that some Islamic state is going to take over America?

    Yes.

    This has been “Simple Answers to Simple Questions” (sorry Atrios)

  45. a different brad said,

    October 1, 2007 at 3:15

    One minute apart?
    Jeebis.
    Ban is not subtle, is she.
    Shame about her father, but she seems to have a pretty amoral outlook on what’s ok in achieving her goal. Kinda makes her a questionable spokeswoman, out here in reality.
    In good news, my father, who cast his first presidental vote for Goldwater, has come full circle enough that he takes my warnings of right wing violence after the election next year seriously. We’re slowly making progress, folks.

  46. Zanubiyah said,

    October 1, 2007 at 4:51

    “The penalty for adultery under Article 83 of the penal code, called the Law of Hodoud is flogging (100 lashes of the whip) for unmarried male and female offenders. Married offenders may be punished by stoning regardless of their gender, but the method laid down for a man involves his burial up to his waist, and for a woman up to her neck (article 102). The law provides that if a person who is to be stoned manages to escape, he or she will be allowed to go free. Since it is easier for a man to escape, this discrimination literally becomes a matter of life and death.”

    This is from the law books in Iran, and thier version of how the execution must be carried out. Notice that the way the execution is prepared is “different for men as it is for women” (it was the purpose of the article itself). Obviously, the picture is fake, because the woman is buried to her waist, and her hands are free. Please note the law.

    It would be nice for once if the people who belive it was fake would stop reacting to the “right wing rhetoric in order to cause distraction from fact”, and simply look it up and post actual contridiction to your beliefs.

    I don’t know where the picture came from, and really, it does not matter, simply because a reading of Iranian law disproves the valitdity of the picture, and the integrity of those who use it to further the demonization of Muslims and Iranians.

    Here is the article I got it from, to show that the intent of the article of referance did not have the intent to directly disprove the picture in question, but was used by me to simply discredti the validity of the photo itself, as described by the “right wing agendists”. If anyone can directly dispute that the Iranian law is being misread, pleaser do so.

    http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html

  47. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:03

    I don’t know where the picture came from

    Yes you do nitwit. Read the post above.

  48. Nylund said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:30

    So Ban’s father was a journalist who wrote bad things about the government and was taken and given an unfair trial and sent off to a secret prison where his rights were ignored.

    Is it just me or does her family history sound like the wet dream of every wingnut who only wishes Bush could send those traitorous NY Times reporters to Gitmo?

    Sometimes I get the feeling that the wingnuts only want to bomb Iran out of sheer jealousy. Its like you can just hear Ann Coulter saying, “well, if we can’t have an authoritarian regime governed by religious law, ignore women’s rights and throw people into secret jails where they have no rights, then no one can!”

    Its like closeted gay guys who go beat up homosexuals (or the gay republicans who pass anti-gay legislation). When will the right wing just come out of the closet and admit that the reason they hate Iran so much is because they wish the US were Iran and they’re jealous that Iran can do out in the open what the US can only do in secrecy. (think of extraordinary renditions and “black sites” as the Larry Craig bathroom breaks of the police state).

  49. Zanubiyah said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:32

    “Righteous Bubba”

    Do you have anything that disputes my claim that the photo is a fake? Believe me friend, the attacks on my person are unfounded and shows somthing about you. Please dispute the validity of the photograph, and it’s claim to be of a stoning victim in Iran. Please show solid evidence, such as witnesses to the event, or a court record of this person, her crime, and her photograph, and the execution of her sentance “in accordance with Shri’a law as interpreted by the Iranians.

  50. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:34

    Please READ THE POST ABOVE. ACTUALLY READ IT.

  51. lobbey said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:40

    I just posted a video of Bradley Blakeman of Freedon’s Watch over at YouTube. As an extra bonus, you get Melanie Morgan babbling about Soros supposedly giving “billions of his ill-gotten gains” to “some of the very organizations” like MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and International ANSWER while the camera pans over the sparse crowd.

    FGFM, thank you, there is a another 4 mins of my life I will never get back. However, did that fredomorg bozo say; “to confront and defeat the War on Terror” at the start of his speech?

  52. mikey said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:44

    Yeah, Bubba, c’mon. Why don’t you agree the photo is a fake.

    (Hee hee).

    Goddam it Bubba, why won’t you admit the photo is CLEARLY a fake.

    Commie bastard….

    mikey

  53. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 5:52

    Yeah, Bubba, c’mon. Why don’t you agree the photo is a fake.

    I refuse to give in to things like proof and reason! I’m just that crazy!

    Zanubiyeh, all I was getting ticked about was that you did not read or understand what you were commenting on. The pic is obviously fake because WE KNOW ITS SOURCE. Has nothing to do with whether or not Iranian authorities apply their law perfectly.

  54. Gentlewoman, Priestess to the Sock Elves said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:02

    Do you have anything that disputes my claim that the photo is a fake?

    Zanubiyah, we know the photo is a fake. It is apparently a still from a Dutch (I think) film.

    It’s the right wing nutjobs who were using this photo to promote their pretense of caring about justice for women in Iran who don’t believe it’s a fake. Or at least they’re not admitting they believe it’s a fake.

  55. J— said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:08

    Zanubiyah: We all agree with you about the image’s validity. We’ve just reached this conclusion differently. You’ve read Iranian law, looked at the image, and seen there’s a clear conflict between what the law calls for and what’s seen in the picture. We’ve read previous posts at this site which identify the picture’s source. If you haven’t already done so, please click on the “fake photo” link and read the post. You’ll find there Gavin’s explanation of where the image actual comes from.

  56. J— said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:09

    …where the image actually comes from.

  57. D. Aristophanes said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:13

    Y’know, living next to Burma for as long as I did, I would sometimes wonder if it would be a good thing to have an American-led invasion of that country to topple the SLORC* and put Aung Sun Suu Kyi in power.

    But then I’d come to my senses. Invasions and occupations tend to make things worse for people in the invaded/occupied country, even when things are pretty bad there before the invasion. Occasionally an invasion can make things better (see: Vietnam vs. Khmer Rouge) … but even then they usually just stir the pot a little, so it’s just a different set of people that are getting gassed/stoned/disappeared/tortured/murdered.

    And here’s what I don’t get about the wingers like Ban and D-Ho. The best chance to deal with the places where genocides and atrocities are happening is to have some kind of international body that could act to end such things in a credibly un-self interested way. That international body exists — it’s called the UN — and yet the Bans and the D-Ho’s of the world do everything their power to defenestrate it (afterwards, ironically, complaining that it is ‘toothless’).

    Scumbags.

    *All-time evillest junta name evar

  58. DocAmazing said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:25

    Say what you will about SLORC, but if you say it at the dinner table, people will stop inviting you.

    slorc slorc

  59. J. A. Baker said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:25

    Man, I don’t understand this at all. So they put this photo up for their little wingnut circlejerk and claimed it was a picture of a for-real stoning that went on in real time.
    “Not so,” says reality. “It’s taken from some Dutch movie from the ’90s.”

    “Well,” says the wingnuts, “it doesn’t matter because that really goes on, like, every third day in Iranistan.”

    It’s the wingnut version of “fake but accurate.” You’re only allowed to use that excuse if you’re Charles “Cousin It” Johnson or Michelle MalKKKin.

  60. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:32

    mikey, I believe that last year, or the year before, the US passed the point at which they are actually spending more on ‘defense’ than the rest of the world combined. If all that money and all that equipment and all those sojers can’t defend against Ahmedinejad, what can?

    Nylund, I think you’re right on the money, and I wish that I had a mainstream news outlet so’s I could rub it in some wingnut faces. Just the comparison between those locked up at Gitmo and BananaBrain’s father would be informative: both arrested and charged with…

    No, wait: those guys at Gitmo haven’t even been fucking charged with anything. David Hicks, the poor dumb doofus from Australia who’s probably someone I’d dislike in person, had a fucking show trial that would have been proudly claimed by Stalin, just so the weaselly, arse-licking, lying scumbag Howard could pretend to his constituents that bending over for Bush had some benefits.

    Oh, but I forgot: anyone imprisoned by the US is ipso facto guilty of Extremely Naughty Things, while anyone imprisoned by Iran is obviously a saint being harassed by Teh Evull Ones.

  61. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    October 1, 2007 at 6:36

    By the end of the 20th century, women accounted for 70 percent of all university students of the natural sciences and engineering, including one fifth of all Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) students.
    Iranian women have also participated in science Olympiads. For instance, Maryam Mirzakhani won gold medals in the 1994 and 1995 International Mathematical Olympiads. An alumnus of the Sharif University of Technology, she is an assistant professor at Princeton University.
    *

    I’m impressed. What’s the percentage of university students that are women in the US, I wonder? And I confess I wasn’t actually looking for education: I was after figures comparing women in parliament in Iran compared to women in Senate/House in US. My google skillz have deserted me today, it seems.

    * Came from here

  62. Mandos said,

    October 1, 2007 at 8:38

    Why do they hate international bodies? Well, they claim that any body in which Syria has the same official standing as Denmark cannot be a credible body in which to fight human rights abuses.

    How one would constitute a body otherwise is left as an exercise for the reader.

  63. atheist said,

    October 1, 2007 at 12:15

    Thank you for this research Gavin. I may try to try to contact Ms. Zand-Bonazzi. Probably useless, but you never know.

  64. RIck Moran said,

    October 1, 2007 at 12:25

    Beware in your zeal to prevent war with Iran that you not begin to excuse the evil of the regime or downplay it.

    I realize the temptation is to dismiss reports on the right of atrocities. And those that are fake should certainly be exposed. But in the process of trying to prevent war, you risk looking the other way while those who truly are suffering at the hands of the mullahs are forgotten.

  65. atheist said,

    October 1, 2007 at 12:56

    Wierd. Iran Press News has a Sy Hersh article linked to on the front page.

  66. kiki said,

    October 1, 2007 at 13:19

    “I realize the temptation is to dismiss reports on the right of atrocities. And those that are fake should certainly be exposed.”

    Um… Are you the same Rick Moran that wrote this?

    “Then again, what does it say about Code Pink that I saw no reason why they couldn’t have marched down the street with such a sign? Seemed real to me as I’m sure it did to many readers.”

    Yeah, that’s some damn fine bipartisan exposin’ there, Scoop.

  67. God Damit said,

    October 1, 2007 at 14:26

    Qetesh: a slight majority of college students in the US are women. that’s been the case since the late 70s. I can’t speak to grad school numbers though.

  68. Woodrowfan said,

    October 1, 2007 at 14:26

    opps, sorry, ’twas I who posted that. Sorry.

  69. atheist said,

    October 1, 2007 at 14:36

    Mr. Moran, we’re quite aware that the Iranian government is repressive, and that Iranians with reformist sympathies can put their lives on the line by expressing these sympathies. Our aim is not, and never has been, to make the Iranian government out to be something that it is not. Rather, we desperately want to stop the demonization of Iranians in the US media, and the steady stream of Neoconservative lies which is carrying us to the brink of war with Iran.

  70. Lex said,

    October 1, 2007 at 15:29

    Atheist–I couldn’t agree more. This demonization was one of the triggers that forced me to realy take a good look at my web activities of the past. As it is, any efforts towards war with Iran by this country are rather alarming as is the rhetoric surrounding it. Major thanks to Malkin though for giving me a really clear goal as to who not to emulate politically. She is a beacon of hope for us all, shining the truth of her wretched soul all through the web.

    This demonization of the Iranian people in general is a disgusting ploy to alleviate worries here of the inevitable deaths of civilians in Iran should war occur, and this is as reprehensible as the push by so many to march us into yet another war.

    OK, time to go leave some insulting comments on Malkin’s YouTube pages.

  71. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 15:37

    Wierd. Iran Press News has a Sy Hersh article linked to on the front page.

    That’s sort of what they do. Message: ‘Look out, Iranians — the US is gonna come get you!’

  72. atheist said,

    October 1, 2007 at 16:20

    I see Gavin, thanks. That’s strange.

  73. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 16:33

    It’s pretty much the whole policy in microcosm: Scare the living crap out Iranians and they’ll look to the mullahs to protect them. The mullahs will bluster and make threats, and the US will get to be like, “OMG! They’re threatening us!”

    I don’t know what this site is up to, specifically, but it cherry-picks the scariest headlines from the US press.

  74. mikey said,

    October 1, 2007 at 17:03

    The Iranians oppress their people. As do the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Pakistanis, the Chinese, the Russians, and Israel oppresses OTHER people. There are hundreds of them, Rick.

    Work for change. This is honorable.

    But bombing their people because the regime oppresses and kills their people? This isn’t even close to logical. These assclowns are using the selected behaviors of one oppressive regime to gin up a war based on oil and racial hatred. This is NOT honorable…

    mikey

  75. atheist said,

    October 1, 2007 at 20:52

    Major thanks to Malkin though for giving me a really clear goal as to who not to emulate politically

    It’s true, Lex. Negative examples can be just as instructive, can’t they?

  76. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 21:48

    “The ones who wear actual brown shirts, by the way, are the Vets For Freedom”

    so, iraq war veterans who don’t share your point of view are nazis, propped up by dirty “jewish republican” money and there are no stonings, much less gays, in iran.

    phil ochs would be proud.

  77. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 21:51

    so, iraq war veterans who don’t share your point of view are nazis, propped up by dirty “jewish republican” money and there are no stonings, much less gays, in iran.

    Uh, what?

    Is this the “read the thread” thread?

  78. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 21:53

    i actually quoted from the thread.

  79. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 21:54

    i actually quoted from the thread.

    Where’s that “jewish republicans” thing?

  80. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 21:56

    that’s just sort of a continuation of a pattern:

    -iraq war veterans who don’t share your view are nazis
    -gold star mothers who don’t share your views on the war are “murder and mayhem mothers”
    -and generals who don’t share your view of the war are traitors.

  81. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 21:58

    in the sourcewatch link approvingly cited to explain why its possible that some of the 98% of veterans not attached to a soros or answer operation managed to run an ad in a few markets.

  82. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:01

    that’s just sort of a continuation of a pattern:

    So when you use quote marks they’re not necessarily quoting anything that’s actually been said.

    Strangely enough, that’s the very theme of this post!

  83. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:05

    the item i quoted appears in the third non-break line from the bottom of the post.

    so, no. not really at all.

  84. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:12

    shame on vets for freedom btw. taking donations from americans who agree with one’s cause is so much more ethicly comprimising than, say, marching in an astro-turf “antiwar” rally organized by a group who supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan and whos founder served at the time as saddam hussein’s attorney.

    tsk tsk. shame on us.

  85. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:13

    the item i quoted appears in the third non-break line from the bottom of the post.

    That’s one of the items you quoted. The second appeared nowhere but your feverish little mind, thus demonstrating the point of the post.

    Let’s go back to your first bit:

    so, iraq war veterans who don’t share your point of view are nazis,

    Vets for Freedom is not equal to “all veterans who don’t share this site’s view”. Their choice that their shirts are brown.

    propped up by dirty “jewish republican” money

    Your invention.

    and there are no stonings, much less gays, in iran.

    Your invention.

    So what we have is you understanding nothing and inventing a lot.

  86. tigrismus said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:26

    It can’t be that his response was typical lying knee-jerkery, so Jummy is obviously just making the case that tan != brown so Gavin’s joke IS NOT FUNNY, SIR.

    As for your “dirty “jewish republican” money and there are no stonings, much less gays, in iran … -iraq war veterans who don’t share your view are nazis … -gold star mothers who don’t share your views on the war are “murder and mayhem mothers” .. -and generals who don’t share your view of the war are traitors” etc A Linky Just For You!

  87. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:35

    “murder and mayhem moms” is a cindy sheehan quote. she also dismissed them as “brianwashed”. i’m certain the scum on the walls at this site approved of and echoed this estimation, just as more recently, moveon’s “betray us” smear.

    “Vets for Freedom is not equal to “all veterans who don’t share this site’s view”

    how can that be evident? as far as i can tell, the only thing which distinguishes vets for freedom from the other vets who don’t share this site’s point of view is that vets for freedom got some money together and rose their voices up.

    so it would seem that the other kind are the ones without an opportunity to meaningfully compete wesley clark’s pac, and are therefor safely silent. one might say that there are those vets who support the surge and support victory, however you interpret that, and are thus nazis you must smear and grind into the dirt. and on the other hand ther are thos vets who don’t have a megaphone, and so you can pretend that they don’t have a mind of their own about the matter – that they’re led by under-examined notions of blood and soil and are tragic victims of the propaganda machine.

    “‘propped up by dirty “jewish republican” money.’ Your invention.”

    direct quote from the site, again, approvingly cited to explain why its possible that some of the 98% of veterans not attached to a soros or answer operation managed to run an ad in a few markets.

    “‘and there are no stonings, much less gays, in iran.’ Your invention.”

    i’m not the one who saw a piucture depicting a stoning and decided, “that can’t be real… let me look into this”. this sort of thing often comes out of exile movements. i was always skeptical of chinese dissident claims untill a canadian research team investigated and corroborated. the phoney backstory for that photo has been around for at least seven years, so its not hard to see why its gained currency. in the intervening years i’ve seen plenty of images and video of the real thing. but, i guess zand-bonazzi is a nazi too.

  88. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:44

    Jummy, write better. Quote what you mean to quote, and link to what you think proves your case.

  89. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:45

    so, iraq war veterans who don’t share your point of view are nazis, propped up by dirty “jewish republican” money and there are no stonings, much less gays, in iran.

    I’m actually very busy these days, such that I haven’t been replying to people who are important and whose opinions I care about.

    Nevertheless, allow me to reply to this.

    Groups of bikers, garden-variety wingnuts, and veterans who stage phony threats against war memorials in order to harass and attack war protesters are not, a priori, Nazis. But Vets For Freedom go the extra mile, with ties to faux-Confederate groups and Christian phalangists. Plus, they actually wear brown shirts. (Sassy-classy!)

    Re: “Jewish Republican” money (your term), we maintain that their money is just as good as anyone else’s.

    There were two stonings in Iran in 2006. One, two. Two. If there’s been a rise in stonings in 2007, let’s see the stats.

  90. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:54

    as far as i can tell, the only thing which distinguishes vets for freedom from the other vets who don’t share this site’s point of view is that vets for freedom got some money together and rose their voices up.

    Another difference is that Vets For Freedom isn’t a veterans’ group.

  91. tigrismus said,

    October 1, 2007 at 22:55

    Cindy Sheehan doesn’t post here, and no one here said that, or brought it up, except for you.

    Sourcewatch pointed out that the astroturf group was started by another organization, which happens to have “Jewish” in it’s self-given name, nobody here or at Sourcewatch said the “Jewish” was the problem element rather than the “astroturf,” or talked about “dirty Jewish money,” except for you.

    “i’m not the one who saw a piucture depicting a stoning and decided, “that can’t be real…” and you have proof that Gavin did? Maybe he saw the movie and recognized the still. Of course, whatever his motivation, he was, you know, CORRECT. “i guess zand-bonazzi is a nazi too.” Again nobody said that, except for you.

  92. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:15

    er, i don’t know quite how to respond. your identification of only two stonings for 2006 doesn’t seem to be responsive of anything. horowitz’s poster design dosen’t claim there were 3 or 1 or 1001 stonings in iran in 2006. nor does anything on the picture suggest that it is not a dramatization.

    of course claims of stonings in iran are “phoney”, just as are the notion that progressives attack and vandalize war memorials…

    claimhttp://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3139133

    …but i don’t know what the hell a “faux-confederate” is. as best as i can tell, it’s someone who is not genuinely a confederate, or more germane, someone you’d like to smear with the term “confederate” but for whom you cant quite do so plasibly.

    i’m altogether lost about what a “phalangist” is. i’m certain they’re even more of a threat than “faux” confederates.

    in fact, i have to assume that there must be greater than two brutal incidents of “phalagists” “phalanging” people to death for it to merit your breathless concern.

    otherwise you’d just be drumming up a lot of baseless fear and hate towards violent ends presumably.

    knowing that you’re better than that, having told me yourself, i have to assume there’s something terribly wrong when 60,000 veterans of foreign wars come out to counter-protest 40,000 antiwar marchers.

    after all, veterans who disagree with your point of view are nazis. and there’s nothing nobler than is so much more ethicly comprimising than marching in an astro-turf “antiwar” rally organized by a group who supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan and whos founder served at the time as saddam hussein’s attorney.

  93. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:22

    nor does anything on the picture suggest that it is not a dramatization.

    Note the text that precedes the photo:

    The photo accompanying this article, which shows a teenage girl buried before being stoned to death for alleged sexual offenses, will serve as the poster for the protest Week. The stoning took place in Iran.

    Keep ‘em shorter Jummy. It’s not worth reading the longer rants.

  94. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:26

    knowing that you’re better than that, having told me yourself, i have to assume there’s something terribly wrong when 60,000 veterans of foreign wars come out to counter-protest 40,000 antiwar marchers.

    Oh, and when did that happen?

    I mean, let’s take these claims one at a time here.

  95. tigrismus said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:29

    Horowitz claimed it was real, as the post points out.

    Progressives? The article doesn’t say that, and that ‘A’ in a circle is an anarchist symbol. Add in your accusations and your unsupported claims, and it’s clear you’re once again talking out of your ignorant assumptions.

  96. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:29

    i see. so stonings don’t exist in iran.

    or, sorry… two stonings happened in iran in 2006. which were together not half as bad as the metaphorical stoning we inflict on american girls when we market diet foods in pink and pastel packaging.

    and certainly no one hundredth as menacing as the phalagist threat razing the landscape of america.

    WHEN WILL THE INHUMANITY END???!!!!!!!

  97. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:30

    60,000 was the park district’s estimate.

  98. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:32

    60,000 was the park district’s estimate.

    Heh heh heh…

  99. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:33

    60,000 was the park district’s estimate.

    Oh really. You know, I asked Bill Line at the Park Service about that. You know what he said?

    http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/5434.html

  100. Gavin M. said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:34

    I feel bad about this. I don’t deserve such fortune.

  101. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:38

    Indeed you do. When I win the lottery you can have a year off as long as there are more poop jokes.

  102. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:38

    anarchists are progressives. believe it or not, the term wasn’t invented in 2005 in a kos diary.

    appropos of nothing, here’s a david duke fan at an answer antiwar march.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/pwchicago/116225278/

  103. tigrismus said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:49

    believe it or not, the term wasn’t invented in 2005 in a kos diary.

    Says the man who doesn’t know what a Phalangist is.

    “Anarchists” and “progressives” are not interchangeable terms; regardless the article didn’t accuse progressives, or any group other than “vandals,” you alone did, and that’s a photoshop.

  104. jummy said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:51

    i know. the image is a photoshop like the posting on indymedia threatening to vandalize the vietnam memorial was put there by “phalangists”.

  105. tigrismus said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:52

    Or not- I thought that was a cut line on his hat and the sign, but I can see how it might instead be a trick of the light. I retract the relevant statement, and admit that some racist nut may indeed have gone to an open rally in a free country.

  106. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:56

    like the posting on indymedia

    Who is it you want to argue with? Find them and go argue with them. If somebody stole your ice-cream don’t whine to us about it.

  107. tigrismus said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:57

    Hey, if you have any proof of who posted that threat, we’d be glad to forward it to the proper authorities.

  108. mikey said,

    October 1, 2007 at 23:57

    You want to say vets aren’t nazis, but then you want to say anti-war protesters are white supremacists? You are a dishonest little scamp, junkie.

    You can call names all you want. I have a question. All these gawdawful stonings and the like in Iran? You seem quite fired up about them. Tell me, please. Whatever do you propose we DO about them?

    mikey

  109. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:10

    gavin, i haven’t gotten back to you because i’ve been dishing around for answer’s proffessed figures for the day. if i recall, they claimed to have had 100k. which would be odd since, visibly, we were more than they,

    i’d been amidst crowds of 2000 and 120,000. it seemed to me like it must have been 60,000, but it seems instead that the concensus is 30k. it’s not a figure i measure my dick by and the furthest extent i’d thought about it was that our crowd was a good third larger than theirs and in the tens of thousands.

    your “no comment” comment from the park district guy doesn’t disprove any number which might be offered. distinctly not a number advertised as an UNOFFICIAL estimate.

    people seem to think it was 30K, i say it was at least that, your “side” claims to have had 100k whic would mean that we had 133k. maybe my exaggerations aren’t the worst availible.

  110. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:11

    i know. how dare i say the vets aren’t nazis.

  111. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:17

    Um, Jummy, am I to understand that it doesn’t bother you at all that the Gathering of Eagles lied about the ‘Park Service estimate’?

    As in, lied? Like, they told a lie?

    Good luck with the figures, btw. There were probably no more than 1500 Eagles there, max.

  112. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:17

    you were there, gavin?

  113. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:24

    you were there, gavin?

    There weren’t many people there, so it would be utterly unsurprising if Gavin was also not there.

  114. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:24

    are you trying to weigh whether you’ll bend the truth a little and claim to have been there or just stick by your silly figure culled from a guestbook log or whatever?

  115. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:30

    You’re saying there were 60,000 Eagles there, doubling the GoE’s own preposterously inflated figures. Were you there?

    Show me a photo with more than around 100 Eagles in it.

  116. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:32

    Remember you said “60,000 veterans of foreign wars.”

    As in, combat veterans.

    GoE and Vets for Freedom don’t even require that their members have served in the armed forces. Let alone as combat vets.

    Isn’t that right?

  117. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:37

    are you trying to

    Are you trying to say – after coming here, making shit up, getting things wrong, blaming people here for everything you saw elsewhere that makes you pee, and misunderstanding how the picture that generated this post was represented – that you’re concerned with the truth?

  118. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:40

    i’ll do what i can. all i have is video, but i’ll see if i can get something out of it. same bat time.

    in the meantime, this should better than fulfill your technical requirement.

    but you keep insisting that the goe lied when they cited an “unofficial” estimate. your contest is based on an official refusal to comment. i don’t think you’ve demonstrated a lie there.

  119. mikey said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:40

    Technically, you are considered a “Veteran of Foreign Wars” if you served during time of, well, foreign wars. Stateside pukes and REMFs get to call themselves that too.

    The only thing that differentiates a “Combat Veteran” is the CIB. It is one of the two pieces of bling I would not give up without a fight to the death. It means more than two thirds of the phoney bronze stars they give out like popcorn to the guys left standing when the real heroes came home in a bag…

    mikey

  120. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:42

    um, neither do ivaw or vvaw. i discovered that one day when i inquired about the thirty-five year-olds in vvaw shirts.

  121. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:43

    oops, image tags didn’t work.

    http://gatheringofeagles.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/goe-rally.jpg

  122. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:44

    Mikey, they don’t even require that their members have served. They’re trying to spin themselves as a ‘veterans’ organization’ when they let in anyone who’ll fill out their online application.

  123. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:47

    Well done! Looks like about 300 people in that shot.

  124. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:48

    http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/volunteer/

    Um, I said more than about a hundred people.

    It’s becoming difficult to decide which false statement to address. How about sticking to this one:

    “i have to assume there’s something terribly wrong when 60,000 veterans of foreign wars come out to counter-protest 40,000 antiwar marchers.”

    Who are these 60,000 veterans of foreign wars, then?

  125. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:48

    right, like ivaw and vvaw. i mean apart from the jesse macbeths.

    do you know what it took to be a “gold star mother for peace”?

    some relation had to have died in some war. there were people in gsmfp who were claiming an uncle who died in korea. .

  126. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:52

    Well done! Looks like about 300 people in that shot.

    Hmph. I was seeing like 100, but maybe you’re right.

  127. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:54

    Hmph. I was seeing like 100, but maybe you’re right.

    I was counting all the ones that got trapped in a Magoo-like pincer movement behind the riser.

  128. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:54

    right, like ivaw and vvaw. i mean apart from the jesse macbeths.

    do you know what it took to be a “gold star mother for peace”?

    some relation had to have died in some war. there were people in gsmfp who were claiming an uncle who died in korea. .

    Maybe that’s true. It’s impossible to say unless someone shows evidence of some kind.

    Meanwhile, we haven’t gotten past the ’60,000 veterans of foreign wars’ yet.

    Wrong? [ ] Yes [ ] No

  129. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:55

    I was counting all the ones that got trapped in a Magoo-like pincer movement behind the riser.

    Teh Fallen!

  130. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:55

    it seemed to me that the goe approached 60,000. that’s my eyewitness account. you seem to identify it as a presence so signifigant that you feel it still in all of its faux-phalangist menace.

    you weren’t there at all, so your speculation about how many were there is, well, beneath consideration. your guess at how many were there is essentially worthless.

    mine, while it may vary widely from the mark, is at least 100% more credible than yours. because i was there.

  131. mikey said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:57

    Mikey, they don’t even require that their members have served.

    Hmm. Then they need a new name. How ’bout “vets and some other dudes for freedom.”

    Or maybe “vets and the guy from the bowling alley, oh, and that old guy that smells like urine for freedom”.

    Honestly, “…for freedom”?

    Isn’t that a little like being “Pro Swimming Pool”?

    I mean, who ISN’T for freedom? I mean, not counting the little right wing authoritarian pricks who think freedom means for them, everybody else can get locked up without a trial. No skin off their ass, right?

    mikey

  132. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 0:59

    “Hmph. I was seeing like 100, but maybe you’re right.”

    actually, i’m getting that you’re the type of bloke for whom what is percieved internally as fact and what is choosen to be externalized is a margin which is always being played.

  133. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:00

    Well, if 1500 other liars were there, I can see how the whoop-de-doo tales might have quickly burgeoned up to a 60,000 attendance.

    That’s only 40 extra people per shameless lying-ass liar, who has no principles or shame and is telling lies.

    I mean really now. You’re certainly welcome to comment here as much as you like, but you’re fooling whom, exactly?

  134. mikey said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:03

    mine, while it may vary widely from the mark, is at least 100% more credible than yours. because i was there.

    I wasn’t there either, but you haven’t done a great deal here to advance your own credibility, so I’ll take it with a very large grain of salt.

    In view of the lack of data, let’s look at national polling. People oppose the Iraq occupation somewhere between 2 and 3 to one over people who favor it. Now, sure, there’s no direct correlation there, but if you just took bunch of the population at random and dropped them in the mall, there would be close to three times more anti-war people than pro-war (I still can’t get over that. If you self identify as pro-war, what kind of sorry prick are you? Are you also pro-disease?). So the likelihood of you being anything close to right, to me, is a longshot youngster…

    mikey

  135. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:06

    Mikey:

    “For Freedom: Vets. . .Plus Marky Mark and The Funky Bunch”?

  136. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:07

    right. this has been a shameful expenditure of my time. i haven’t gotten a thing done all afternoon.

    it was a pleasure watching you spazz out at the slightest deviation from your red-eared groupthink.

    cheers!

  137. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:07

    mine, while it may vary widely from the mark, is at least 100% more credible than yours.

    See your posts above for a variety of lies, misreadings, straw men, what have you. Your credibility is at 0%. I grant you that it may have doubled with the revelation that you and your imaginary friends were actually there.

  138. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:07

    I’ve actually gotten a lot done. It’s been a good day.

  139. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:08

    right. this has been a shameful expenditure of my time. i haven’t gotten a thing done all afternoon.

    it was a pleasure watching you spazz out at the slightest deviation from your red-eared groupthink.

    Next up: the “hehe you must have a lot of FREE TIME to answer my arguments on the Internet” argument.

  140. Gavin M. said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:10

    I’ve actually gotten a lot done. It’s been a good day.

    Me too, actually. Ought to check the chicken in the oven soon, but it’s been quite a productive few hours.

  141. Gentlewoman said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:38

    …you feel it still in all of its faux-phalangist menace.

    Ooooh, jummy learn new word!

    Figure out how to use Teh Google, did you?

    Perhaps you can demonstrate your new skillz (and your new word!) to your 58,500 imaginary friends!

  142. Jillian said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:45

    Okay, I need a sugar daddy.

    I go to work all day and then I miss all the fun!

    Has this tool demonstrated any knowledge of what a Falangist is yet?

  143. jummy said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:49

    mike, progressives for ending the war aren’t “antiwar” or “for peace”.

    for this, we can go to that unimpeachable source, wikipedia where words mean what glenn greenwald wants them to mean when he wants them to mean it: “activists distinguish between anti-war movements and peace movements. Anti-war activists believe that most wars have an aggressor and that their movement works to ensure that the aggressor ends their war…many modern activists are against only one side’s campaigns…”

    so conversely, being “pro-war” doesn’t mean i want all war all the time. it means i want to wage and emerge victorious from this campaign against radical arab/islamic nationalism. at the very least, i’m not favorable of the idea of letting iraq slide into chaos.

    by the above definition, progressives opposing the war aren’t anti-war or pro-peace. they are pro-genocide. flatly put, they know what will happen and they eagerly seek to effect that outcome regardless.

    chill out! i’m not saying that antiwar progressives are traitors. though certainly there are some.

    some decades ago it was an identical situation. the “peace” wing were told that the certain outcome of their efforts would be the widespread misery, humiliation and slaughter of thousands upon thousands of the people whom they pretended to care about, and the proceeded anyway, revealing their humanitarian pose to be a putrid lie they used to wipe the blood from their hands as they, professing “peace and freedom” for themselves, consigned vietnamese people to a dystopic police state.

    then, the peace protesters bombed recruiting centers and conducted gang warfare in the streets in an effort to “bring the war home” on behalf of our country’s soviet-backed enemy, shouting “ho, ho, ho chi mihn…”

    here we are and from the moment following 9-11 progressive antiwar types ressurected every meme from that era with a new refrain added: “another vietnam”. afghanistan was said to be “another vietnam”. then we moved into iraq, and that was really going to be “another vietnam”. the phrase “another vietnam” was cried out for every mizzle flash in iraq, so it can’t be said that they weren’t thinking about the sort of “peace” they won last time around.

    now the violence against recreuiting centers is less severe, the antiwar types march with their heads wrapped in sunni scarves carrying palestinian flags and proclaiming the “insurgency” freedom fighters.

    for these people, being antiwar is not a question of being against all wars. it’s about being on the other side from your country. being on the side of the “counter-hegemon” or whatever.

    but i think more often than not, those who identify as “progressives” are lazy nihilists. the most colorful spark in them is one degree or another of oedipal/electra disorder in which they mistake the society at large which they share with other adult people for their father, and they wish to remain forever the adolecent, taking the keys to the car anyway and slamming the door as they leave.

    it is these people who make up the bulk of the people who are working to ensure defeat. and they want millions of people to die in an exponentially widened civil war because it will embarrass daddy.

    so, sorry to be long-winded. to recap, me: not “pro-war”; you: not “pro-peace”.

  144. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:53

    Psst! Jillian!

  145. tigrismus said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:56

    I got a ton of stuff done: just got back from a jaunt in the limo for a latte and a quick abortion.

    Jummy, what part of “the Park service is barred by Congress from making estimates” (AT ALL, and has been since The Million Man March) makes your “60,000 was the park district’s estimate” anything but a bald-faced lie by a clueless moron without even a nodding acquaintance with logic, reality, or hygiene?

  146. mikey said,

    October 2, 2007 at 1:56

    I’m sorry. “Red Eared Groupthink”?

    As the kids say, wtf?

    Let’s try to figure this out together, shall we?

    Ok, Groupthink doesn’t have ears, so you can’t parse it directly.

    Would members of the Group indulging in the “think” have red ears?

    Well, they might, sure. But what would cause that? Is a cold wind a-blowing?

    Maybe it’s just missing a comma, as in “Red, Eared Groupthink”.

    You know, like one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater.

    But why would it be noteworthy that the red group had ears?

    Nope, this isn’t going to make sense to me in any way…

    mikey

  147. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 2:01

    chill out! i’m not saying that antiwar progressives are traitors. though certainly there are some.

    This made me giggle. How sweet to be concerned for our feelings.

  148. mikey said,

    October 2, 2007 at 2:08

    Jummy, dude. You are wrong on at least two points.

    First, you have no idea what I am “Pro” or “Anti”. You can speak to how you choose to define labels, pointless thought it might be, but you cannot speak for me any more than I can speak for you. So shove that shit right back in your ditty bag, big fellah.

    Second. You seem to think wars are glorious and just if americans are doing the killing, and “genocide” if other nations follow our lead and fight amongst themselves. At Nuremburg in 1946, aggressive invasion of a country not engaged in hostilities was defined as a crime against humanity. In fact, it was described as THE WORST crime. So are you really so proud of america’s actions in iraq? But the point is, you seem to think it is up to america do determine who is to live and who is to die, to prevent what you describe as genocide as if that’s the only horror in play.

    Which leads to my question. Have you ever been in a war zone? Because you seem kind of casual about the depths of horror, the disease, the atrocities, the death and sickness of innocents. Now I’ll never say that someone who hasn’t been in combat has no right to an opinion, but sorry, spunky, if you wanna talk about vietnam, I was there. And if you think it was a place of peace and contentment until we left the brown people to decend into genocide, you’re a fucking idiot. We were killing them by the millions while we were there. We didn’t care. Got a ville on your line of march? No thing. Call arty. You walk through the ville, those dead women and children and old people and animals that were all the wealth that ville has had for thousands of years won’t shoot your ass. Yay for us, right, sparky?

    You’re the worst kind of american criminal…

    mikey

  149. Righteous Bubba said,

    October 2, 2007 at 2:14

    At Nuremburg in 1946, aggressive invasion of a country not engaged in hostilities was defined as a crime against humanity.

    This was bugging me today when I was listening to news about Peter Pace’s retirement. He was yammering on about how “the enemy attacked us”. An embarrassment. Oh, and justification of a war-crime too, but there you go.

  150. Jillian said,

    October 2, 2007 at 2:19

    Oh, and btw……anyone NOT creeped out by the idea of war veterans feeling the need to band together in order to “defend democracy at home” is showing a woeful ignorance of how those sorts of things usually turn out.

  151. mikey said,

    October 2, 2007 at 2:53

    Actually, Jillian, I was kinda thinking what we desperately need is some folks, vets or not, coming together to defend democracy at home. Because the current leadership is mounting a full on assault on american democracy and the constitution, and the opposition party seems to be in utter collusion.

    I’d be just delighted to see a group with courage taking the baricades with the message “This is NOT us”.

    The only threat to american democracy I can see right now is the republican administration. And at some point, some of us are going to have to bleed on the streets to re-consecrate the ideals we used to hold dear….

    mikey

  152. D. Aristophanes said,

    October 2, 2007 at 8:49

    some decades ago it was an identical situation. the “peace” wing were told that the certain outcome of their efforts would be the widespread misery, humiliation and slaughter of thousands upon thousands of the people whom they pretended to care about, and the proceeded anyway, revealing their humanitarian pose to be a putrid lie they used to wipe the blood from their hands as they, professing “peace and freedom” for themselves, consigned vietnamese people to a dystopic police state.

    Jummy. Between 1959 and 1975, between 1.3 and 5.1 million Vietnamese people died as a result of the Vietnam War. It was a period that would accurately be described as one of “widespread misery, humiliation and slaughter of thousands upon thousands of the people” who lived in Vietnam at the time.

    If you can show that an equal amount of Vietnamese people died or experienced “widespread misery, humiliation and slaughter” in the 16 years following the U.S. withdrawal, I would be greatly surprised.

    And you would still be short the 63,000 or so Americans and citizens of allied countries who died during that time.

    That said, perhaps it was slightly to somewhat worse, on average, to be Vietnamese in the post-war years. Perhaps it was slightly to somewhat better. There probably isn’t a whole lot of difference that we can point to with any kind of certainty, if we pretend to affect any kind of actual reasoning about things like actually available data points, and the all-too-often slippery nature of their origin and applicability.

    The point being, you can’t predict the future of what will happen in Iraq if we leave, or if we stay. Because you aren’t Nostradamus.

    So take your goat-entrail reading shit to the back of the line, jackass.

  153. Lex-The-Crazy-Emmanuel said,

    October 2, 2007 at 14:44

    Atheist–well, sure changed me. Of course, good examples work too….I now cannot stop reading this site.

    One of my favorite musicians caught tons of flak for including an Ann Coulter book in his list of recommended reads when someone on his site asked for such a list. He responded that he had included it because people should know where the other sides are coming from, and I agree. I’ve always kept a watchful eye, even putting friends through the news segments on “The 700 Club”. I hate that show! But I do want to know what they’re up to.

  154. [BLOCKED BY STBV] Sex story. said,

    July 30, 2008 at 14:13

    Lesbian sex story samples….

    Sex story. Teen sex story. Free lesbian sex story….

  155. Idiot Proof Diet India said,

    February 3, 2009 at 19:38

    Nicely done, very impressive. Keep up the good work and of course, keep sharing your ideas.

  156. oC22REBECCA said,

    February 12, 2010 at 14:04

    Did you get know that buy essay service provided students with the bright research essay just about this good topic. But your data can be at the peak level of people’s evaluation.

  157. xxxialmum said,

    June 24, 2013 at 9:54

    dukfalnok vimtalgsp http://needaccomodation.com/user_detail.php?u=hcdalxbw

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()