Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Heartland Patriot

Islamo-Fascism: A Brief History

97 Comments
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 2:51 PM Liberty writes:

You didn't back up far enough

You should have started with Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq, who was the elected leader of Iran, until we saw our way clear to stage a coup to get him overthrown (Operation AJAX). The Shah was brought back to power. THIS was when the Ayatollah extremist nutjobs grew in power. The people were upset. Apparently, they don't like it too much when foreign countries overthrow their duly elected governments. What a surprise, eh?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 3:02 PM Liberty writes:

We need to reevaluate our foreign policy

"What is impossible to understand if the idea that if we’d only stop confronting them, they will just go away and all will be well."

Some won't. But, if we'd stop invading, overthrowing and occupying their countries, we wouldn't be creating far more of the nut job flavor than we are killing. I mean, seriously, would we like it if a foreign country invaded our own, bombed the hell out of our country and then proceeded to setup huge embassies? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like it.

Why is it so hard to understand? Leave them the heck alone. They are sovereign nations. They have every right to choose their own governments and their own leaders. It is none of our business. All we should care about is being their trading partners. It's a match made in heaven. They have oil. We want to buy it. See the match?

We should mind our own frickin' business and provide for our OWN national security. If someone attacks us, or poses an imminent threat, we go in with all guns blazin' and make them sorry they were born. When done, we come home and resume minding our own business.

Talk to people. Conduct real free trade with them. Keep our military here to protect US, rather than 130 countries around the world.

Why is this so hard to understand?

We act as if all Middle Easterners are of the bin Laden flavor and that simply is not true. Our actions in invading a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 has only emboldened this nutjob flavor and attracted many to their cause. Is it smart to keep following our same actions that are doing nothing else besides adding to their ranks. Or, should we reevaluate our plan and go after the ones who attacked us? They are in Pakistan; NOT Iraq.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 4:29 PM Scottie writes:

Congrats Liberty

You win the "Most Obtuse Poster Ever On My Blog" award. Well done. Next time, perhaps "Once upon a time..." would be a better first sentence.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 4:49 PM ShiningCity writes:

You attracted a little birdie!

The first sign of an excellent post is that it attracts little birdies, or.....even knats....... Looks like this post got one fresh off the presses. That's how you know good honey!

It IS a good post. A GRAND one, actually.

I think Reagan was a phenomenal president. Yet, he directed his focus on the Soviet Union, which, considering they had nukes, might have been the right way to look.....BUT, as you aptly chronicle, he missed the larger lurking threat. Because Russia was caving in on itself. The country fell from its insides. Retrospectively, they were not the biggest enemy at the table.

Why do you think we suffered no terrorism between Reagan and Clinton?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 5:23 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

The Democratic congress kept Ronnie in check on foreign policy; they were afraid he was going to cause WWII with the Solviets already. They weren't about to fund any other adverturous policies that might endanger their precious social welfare programs. Remember, it wasn't until Clinton that we got real welfare reform. You will note that the response in Libya was after the Pubs took congress, then we acted decisively. Ronnie had a pretty full plate as it was.

As for the Bush I's tenure, that's an easy question, Desert Storm. When GHWB was tried by Saddam Husein, he acted decisively. The rest of the world took him as someone to reckon with and backed down. America is never attacked when the world knows we will exact an immediate price from those doing so.

This is what is so dangerous today. With a former KGB man at the helm of a resurgent Russia, and a rapidly militarizing China, backing down in the Middle East is a luxury we cannot afford. Check out this Steyn article for a good treatment of the problem.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/505/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 7:26 PM Scottie writes:

Liberty (Part 1)

Since I have some time on my hands, and so you don't feel your visit wasn't appreciated, I've decided to wade into the slime you deposited here and rebut it. My answers to your post appear in [brackets].

[What is impossible to understand is the idea that if we’d only stop confronting them, they will just go away and all will be well.]

Some won't. [I'm willing to fight until none will and nothing less] But, if we'd stop invading, overthrowing and occupying their countries [or phrased another way, liberating, stabilizing and securing them], we wouldn't be creating [we aren't creating them, Wahabbist ideology and our perceived lack of resolve is.] far more of the nut job flavor than we are killing. I mean, seriously, would we like it if a foreign country invaded our own, bombed the hell out of our country and then proceeded to setup huge embassies? [Like blowing up the WTC and setting up Wahabbi mosques all over the country like they have and currently are?] I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like it.[At least we agree on SOMETHING.]

Why is it so hard to understand? Leave them the heck alone. [In case you missed it, we tried that for twenty years. It didn't work. That was the point of my article above] They are sovereign nations.[Could you direct me to the nation of Al Quedia?] They have every right to choose their own governments and their own leaders. [We didn't choose Hamas, Homeni, Assad, Mubarak, Hezbolla, or Hussein. In fact we treated them all as soveriegns. So what's your beef?] It is none of our business. [It becomes our business when they threaten our national security.] All we should care about is being their trading partners. [That was the French and German strategy. It was called Oil for Food. Remember?] It's a match made in heaven. They have oil. We want to buy it. See the match? [They want to conquer us, you want to sing Kum-Bye-Ya with them. I get it.]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 7:29 PM Scottie writes:

Liberty (Part 2)

We should mind our own frickin' business and provide for our OWN national security. [What do you think we are trying to do, solve rubiks cube?] If someone attacks us, or poses an imminent threat, we go in with all guns blazin' and make them sorry they were born. [So you can fill my blog with your tripe second guessing that very behavior with fantasies after the fact? Like you're doing here?] When done, we come home and resume minding our own business. [How about we finish the "making them sorry they were born" part before we contemplate coming home?]

Talk to people. Conduct real free trade with them. Keep our military here to protect US, rather than 130 countries around the world. [Were you calling for the troops to come home from Germany, Japan, Korea, Guam, and the Phillipines before the GWOT started? Honestly? And how do we fight them anywhere but on home soil if all of our troops are here at home as you advocate? You know, just in case your fantasy that they will quit attacking us if we come home is woefully wrong. And in our absence, who takes responsibility for the millions of Iraqi deaths that will follow? You?]

Why is this so hard to understand? [Because your ideas are based on a fantasy and utterly bereft of factual basis, that's why.]

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 7:30 PM Scottie writes:

Liberty (Part 3)

We act as if all Middle Easterners are of the bin Laden flavor and that simply is not true. [I seem to recall protecting a lot of Middle Easterners with blue index fingers not so long ago. Remember them?] Our actions in invading a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 has only emboldened this nutjob flavor and attracted many to their cause.[So you wouldn't do anything until a major metropolitan city is a smoking ruin then. Good plan! Unless it's the city you live in I guess] Is it smart to keep following our same actions that are doing nothing else besides adding to their ranks.[Killing them by the thousands isn't adding to their ranks. And in case you haven't been reading, which is likely, we did change strategies recently. You know, right before Harry Reid declared the war lost. Google Petreaus + surge when you get a minute] Or, should we reevaluate our plan and go after the ones who attacked us? They are in Pakistan; NOT Iraq. [The Jihadis sure seem to think the main theater is in Iraq. Maybe you should have a talk with them and straighten them out. Until then, I say we keep fighting them whereever we find them]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 7:36 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

About that birdie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GipFyAsYK1M
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 8:02 PM The Crawfish writes:

Scottie...

ya didn't start far enough back. Islamofacism started back in the 600s when the False Prophet first designed his 'religion' in order to make himself powerful.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 8:57 PM Edamon50 writes:

A lesson for Liberty

The first foreign intervention in Iran was in 1941 when the British and Russians forced Reza Shah to abandon the throne of Iran to his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Mohammed Mossadeq was the Prime Minister under the young Shah and wrested power from the Shah in a coup; he was not some popularly elected leader, just a puffed up strongman. In 1953 the CIA helped to return the Shah to the throne that he had stolen from him by the Mossadeq coup.

And contrary to your foolish beliefs, the facts were that the Shah's problems with the clerics in Iran started in 1963 with the launch of his White Revolution which granted voting rights to women, expanded the access to education, and saw the society move towards a more secular stance. And the Ayatollah Khomeini was a torn in the side of the Pahlavi family going back to the days of Reza Shah---the "nutjobs" were organizing against the government that far back.

If you're going to try to delve into history, come with facts---not what you think are facts!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 9:20 PM Scottie writes:

Easy Flag

Let's not kick him too much while he's down.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 9:22 PM Scottie writes:

Crawfish

You gotta draw a line somewhere. I don't want to revisit the crusades or the inquisition, just the period within our lifetimes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 1:25 AM jevica writes:

Scottie & Flagwaver

You beat me to in on liberty. I love your last sentence on part two. Islam is a threat to America and the West, regardless of what we do or don't do [as regards being nice, and leaving them alone] [we have to defend ourselves against these Islamokillers].
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:23 AM Scottie writes:

Jevica

Unfortunately, Liberty typifies the utter lack of intellectual depth on this subject. In the face of twenty years of documented unprovoked attacks, he/she is willing to pretend that it is our fault. These folks just cannot make a distinction between the inherent nobility of this great nation of ours and the backwards savages we are confronted with.

Of course they are alwasys welcome to find another country that meets their lofty expectations, but they never seem to demonstrate the courage of their convictions by doing so; or maybe there isn't such a place. Only people raised in liberty could so blithely denegrate it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:29 AM USA Eagle writes:

Scottie

Great post...I think we all need a refresher course in history once in a while.You even managed to snag a carp out of the loon pond(Liberty is a piece of work).Hopefully some of the doubters that read your essay will be reminded that these people are dangerous and will not just go away.Good work.....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:45 AM BrianR writes:

Yep, you guys

also beat me in jumping Liberty on his comments. They were grossly misrepresentative. Furtherm they're based on an isolationist approach to international affairs that will get us killed.

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about using our diplomatic and military capabilities to further America's national self-interest, as validated by the Monroe Doctrine. All these Buchanan/Paul supporters who run around decrying every use of the military outside our own border are getting very tiresome in their naivete and lack of understanding of the Constitution, particularly when they compound it with a blatant head-in-the-sand refusal to look at the reality of the Middle East.

Excellent essay, Scottie.





Shameless plug time. I have a new essay up at the Island. Swing on by.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 12:24 PM Scottie writes:

USA Eagle

Thanks for stopping by and your kind words.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 12:25 PM Scottie writes:

Brian

You can't fight them all buddy. Think of this as revenge for beating me to the punch over at the Spade earlier this week.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 12:44 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Perhaps,

Liberty could have began with "In the beginning...."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 2:41 PM Scottie writes:

Jimmy

As in..."In the beginning, before the kindling of the light of intelligence..."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 2:47 PM The Interface writes:

Actually...

...it's the likes of "Liberty" who make dealing with the Islamofascist threat more difficult because when they get into power, they fecklessly muck up the works so much that you can't get a decent self-preservatory (hmmm...is that a word?), anti-suicidal policy in place without considerably more effort, and even then its success is always in doubt because of their refusal to deal with reality.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 7:29 PM Scottie writes:

Interface

Well said. And welcome to the Heartland. Do come by often and share your thoughts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:05 PM Scatbug writes:

Where to begin...

Great post. It certainly is appropriate to start this historical review with Iran, 1979. But if you wanted to take one more step back, Vietnam makes sense. In planning their big move, the Iranian thugs considered both the US and Soviet embassies. They chose ours because they knew the US gov't had no stomach for a fight. And of course today's jihadists still take their cue from the Democrat party by looking to the end of the Vietnam war as proof we can be beaten.

One side note regarding this Mossadeq character... If I'm not mistaken, there was a strong liklehood that he would have taken Iran into the Soviet orbit. Preventing that from happening was definitely in our interests, and (dare I say it) the Iranian people's.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:31 PM Scottie writes:

Scatbug

Well, ws had a pretty reliable ally in the Shah, he was recognized as the legitimate head of state, and our man Jimmy undermined him and created a power vaccuum that was filled by a much worse guy than the Shah ever was. I think that is an indisputable fact. Whatever the Shah's shortcomings in Carter's eyes, they pale in comparison to the regime that replaced him.

After the loss of this key ally, we were pretty much driven to partner with Saddam Hussein as the best of a very bad lot to keep a toe-hold in the region. Now look what we're gonna have to deal with from Iran in the very near future; Nukes!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:33 PM philosophocon writes:

Don't forget that US involvement in the

Muslim world goes back much longer than that. Or did you all forget that in 1805 under Jefferson the US Marines helped stage a coup in Tripoli.

Those poor, unsuspecting souls were simply minding their own business, seizing American and European vessels off the Barbary Coast, ransoming their crews or selling them into slavery, exacting tribute from foreign governments for rights of passage, capturing a US Frigate and throwing the crew in the dungeon, the usual routine what.

Then for some reason, probably the Jewish lobby, neocons, American Imperialism and a desire for the oil that would be discovered there over a century later, Jefferson sent in the Marines. So obviously the US has been breeding Muslim terrorists and stoking the fires of anti-American hatred for almost two centuries. Maybe Liberty does have a point.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/cbabb65b-3771-47be-ad2e-bda0eaa06b0c

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherHitchens/2007/04/26/jefferson_versus_the_muslim_pirates&Comments=true

(and just in case some of you are reading this in the morning before your coffee and are feeling especially obtuse, yes I am being ever so slightly sarcastic)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:36 PM Scottie writes:

Scatbug

The link I gave Shining City earlier in this thread by Mark Steyn supports and expands on your idea rather nicely.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 9:39 PM Scottie writes:

Philosophocon

Of particular note, the Q'uran that Ellison took his oath on came from Jefferson's library. But what the politically correct crowd missed was the inscription at the front dedicating it to assisting Jefferson's enligntenment about our enemies in the mulsim world.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 10:24 AM Scatbug writes:

Scottie

Yeah...I had read that column. He expands on a lot of things quite nicely.

And btw...From 1948-'79, who was Israel's greatest (or only) regional friend? Iran. No wonder Carter wanted the Shah gone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 11:49 AM BrianR writes:

Scottie, Scatbug

LOL, Scottie!


Scat, you're right; Mossadegh was a real danger of taking Iran into the Soviet orbit. He was potentially another Nasser.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:56 PM Scottie writes:

Doc Steech

I am reluctant to tar a billion people with the same brush. I am perfectly comfortable killing all of those that threaten us, however. And I'm not at all queasy about throwing the first blow whenever it presents itself against these savages.

Note the irony of trying to beat a suicidal man to the punch. Not that's motivation. Oooh Raah
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 12:58 PM Scottie writes:

Scatbug & Brian

Thanks for filling in some of the gaps for me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 1:28 PM ShiningCity writes:

Don't you love it...

when the little birdies vomit up a post, then never come back and check the replies?

I like to think that we at least come back and check the replies.

Nice Link. Monty Python is the greatest, next to Ted Knight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 2:40 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

I've actually received a few compliments on my response over on Cal Thomas' thread, so it had some impact.

Ted Knight? As in MTM?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 2:47 PM Scottie writes:

Doc Steech

Beyond here in the USA, most muslims don't enjoy freedom of speech. The lack of response from the muslims here is stunning though, I'll give you that. Still, I just can't make the stretch you propose; it doesn't ring true to me. Sorry Doc.

The problem is a radical minority that has been continuously emboldened by our lack of response. This has allowed them to swell their ranks and wreak havoc. All this proves is failure to deal with the problem doesn't make it go away, it just makes it worse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 3:10 PM ShiningCity writes:

Yes, MTM

The same. But more along the lines of Caddyshack.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 3:38 PM ShiningCity writes:

Yes, MTM

The same. But more along the lines of Caddyshack.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 3:39 PM ShiningCity writes:

You'll get nothing & like it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrpx4NAtsFQ




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 3:45 PM ShiningCity writes:

You'll get nothing & like it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrpx4NAtsFQ




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 4:24 PM ShiningCity writes:

I suppose

all these double postings drive up your site meter. :)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 4:27 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

I'd forgotten his role in Caddyshack. Good link.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 5:18 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

I'd forgotten his role in Caddyshack. Good link.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 5:57 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

good post, comments

Scottie, good job on connecting the dots via historical outlook. Notice how the attacks in America since 9/11 are NOT connected by the Media? They are all "random acts" by loners and losers etc.

One simple observation: did Iran attack us when we had the Shah in power? When did they start? (rhetorical, of course)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 6:25 PM Scottie writes:

Scarlet Pimpernel

I seem to recall them attacking almost as soon as the Shah was exiled, but you knew that didn't you you old rascal?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 10:49 PM clyde writes:

Scottie

This is my virgin voyage to your blog. Great essay, and a DA#M fine Hitlary-slap to Liberty.Those who say it's their ideology,and not their religion are seriously missing the boat. No separation there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 8:58 AM Savage99 writes:

Keep in mind human nature

There well may be no moderate muslims, but if there were, they would keep their heads down and their mouths shut. The Taliban ruled 8 million people with about 40k men in arms. They were outnumbered 200 to 1. No doubt the 200 ran the gamut of enthusiastic but unarmed supporters through isolated peasants who neither knew nor cared about Kabul, to those firmly opposed but unwilling to take the risks of action. I submit that world-wide muslims present a similar picture vis-a-vis the jihadis. In Afghanistan the Taliban was defeated militarily to the point at which it could no longer maintain territory control, becoming now a bandit nuisance. The muslims in the 200 seem mainly content to go on about their business under the current govt. Conflict basically ended in Afghanistan when even fanatic Talibanni could see little or no profit in continuing conventional warfare. The rub is: How do we convince muslim Jihadis there is little or nothing to gain from terrorism?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 11:46 AM ShiningCity writes:

Savage 99

I say, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, you convince them when you kill a butt load of 'em with bombs.

If "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child," then I teach my kid not to do the really bad stuff by talking, and if that doesn't work, then physical punishment. And I don't hesitate. I see it the same.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:02 PM Scottie writes:

Scarlet Pimpernel

I seem to recall them attacking almost as soon as the Shah was exiled, but you knew that didn't you you old rascal?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 12:34 PM Scottie writes:

Clyde

Welcome to the Heartland! Feel free to visit and comment here, all points of view are welcome. Thank you for the kind words.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:02 PM Scottie writes:

Pistol

What happened to your handle? Welcome back just the same. A rose by any other nama and all that.

I think Afghanistan points to the necessity of securing the country in order to allow the moderates to get organized. As for the Jihadis, if they wish to die for their cause, I say we oblige them; it's the least we can do for them. We wouldn't want to be labeled intolerant would we?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 1:09 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

If you're trying to beat a suicidal jihadist to the punch, I recommend the Marines. Their philosophy: Make contact, close with the enemy and eliminate them. Simple, direct, uncompromising, effective.

Personnaly, I think even the radicals have a limited supply of people willing to die for the cause; especially if they are continuously losing. At some point, self-preservation will come to the fore if the cause becomes hopeless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 6:52 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Moderate Muslims

Well being in the spot I'm in, and getting the opportunity to speak with several muslims from different parts of the world, I thought I'd give a summary(I'm leaving out names because that's rude):

Iranian, Shia, married to an American Sunni(no veil), pretty strict on the pork thing, reading labels and infering there may be pork fat, means no(his wife has jewish friends who ask for advise on this). They don't want Isreal wiped off the map, but they do want the palistinians to have a state. Thinks Bush and Ahmadinejad are both nuts(puts him with 60%+ of americans). Thinks Wahabbists are nut jobs and doesn't like getting lumped with them. Doesn't have nice things to say about the shah either.

Two brothers from Sri Lanka, one rather like an evangelical christian, fun for 15-20 minutes then you need to go find another beer. The other brother roles his eyes. Neither has any grudge against Christians or Jews, they aren't interested in Sharia law in Sri Lanka, its a personal thing to them. I talked to the older brother about the danish cartoons, he stated the riots were uncalled for, though he doesn't think they should have been published. I think this is partially a Sri Lankan cultural thing, the Da Vinci Code isn't officailly allowed because a bishop complained. Their mom makes excellent chicken curry and no viels(no sri lankan muslims do as i'm told).

One Pakistani, probably shia, but unsure, wheres a partial viel that only covers her hair, her daughter doesn't. Three kids. Very polite and talkative. I don't know her political views.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 6:52 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Moderate Muslims cont'd

Another Pakistani, her cousin. Nice enough guy.

One Palistian, 3 kids, haven't met his wife, only talk to him about soccer and math.

One Bangali, he's a jerk, my Hindi Bangali friend assures me most bangali muslims aren't, so I'm assumming 1/7 muslims are jerks. which is a much better ratio of the 1/4 americans I assume are jerks. Granted my sample size isn't statistically signifigant and all evidence is essentially anicodotal.

All of these people(minus the jerk) are hardworking and will go out of their way to be friendly or help you out.

So 6/7 of these people would make either 1. good immigrants to the U.S. or 2. good people to go back to their country and say what a good experience they had. However, when people try to draw lines like christians and jews vs muslims you force them on a side, you don't even let them chose that side. I'd argue that helps Al Queda's cause not ours.

Anyway they exist.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 7:23 PM The Crawfish writes:

Jefferson's Koran

Heck, one of the first entries in The Swamp was about that story.....
http://constitutionalcrawfish.townhall.com/g/7866bfb2-823a-4da8-bc73-9d1071d6bf93

Anyways....SHAMELESS BLOG PLUG...2 articles ranted upon in The Swamp!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 7:38 PM Scottie writes:

AC

I agree completely and you will note I censured the poster that asserted "they are all the same" earlier.

My distinction is the Wahabbists and the Islamists, which are clearly unhinged, beyond reasoning with, and dangerous to us and to the muslims unlucky enough to have them in their midst or in power over them.

I never said the Shah was wonderful, but compared to the man that replaced him, he was relatively better. What Carter did was kind of like replacing a Jimmy Swaggart with a Rev. Jim Jones.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 9:03 PM Savage99 writes:

Scottie

No clue on my handle. Might just be they got tired of onning and offing me, since i was siberiad 3 times. No reason ever given, but my best guess is my views on immigration and those who support illegal alien amnesty. I condidered myself relatively moderate, i would like to think my devastatingly accurate analysis was threatening to someone who organized an offensive flag brigade. I disagree entirely with giving any power to an offensive flag, since taking offense is so subjectively in the eye of the offended. The true and highest meaning of tolerance is to not be offended over trifles or generalities. How sad that so many of those preaching their version of tolerance seem to be so easily offended. I've used other handles, but voluntarily gave them up when somehow Savage99 got re-instated. A great firearm. I own several.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 07, 2007 9:39 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Scottie, Noted

I was providing information for the previous poster not you. It might also be of interest to him India has the largest number of Muslims living in a single country and has had a Muslim president(mostly symbolic in a parlamentry system but hey). It may be a useful paradyme for Islamic relations with the west.

As to the Shah I'll agree that the current system is worse. However, there are lessons the U.S. should learn from the aftermath of the cold war era:
1. the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend
2. installing dictators is not a viable long term solution.
3. Its time to start looking at the free world as nations that are actually free.
(This is probably what liberty wanted to say)

It's really not suprising Hussien invaded Kuiwait, or that Bin Laden turned on us after we helped him out against the Soviets in Afganistan.

That said, I realize it'll make foriegn policy harder and more costly short term. It'll probably also mean the U.S. either assisting or leading some UN nation building projects(After Iraq and Afganistan) as they seem to work better that way. Oh and I'm not pleased by this, but it is necessary.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 7:51 AM Scottie writes:

Sorry Doc

But you have to distinguish between the Radical Islamists and Islam. Ultimately, the problem must be solved within Islam itself and alienating the vast majority of muslims that do not share the Wahabbist ideology is most unwise. Check out Dineh D'Sousa for a perspective from someone that grew up in a muslim country. Your view is far too simplistic and antagonistic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 7:58 AM Scottie writes:

AC

You were doing fine until you advocated for use of the UN, then you completely lost me.

Check out Thomas P.M. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map". He did a nine part long form interview with Hugh Hewitt a while back. An introdutory hour, followed by one hour on each chapter of the book. If you're interested, I have the series in mp3 format for your iPod. Let me know, I'll burn you a CD.

Note that one hour of talk radio is really 35 minutes of actual content. The podcasts I have are commercial free (i.e. 100% content)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 11:32 AM Anonymous Coward writes:

Scottie

By UN I mean the following: let them in on it so they think it was their idea, but give them small jobs they can do and if they mess up don't matter.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 08, 2007 7:41 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Scottie

Are transcripts available? I prefer to read than listen.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 09, 2007 9:37 AM Scottie writes:

AC

Check your e-mail for links to the transcripts.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 09, 2007 10:02 PM davecatbone writes:

President Jimmy Carter.

The conflict may have started before his time, but he is the number one bumbler who lead us into the lion's den. A completely incompetent wreck of a president, and a disgrace to our history. This was a great piece Scottie, I enjoyed it thoroughly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 6:25 AM Scottie writes:

Dave Cat

Jimmy Carter is indisputably the worst president of our lifetimes. It kind of goes to show just how much damage one feckless administration can do. Thanks for dropping by.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 12:27 PM ShiningCity writes:

Scottie

Thomas PM Barnett.

I enjoyed the time HH spent with him. I listened and relistened while running via podcast. I think he's a smart guy.

Still, I don't think he made a very good case for how to handle a jihadist movement of suicide killers. Globalism, I don't think, is going to reengage them....

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 9:05 PM Scottie writes:

Doc Steech

Your shortsightedness gives us a billion enemies instead of 150 Million. Brilliant. If you are determined to present such a bigoted claim, I'll defend your right to be wrong; but you'll find no succor here. We simply cannot agree on your point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 9:10 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

I agree with you vis a vis the Jihadis. They are the cancer that must be rooted out and dispensed with. Unlike the good Doc Steech, I don't want to kill the patient in order to say I've eliminated the cancer.

I also do not believe there is an inexhaustable supply of these suicidal madmen; but indiscrimiate demonizing of all muslims will certainly increase the supply.

Pretty good medical analogy?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 10:42 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I'm with Doc on this one.

Calling a muslim "radical" or "fundamental" simply tries to lessen its impact. When someone states that they are a muslim I rightly assume they believe and practice everything in their "religion" and would like the elimination of all others. Even if there are a billion of them.

Preach on, Doc!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:28 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

The Koran

Well I've read the koran, the bible, the Bagavod Gita, and a bunch of other fun books. They all have a lot of violence in them. Without going to to specifics however since townhall only gives me 2000's characters, there's a saying that the bible interprets the reader, ie he'll find what he wants to find. I've had muslims try to tell me I can't eat pork or drink alcohol based off a few passages, I've had others justify abortion, and it was even used to justify enslaving Africans to be used on sugar plantations in the Caribean. Ah few Atheists I chat with will even look at the various places where there are contraditions to disprove its entire validity.

Having read the Koran I'd say it'd be just as easy to find kill the infidel along with the christian and jews are people of the book(wrong but not that wrong) passages. However, ussually when the koran speaks of infidels it is specifically refering to polytheistic religions. Interestingly, in India some Muslims invaders allowed Hindi's to continue practicing their faith since they had the uponishads(sp), cause that was a book, right? Then you've also got Muslim religious traditions and innovations to consider as well(save for the Wahabist/Salifi sects as they are fundamental and only go by the first three Califs). In other words its really easy for the Koran to interpret the reader as well.

You'll note Isreal isn't going off Levidicus this time around. I'm sure alot of muslims would prefer not to have Sharia law, in fact I know some.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 10, 2007 11:42 PM ShiningCity writes:

Fine medical analogy

I've purposefully stayed out of the discussion b/t you two, but I'd probably embellish your analogy just a bit to say: it works better if the patient at least admits he has cancer.

Personally, I have a hard time distinguishing which part is cancerous because seems many of the "nondangerous" (for lack of a better word) Muslims are pretty quiet. Would be nice to hear them condeming the whole deal--as we would if Christians started stoning people again.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 7:36 AM Scottie writes:

AC

Thank you for interjecting aome sanity here. Well said.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 7:52 AM Scottie writes:

Shining City

To carry your analogy a step further, the patient is largly uneducated, half of the patient has no say whatsoever (women), and most of the patient lives under tyrants that quash dissent. There is a growing awareness due to the efforts of some: Wafa Sultan, Ayan Kirsi Ali, and Bridgite Gabriel all come to mind.


Check out this podcast from Young America's Foundation from May 27, 2007 by Jonathan Schanzer (one of the inspirations for this article):
http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=588a6c64-8211-475d-92a9-0161dbcab0e4
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 2:14 PM ShiningCity writes:

The medical analogy

A wee bit further....

The uneducated with no say clearly has difficulty in ascertaining what is "good health."
Yet, when the breast lump gets so big and ulcerative that it bleeds and distorts the figure, the uneducated eventually figures out something is wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 11, 2007 2:51 PM Scottie writes:

Shining City

Unless the patient is beaten and told to shut up! Protesting Islam has a high probablility of mortality in many countries, even non-muslim countries.

Case in point, cartoonists in Denmark and Sweeden. And witness the abject cowardice of our own media in that particular matter. The scions of free speech sat mute and cowering in the face of the Islamist challenge to our freedom here in the most powerful nation on earth, and we aren't even muslims!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 12, 2007 9:51 AM ScarletPimpernel writes:

As I understand Muslem peoples

Many muslems were conquered and had Islam forced on them. These same people would gladly change religion in a minute. Many of these muslems just go through the motions. They would gladly either have no religion or choose a peaceful religion instead.

So, for example, if we sent some Black Power folks from here to show the Africans how to be African instead of Muslem that would fix the muslem problem in Africa in no time. (tongue in cheek but, HEY, it might just work)

Also, not all muslems believe the same way or act the same way so there is no need to kill them all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 12, 2007 3:53 PM ShiningCity writes:

well.....well.....

well....

ok. I got nothing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 12, 2007 10:24 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

Doc, we agree then

Ann Coulter said it best:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity..."

That's hard to get many people to agree with but it actually would work and is for the best. I'm not kidding.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 2:36 PM BrianR writes:

Scottie!


Brand-spanking new essay up at the Island. I know y'all can hardly wait to get there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 12:06 AM Anonymous Coward writes:

Scottie

What me inject sanity? Can't happen, everyone knows I'm a nut. A cashew.

Next time you see me ask me about the cartoons I had a rather fascinating discussion with a muslim friend about them a while back.

I read the Bartlet the first few transcripts. He actually knows something, would be interesting to read the book, but I don't have time now.

The podcast guy had some ideas, but missed a few things. BTW cite you sources.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 12:32 PM Scottie writes:

Scarlet Pimpernell

Surprising how common sensical Ann Coulter's observation seems to be these days, isn't it?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 12:34 PM Scottie writes:

Doc Steech

Never the twain shall meet, Doc. We just cannot find common ground on this one. But your cartoons are pretty good. I would encourage you to do more of them.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 12:35 PM Scottie writes:

Brian

Be over in a sec
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 12:36 PM Scottie writes:

AC

To which sources do you inquire?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 3:55 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Scottie

I was refering to the fact that your original essay didn't give credit to the podcast. Sorry I'm on a plagarism humor kick due to recent events at work.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 4:28 PM Scottie writes:

AC

It's a bit of stretch to assert plagerism because I was moved to research and write an essay by a podcast. I researched each of the incidents above on Google and presented them in my own words in a manner I've not seen elsewhere. BTW, the link I gave Shining City was attributed and is worth a listen.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 14, 2007 5:20 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Scottie

I was simply suggesting I noticed alot of similarities in the ideas between the podcast and your essay. Anyhow, poorly thought out joke, if it offended you my apologies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 15, 2007 3:49 PM Flame writes:

Clarification request

scottie: "On a second front, President Clinton shifts the humanitarian mission in Somalia started by the Bush administration at the behest of the UN to an ill-fated nation building exercise that results in a humiliating defeat for our forces and an immediate retreat that further emboldens our enemies. You may have heard of it: Black Hawk Down"

I beg to disagree with you. 17 American military for 3-5 thousand Somali terrs is not a humiliating defeat. The humiliating part is the Clinton administration response. Instead of increasing the pressure, remember that 3-5k have been removed, Clinton shows the yellow streak on his back and makes a very liberal/socialist, Democrat response to military conflict and RUNS AWAY!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 16, 2007 11:07 AM Edamon50 writes:

New Idea at the Spade

In the interest of keeping the Spade fresh---and because I can't lure you to my TSN blog---I am going to start postng more sports related material at the Spade. It will be, for now, my thoguhts on what has happened in sports during the week. It may mirror what i have up at TSN, but if you're a sports fan I urge you to drop on by; I should have my first post up a little later today!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 17, 2007 5:29 PM patriotdefender writes:

Scottie

New posts at my new spot for the GOEIII...nee
Yes, I have joined the shameless!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, September, 17, 2007 11:26 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

Coulter's Quote

really doesn't help your cause scottie. I see no way for a Muslim to not take such a statement as anything other than a total attack on all Islam. That won't make more moderate muslims, it'll make more moderate ones radical. The only thing that would make them more radical is "kick their a__, take thier gas, and make them celebrate mass". The beutiful irony is she's avocating this in response to radical Islam's desire to do the same. Is this to be called radical Christianity? I wouldn't call it common sense. Granted, I admit my bias when it comes to Coulter(though I do skim though her articles).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 21, 2007 12:21 PM Scottie writes:

Well I'm Back

AC 1: Sorry for my density, no harm, no foul.

Flame: Well said, but the ultimate interpretation of the Islamists was we ran away from the fight and didn't have the stomach for it.

Flagwaver: I'm not much on sports, but you can still count on my continuing traffic to your site to check things out.

Nee: Love the new handle! Will stop by directly.

AC 2: My interpretation of the Coulter quote: If the Islamists want to start a fight based on radical interpretations of scripture, I believe the Christians have advanced far more than the Muslims have since the seventh century. Furthermore, why is it OK for Islamists to seek to inflict their interpretation of their religion on the rest of humanity, but offensive for Christians to contemplate the very same behavior based on the very same logic?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 22, 2007 11:20 AM BrianR writes:

Hey! Comment #100!

Good to see you today as I was making the rounds.

Welcome back! You've been missed!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 22, 2007 2:10 PM Flame writes:

Scottie

writes: "Well said, but the ultimate interpretation of the Islamists was we ran away from the fight and didn't have the stomach for it."

Which is exactly why we see OBL parroting the liberal mantra in his videos. He knows if the liberal/socialists win then he will have a much easier time than if a conservative wins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, September, 23, 2007 9:13 AM Scottie writes:

Flame

We should learn the lesson, but we won't. Every time we project weakness, ALL of our enemies are emboldened, Our seeming inability to control Iraq has emboldened Syria, Lybia, and Iran. Our fecklessness in Viet Nam encouraged a massive Solviet expansion. Our waffling at the Bay of Pigs precipatated the Cuban missle crisis. Our soft diplomacy and projected lack of resolve touched off the Korean war.

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong" -- Ronald Reagan

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 26, 2007 1:57 PM SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes:

Is there a way to distinguish?

I know it is only a minority of Muslims who are actively planning and committing terrorist acts, but how can you tell whether the Muslim next door is part of another plot or a genuinely nice person?

And as Doc Steech has indicated, many of them do believe the interpretation of the Koran calling for violence upon infidels. Aren't like 80% of the mosques in the US funded by Wahhabis? That means 80% of the mosques are likely teaching violent jihad.

(With Christians of TODAY, the difference is that we do NOT embrace the violence of this or that O.T. verse. The Bible is no longer used that way.)

And AC, I've known a few Muslims personally, too. They were treated respectfully like any other human being. But again, how can we distinguish between those patiently waiting a call to jihad? And how many will stand back and allow their fellow Muslims to do violence?

So that's all. I would love to live peacefully with Muslims. But do they, in general, want to live peacefully with me? I darn well hope so.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 26, 2007 3:32 PM Anonymous Coward writes:

SPPJ

As to the questions you asked me.

How do we know they're not patiently waiting for a call to jihad?

I look at it the same way I determine if anyone poses a threat to me. I talk to them. That's generally the best way to figure out what kind of people live near you. It's also a good way to make friends. Qualifiers: you're not a spy, you're not an ambassador, you're just somebody interested in knowing your neighbors/coworkers/miscellanious, and its not an act.

How many will stand back and allow their fellow Muslims to do violence?

Depends greatly on the situation and how much risk they'd put themselves in and how much responsibility they feel they have in society, similar to anyone else.


As to the Wahabist comment on funding 80% of the mosques, I'd like to know if you have a source it'd be interesting(I'm curious how much is given from the Saudi Royal Family). Second, it is important to realize the Wahabbism is a fundamentalist sect of sunni islam, but the spectrum of degrees can be huge(think fundamentalist christian). Also, remember that Wahabbism isn't the only place of potential threat. For instance in Iran the population is predominately Shia, so no wahabbism there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 27, 2007 2:12 PM BrianR writes:

Scottie

If you get a chance, stop by my place to see my little girl tie the knot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive