RSS Feed MenuWhen I first heard the Jihad Jane story last week, I dismissed it; this was not a case of Self-Induced Jihad Syndrome Strikes Again, I thought. Rather, this is some strange aberration from the norm, a weird phenomena; I commented to a colleague that this is closer to the extremely rare female serial killer, that this bird had discovered a moral justification to become a killer.
Here she is looking cute & coquettish, trawling for dates on her Internet social networking site . . .
. . . when the burqa comes off she’s PSYCHO BITCH FROM HELL ! ! !
Then bored blonde housewife #2 popped up:
I don’t know about you, but this woman looks kind of scary to me, too . . . like some kind of a predatory, aging porn star . . . anyway her eyes are the wrong shape and besides, I go for brunettes . . . According to my theory, Self-Induced Jihad Syndrome is not limited to disgruntled, angst-ridden offspring of successful immigrants from the Sand Countries. Take this young man:
Even though he was not a Muslim, I maintain that Timothy McVeigh suffered a form of SIJS – an otherwise clean, upstanding individual with no criminal background; self-generated righteousness, America is the threat, etc, etc . . .
Now we see that SIJS isn’t exclusive to young disenfranchised males:
Both of the Jihad Janes indoctrinated themselves, apparently, before seeking out recruiters and launching toward their missions. Blog STORMBRINGER has repeatedly stated that we are under attack and the enemy is already inside the gates. The next time you have to take your shoes off for the bored-to-death TSA workers at the airport security checkpoint, think about it. It’s not about swarthy, bearded hajji’s in turbans coming at us; the real threat is somebody who looks as American as Apple Pie – whether he or she is white, black, oriental or whatever – possibly with military training & experience. Just think of Timothy McVeigh – he was a decorated war hero. If this doesn’t blow the whole premise for racial profiling out of the water, what does?
Originally posted at STORMBRINGER.
balconesfault // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:07 pm
all of that contributed to an environ where our enemies were emboldened and al Qaeda and the Taliban knew SlickWilly couldn’t box himself out of an adulterers’ bag if he needed to… let alone address the growing terror threat from jihadists.
Which is why they were so successful at striking America while “SlickWilly” (thanks for once again proving that you’re MI-GOPer, with his fascination for slurring people with fake names) was President, eh?
On top of that, as we pointed out above, if your superman Al Gore hadn’t been more interested in looking like a presidential contender and had chosen to act more like a real public servant with the WH Commission on Aviation Safety & Security, we’d might have thwarted the 9-11 highjacking of 4 commerical airline jets by jihadists armed with boxcutters.
I really don’t understand your contention – is it that Al Gore had the power to unilaterally impose requirements on airlines that the airline owners opposed and that the Republican majority in Congress opposed?
It doesn’t get any clearer than that… except maybe the line we can draw between Carter’s failed diplomacy in Iran and the rise of fundamentalist jihadism in the Middle East
Diplomacy? Our diplomacy in Iran had failed long before Carter, when we supported a tyrant who killed and tortured his own people to hold power. You know – the kind of guy that Republicans are slapping themselves on the back for overthrowing in Iraq. Just because the Shah dressed nicer doesn’t mean he was a nicer guy. You I suppose would have had us militarily supporting the Shah, then?
How did you feel about selling weapons to the Iranian government during the 80’s then? That didn’t do any empowering for the fundamentalists?
Then B’fault proves himself wrong, yet again by opining: “That is where I differ from a hyperpartisan hack like MI-GOPer.”
No, B’fault, that’s were we exactly, neatly, completely agree.
Well, aside from finally dropping the mask, I believe you know what I mean. You are, as I said, ready to damn any politician who has a (D) next to their name, and drop them below the most demonstrably heinous (R) politician. The only term for that is properly hyperpartisan hack.
Independent // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:11 pm
By the way, we all notice how B’fault and agent’P have turned the discussion –once again, in yet another thread– away from the policy merits and into a personal attack on anyone who dare disagree with their pronouncements of “fact”.
Pure textbook Saul Alinsky move. And very predictable. Sigh.
Independent // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:16 pm
B”fault, not even far Left “historians” like Art Schlesinger agree that Carter’s failed diplomacy with the Shah –and witholding critical US support of the Shah when the Shah’s regime failed to reach Carter’s lofty human rights goals– was instrumental in bringing about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism… which, in turn, begat the jihadist terror campaign against US and western targets.
For you to avoid that simplest of realities in the last 30 yrs demonstrates your closed, partisan and ideologically impotent mind.
Independent // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:20 pm
B’fault: “Well, aside from finally dropping the mask, I believe you know what I mean. You are, as I said, ready to damn any politician who has a (D) next to their name, and drop them below the most demonstrably heinous (R) politician. The only term for that is properly hyperpartisan hack.”
No, like the Obami is learning… words (like elections) have consequences, B’fault. You said “For the record, I will certainly accept that as much as I dislike my own state’s governor, Rick Perry, I’d still take him over Rod Blagojevich. As little a fan of Kay Bailey Hutchison as I am, I respect her more than Ben Nelson. I’ve long believed that the country would have been better off had Gerald Ford won re-election in 1976, rather than Jimmy Carter winning”.
I agreed with you completely, totally, without reservation… even though you proposed that this was an example where we unalterably disagreed. You were wrong and can’t admit it.
You found that unsettling –again– and tried to change what words you had used moments earlier.
Words have meanings and consequences, B’fault. Even for farLeft, highly charged partisan spin-mysters like you heading into deep space.
Independent // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:22 pm
edit #28: “B”fault, YOU CAN’T even AGREE WITH far Left “historians” like Art Schlesinger WHO agree… “
balconesfault // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:25 pm
By the way, we all notice how B’fault and agent’P have turned the discussion –once again, in yet another thread– away from the policy merits and into a personal attack on anyone who dare disagree with their pronouncements of “fact”.
Hmm … who was it who wanted to take this discussion from proposals about hardening of cockpit doors (eg, directly related to whether our counter-terrorism measures are preparing for the next attack or simply addressing the last one) … to Al Gore’s sweaters?
B”fault, not even far Left “historians” like Art Schlesinger agree that Carter’s failed diplomacy with the Shah –and witholding critical US support of the Shah when the Shah’s regime failed to reach Carter’s lofty human rights goals– was instrumental in bringing about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism… which, in turn, begat the jihadist terror campaign against US and western targets.
Interesting. I’d like to see exactly what you’re talking about. Is your contention that Islamic fundamentalism would have been less a threat today had we continued to prop up the Shah while he … uh … “failed to reach Carter’s lofty human rights goals” (like not having his agents apply electrical shocks to the gonads of political prisoners)? Frankly, it is just as easy to argue that Islamic fundamentalism was much more empowered by sending TOW missles to a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who were fighting off the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Personally, I think that our refusal to raise taxes on oil back in the early 1980’s (as my preferred candidate in that election, John Anderson, wanted to do) helped accellerate the pumping of mega-dollars into Middle East shiekdoms during the last few decades, and the un-elected despots who own those countries are happy to pump some side money the way of the fundamentalists as a bribe to get them to focus their radicalism elsewhere.
balconesfault // Mar 16, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I will stand by this statement: “You are, as I said, ready to damn any politician who has a (D) next to their name, and drop them below the most demonstrably heinous (R) politician. The only term for that is properly hyperpartisan hack.” until proven otherwise.
Enjoy your rhetorical games. They’re no doubt a solace to you as you avoid that reality.
agentprovocateur // Mar 16, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Balconesfault, my statements/questions were directed at MI-GOPer, er, Independent and his/her different aliases, not you. I mentioned you as taking care of his/her position about Bush/Cheney and 9/11. But as you can see, my statements/questions apply to Independent, not you.
balconesfault // Mar 16, 2010 at 10:04 pm
AP – ah, my bad. Thanks.
balconesfault // Mar 17, 2010 at 11:25 am
MI-Independent – I have only to repeat this as still unanswered claim:
“You are, as I said, ready to damn any politician who has a (D) next to their name, and drop them below the most demonstrably heinous (R) politician. The only term for that is properly hyperpartisan hack.”
Independent // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:36 pm
b’fault you can stand by whatever statements you want… as agnet’P or someone else. At the end of the day, you’re still wrong –in this case, both wrong.
Like you said above “For the record, I will certainly accept that as much as I dislike my own state’s governor, Rick Perry, I’d still take him over Rod Blagojevich. As little a fan of Kay Bailey Hutchison as I am, I respect her more than Ben Nelson. I’ve long believed that the country would have been better off had Gerald Ford won re-election in 1976, rather than Jimmy Carter winning. That is where I differ from a hyperpartisan hack like (Independent).”
I completely, totally, unequivocally agreed with that statement. Even if you think that differentiates you from a hyper partisan hack… which, frankly, we all can see you are one of the most abashedly partisans on FF. On the old New Majority, you didn’t try to cover up that simple observation… here, you’ve tried repeatedly and it’s always fallen far short of credible.
What next? agent’P is revitalized in the thread to appear you have deeper, greater support than reality allows?
So predicatble, sigh. So juvenile, too.
agentprovocateur // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:03 pm
“b’fault you can stand by whatever statements you want… as agnet’P or someone else.”
That’s awfully rich coming from someone who has used at least three different aliases around here. What will be the next one you use? Just to be clear, I’ll repeat what I wrote before, and it is for you, Independent, and you alone. For all your talk of trolls and alter egos, it seems like it is you who has used multiple aliases on this website and it is you who routinely espouses the most outrageous statements and then flames anyone who dares to disagree with you, including this website’s owner.
Independent // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Ahh, so we were right –it’s agent’P to the echo chamber rescue station to save his poor B’Fault. Predictable.
Saul Alinsky advised Obama and Bill Ayers to use that same tactic, agent’P –the one you tried to use above… “Rule 9: Turn the tables and accuse your opponents of the very things you are most guilty of –it will make them stagger and waste time defending themselves”.
It’s all better saved for use on the Daily Kos, guy. Honest. Most of those guys haven’t read Saul Alinsky and couldn’t memorize more than 2 talking points at a time –you’ll be a positive genius in their midst. Honest.
agentprovocateur // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:37 pm
re: Independent // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:46 pm
For someone who claims to dislike “Alinsky rules” you certainly seem to use them a lot. If you can cite any evidence that anything in my above statement you referenced applies to me, please do share.