Par
Tweet
Of course Michelle Malkin lies about liberals booing the troops when they didn’t. That’s what she does. It’s her job to lie.
77 Responses to “Par”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
*the face*, that is. Time for bed.
Its terrible that this moral cancer has become face of the conservative blogosphere. When will a right winger with a sense of decency stand up against what she’s doing to your cause?
Read, Oliver. Read.
Comedy…
Of course Oliver Willis spreads more smears about Michelle Malkin because he’s too lazy to actually check things out for himself and just links to whatever those other big hitters throw out there. Thats what he does. Its his job to smear.
…
“Read, Oliver. Read.”
Oh yay. Oliver and others missed the byline on a post at Malkin’s spin off cesspool so now we get to hear from a bunch of morons about how liberals are trying to smear Michelle Malkin. Meanwhile, the original bullshit from some dipshit named Bryan that liberals were booing the troops goes totally uncommented on. Sheesh you guys are idiots.
FYI, I saw the byline. It’s Malkin’s site.
Malkin says “we captured and posted the video” on her own site. How exactly can you suggest she’s not saying she had a part in this?
From AOL News:
Liberal group jeers Hillary Clinton
By DEVLIN BARRETT
AP
WASHINGTON (AP) – Anti-war activists at a liberal gathering booed [emphasis added - fd] Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for opposing a set date for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq. Facing down the jeers, Clinton said Democrats need to have “a difficult conversation” about the war.
The claim is that liberals were booing her for “supporting the troops.” That claim has yet to be supported. Just as in Iraq, conservatives are fighting for a lie.
At 24:50, after Hillary begins talking about the need to support our troops, someone clearly yells “bring them home.” When Malkin characterized that as booing Clinton for supporting the troops, she is lying. Why are you carrying water on her behalf, Frank? Did you think no one would actually listen to the speech?
There’s a problem with linking to a link that doesn’t have all the information.
First of all, if “that claim has yet to be supported”, then calling Malkin a liar is a lie, isn’t it?
Second of all, there is an independent report (independent of Crooks and Liars and Malkin) that she was booed.
Third, at this site,
http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=236
You can hear the entire speech. About 25 minutes in, when Sen Clinton mentions the troops, there was a sprinkling of boos.
End of story.
August- I’m sure that Oliver didn’t read that far either.
And Oliver, please. You didn’t read the post, so you didn’t notice that it was written by Bryan Preston until you were corrected. Neither did the folks at C&L, who still attribute the quote to Michelle (although now they have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did link to it and agrees with it.)
And by the way Oliver- It’s not “Michelle’s site.” It’s a collaborative site where Bryan and Allahpundit do most of the writing and Michelle posts “VENT” (which whether you like her or not, is a pretty cool use of the medium- not that you would admit that, despite your envy.)
“And Oliver, please…”
Marty, just tell us that you think the crowd was “booing the troops” and go back to living in your fantasy world.
Anyone who watches that video and characterizes it as “booing Hillary for supporting the troops” is a liar, plain and simple. Why do you look at this point and say “I think I’ll post something supporting the liars,” Marty?
Follow the liks and watch the videos, people.
When Sen. Clinton says we need to support the troops, listen closely. There’s a heckler. I heard no “boos” for the troops. Not one.
What the AP article says is exactly what happened. The audience booed HILLARY for her approval of the war in Iraq.
So what would make Malkin a liar for saying that the lefties booed the troops.
The end.
Apparently Frank and Marty need Judge Moore to come and post the 10 commandments by their computers.
No one is saying that there weren’t boos. I was in the room, and I heard them. The lie is that the boos came after the statement about supporting the troops. The boos, as all the news stories indicate (along with my own experience), came after her statement rejecting setting a deadline, and they were accompanied by chants of “Bring them home!”
Oh for crying out loud, dragged into another pointless smackdown of Frank.
Frank, you dolt, at that point in the speech someone from the crowd yells “Bring them home” and a portion of the audience responds with brief applause. To characterize it as “booing the troops” or “booing Clinton for supporting the troops,” as Bryan does, is just moronic. Especially when, not a few seconds later, there is significantly louder applause when Clinton says “We need to keep faith with them …”
Where you can actually hear the crowd boo is later when Clinton says that she doesn’t want to set a withdrawal date for bringing troops home which is not booing Clinton for supporting the troops but a response to her position on withdrawal.
24:55
“We need to keep faith with them and make sure that they have the body armor, the vehicles and the other equiptment, materials and training they need …”
Audible applause.
Idiots.
Hey, frameone, idiot:
24:51
Hey Frank: Exodus 20:16.
Hey, frameone, fuck you and the horse that rode in on you. Grow up or shut up. Was that clear enough for you, weenie?
I heard boos, I didn’t say “I didn’t hear boos, but if Malkin says there were boos, I’ll go along.”
I don’t carry water for anybody.
And I wouldn’t have directed you to where the boos were, if I didn’t think were going to listen.
I guess Malkinhate is a symptom in the array of symptoms known as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Again, the site is owned and financed by Malkin.
There are boos when Sen. Clinton says there shouldn’t be a set timetable. I’d boo that too because its dumb. People aren’t booing here when she says that the troops should be supported.
Why is it you guys lie so much?
I still don’t understand why it’s stupid for someone to assume that a post with the byline “by Michelle Malkin” is not, you know, by Michelle Malkin. I know it’s widely believed on the left that Malkin doesn’t actually write her posts, but I didn’t realize the right wing was expecting everyone to take that for granted now.
Glad to see that you concede that Michelle Malkin cynically, knowingly manipulates footage in order to lie about Democrats. If only all Republicans had the basic decency to distance themselves from her, the right’s most popular and least moral blogger.
Oh, I get it now. We’re having two different arguments.
First, there weren’t boos.
But then, when were boos, it was about the troops.
Now the boos are about not setting a deadline, which of course would hurt the troops, so it’s kind of about the troops, but’s not about the troops.
Great.
I will concede that in response to Sen Clinton mentioning that “we need to support the troops,” no one said “Boo!”
If Ms. Malkin is to be hanged, will I be forced to attend?
You know what’s wrong with our country?…
Of course Oliver Willis spreads more smears about Michelle Malkin because he’s too lazy to actually check things out for himself and just links to whatever those other big hitters throw out there. That s what he does. It s his job……
Geez, if one were to believe the right, one would think that everyone on the left is about ready to enlist with Al Queda while waving American flags upside down in Gaza!!! This is because Republicans are strangely constructed to equate disagreement with their policies, no matter how disasterous, with rabid anti-Americanism.
It’s LOVE for this country that’s creating anger.
Anyone would be angry seeing a group of people destroying something that’s loved.
It’s a very simple concept.
How about this: “I will concede that in response to Sen Clinton mentioning that we need to support the troops, no one responded in any way, shape or form.”
Better?
Malkin Rocks!
It’s a start, but I would add a little bit more:
“And further, I do not dispute that she manipulated the video so as to slander Democrats to her audience of howling degenerate know-nothings, I being a representative specimen.”
“Immorally yours,
Frank D.”
We all know how dedicated to the military and their needs and wants the Left is, now don’t we?
How dare Malkin suggest otherwise?
Your defense is that it’s okay to lie in the service of calling Democrats names? Republicans don’t love America. They love power. The sooner you admit it, the happier you’ll be.
No defense for Malkin, I see. That’s a step.
Hey TomY — How about Proverbs 15:1 – 4
You mean the way the Democratics love the unfair, warlike, racist, greedy, materialist, America that doesn’t seem to have any good qualities, but “it’s a real fixer – upper”?
TomY: I got the memo — like Malkin = bad, hate Malkin = good.
Anything to avoid acknowledging that she lied. Typical GOP lack of decency. Keep on twisting!
Is there anyone on the left who resorts to the personal attack as much as Malkin and Coulter? I’m seriously asking.
Of course Oliver Willis lies about Michelle Malkin. That s what he does. It s his job to lie.
J.
When Malkin said that liberals were booing Clinton for supporting the troops, that was a lie, clear as day. Spin, Jay, Spin!
TomY, Michelle Malkin DIDN’T SAY IT, another author on her site did. You can argue that she tacitly SUPPORTED the piece, but she DID NOT SAY IT.
I think I’m losing my grasp on the left’s official position on Michelle Malkin. Her husband writes the stuff posted under her name, but Michelle write the stuff posted under Bryan’s name? How do they keep it all straight? How do you keep it all straight?
Oh, and Tom? Spin on this.
J.
“Of course Oliver Willis lies about Michelle Malkin. That s what he does. It s his job to lie.”
Oh too fucking classic. Naturally Jay Tea would chime in on this issue since defending people who get their facts totally one hundred percent wrong is a matter of self-preservation for him. Jay himself has actually found a way around the lying thing: Keep yourself so woefully misinformed you don’t have to lie to make your arguments. You know, like saying that Christians don’t practive female genital mutilation. As long as you don’t actually research the subject no one can say you’re lying. Then when you get called on it, just walk away. There is nothing more important to a conservative dipshit than preserving one’s ignorance. Nothing.
So why exactly are you defending Brian Preston if you admit he lied to smear Democrats, Jay? What is it about his lie that’s so attractive and sympathetic to your mind?
“You can argue that she tacitly SUPPORTED the piece, but she DID NOT SAY IT.”
Um, okay. She tacitly supports the statement which is totally wrong. What a gal.
Okay, if it wasn’t Michelle who posted it on her site, fine. That’s not what I’m taking issue with, anyway. The point is that the claim about Democrats was a lie. Why has every conservative ignored that fact? Because you’re too interested in hating liberals to recognize valid criticism of even your most wild-eyed irresponsible conservative fellow travelers.
Apparently, the actual subject of the post — YOU KNOW, THE SLANDER OF LIBERALS — is so indefensible that Jay has no choice but to ignore it. You see a lot of that from conservatives these days. Spin, spin, spin. Duck and weave.
No.
Content.
At.
All.
So, frame, you consider Oliver and I equals? You hold him to the same standard you hold me?
When I mess up something at Wizbang, I correct it. I own up to it. Oliver’s had time to post two comments here, but hasn’t bothered to fix the glaring factual error in the initial post. He’s too busy justifying and rationalizing that he really was “right” all along. You and TomY can keep refining and adjusting and excusing the facts, but they’re still up there in black and white, under HIS name, and he’s doing whatever he can to avoid admitting he screwed up. He doesn’t even have the Kos-like consideration to delete the whole thing and deny he ever made the mistake.
Fact: Oliver said Michelle Malkin posted the original piece.
Fact: She did not.
Fact: Oliver is steadfastly refusing to admit the truth, and instead is trying to argue that what he said is in fact truth, and reality is simply wrong.
That it’s happening is no great surprise; that it was such a simple, stupid point is the shocker.
J.
FACT: If you lie for the right wing Jay Tea will defend you.
Correction:
FACT: If you lie for the right wing Jay Tea will defend you … by any means necessary.
Dang, frame, I knew I was forgetting something the other week when I said the Francine Busby/illegal alien vote soliciting stuff was overblown… or when I said John Kerry did a good job on the BCCI investigation… or when I slammed Rush Limbaugh… or when I trashed Oliver North… or unloaded on Pat Robertson… or kicked around Bill O’Reilly… or cussed out Newt Gingrich… or griped about a couple of New Hampshire senators, one past and one present… or endorsed the Democratic candidate for governor who defeated our sitting Republican governor back in 2004…
Man, if my job is shilling for the far right, I’m doing as lousy a job as Oliver is whoring for the left.
As far as the actual incident… I haven’t reviewed the videos, so I have no opinion. Some news accounts agree with Bryan’s piece over on Michelle’s site, some don’t. One thing is indisputable, though: Michelle Malkin did NOT write the piece Oliver linked to. He’s had almost 24 hours and several opportunities to correct his mistake in attributing the posting to Malkin, and has staunchly refused.
J.
“As far as the actual incident& I haven t reviewed the videos …”
Of course you haven’t because it would get in the way of defending Malkin, her site and the idiot liar who first made the accusation. When you right things like this — “Some news accounts agree with Bryan s piece over on Michelle s site, some don t.” — it’s instantly clear just how much of a hack you are. Some news accounts agree that Clinton was booed for saying she supported the troops? Really? You want to link to these?
You sit these insisting that Oliver correct a mistake about a byline but haven’t said shit about the guy who still insists that Clinton was booed when she said that we should support the troops. Hell you just defended the guys without knowing a single god damn thing about what it was he said or why people are upset otherwise you never would have suggested that “some news accounts agree.” You’re an idiot hack Jay. Plain and simple.
Thank you, Jay, for that awesomely pathetic show of irrelevant lameness! Maybe one day when you’re old and gray, you can watch the video yourself to find out what all the fuss was about.
The only thing I’m defending Malkin about is Oliver’s lie about her — which is closing in on 36 hours old.
Frank, earlier in this thread, cited an AP account. Scroll up and read it — just try not to move your lips while doing it.
And you’re a knee-jerk schmuck, frame. Gee, this name-calling’s fun.
J.
Oh hilarious. It’s true: You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Frank cited an AP article that stated Clinton was booed when she refused to support a timetable for withdrawal. Has anyone here disputed that? No. But Malkin’s dipshit drone also asserted that the crowd booed Clinton when she said we should support the troops. They didn’t. Watch the video. You can tell the difference between booing a policy and booing the troops can’t you?
Seriously, Jay, when I call you an idiot, I’m not just “name calling.” It’s a factual descriptive in your case, along with most of the right wing morons who comment here.
Honestly, what does it say about your priorities that you see a lie, a deliberate falsehood made to hurt Democrats, and your *only* concern is to determine which particular Malkin henchman said it? Pathetic.
I’m still curious to find out how Democrats are “hurt” by being accused of supporting the troops.
They don’t, do they?
I’m reminded of that scene in “Monty Python’s Holy Grail”, when the knights are pretending they are riding horses, and when told the enemy is approaching, are given to the order to “Run away!” “Run away”!, as if it were a military command.
So, too, do the Democratics oxymoronically descibe “withdrawal” as “strategic”, when we’re winning.
“I m still curious to find out how Democrats are hurt by being accused of supporting the troops.”
Classic Frank strategy here: When the facts don’t agree with you say the first, stupidest thing you can think of.
Hmm…
“Classic Frank strategy here: When the facts don t agree with you say the first, stupidest thing you can think of.”
Dunno how something can be both “first” and “stupidest,” as if it’s first, it’s hardly in a position for a comparative ranking, let alone a superlative, but I think I’ll give it a try:
“frameone.”
We’ll have to see how that works out.
In the meantime, does that mean that Oliver’s accusation of Michelle Malkin writing the piece falls into the category of “fake, but accurate?” Are we more concerned with the “truthiness” than actual facts?
Tell you what: you admit that Oliver was a lazy sack when he first wrote this posting, and an arrogant schmuck when he refused to correct his mistake, and then perhaps we can discuss the accuracy of the referred story. After all, we can’t have a serious discussion if we don’t agree on at least the most basic of facts…
J.
On Malkin’s site, it still says this, under the byline “By Michelle Malkin · June 14, 2006 10:40 AM”:
In what way is that somehow Oliver’s mistake?
And I still see exactly zero examples of the “some news accounts” that agree that Hillary was booed for saying we should support the troops.
KC, that still doesn’t address how Oliver linked to SOMEONE ELSE’S story and still hasn’t corrected it…
J.
“I m still curious to find out how Democrats are hurt by being accused of supporting the troops.
This isn’t real. Someone’s spoofing Frank. No one could be so dense as to misunderstand what Michelle Malkin (or her henchman’s) are saying about Democrats.
JT, your moral compass is still way off. Maybe you should see a pastor to get it fixed?
I made a mistake in my post of June 17th, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
It should have read:
I m still curious to find out how Democrats are hurt by being accused of *not* supporting the troops.
They don t, do they?
Makes more sense now, eh?
TomY: Most Democratics, and all liberals, couldn’t give two shits about the military, from the Pentagon to the Sandbox*, and that includes the troops.
It was the same story in Vietnam as it now is in Iraq: The Democratics / liberals “support the troops”, but could never encourage them or support them in the successful completion of their mission.
Kind of like saying, “I support the Yankees, but I don’t want them to beat any teams.”
*Iraq
And yes, you are correct, this must have been the “first stupid” thing to pop into your head. Oh, and you can take your “serious discussion” bullshit and shove it right your ass. Serious discussion? I ventured over to the fever swamp of right wing mush and soft core porn that is wizbang and found this:
“The legal ones would be detained until the end of hostilities; the illegal ones would be given the choice of cooperating with us or summarily executed — as per the Geneva conventions.”
Your still spinning this shit? Jay you’re a fucking hack who never let the facts get in the way of being an idiot.
“…. you admit that Oliver was a lazy sack when he first wrote this posting, and an arrogant schmuck when he refused to correct his mistake, and then perhaps we can discuss the accuracy of the referred story.”
So I gather that this is the stupidest thing that popped into your head?
My heavens, frame, why so frothy? What on earth could possibly have you so worked up? Could it be you simply cannot abide the thought that Fearless Leader Oliver screwed up, and you might be forced to admit it?
The whole point here is simple: Oliver linked to an article by “Bryan” and said Michelle Malkin wrote it. And instead of correcting it like a man, he’s spinning and rationalizing it as best he can, readily aided and abetted by his legion of bum-kissing supporters (as exemplified by you and Tom). And when you can’t possibly rationalize the utterly irrational, you go on the counterattack, slamming me on as many fronts as you can, hoping to stir up enough dust and fling enough crap to hide the fact that your emperor has no clothes.
Oh, and frame, Oliver once said about me “But then, “Jay Tea” has never let facts get in the way of a good story.” I’m curious — is your usage of such a similar phrase a matter of “fools think alike,” your aping your Fearless Leader, or a slip revealing that you’re just an Oliver sock puppet?
J.
“What on earth could possibly have you so worked up?”
Let’s add it up, you ignorant bastard. Some asshole lies about about what happens at a Clinton speech. You not only defend the guy, you get the story entirely wrong in the process. And yet you accuse Oliver of not being man enough to correct himself for a misattributed byline, which, BTW, he has indeed explained above. Have you corrected yourself yet for completely misunderstanding what the story is about in the first place? No.
I could bring up your inane blather about female genital mutilation again and how, yet again, when confronted by the facts you simply walked away from the discussion like a two year old. But then again, I don’t have to bring that back up agan because a quick visit to your own site finds you spinning lies and/or your own utter ignorance about what the Geneva Conventions does and does not say about executions. This on THE VEYR SAME DAY that you came here to accuse Oliver of getting something wrong.
Are you ever going to go back and correct yourself like a man? No. Because you’re a lying sack of shit.
Read Protocal II:
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
“Part I. Scope of this Protocol
Art. 1. Material field of application
1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions or application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.
Art. 2. Personal field of application
1. This Protocol shall be applied without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria (hereinafter referred to as “adverse distinction”) to all persons affected by an armed conflict as defined in Article 1.
….
Art. 6. Penal prosecutions
1. This Article applies to the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to the armed conflict.
2. No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular: (a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence; (b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility; (c) no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under the law, at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby; (d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law; (e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.”
And here’s Article 5 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:
“Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.”
Idiot.
GENEVA — The Red Cross stressed Friday that the Geneva Conventions must apply even in Afghanistan, awash with reports of massacres of prisoners.
The Conventions, drawn up in the aftermath of World War Two to protect civilians and guarantee the rights of soldiers who surrender, mainly deal with international conflicts involving two or more states, rather than civil wars like Afghanistan’s.
But article three in all four Conventions — the other two cover treatment of those wounded in war on both land and sea — lays down a minimum code of conduct for all states which signed the 1949 treaties. Afghanistan ratified them in 1956.
Among actions ruled as unacceptable in any war are summary executions, murder and torture.
“Article three applies to anybody — the Northern Alliance, the Taliban, al Qaeda, anybody fighting in the territory,” said Catherine Deman, legal adviser to the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/GenevaConv.html
I’ll be expecting yor manful correction shortly.
But don’t take my word for it:
Combatant Status:
Combatants are all members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, except medical and religious personnel. They cannot be punished for their hostile acts if they respect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. They can only be held as prisoners of war until the end of hostilities.
Combatants are required to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. A combatant has to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Combatants who violate the rules of international law do not forfeit their rights as combatants or as prisoners of war if captured. The exceptions are when a combatant fails to carry his arms openly a) during each military engagement, and (b) when he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding an attack in which he is to participate.
A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse party while failing to meet these requirements forfeits his right to be a prisoner of war. He is nonetheless given protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
Guerrilla fighters of a party to the conflict are entitled to combatant status, and therefore to the prisoner of war status, if they distinguish themselves from civilians by carrying their arms openly during and before launching an attack. Guerrilla fighters who fail to do so forfeit their combatant status. They are civilians liable to prosecution for illegally carrying arms and for any hostile act they may have committed, but nevertheless entitled to the safeguards accorded to prisoners of war if and when they are tried and punished.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/glossary.html
“Could it be you simply cannot abide the thought that Fearless Leader Oliver screwed up, and you might be forced to admit it?”
Mercy me I almost completely forgot. Read the fifth post on this thread Jay. Here’s another part of this simple story that you got wrong. What. An. Idiot.
Oh, and frame, Oliver once said about me But then, Jay Tea has never let “facts get in the way of a good story. I m curious is your usage of such a similar phrase a matter of fools think alike, ”
Oh and Jay Tea, no. It’s a matter of “Jay Tea never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.” Do you see the trend here?
Oh and just to end this thing, Jay do you remember when you wrote above:
You can argue that she tacitly SUPPORTED the piece, but she DID NOT SAY IT.
Did you happen to see Oliver’s first post on the thread, six comments in in which he wrote:
“FYI, I saw the byline. It s Malkin s site.”
But of course you did. Because you’re a champion of serious discussions and as everyone knows, serious discussions begin with good research and all the facts. Then again, if you read Oliver’s post you would have known that he was attacking Malkin for allowing such a lie on her site, hence tacitly supporting it. So how to explain every single one of your posts accussing Oliver of failing to correct his mistake? Oh yes, you’re a total idiot.
Frank_D Says:
June 17th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
TomY: Most Democratics, and all liberals, couldn t give two shits about the military, from the Pentagon to the Sandbox*, and that includes the troops.
It was the same story in Vietnam as it now is in Iraq: The Democratics / liberals support the troops , but could never encourage them or support them in the successful completion of their mission.
Kind of like saying, I support the Yankees, but I don t want them to beat any teams.
*Iraq
Hey, Frank, fcuk you. I am a liberal, and I care about the soldiers that this immoral president is pissing away in the sands of Iraq. I am offended by your lies about how I feel, as I am continually offended by your putting words in liberals mouths, feeling that you have the right to speak for liberals, that you even have half a clue as to what liberals are thinking, and that you have carte blanche to smear liberals in any manner you wish.
Was that clear enough for you, or do I need to type slower and use the little words? Try and speak for yourself once in a while instead of putting words in others’ mouths. Tell us what you think, not what others (who you have no freaking clue about, you sick fcuk) are thinking and what they feel.
Window Blinds…
Window Blinds…
Virgin Atlantic…
Virgin Atlantic…