Sunday, April 01, 2007


I went to 300 for a second time this week. There is an image in the graphic novel showing Leonidas keeping watch over his people by moon light. It seemed a fitting form for the heavy burden our President must bear as champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way!


Boy said...


Boy said...

So that was a practice comment I am having trouble with my server. So I did go see 300 on Saturday, it just came out here in Brazil. Hmmm what can I say, I guess I liked it. My favorite part was when the son and his friend were fighting side by side, it reminded me of my son’s and brothers who have fought by my side throughout the years. Ya I liked it and I think that is proof that Apocalypto was a terrible movie, because both movies were grossly violent, had flat static characters, and lame dialog, but 300 had a really great story. Apocalypto’s story was not enough to redeem it.

I’m not sure how I feel about the Spartans, you know the infanticide, and child torture, I guess like the queen says those things were necessary, but I’d like to think that the Boy scouts do a better job of building soldiers today.
As for me “I’ve got soul but I’m not a soldier,” I don’t think I could be a Spartan, maybe a free Greek. A brave armature I do my best,
I’m willing to fight but I’m really just a potter, or a sculptor, not a soldier. I’m grateful to the Spartans, I guess we owe them so much it makes it hard to judge them. Of coarse we can’t forget the lessons of “A few good men.” No one’s above the law, especially the soldiers, and even the law is subordinate to truth.

Anonymous said...

Whoa!! Is that a spear silhoutted by that poorly drawn orb or is someone just dreaming of Iraq? Down boy!

Brazilboy said...

Explain please

Boy said...

Boy and Boy in Brazil are the same person.

Cameron said...


What, you don't have someone else's opinion to plagiarize today?

Lysis said...


Flaccid gave the best thought he could; it is obvious what he is dreaming about. Who would blame him?


I am glad you enjoyed 300 – as for the film’s presentation of he Spartans, a little sued; I think. Remember – until the folks back home sold them out – the forces of Athens were more than holding their own against the Spartans in the Peloponnesian war. This is indeed most instructive. In his great funeral oration, over the bodies of Athenian soldiers killed by the Spartans, Pericles reminded the Athenians why their soldiers were able to win even against the awesome military power of Sparta – it was he explained because they (the Athenians) had something to fight for. At Salamis and even Plataea, it was the Athenian, citizen soldiers who won the day – although the Persian’s fear of the Spartans surely played an important part.

There is much of the Spartan government in our political form – the whole idea of a divided government, Kings, Ephors, Council, and assemble were copied by the Romans – and then by us. Although the Athenians were able to act collectively during the Persian war – to their eternal glory and the benefit of the entire world - when a long and unpopular struggle allowed the weaknesses of direct democracy to fall to mob rule, the Athenians lost. Here their disaster is most instructive to us. Many Americans thing they can vote and pretend problems away. I listen to the Democrats in the congress – rather muted since Iran began acting like Iran again – voting in non-binding timidity - to surrender to terrorism by this or that date certain. They are eager for votes and high poll numbers and they damage their own nation and disrespect the military; much to the delight of the bullies abroad. It is then that we can all take great comfort in courage and wisdom of President Bush. We can all look to his steadiness and find hope; that the right will yet prevail.

I am, as you know, a great Superman fan. It is not lost on my enthusiasm that both Leonidas and Kal El sport a cloak of red.


As always – I appreciate your critique. “Bush as Leonidas before the Moon” is a work in progress. I hope I have improved it to your liking. I will take the fact that you confined your comments to technical advice on the drawing to indicate agreement with the message of the work rather than a lack of computer links to copy.

Shaunconner said...

Lysis. Thanks for the info. Could you give us the quote about the soft sons of democracy raised in the boy scouts, beating the nazi's. Boy might enjoy it.

I just had an interesting discussion about freedom in my Cultural Anthropology class. The feild of Anthropology is directly devided between the relativists who see only differences and inconsistancy in the societies of the world and those of us that see our comonalities as proof of a universal truth. Today the argument was about Freedom. The student presenting said that ideas of freedom are relative because in other societies they have a different idea of freedom. For example claim that the talaban does not respect the rights of women but we have to remeber that the taliban is made up of men and women, who concider themselves free and if we imposed freedom upon them they would not be free.

I pointed out that democracy gives real freedom and imposes nothing, if for example a woman in the U.S. chooses to be a religious fanatic and submit herself to the male religious fanatics of her sect she can. Islamic fanaticism can exist in a democratic society as long as it does not force membership. The inverse is not true. A woman who wears a veil in the U.S. is expressing and using her freedom to do so, in this case the veil would be a wonderful symbol of freedom. A woman in Iran who wears the veil is not free, because she is forced to, and the veil is a symbol of repression.

His reply was ya but you are still just saying that because you are american and that is how you see things. "You must concider other points of view."

That's a common response

We then argued about sposal abuse, I was suprised when many of the students, female students, deffended a womans right to be beaten by her husband, saying that if a woman is being beat and doesn't leave that is her choice and the government has no right to interfear. I asked them if they thought the same about drug abuse, if we should allow drug users to continue using drugs just because they want to.

There response was "Weren't you just argueing for freedom."

"I said and weren't you just argueing against it."

Did we arive at an impass, a paradox, can we give people complete freedom, it is obvious we can stop someone from hurting us, or destroying our home, but can we stop someone else from hurting or destroying themselves.

I leave it to you.

Strategos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Strategos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...


I am very proud of your growth and the adventures you are having. I think there is a hierarchy of adventure and those that teach something of value are at the top.

As for your class discussion: I do not think you were at all inconsistent. Indeed the reason for opposing drug us is the same as that for opposing spousal abuse. In both cases there is evil done to others. We are free to hurt ourselves – but when our actions destroy the rights of others then there is reason for law.

I am delighted to relate the Boy Scouts v the Nazi story. It will be nice to have it in writing.

Years ago, when the freeway between Layton and Salt Lake City seemed to be under perpetual construction I was driving home listening to the NPR. I often listen to the NPR just to keep my blood flowing, to give me a chance to yell at the radio.

It was the year that America was dedicating the D Day museum in New Orleans; built there to honor the Higgins Boats. Steven Ambrose had just written a book on D Day and so was being interviewed. Ambrose went on and on about how powerful Hitler and his fortress Europe was – how battle hardened and determined the Nazis were – the commentator from NPR interrupted --- “How could we have won then, what made it possible for the US to prevail.” I am sure the NPR mouth was not counting on the answer he got, as was later evidenced by the long awkward pause after Ambrose finished, but this is what Ambrose said. --- “Hitler made a mistake, he thought those German kids trained in the Hitler Youth would always beat those soft sons of Democracy brought up in the Boy Scouts. Well, those Boy Scouts proved far tougher and far more capable of making war than the Nazis.” (end quote) I know that is close to Ambrose exact wording because I risked my life in that “salmon shut” of a freeway and pulled over to write his words down.

It was the same with the Spartan and the Athenians. The Athenian boys spent two years in military training, two tough years, during which time they were worded very hard and learned the way of the phalanx, but during which they were also treated with the greatest respect and love by the citizens. They had special seats in the theater and games and at all religious festivals. I thought of them years ago when I attended BYU. There was a special devotional being held in the Marriot Center. I went in and found a seat, the huge amphitheater was filled near to capacity, but across from me there was an entire section left open. Then the missionaries from the MTC started marching in. The room erupted with cheers and applause – I have to admit; I got a burning in the bosom.

I thought of the Athenian boys marching into the theater of Dionysus to the grateful acclimation of a city that knew its existence depended upon their sacrifice. How sad it must have been, to those same boys, when they found them selves deserted by the city as they suffered and died in the quarries of Syracuse.

Now our nation teeters between cheers and abuse – politicians seek to deceive their way into power by disparaging the soldiers who defend them. There is no more obscene lie in the arsenal of the relativists than “We support the troops but not the war.” The lie stinks!

MindMechanic said...


Good comments all.

There arent just two sides but many sides to all of these things. Sure...the Taliban members 'choose' to be a part of the Taliban...but many do so because the alternative is death. Hmmm...freedom to choose...death or enslavement...some choice, huh? Of course not ALL see it as a burden. there are some that LIKE the prospect of joining and enjoying control over others. And then some...well...the resist and rebel and are executed. Such is the price for teaching a girl older than the age of 7 to read, or trimming your beard.

The robes and veils are another interesting example of choice/non-choice. In a fundamentalist country...your choice is wear it or be beaten...because your husband has the RESPONSIBILITY...not just the right to do it. And if he doesnt, the mutawa will. Still...some women have taken to the full face veil, not as a token of complete oppression, but it allows them the FREEDOM to sneak an askew glance without being caught and punished. Choices.

In Germany recently, a muslim woman sued for divorce claiming her husband beat her. The judge, a NON-muslim, denied the divorce, stating that it was not the German courts place to impose their will over the muslim practice of religion. So...go back home and take your beatings like a (wo)man.

Some choice.

I will tell you (as someone who has passed your classmates test of having been there) that some see the full covering of their women as a token not of oppression but of respect. They point to our numbers of rapes, of examples of pornography, and of the cultural tendency to disrespect women in America as a testimony to THEIR moral high ground on the subject. Sure...they have rapes in their country and they enjoy vice...but it is directed general at the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men and women (Phillipino, Indian, Pakistani, and countless other countries) that come to their country and serve as third country nationals. They are viewed as less than human and so deserving of the abuse. But not THEIR women.

In OUR country, the people that choose the muslim faith and adherence to Sharia are LUCKY...they get to live an Americanized version of Sharia. But that will only last as long as the country and constitution stands to protect their basic freedoms. They oppose the very laws and documents that ALLOW their current religous practice to be deemed tolerable. If they were to go to a fundamentalist country and live under the real laws...I think they would run screaming for home and look for another way to piss people off and show their 'power'.

Boy said...

Mind mechanic could you please give us a reference for the German sposal abuse story, I would love to show it to one of my professors.

MindMechanic said... you go.

Thu Mar 22, 9:26 AM ET

BERLIN (AFP) - A German woman judge has refused a Moroccan-born woman permission to file for divorce by interpreting the Koran as allowing husbands to beat their wives.

"Where are we living? Woman judge allows beating in marriage... and invokes the Koran," said a front-page headline in Germany's top-selling Bild newspaper, reflecting the widespread angry reaction on Thursday.

"This Moroccan woman has the same right to protection from a violent husband as any German woman. Anything else would be misconceived sensitivity to the benefit of the husband and would amount to racist discrimination against the wife," said the Tageszeitung daily.

The Central Council of Muslims in Germany also condemned the decision.

"The judge should have made a decision based on the German constitution instead of the Koran," said spokeswoman Nurhan Soykan, who said that violence and mistreatment, regardless of the gender of the victim, were also grounds for divorce in the Islamic world.

A court in the western city of Frankfurt on Wednesday upheld a complaint of bias against the judge lodged by the lawyer of the 26-year-old woman, who has two children.

The woman had filed for immediate divorce on the grounds that the husband, also of Moroccan origin, regularly beat her and threatened to kill her. The claims were backed up by a police report.

But the female judge, who has not been named, made clear in a letter that the wife's bid had little chance of approval because, according to her, Islamic law allowed a man to strike his wife.

German politicians from all parties were united in disgust at the judgement.

"When the Koran takes precedence over the German Basic Law, then I can only say: Good night Germany," Ronald Pofalla, the secretary general of the conservative Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Angela Merkel, told Bild.

Hans-Christian Stroebele, of the opposition Greens, said the kind of abuse suffered by the woman should be punished by German criminal law.

You'd like to think this was an April Fools joke...but no...sadly...

MindMechanic said...

It may make for good discussion knowing that in Europe they are now insisting that schools not teach the history of the holocaust, that they not teach the rise and fall of the Persian empire, they not teach about the numerous crusades and their resons for beginning.

In Europe, media outlets are banning their reporters from referring to Jihad as being offnsive. 'Muslim' cannot be used with the word 'terrorist'. 'Extreme' and 'fundamentalist' cannot be used with the word 'Islam'.

Its a fun new world out there...

Hey Europe...just so's you know...your citizens are not having children and the muslims in your midst are procreating like rabbits...

MindMechanic said...

Politically Correct European Union Bans Words Jihad, Islamic, and Fundamentalist

A new secret guidebook for European Union government spokespeople advises them from linking terrorism with Islam in any of their statements. The lexicon requires that the phrase "Islamic terrorist" will now be instead "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".
Is freedom of speech on the decline in the EU or is this guidebook a way to smooth relations between Muslim and non-Muslim?

From the Telegraph-

The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".

An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, "common lexicon", is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.

The EU officials made the following statements about the "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalization" to the Telegraph--

"The common lexicon includes guidance on a number of frequently used terms where lack of care by EU and member states' spokespeople may give rise to misunderstandings," he said.

"Careful usage of certain terms is not about empty political correctness but stems from astute awareness of the EU's interests in the fight against terrorism."

"Terrorists exploit and augment suspicions."

Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid "providing context" for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences.

"We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding," said one.

Some are unhappy with the new politically correct Lexicon. UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten said that the EU is in denial over the true roots of terrorism. He stated to the Telegraph, "This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality," he said. "The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam."

He may be referring to the bombings of London and Madrid. Both attacks combined killed hundreds and wounded over a thousand.

Hours after the July 7,2005 bombings in London which killed 56 people, including the 4 perpetrators--Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay (also known as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal), and Hasib Hussain--and injured 700, a statement was posted on the Al-Qal3ah website. The statement claimed that the bombings were carried out by "The Secret Organisation Group of Al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe" and began by invoking Allah and the Prophet Mohammad.

The 2004 Madrid train bombings killed 191 people and wounded 2,050. The attack was reportedly carried out by individuals associated with the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group.

Under the new EU lexicon, will that now be The Moroccan Terrorists Who Abusively Invoke Islam Group?


Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU, The Telegraph, March 30, 2007,

'Islamic terrorism' is too emotive a phrase, says EU, The Telegraph, December 4, 2006,

July 2005 London Bombings,

2004 Madrid Train Bombings,

Dont you love it? Ever wonder why this isnt on your mainstream media front pages?

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...


Great information, as always; I am particularly interested in the willingness to set aside Law to facilitate the feelings of Muslims who break it. Surely this German judge is a person who does no believe in right and wrong - does not accept the existence of Truth or Justice let alone the American Way. She will find many kindred spirits in the Democrats in congress and the radicals running the Media these days.

In our media the lie is still global warming. Even President Bush was giving it some lip service to this hoax in his press conference this morning. What is truly shocking is that *Time* Magazine has made it their cover story this week, complete with a cute little computer enhanced penguin. I HIGHLY recommend for every one to watch the You-Tube film, *The Great Global Warming Swindle*. Unlike Al Gore’s fiction piece, this one is free. It runs just over 75 minuets. It was recommended to me by a true friend, and I have watched it twice in the past week. It completely and scientifically debunks “the man caused CO2 lie.” I was shocked and dismayed that even the Supreme Court of the United States cannot see there are being had on this. I was please by Chief Justice Roberts decent. It just goes to show you that we must have someone appointing thinking judges to the SC.

Anyway, once again I implore all to watch *The Great Global Warming Swindle* on You-Tube.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I know this is an overly simplistic analogy...

Muslim terrorists announce their intention to come up from behind every non believer and slice their throats. (I almost said 'sneak'-but really...they arent sneaking are they?)

Then they begin doing it. And as one is coming from behind to slice the next persons throat, a samaritan leaps forward, knocks the intended victim aside, and stops the terrorist.

In response, the intended victim stands up and rails on about how big a bully the samaritan is for knocking him down, completely ignoring the fact that there is someone bent bound and determined to slice their throats.

Lysis said...

Anonymous wisdom, how beautiful. Think of this as well, as the rescued party is berating their savior – they also show their hatred for all Samaritans by making friends with the terrorists and inviting them home where they can slit throats in private. People who can’t reason are indeed a danger to us all – except perhaps the terrorists that is.

Anonymous said...

Carried forward from the previous discussion...

Ganesh said...

Lysis, your allegory to Hipias is a good one; however, I would suggest that the Peloponnesian War would be more appropriate for the situation we discuss; a democracy fighting an unpopular war. As you know, the Athenian democracy stopped supporting the army, ending in the Sicilian campaign and the fall of Athens. You know more about this than I so I will leave any necessary elaboration to the more knowledgeable.

Anonymous seems to have some skill in the great art of debating. He seems to understand that when one cannot make a cogent argument, personal attacks are the best way to persuade others. Did I catch him condemning Lysis for incorrect citations when him failed to as much as attempt to give credit to those who supplied him with his own arguments?

On the issue of the terror state, Truth to Power and Mind Mechanic give good arguments against it and I have but one more thought to add: as one of them state, we were flying three days after the attacks. I would like to suggest (please give any constructive criticism, I’d appreciate intelligent opinions on my thoughts) that the American public has gone the exact opposite way. We are becoming complacent. Airline security has relaxed since 9/11, (a few new regulations have been passed, however, it is taken less seriously than it was shortly after the attacks) and Americans no longer consider flying to be a danger. When I last flew, I never thought about the terrorists the security checks may have been preventing to board, only about how much of a pain the seemingly year-long lines to board my flight seemed to be.

When the war is condemned as unnecessary and pointless, this is not the sign of a people afraid; it is the sign of people who do not see the need for the war. They do not consider themselves in any danger. They seek appeasement because it is believed that the struggle is not worth our lives and that it is a distant concern. If the terrorists don’t follow through, who cares? We’re safe and snug at home. When Bush is condemned for his efforts to fight terrorism, he is condemned because they are seen as unnecessary (I myself do not agree with some of his actions). This is not fear. This is complacence. Fearful people would embrace the Patriot Act because they would believe that surrendering their freedoms would keep the terrorists from attacking them. This is why people would embrace Nazism or Stalinism or any other of the deadly isms. For example, communism only took control in states which were poor. In which the people were afraid for their lives and there was no economic stability. When one is afraid, the first instinct is to turn and run. Fear is not the reason one stands and fights as Bush is intent on doing.

This is the Peloponnesian War all over again. If there was fear, the reasons for withdrawal would more likely be the belief that if we failed to appease the ‘insurgents’ we would be struck again. The liberals seem to seek appeasement to end what they deem to be an unnecessary conflict (as well as power mongering, but that’s a whole other debate). When Cindy Sheehan held protests outside of Bush’s ranch, it was not for fear of her own wellbeing, as would be probable in a terror state; it was it was to protest what she saw to be the pointless and unnecessary death of her son. She couldn’t see that he was protecting her; she couldn’t see that his death meant anything. I do not suggest that each death in Iraq is not a tragedy however if America had truly become a terror state the needlessness of the death would not have been the tragedy protested. People would have feared our actions in Iraq would cause retaliation. Again, when one is first gripped by fear, the first instinct is never to stand and fight as we have been doing these past few years.

I apologize for my late entrance into the fray and I hope interest in this debate has not yet waned in wake of Lysis’ other recent posting.

4:50 PM

Lysis said...

Anonymous, called Ganesh?

I appreciate your insightful comments. I will attempt a response one paragraph at a time.

I agree with you entirely on the Peloponnesian war as the type for this conflict. Unlike the earlier war with the Persians, in the War against Sparta the duration and difficulty of the struggle led the Athenians to become discouraged, as Pericles warned them – to them Patriotism was like a bonfire, easily kindled – it shoots up and then die down. He explained to them that true patriotism must be like the Olympic torch – eternal. The Spartans were told by the god at Delphi that they would succeed if they fought with all their might. They never did – and in the end they had victory.

You are also very observant as to Debating skills and styles here in the Agora. Believe me, most of us are eager to be corrected – when we error – feel free to correct away.

I truly believe President Bush is a victim of his own success. There are legions of examples of leaders who gain and maintain power by constant reference to imaginary boogie men – usually American – Bush on the other hand has driven all the monsters across the seas. Meanwhile his enemies at home tout the victories of the terrorists far away and bask in the safety Bush has given them. When he points to very real dangers of terrorism – he is called an alarmist.

You are exactly right – the people of America are not afraid. They remind me of spoiled children, who sleep each night in a house warmed by their father’s labor, only to rise in the morning and curse their parents. Immaturity is manifest in many Americans failure to recognize the dangers against which they are secured and their inability to recognize the gift of those who serve them.

Among the great attributes of President Bush is his willingness to serve in spite of the vitriol and deception spewed on him by the ignorant.

After the defeat at Syracuse, the few surviving Athenian soldiers who were taken prisoner were put down into the quarry pits out side of Syracuse. Each day the citizens of the city would come out to the edge of the pit and watch the Athenian soldiers die. When news of the defeat at last reached Athens, the citizens attacked the bearers of the news as if they were criminals. The shattering of their illusion filled them with anger – but it was to late, although it took nine more years – defeat was inevitable, because they wanted to pretend that saying all was well would make it so.

MindMechanic said...

No more GWOT, House committee decrees

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 3, 2007 20:12:47 EDT

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Of COURSE there is political intent here..the democrats have no ANSWERS when it comes to fighting the war on terror so if they deny there is such a thing they can deny their failings.

Lysis said...


There is no political intent here – this is call let’s pretend, make believe, or surrender.

Cameron said...

I read the UK news articles about not using jihad etc that MindMechanic posted here. I have a couple of questions. First, to quote from one of the articles:

"The basic idea behind it is to avoid the use of improper words that would cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of radicalisation."

"Jihad means something for you and me; it means something else for a Muslim," EU officials at a Berlin conference on radicalisation said. "Jihad is a perfectly positive concept of trying to fight evil within yourself."

Words obviously have power to influence. Can it be that the terrorists have corrupted terms like jihad for their own ends, and news outlets' repetition of the corrupted meaning of these terms is harmful? If that is the case, then is it ok to use a more "eyes open" approach to the buzz words we use in relation to the terrorists?

Anonymous said...

Will Cheney be in violation of the BYU honor code if he tells the Democrats once more to "Go fuck themselves" during the graduation commencement speech?

I agree with Lysis -- too many troops in Iraq. All we need is 300!

But, is that for BOTH Iraq and Iran, or another 300 for Iran?

Strategos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

As of today (April 4, 2007), President Bush has spent 406 days vacationing at his dude ranch in Crawford, Texas. He left yesterday to begin an Easter weekend vacation at his ranch. That is roughly 2 out of every five days that he has been in office. That number does not include the time that he has spent at the Presidential Retreat of Camp David. President Bush set a new benchmark years ago for being "the most vacationed President in U.S. history." He began the tradition by taking the longest vacation of any U.S. president in August of 2001 just before the 9/11 attacks. (He did allow that vacation to be interrupted by a briefing on immenent terrorist attacks but took no action opting instead to finish his month long holiday plans.)

If this truly is the greatest threat to America we have yet faced then President Bush should get off his laurels and start fighting it. Stop watching the world crumble around you Mr. Bush - as you do in Lysis' true to life illustration above - and do something EFFECTIVE about it. There are competent adults in government, some newly elected, that are willing to guide through the process of how to achieve competent results.

mostly just listening said...

Being on vacation and not working aren't the same thing in the case of this President. I, frankly, don't believe even you really believe that Anonymous.

Furthermore, I hope the newly elected you are looking to to instruct aren't the same congress that promised to accomplish more than any other in their first hundred days and then took repeated vacations including for a football game.

Boy said...

Ha!! "Bush is fighting a war that doesn't exist and can't be won, we should give up, and by the way we are not doing enough to win this impossible war so at the same time we are giving up we should be fighting harder." I sincerely hope that there are several anonymousus posting because this line of argument is completely self-contradictory.

Boy said...

by the way it seems to me to be a credit to Bush that in his 3 out of every 5 days he has acomplished more for the world and this country than Bill Clinton who, even when he was in the oval office, was hardly "working."

Lysis said...


On the use of the word jihad; perhaps there is a better term – holocaust, or maybe a descriptive phrase -- “the subjugation and eventual extermination of all who refuse to accept the dictates of Muhammad”. It’s 1984 in the world of the Relativists.


I believe Cheney would be in violation of the BYU honor code if he told the Democrats to “Go fuck themselves” during his speech at BYU, It would still be good advice; but then there is no need for Cheney to reiterate his call to the Dems, they have already complied; too bad they have dragged the rest of us into the process.

As for the 300 hundred at Thermopylae – You need to remember that Leonidas lost the battle; the Greeks did win the war when they supplied the troops, the equipment, and the fortitude needed to stand against tyranny. We can be grateful that America is led by those who are willing to do the same in the midst of such disgusting behavior by Democrats and their media cheering squads.

Mostly Just Listening;

You are right on about President’s work schedule. We can be thankful that we have a President who does his DUTY 24/7. As for the “do nothing congress” – they have done something – they have emboldened the enemies of American and the West, they have brought hope to all who “pray” for America’s fall.


Great point on just how hard Clinton was “working” while he was in the office. I still wake up some nights to gasp a prayer of Thanksgiving that neither Clinton or Gore was President in American hour of need, in the midst of the Global War on Terror.


Thanks for this line of conversation – I am impressed that you scooped both Rush and Hannity on the Dems’ banning “War on Terror” and “Long War” from their vocabulary. Thanks for keeping up posted.

Lysis said...


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, puppet dictator of Iran, caved today and promised and said he would release the 15 hostages held in his terrorist state for over a week. Those of us familiar with history might remember Nikita Khrushchev’s desperate flailings as he attempted to maintain power and the smoke and mirrors prestige of the USSR. Like Mahmoud, Nikita grabbed hostages, first the People of Berlin then - with his “missiles” - the people of the United States. He too claimed victory and compassion in his successive collapses. He soon found himself in Siberia.

Let’s watch Ahmadinejad after this flop. I wonder where the Ayatollahs will be sending him?

MindMechanic said...


"There are competent adults in government, some newly elected, that are willing to guide through the process of how to achieve competent results"

Since you like throwing out foul words for shock value let me give you one right up response...


The democrats are devoid of ideas and they prove it every day. Social Security? Silence. Borders? Silence. Economy? Well...since we are historic employment and economic highs the silence is predictable. Renewable energy? Silence (except they do LOVE to bang the drum of global warming). But solutions? Silence. Fighting the war on terror? Silence.

Oh, they have lots of empty headed rhetoric that they spew on a regular basis. They love to hate. But when it comes to solutions to PROBLEMS? Nah...the democrats are as devoid of solutions and ideas

Ganesh said...

First off, many thanks to the kind anon who copied my post from the previous thread and to Lysis for his response.

On the issue of the censorship of words such as ‘jihad’ and ‘war on terror’, they are correct in a few cases. A word is only a symbol and one can attach whatever meaning to it one wishes. However one must be certain that the meaning to you wish to give the symbol will be the one most will understand it to represent. As Cameron said, most Muslims interpret ‘jihad’ to be a positive thing while the American media and the government use it to refer to the terrorists. The word has a double-meaning and can be misinterpreted.

If the average Muslim were to hear them say that we are fighting against the jihad, according to the meaning Cameron gave us, they would think we fight against what they consider to be a positive force. Using words with double-meanings is never an effective way to make one understood. If exclusion of this word to describe the terrorists prevents misinterpretation or the terrorists from giving double meanings to them, I am all for it.

Ganesh said...

Forgot to mention, clarification is one thing, but some of this is taking things to far. Denying that the war on terror is truly a war is the kind of thing that will cause a repeat of the Athenian defeat in the Peloponessian War (thanks to Lysis for expanding upon my allegory) I previously alluded to.

MindMechanic said...

"Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections."

Islamic Jihad has carried out scores of shootings and rocket attacks, and, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years.

Ramadan Shallah, overall chief of Islamic Jihad, lives in Syria, as does Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal. Israel has accused the Syrian-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership of ordering militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to carry out terror attacks.

Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East "resistance movements" and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.

"Bush and Dr. Rice made so many mistakes in the Middle East. Just look at Palestinian clashes and Iraq. But I think some changes are happening for the Bush administration's foreign policy because of the hand of Nancy Pelosi. I think the Democratic Party can do things the best. ... Pelosi is going down a good road by this policy of dialogue," he said.

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria "is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S."

"The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world."

Lysis said...


I am also grateful to Anonymous for getting you onto our thread.

Word games are the “only” resort of the relativists. In the end they can mean what ever they want them to. However, I do not believe that most Muslims believe that jihad means “the struggle” to do good, any more than the Word Crusade means that to most Christians. Pretending that Muslims are stupid and don’t understand their leaders or ours is an interesting trick of the Relativists. Both these words have been used to invoke WAR for millennia. When Osama declared his struggle against the U.S. it was meant to be a fight to the death. Now that he is dead his minions carry on the Holy War.

The word games are the same with the War on Terror. Please refer to past posts by the Flaccid anonymous – he has tried to define that conflict away for months now. It is one of the leading liberal talking points; he is just following his instructions.


Pelosi is appealing to her base – the Democrats and the terrorists. The Democrats support her with their votes the terrorists with their words. I am sure Hitler had wonderful things to say about Chamberlin, how the North Vietnamese loved Hanoi Jane.

Another tactic of the left, of Marx, of the Democrats, or Iran’s terror masters and now of terrorists in general is to say things are the way they want then to be. It is an old CX debate trick. Read enough cards, even if they are bogus and the judge might well start to believe the lie. It seems to have worked with Global Warming – Hamas and Ahmadinejad may as well give it a spin.

Just look, say it enough times and the holocaust never happened, 9/11 was Bush’s plot, there were no WMD, Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. These lies are the stock and trade of the media and the Democrats. Flood them with lies given the same credibility as truth and soon the masses are a mob – soon they are cutting off support to the troops and pretending they no longer exist, soon Lysander is sailing into the harbor and the fleet is in flames. Only the truth can save us.

Lysis said...

This morning it has become evident that not only was Pelosi’s kowtow to Damascus unpatriotic it was incompetent. Pelosi misrepresented not only the American people but the government of Israel. The Democrats have now sent their clown show on the road. Who’s laughing?

Anonymous said...

Who's laughing? Just the new Giants...the power of Islam.

Twon said...

Twon said...

for my views on this war

Twon said...

I think that our president fits this role perfectly