Rest days are good...especially for a guy with a broken hand!

Nicole rules :D

Why is it that I am always reminded of "Darling Nikki" by prince when I see pics of Nicole gracing the CF site :)

Holy Abs, Batman!

I love Nicole

Excuse me Coach, but really, Free Republic, that's your best shot? Freepers? Come on, you are obviously much smarter than this.
I have to say, though, the comments on the Free Republic site are hysterical, so thanks for that.

Well, since Republicans are using Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri as their re-election spokesmen, I think that Republicans feel shafted. Consider all the current administration has done in the last three years to aid Al Qaeda and the Talibans' resurgance. Republicans, in control of the military, cut and run from Afghanistan, leaving 1/10th the force there than in Iraq allowing the tribal factions supporting the Taliban to regain a foothold of power.

The Republican administration has provided 180 thousand live targets to help train future terrorists in whatever action can take place, and allowed it to be justified as the targets can qualify as invaders and not righteous retaliators.

Yep, backing up Democrats when the Republicans have helped terrorist organisations so much must feel like a slap in the face.

Now, I'm definately doing this tongue in cheek. However, it's likely that leaders of terrorist movements (the cowards that don't blow themselves up, instead having pawns do it) see the current administration (run by cowards who had better things to do during Vietnam) as beneficial to their aims. The current administration sees terrorists (or at least the fear of terrorists) as beneficial to its means. How to help each other out but not appear blatantly to help each other out? Ah, have the terrorists support the opposition, elliciting reverse psychological response? Nah, couldn't be.

Personally, I'm waiting for Sunday so that we can hear Saddam in guilty (big suprise) and will be hung (big suprise).

And military leaders renounce Rumsfield:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/

Must mean they support terrorists by the logic of the posted article...

But as to the article itself - I think the comments following it show just how mature and informed debate ought to be.

Sam L,

Why can you appreciate the humor of the article and I should be "smarter than that". Am I expected to be much smarter than you? Is that your point?

I've got a lot of problems with the piece. What are your assumptions in its being posted?

Thanks to Crossfit for providing such a great workout plan.

As for the article, it makes plenty of sense to me. A Republican government is the best thing for these terrorists. They aren't stupid, they know that their endorsment will be seen as a negative one for the Democrats. So, they try to endorse and weaken the Democrats to keep the Republicans in power and making bad decisions. That they can point to talk of withdrawal as a sign of weakness is icing on the cake.

Yes, that's right, #10 Oliver Gould. The insurgents know that if they endorse the Democrats, the Republicans will look light years better than candidates who are endorsed by the killers of civilians and our military members.

They want Republicans to stay in power, since they were the geniuses who dismantled the Baath Party infrastructure, i.e. the people who actually knew how to run the country, and trusted luminaries of democratic thought like Iyad Allawi, who reportedly summarily executed six suspected insurgents with his own hands and closed down the Baghdad office of Al-Jazzera, arguably the most free media outlet in the Middle East. With leaders like that in power, it is only natural that Iraqis would tend to side with former members of the regime. A government like that gives Democracy a bad face.

In fact, if I were a terrorist, many of whom are fairly educated, I would rather have the current administration, whose continue-an-unsuccessful-policy stance has only empowered the insurgency would most definitely continue.

It just so happens that a smart policy choice for the US--cut our losses in an increasingly bad situation--coincide with the insurgents' desire not to have occupiers in their country. Wouldn't you pull out of a bad hand of poker, even if your adversary would make some money, but not necessarily win the whole game? Or would you rather blow your whole pot with a losing strategy?

According to numerous scientific polls, Iraqis fight the Americans because they don't want us there. I'm in the military and I support all my buddies over there right now, but really, you have to be blind to reality to reflexively believe that Iraq is unfolding to our advantage. What better way to stop an insurgency than to cut off their biggest reason to fight?

As for Democratic candidates not being in their offices for comment on a Friday before the election, gee, do you think they could be campaigning with their constituents?

I've voted Republican since 1980 and I'm getting ready to vote Democrat down the line on Tuesday. Anyone else?

Voting straight libertarian on Tuesday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dHcdSSvT6c&mode=related&search=
One of the finest athletes I have seen -
strength, agility, coordination, balance, stamina, flexibility, - what else?

Most functional movement is initiated by large muscle groups and terminates with smaller muscle groups in a core to extremity relay of increasing velocity.

What does the mean in plain terms?

Thanks

Sam N. Comment #15

The picture of Nicole says it all. Actually, I'm speechless except to say 'Nicole is my hero!'

#14 That video is AMAZING!!! Thank you for sharing. I only wish I could do something like that, but I'd be weary of falling. If I built up my jumping confidence then okay.

Oh yeah- and I have to first learn how to do the flips. :)

I am reading some of these posts and realizing some of the posters did not read the article.

I see how people are frustrated at the decisions made during this war. I want to say that one must also take note that decisions WERE made. Leaving Iraq or Afgahnistan or the mideast in general will not bring the peace we desire. If we let these forces have the fledgling governments of Iraq and Afgahnistan like they already have many of the beligerent Middle East we are going to set ourselves up for failure on a massive scale.

We as a nation and people have lost perspective on sacrifice. That means Treasure and sadly, BLOOD. The islamo-fascist revolution was in production long before 9/11...long before President Bush or President Clinton.

Iranian thugs held our innocent people for over a year in Tehran. Sadly, all President Carter could think to do was reach out to the Iranian leadership only to get spat on. This lead to a true failure: Operation Eagle Claw...where we lost many of our finest because again President Carter let his skiddish nature choose options that were left to chance at best.

These people you can take at their word...look at France right now...they have given in at every turn, yet their street burn and Police brutalized.

This is not a battle in a PLACE. This is a battle of WILLS.

When I read about the administration giving the enemy 180,000 targets I am amazed. TARGETS?? The second we start looking at ourselves as Targets we are all but wrapped up. This is not the mindset of a fighter. This is the mindset of a victim. A victim that hopes if they don't fight back the assailant will stop. "Just Take My PURSE!!!"

There are things we know we must tackle but as a people we procrastinate hoping for a miracle or at least a painless option.

Social Security and Illegal Immigration to name a couple.

The War on Terror is no different.

This fight of wills is no different. They are at WAR with us. They have been at WAR with us for 30 years when we did not want it or acknowledge it. They will still be at WAR with us if we give in now. They will continue to wage WAR until we are dead or converted.

WAR is not an option...only our WILL to fight it.

I would like to invite the MEN of this board to pull their sacks out of their pelvises and quit thinking you can ignore this and blame our leaders for our involvement. The blame goes square on the shoulders of the people who brought the violence to OUR doorstep.

Quit passing the buck to the President or the Vice President or the SECDEF...this is OUR fight. All they can do is lead and they are...good, bad or indifferent. By doing nothing you are hurting the cause. By second guessing every decision you are inadvertantly helping the other side.

Rattle off all the political crap you want..it will not change any of this. I suggest you toughen yourselves and think long and hard about the America you are willing to accept. Because unless you stand up and face this situation that is the best you will get of America...what you can accept...and later, not even that.

Make no mistake, they will change us or we will change them.

I perfer my liberty and happiness. I prefer to be an Infidel. Most of all, I prefer to be American. I believe it is worth fighting for.

I ask you to read this article posted 2 NOV in The American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6000

Please digest it past your political views and look at this situation from an action/reaction stand point.

That's an amusing site. YOu mean to say the Democrats didn't return their calls?? The horror. You'd have thought answering this kind of trivia for an internet-rag would be a priority at the mo. It's not like they have anything better to do.

It is also amusing that we are unable to credit major terrorist organisations with enough intelligence and cunning to undermine US politics via comments like these. Or are we taking everything they say at face value these days?

Despite my revulsion to the tone of that site however, I must concede that Bush's line about staying the course in Iraq is the only decent way to procede now. History has thus far showed war in Iraq to have been a fundamentally misguided course of action, (is there anybody who still disputes this except Bush and Blair themselves btw?), but prematurely withdrawing and leaving it in the state it currently is would be even more criminal.

As a side note, (going a bit OT here - sorry) I saw an interview on Channel 4 news (UK) with one of Bush's senior spin doctors, (or whatever their PR bods get called in the US). He was THE most refreshingly honest politician I have ever heard. He actually admitted Bush was unpopular, and then joked along the lines of, "but shhh, don't tell anyone back home I said this!". Very humourous bloke, I think Blair's cronies could learn from him. They'll still be claiming Blair is loved as we march the little to the gallows.... anyway.

I've said it before, and I'll day it again; I <3 Nicole.

Comment #19 - BINGO! Thank you CCTJOEY. You hit the nail on the head. You could not have said it any better and I am confident that 80% of the CrossFitters agree with you.

Truth, especially when it's revealed, always angers the opposition. And the main reason Satan rebelled against God.

#19 Very good comments on fighting for freedom. Saw a presentation by 3 living Medal Of Honor winners from Vietnam last night. They are not bothered by the moral apathy that grips our P.C. culture. They can see this fight very clearly in the black and white, good vs. evil that it is. Giving in, getting out, is a victory in every way for our enemies. Another message that these men left us was this; they won every battle on every battle field for Vietnam, and lot the war because the country lost its will. That is what happens when you turn the countries saftey to the Neville Chamberlains that think that negotiating with evil can be done. It didn't work with Hitler and the Nazi's and wont work with Radical Islam. The Cross Fit issue this month talked about Forging Mental Fitness by Jim Decker. These points are just as applicable to our country and government. Lets hope for all of our sakes that the country learned it's lesson in Vietnam and will not run out on the tough work of defeating an evil enemy intent on world domination.

Patrick,

Interestingly the Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force Times, the papers running the editorial you referemce, also run a column from an Air Force guy who went from publicly criticizing and denouncing CrossFit to publishing our workouts and underlying rationale as his own.

Bill Catley: It's not black and white though is it? If it were, the war on 'terrorism' in Iraq would not be increasing the number of terrorists in the world, or increasing the likelyhood of us getting attacked again. If it were black and white, the reasons that were used for going into the conflict would not have been proven to hold no water - something post #17 conveniently sidesteps when he talks of the enemy 'bringing the war to our doorstep'. Of course, we could claim that we are simply fighting to remove an unjust and evil regime, (a noble cause indeed) but then why did we not act against Zimbabwe or any of the other numerous evil regimes in the world?

This is a standard approach of the increasingly few remaining supporters of the war in Iraq: to present it as "with us or with the terrorists". Or to try and insinuate that those who favour other solutions are emasculated, limp-wristed liberals. It sounds good when you fire off these tough-talking soundbites, but unfortunately they don't hold up under cross-examination.

Were that this was the "All Nicole channel, all the time"! I would set it as my home page :)

Terrorists supporting Democratic candidates? I didn't need an article to see that one a mile away. It is a no-brainer, and I've been saying that since 12SEP2001. Democratics refuse to believe that their inability to to stay on-point in SW Asia, and their desire to flee...IS aid and comfort to the enemy. No matter how you Dems want to rationalize it, if we don't finish what they started, we'll endanger the lives of far more Americans (civilian and mil)for generations to come, than are in harm's way currently.

Papa-Bravo

No offense to anyone, but lets not polute this holy white place that is Crossfit with dirty dark things like politics...everyone is entitaled to there oppinions and that is what makes us American, however I do not think this is the time nor place for such jibba-jabba.

baldmtnguru, welcome to Rest Day.

Why is there polictical garbage on this website? Crossfit is for execise. If I wanted politics I would go a site which specializes in it. Let us focus on exercise. CrossFit is awsome.

re: politics of "core", agreed coach on the obvious physiology behind larger muscle groups...then core movement basics...how backwards the fitness industry has been since the Aussies/Stu McGill/Dianne Lee have put out their work on "core" muscles and muscle recruitment patterns yet when i train individuals based on movements, not small muscles, they seem to fair just fine...interesting
my .02 from experience..if you are injured and need re-training, fine for the little muscle recruitment, if not...the little intrinsic stamp collector exercises for prevention are not helping and will not prevent injury, correct "movements" will!

Anyone who has ever said that women with a little muscle aren't sexy has never seen Nicole. Amazing woman to say the least!!

Now, how about that CF Swimsuit Calendar? If it means seeing Amundson in a banana hammock in order to enjoy more Nicole, it's a chance I'd be willing to take!! (jk Greg, don't hurt me.)

Although I don't think we should allow terrorists' attempts at reverse psychology to determine our votes, don't you find it kind of interesting that the CIA concluded that Bin-Laden was rooting for Bush in the 2004 election?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009102.php

Seriously, why wouldn't Al Qaeda be huge Bush supporters? Instead of finishing them off in Afghanistan, he launched a completely unnecessary war in Iraq, removing a secular Arab leader they considered their enemy; created a dysfunctional state where they could receive "real life" training in car-bombing, sniping, etc. against civilians and U.S. troops; strengthened the hand of Iran, which supports jihadist movements worldwide; drove a huge wedge between the U.S. and most of its allies, thereby decreasing the kind of international cooperation needed to actually fight terrorism; etc., etc. etc.

Iraq is a campaign in the larger war on terror...as is Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, and the Phillipines to name a few...I wish the politicians, pundits, media, and everyone else would at least figure that part out.

With all due respect Coach (and there is a quite a bit of respect for what you have accomplished and your views, although not necessarily agreement with your views), I am not seeing the link. Is this guilt by association? Is the entire "Times" journal lacking because of them carrying a column from a pretender to Crossfit? Have you (rightly) sent a letter to the editors of the Times asking for a retraction/apology/recognition and they denied yoru request?

I just think the article is the equivalent of a leg extension - it's one dimensional, it isn't functional and it seems only to strengthen knee jerk reactions.

If we really were serious about the war on terrorism (from the President on down), wouldn't we be willing to pay for it? But I don't hear anyone calling for higher taxes, greater conscription into the military, and just plain sacrifice.

As a country we are going to have to get used to paying more taxes - and it is not just the upfront costs of military occupation - we've got veterans who are coming back with injuries, are disabled, or have post-traumatic stress disorder. Our military has paid and continues to pay the costs - as citizens, are we ready to pay the cost?

Papa, what about the argument that if we DO stay we endanger far more American lives? By us staying in Iraq, we are viewed as the "occupying" force. Never a popular position to be in, and is bound to create more resentment from all populations in the region, therefore giving a whole new generation of people reason to hate us. With us staying how does it end? Bush speaks of the democrats not having a plan, where is his? "We're staying" is hardly a plan for victory. It's actually a very good debate topic because each decision made has a clear consequence. .

Republicans haven't done anything positive for this country since Lincoln freed the slaves..

he said jibba-jabba

#26 Brian, and #24 baldmtnguru, I'd suggest you stay away from the comments section on rest day if you don't like your political debate. You'll just end up frustrated and covering your keyboard in spittle because I guarantee someone will offend your delicate sensibilities.

JBeam:

Killing the enemy does not make him stronger. It makes him dead.

Terrorsist leaders - the ones we haven't killed yet - want Democrats to win because they know the Democrats will adopt a Brave Sir Robin strategy against Islamic terrorism. They know this because the Democrats have said so as loud as they can.

The jihadis present us with three choices: conversion, dhimmitude, or death.

Their articulated grievances are all pretexts. The only grievance that matters is whether you submit to their religion. The geographic territory in which they push this agenda is limited to the entirety of planet Earth.

This is blindlingly clear from their writings, the scriptural and doctrinal authorities upon which they rely, and from their conduct and that of their forebears.

IOW, this is serious business. The Islamic terrorists want Bush to lose because they know he is kicking their a**, and because they know the Democrats will run away, handing them a collosal victory they cannot achieve by any other method.

Iraq is the epicenter of jihad, so sayeth bin Laden and Zawahiri. People who do not think so are wilfully blind to the enemy's strategy and declarations.

When we vote on Tuesday we are deciding how we want this to come out.

Best regards,

Is it me, or has Nicole gained lots of muscle in the last year? She was lean, but she looks to have developed serious mass. I'd be very curious to see how *all* of the Crossfit elite have progressed in terms of their performances. Knowing that Nicole, Eva, Greg, or whoever used to have trouble doing X or could only do X reps but can now do X would be a good motivator.

My coworker and I recently took the skills test on Crossfit Toronto's site (http://skillstest.crossfitto.com/) and were happy to see what progress we'd made and where we needed work.

Re: complaining about political articles on rest day: Coach's philosophy seems to be one of finding weaknesses and structuring the workouts to remedy them. Reference recent comments about imbalances between abdominal and back strength and the workouts that followed. Why would the mind be any different? You're expected to think on rest day. It's sort of the price of entry; the site is free. Well, except for the pain... and the thinking.

Something long overdue:

Military Times Throws Down The Gauntlet: Rumsfeld Must Go
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/military_times_.html

RC...

I guess we will have to disagree. You see the reasons we went to Iraq were sound.

1. Saddam was still beligerent.
2. The Middle East is fastly becoming a powder keg and if WE don't put safe havens for sanity in that region we lose millions later on.
3. The UN Resolutions were not adhered to.
4. Saddam himself admits that he was going to restart his weapons program when he could.
5. Saddam had used WMDs before.
6. WE ALL THOUGHT HE HAD THEM...U.S., UK, France , Germany, Russia....some say they still exist but are now in Syria...

I am not side stepping anything....I am staring staight at the problem. Your view point is trying to make excuses and deflections from the problem. So far, as ugly as it sounds, it is a FACT that we have done more harm to them 10X what they have done to us. We have done most of the damage to ourselves. Mostly because we have to try to please those of weaker constitutions in this world that we will not use too much force.

Iraq is like spinning plates. There you are trying to spin the plates of a functioning govenment that can run and defend itself and keep coming by and trying to knock over your plates. They do not have to beat you...they just have to get lucky once in a while to keep you from keeping the plates spinning or bump you so you knock off a plate.

They don't have to be better to win...we have to be damn near flawless. Not becuase the situation dictates...rather because the spectators will through tomatoes at the home team if they are not. Strange as it may seem to the tomatoe throwers, but the other side take comfort at that and gains confidence.

Can't this be the one site that political views are kept to one's self? There are plenty of other blogs for that. Besides, who can think of those paid liars (both parties) when there are "Abs of Heaven" staring at you in the face like that!

So, now we care what terrorists think?

Hey-

Painstorm video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzI-2FzRk4o

Good luck in your training,

-K

The little philly in the photos is a rock! Solid I say! Congratulations, your hard work has paid off. I train several ladies who aspire to become like this one. Hats off to you young "Nicolai".

I just come here for the hilarious rest-day comments. I think Coach is at his finest when he is asking questions instead of making statements (Comment #9). What will he ask? How snide will he be? Will we get a hint? Why the Socratic method? Why are others adopting his style?

//Nigel

Back from a full rest week. Did some stuff written in y-days comments.

please don't make the mistake of thinking that the army times (or any of the other publications that fall under the times umbrella) represents the views of the military-it is a privately owned publication marketed towards the military.

About the article, remember to think for yourself!
Today's training:
21-15-9 of:
- oly bar snatch
- 25 kg dumbell swing
- wall-ball
time: 10:04 min.
Have fun, Johan

Anything posted on Free Republic is only slightly less credible than a madman on a street corner preaching about the end of the world.

Everything on that site is complete and utter trash. I'm usually disappointed every 4 days with the articles chosen by the Glassmans. Sometimes they are good articles, written by reputable sources (or at least have some kind of balance), but today I am disgusted.

Mr. and Mrs. Glassman, will you ever stop posting right-wing drivel? I welcome the political articles on this site from the left or the right, but when they come from such terrible sources, one has no choice but to ignore them.

Painstorm XIX, alas alone. Son bailed on me :=(

"Pack" weight 50# bar

23 rounds.

First four consecutive, all others singles. Did not put bar down for any round.

Will now crawl off to nap...

CCTJoey #17 - well said.

I continue to be amazed by the overwhelming lack of logic by those in disagreement with the article.

#46 is a classic example of an illogical rebuttal that fails to persuade:

1st, Adam slanders the web source and compares it to a madman preaching, without any examples of relevance. This is not a logical or relevant rebuttal. If you disagree, please explain.

Next, Adam expresses his emotions about the Glassmans choice of articles. He explains that the articles are "good" articles when they come from "reputable" sources - or have "balance." Since Adam does not explain how he defines "reputable" or "balanced," we can only assume that he means articles that make him feel "not disgusted." News flash, Adam: your emotions are irrelevant. Why don't you tell us why the article is incorrect?

Finally, Adam summarizes his illogical post with more slander (right-wing drivel), false assumptions (Mrs. Glassman?), and more unsubstantiated claims ("terrible sources").

I don't label myself conservative or liberal. However, on this site, I have recognized that many people (not, all) who oppose conservative views tend to post ignorant statements laced with emotion, name-calling and illogical arguments. On the other hand, many of the conservatives on this site, tend to post thoughtful points with multiple references.

I say, if you disagree with conservatives, or with articles posted on this site, then "step up!" Change our minds with valid arguments and relevant discussion. Do a little research. Use proper grammer. Don't get mad, get busy! I'm ready to read what you have to say.

Cheers.

What exactly is the analogy that some people see between the WODs and the rest-day readings? In what way do these readings *actually* stimulate thinking or debate?

They tend either (1) to make no assertions narrow enough to be meaningfully debated (e.g., today's article: "Are Democrats pussies or not? Rant . . . er, discuss."), or (2) to be so technical that the lay reader is unlikely to be able to meaningfully debate them (e.g., last rest day's piece on carbon emissions).

Past rest day readings and comments sections show that the same players stake out the same positions, with more than a strong whiff of dogmatism, and talk past each other.

No progress is being made. Rest day is about stagnation. So how does this differ from a failed workout program? How is insistence, against all evidence, on rest day readings as a program for "challenging your mind as you challenge your body" any different than insistence, against all evidence, on a smattering of bodybuilding exercises and long-distance running as a program for optimal physical fitness?

Thank you.

For our day off we decided to do "3 bars of death", rock on Linda!

Talissa- 26:05
DL 67# BP 67# Clean 45#
Thayer- 25:50
DL 55# BP 56# Clean 45#

(slightly less than body weight :-)......)

How do you say ouchy mama?

No big news here. I’m thinking that this hasn’t been the first time the enemies of Apple Pie have cheered for the appeasers. One imagines that the Nazis were bigger fans of Chamberlain than they were of Churchill or that Hanoi preferred Jane Fonda over John Wayne or that the Soviets would have preferred Jimmy over Ronnie. And inasmuch as appeasement is to modern liberal ideology as drunken ass-clowns are to the view seats, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the jihadists hope for a Nancy Pelosi November.

I really wish there was a derivatives market for the Democratic Party Polyuria Index—i.e., a numerical scale that measures the mean level of “leg pissing” among a basket of selected Democrats. I’d mortgage the house to be long in that market right about now.

Oh, "RC" (#22), I'm not calling you limp wristed. If you are, that's your business.

As usual not one leftist as actually adressed the content of the article and made an informed response. All I've seen is diversion and Ad Hominem attacks. Poor form lefties! Get with it! I'd love to hear you response as to why America's enemies prefer your party. K-

Geir (#49), I don't have time for your post. Can't you see that I'm busy talking past you?

Fantastic pic!

db #32,

Teddy Roosevely initiated national parks and is the primary reason that America is a super power today. I am sure you would agree that Yellowstone is a good thing, right? When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was filibustered by southern Democrats (Dixiecrats), the Republicans helped push the bill through. I think everyone would agree that was a good thing. Richard Nixon, for all his failings, initiated the EPA.
Oh, and have you caught the latest economic numbers? The Dow, unemployment (4.4%), home ownership?

Not to forget the (much beloved) USSR that no longer threatens us with nuclear annihilation. I will give FDR some credit on this one. It was under his administration that the Project Venona was initiated (by the OSS). Can you say "super-secret wire tapping"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
On this subject, the American Left gave us Alger Hiss, the Rosenburgs, and other Soviet spies.

So please, please... at least realize that people are trying to solve the problems at hand and not simply waiting for it to go away. To those of you in the sand box, thank you! I hope to do my part soon!

One thing everyone must keep in mind is that we know very little about the actual "war on Terror." What we see is the war in Iraq and only the war in Iraq. Operations take place every day in a myriad of countries around the world that the American people will never be privy to. It is wel known that Democrats are much more averse to covert/clandestine operations. These ops are where the real war on terror are be fought. As for me, I will never vote Democrat, as I see them as whining, welfare supporting, blame the world for their problems sort of babies. However, I doubt I will ever vote Republican again either. Our political system is broken and our country is being run by at the very best by idiots, and in many cases criminals. I think Osama is correct in suporting Dems just as China was during the last admin.

Brian # 54 The Dems do NOT blame the world for their problems. They blame you and I. The rest of the world can do no wrong as far as they're concerned. K-

Patrick,

I see both the fitness series and the Rumsfield slam as editorial failings of the Gannett owned papers - especially in light of the papers' readership. The timing of the pre-election multimedia leaking of the upcoming editorial and the promise that it has nothing to do with the election tell me it has everything to do with the election. Isn't it a reasonable chess move in light of the Kerry meltdown? Will it do for the Mil papers what the NYT's editorial direction/misdirection is doing for its bottom line?

I thought the Freerepublic piece was strident, even clumsy. (It's a wonder anyone even noticed the link.) I couldn't find more palatable reportage of the story ("Enemies of civilization align with major American political party") anywhere. I would have liked a NYT spin on the story.

We are in an age where much of MSM is in rapid decline. Important stories are, with increasing frequency, coming from unusual, sometimes disreputable or unsavory sources, but certainly smaller lesser known outlets. It's all healthy.

Geir,

You didn't like the last Rest Day piece. You suggest that is because you didn't understand it, but a handful of people did. The discussion was lively and more than a few of us learned something from it. I certainly did.

Because a chorus of people for whom politics is a facet of fashion choice, like wearing Hawaiian shirts, cover their ears, shut their eyes tightly, and scream, "Nah, nah, nah, nah..! incessantly, doesn't mean that the message is bad, thoughtless, or otherwise improper.

I don't know if the article is humorous or simply sad. Sad that there is a market for this type of hype, whether right or left wing. We appear to have a majority in our nation (especially those who never fought in Iraq) who form strong opinions based on simpleton articles like this. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get past the tabloid pieces to a realistic view of the problems we're dealing with? The Republicans have lost credibility with much of America and the world with their handling of Iraq, but the sad truth remains that there are no good options for either party. Once we get past November 7th I hope we can start looking at it truthfully and without political agendas, for the sake of our nation.
A

Rest Day: 5 mile Wilderness Run 47:16.

Hey Coach why dont we talk about the growing National Deficit / Debt and what it really means to be a Fiscal Conservative! I notice that Crossfit classes are not cheap. If BOTH Parties keep spending like they have been for the last 6 years you and your affliates might want to consider a sale/discount or buy one get one free deal!!!! Dont believe the hype.

Adam Drake and those enjoying his remarks:

The story linked to today is a follow up to another story originally appearing in World Net Daily. The original story from World Net Daily was reported by Jerusalem Post reporter, who actually interviewed terrorist leaders to ask who they supported in the election:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

------

Now, how exactly does ridiculing FreeRepublic constitute a rebuttal of what the terrorist leaders are saying?

These are direct quotes from terrorist leaders, not "right wing drivel."

Here's a hint for working through the logical dead end in which you find yourself: FreeRepublic is not your enemy. Your enemy is the Islamic jihadi. You can tell the difference because the jihadi is the one that wants to hold your severed head up to the camera.

Coach #56---

First, I didn't say I was a lay reader, so you're wrong to say that I said I didn't understand the last rest day piece.

Second, is your "chorus of people" sentence supposed to express something definite? It seems to say, "Just because Group A says something and Group B doesn't like it doesn't mean that Group A is wrong." That strikes me as an utter platitude. Is this an instance of the much-vaunted independent thinking?

Thanks.

Here is a letter I wrote to Sen. Kerry after the "mispoke joke" fiasco...it could actually go to just about every Senator/Representative in Congress:
---------
Sen. Kerry,

While I believe that you intended to make a joke at the President's expense, you should remember your days in the military where (as I thought you might know), military personnel are forbidden to utter disparaging remarks against the President, VP, etc...by doing what you did, you not only offended the troops with your "mistake", but further insult them by making fun of POTUS. It's not just you, many other democrats and a myriad of others do it...its a sad statement regarding our political system.

I am a 22 year Air Force Pararescueman, SMSgt (E-8), veteran of Desert Shield/Storm, Operation Provide Comfort, Operation Souther Watch, OEF and OIF. Currently I serve as Senior Enlisted Manager for the 31st RQS. I would never run my team, squadron, or operations in such a childish manner.

I do not blame you specifically, but the overall state of politics in our country today, where it has become commonplace an accepted practice to lie, cheat, insult, bicker, and spend millions of dollars on smear campaigns...it absolutely disgusts me. Because of this, I am seriously considering retirement as I no longer want to serve such children.

I would hope you and others will stand up once and for all and try to get things done instead of bickering like spoiled little kids. I cannot understand how anyone in congress right now can look their constituents in the eye. I can't understand how anyone in congress can utter anything and expect the American people to believe it.

I've lost faith in the system. I do not like working for spoiled little brats. I do like children running this country but unfortunately, that's what were stuck with at the moment.

If were not the laughing stock of the world right now...we soon will be. Not because of Iraq, or the GWOT, but because we have actually elected spoiled little rich kids to run our country.

Nicole jumps through this range of motion for a Sumo Deadlift High Pull. Interesting.
I just throw my hips in as my final pull. Is this just to show transfer from heel push to the force of the final pull creating enough elevation to put her up on her toes?

Sorry this is miles off topic (it's more for last rest day),

Coach, did you see this? Very interesting opinion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm

The thought of doing my first Painstorm today woke me up a couple of times last night. So what is the first thing I see walking into Crossfit Marina 0800? I observe the Commandant of the House of Pain sprawled out on the deck, having just finished Painstorm XIX. I wish I could say that was inspirational. It wasn't! Did it anyway and spent more time in my heart rate red zone than any activity I have ever done. My stats are at age 51, 190# using 65# and getting 24 complete rounds before ending up on the deck in the fashion similar to Steve. It was an awesome session and I thank Steve for keeping me in good form (and good spirits) and Brent for his fine pacing!

Nicole your awesome.
Miss you tons
Love you lots
Those of us in Santa Cruz are so so so lucky to be trained by someone as amazing as you.
Can you just stay home for a while though??

MarkFu...fantastic work mate!

here is the video of our PainStorm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrNJB2e5c7M

OMG there's a gecko here (#63)--I have company!!

Sorry for the late post on this one, but i only agree with you in part on the recruitment of muscle groups being from big to small.

In my humble experience, the group pathway is

small>big>small

Consider a fencer, standing in the regular stance, and deciding to perform a straight lunge. The first thing to move in this explosive technique, is the lifting of the toes on the front foot, then, lower leg. Then the arm begins to extend from the elbow to the shoulder wlile the rear leg begins to extend. Then, once the movements of the extremities have establised the correct pathway for the body to travel overall, the larger groups are brought to bear with full force.

The same can be said for a baseball pitch, commencing with the lifting of the front leg, extention of the front arm, drive off the foot ball on the anchored leg, then the hips, torso shoulders are brought to bear...finally finishing with the progressive reduction on muscle groups in the back, shoulder, arm, wrist and fingers.

A baseball batter (a good one), lifts the front foot and steps forward way before the torso is brought into play. It is the locking of this front leg that turns the hips and in turn the torso then shoulders. The step is what starts the movement.

small>big>small

I was always taught at university that it was big>small, but it never really sat well with me

In the case of crossfit drills, the same can be argued. Look at the high-pull. It is critical to perform this and any other 'weighted' drills with the body parts in correct allignment. This is controlled by the samller muscle groups working in concert with the rest of the body to find correct posture and position for the drill in question....only then can the drill be performed efficinetly. Yes there is a shorter lead-up, but here more than any other, body postion is vital.

Finally, an athlete throwing a javelin uses a long runup to correctly allign all body parts, and build momentum before the throw takes place. Yes you can isolate the final step of the movement as being the important one, but why would you when the thrower would be lucky to throw a third as far with no runup. In this sense the runup should always be considered as part of what is considered in the interest of the best overall result. In this case, it starts from the runner standing, on the spot, and using a sequence of body movements to find momentum and position...and so on. Even if you do isolate the final step, the principal is the same as the baseball batter licking the front leg to drive hup rotation.

I look forward to hearing your thougts on this.

Licking? hehe...locking...

Hup???...lol...i sound like a kiwi

Painstorm for me today.

21 rnds and change (I posted everything on the affiliates page).

Alright folks, riddle me this: if I bring up other points that that make republicans look bad, I'll be chastised for straying from the article. If I bring up the fact that Free Republic is drivel, I am chastised for criticizing the source and not the issues. Is there any way to make progress in this kind of situation?

So instead of getting tied up in that Iraq of a conversation, I'll let everyone know where I stand.

Fighting terrorism = good
Therefore, war in Afghanistan = good
War in Iraq = idiotic power grab by fear-mongering politicians
Guns = good
pro-choice = good
taxes = bad
ignoring/underfunding scientific research = very very bad
dumbing down curriculum in schools to make scores better = terrible
...those are a few personal views

I believe people should be left alone to make their own decisions, and that government should stay out of people's business. I would say my political preferences are more like those of a classical liberal or a true libertarian (not those who are just republicans in disguise).

I don't like either of the two parties right now, and I never have. Democrats suck because they often favor higher taxes (instead of taxing everyone at the same rate), they have an atrocious record on gun control, they support social programs regardless of whether those programs are failing or not, etc.

For me there are no good politicians right now, at least not any that have a chance of winning and influencing policy. I want a pro-gun, pro-science, pro-choice, limited government, fiscally conservative, anti-Iraq, pro-Afghanistan, anti-torture, pro-civil liberties candidate. Unfortunately that combination seems to be a statistical improbability and although republicans were once the closest thing to that, they're much too far gone now.

Flame on.

I have no problem with the rest day pieces. I don't read them, don't post on them. I have bigger things to worry about (like playing with my kids).

To those of you who do, there used to be a saying when I was young:

"If you don't like it, don't look at it".

That having been said, the topics seem to be redundant. Global warming, Iraq, Muslim fundamentalism. One of the things I enjoy most about Crossfit is the "constantly varied, if not random" workouts. When it comes to rest day, we have the three day split. It's akin to: chest Monday, back and bis on Wednesday, and legs (maybe) on Friday.

There are plenty of other "hot button" topics out there. Gay marriage, social security, etc...

Clinton took a shot at BinLaden (cruise missiles into Afghanistan, soveriegn nation that we were not at war with at the time) . . . Bush sent all we have, next door and took a half hearted shot at him at best. Read the 9/11 report itself or Dick Clarke's book or both. If anyone can tell me why this means Democrats are the party of wusses, then I'll vote Republican. Believe me, I know you cannot. All the rest is just noise . . .

Gier,

I didn’t quite say you didn’t understand the rest day piece. Did I? I said, "You suggest that is because you didn’t understand it...” The inference is mine, suggested by you. Big difference.

Let me share how it is that you led me to infer that it was you that you were referring to in pointing out that people had difficulties comprehending rest day pieces:

1. You complained that rest day pieces were so technical that the lay reader is unlikely to be able to meaningfully debate them. The fact is, lay readers did engage in and often led the debate and meaningfully. Missing this simple fact led me to believe that your concerns for incomprehensibility were self referential. You certainly missed the flow of thought, or have a higher standard of engagement that you’ve kept well hidden.
2. Your summation of the topic today as “Are Democrats pussies or not?” suggests you didn’t read the article or, perhaps, couldn’t comprehend the article.
3. You’ve missed the heated, thoughtful, and generally articulate posts from past rest days. You can’t tell me that Madman, Jeff Glassman, Blake, Barry Cooper, Marcus Wu, Harry and Dan MacDougald, et. al. aren’t debating civilly, thoughtfully, and forcefully.

If you didn’t understand the rest day piece then my assumption was correct. If you did and failed to engage in meaningful inputs but then took time and space to complain about the lack of meaningful inputs on the subject…what can I say?

You are a loud voice in the choir of folks who object to the conversation, profess higher standards of intellect and engagement, and when given an opportunity to participate don’t just remain silent but sing loudly while saying nothing.

Now I’ll answer your question, “In what way do these readings *actually* stimulate thinking or debate?” In you, Sir, very simply, they don’t; they inspire whining. Why is that?

warmup: 5 hrs of leaf raking and lawn mowing

tried last night's MU-fest; after 7 MUs, decided a no-go for shoulder (and for being done before midnight).

10 rounds for time:
35# kb snatches: 5/5
tactical lunges: 5/5

12:45

Did yesterdays WOD today-
For Muscleups subbed 45 jumping pull up, 45 bar dips toes supported on a box edge
100 squats
3 rounds

N- 48:00
L- 36:26
K- 46:42

I also did 3 hours of raking the leaves and 1 hour mowing and gardening.
I actually got 11 hours of sleep last night!
I will read the comments above later, at a quick glance they look to be very good.

Thanks again Coach!

Kate

Chris.Mich...

That paragraph you wrote left out some important details.

1. President Clinton authorized the cruise missle after the window of opportunity and informed the Pakistanis of the missles immenent launch.

2. President Bush has yet to use "all" we got...let alone a 1/10th in Afgahnistan. The military's attempt was not half hearted I can assure you. The decision to allow the Northern Alliance to wrap up UBL was a political one yes...but they were in desperate need of victory. Coalition Commanders' on the ground thought UBLs wrap-up was a done deal with what they had to work with.

Hey-

Cold steel, ... my thoughts are that Coach G works with cold hard steel and I respect that. Today's comments are a fine example.

I've not read the subject article and can admit little interest in many of the recent rest day links, but I have explored a few of them in the past and they've led me to do more independent reading.

I'm glad that I sought and found intelligent authors along this path. They have fed me well and I feel stronger for reading their beliefs and visions.

Good luck in your training,

-K

Coach #61,

I would suggest that you could not find a more palatable reportage of the story because it is, at source, highly speculative and quite weak. (Note, this does not mean it is wrong, just not something that a NYT would run with .)

WND report that they have talked to 4 terrorist 'leaders'. These four turn out to be an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade exile in Ireland, two Islamic Jihad leaders in the town of Jenin and "one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades".

While I have no doubt that these are very nasty folk, the article's implication is that Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad and Hamas support the Democrats. They may indeed all support the Democrats, but quoting 4 middle managers (as far as I can tell they are not the 'leaders') is no proof of this. Who are these guys - you can't just make them 'leaders' by writing the word 'leaders' or 'leading'? Did the reporter contact anyone else whom he did not quote because they urged support for the Republicans? Are they just 4 random talkative men with guns? We just don't know. I suppose you could find 4 guys in a bar somewhere in Texas who support the Democrats (maybe not), but that would not mean that 'Texas supports the Democrats'.

All the organisations quoted do in fact have well known leaders, and those are the people you would need to talk to and get quoteds from to give the story some bite. If WND had proven statements from Mohammed Deif, Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan or Marwan Barghouti, serious players in the 3 organisations, then that could be a real story. As it is, it's not, and so no one else carried it except for strident and clumsy Free Republic.

Coach #80---

OK, I see your reasoning. Your gloss on what you wrote strikes me as strained, and the "simple fact" you speak of is not apparent to me. But, all that aside, your thinking makes sense. Thanks.

Sorry to be "a loud voice in the choir of folks who object to the conversation, profess higher standards of intellect and engagement, and when given an opportunity to participate don’t just remain silent but sing loudly while saying nothing." That's an annoying choir. But I don't think I was doing any of those things, and don't like doing them or seeing them done.

What I thought I was doing was pushing a bit at rest-day sanctimoniousness. The theory of rest-day reading is fairly highfalutin', and doesn't ring true. I don't like sanctimoniousness; I like pulling its card, whether I find it on the left, right, or wherever. I'm not in some ideological group. If CrossFit had Chomsky politics, or Carl Schmitt politics (admittedly, it's close), I'd be posing the same question.

I'd answser your question, but I wasn't whining. I was questioning the theory and motivation underlying rest-day reading. Sanctimonious types do tend to hear such questions as whining, though. Why is that?

Thanks. Spleen notwithstanding, I do love CrossFit.

The San Antonio CrossFit group did the "Burpee Galore" WOD that the Weekend Warriors in San Diego did a couple of weeks ago and had a video earlier this week. We had to stagger the start due to limited equipment. Appreciate the inspiration from the Warriors. Had a great time with it.

Borat:

The premise of your criticism of the article is that the four people quoted are middle managers, and therefore it has little meaning, but you say it would be significant if senior terrorist leadership said such things.

The position of senior terror leaders on US politics is not unknown. They hate George Bush almost as much as liberals do. Their strategy for victory against us depends on influencing our politics toward outcomes favorable to them, and in this democrats advance their interests.

Democrats and terrorists are against the terrorist surveillance program.

Democrats and terrorists are against the Patriot Act.

Democrats and terrorists are against interrogation and detention of terrorists, and think they ought to be afforded the full protections of domestic criminal law.

Democrats and terrorists want the US to cut and run in Iraq.

The terrorists would be crazy not to support democrats.

Bin Laden endorsed Kerry in 2004. Bin Laden and Zawahiri regard Iraq as the epicenter of jihad, and wish to drive us from Iraq for the exact reasons expressed by these middle managers. "More than half the battle is in the media" they have said. The strategy of Al Qaeda in particular, and islamic terrorism in general is to cause the the US to withdraw. It is a public relations and political strategy aimed at US domestic politics, because it is simply impossible for them to do this by conventional military means. They seek to reprise the US withdrawals from Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia. Their own words make this crystal frigging clear.

The jihadi talking points on Iraq are very, very similar to those of the democrats.

The jihadis want democrats to win because the democrats will help them win.

How can anything so obvious be so controversial?

Best regards,

Politics

How can I, that girl standing there,
My attention fix
On Roman or on Russian
Or on Spanish politics,
Yet here’s a traveled man that knows
What he talks about,
And there’s a politician
That has both read and thought,
And maybe what they say is true
Of war and war’s alarms,
But O that I were young again
And held her in my arms.

William Butler Yeats

Having said that, I think Toddb (cmt 5) said it best.

I enjoy a red meat rest day piece. This one had too much bone and gristle. Borat (#85) hits my primary objection, though I'll part company with him on his suggestion that the NYT doesn't run speculative and weak stories. Perhaps because the article was a bit thin, it had a Rorshach quality to it: the reader finds in it what he is predisposed to find in it. Even though I didn't get much from the article, I enjoyed the ensuing commentary.

Geir (#86): You wrote, "What I thought I was doing was pushing a bit at rest-day sanctimoniousness. The theory of rest-day reading is fairly highfalutin', and doesn't ring true. I don't like sanctimoniousness; I like pulling its card, whether I find it on the left, right, or wherever."

Help me out with that line of thinking, please. What exactly is the "theory of rest-day reading"? Do you mean "theory" in the scientific sense of being able to make a prediction about the future, or do you mean it in the common usage of opinion or speculation? I'm going to assume the latter. Since I don't believe Coach has detailed any goals, objectives or rationale for rest day, it sounds to me like you are accusing him of sanctimony for failing to live up to your speculation as to the 'highfalutin' purpose for rest day readings. Now *that* would be sanctimonious on your part.

#37 JR. Obviously your well informed if you get your polictical views from a fitness site. I recommend you get out of the gym once in awhile and live a life.

CCTJoey #83: I don't disagree with anything you said.

Brian #37,

We can learn a lot from each other no matter where we find ourselves. For instance:

"Your": is a possessive pronoun, whereas,
"You're": is a contraction of "you are"

Look, I'm offering this tongue in cheek; your error is one anyone in a hurry or irritated is prone to make, but my point about learning from each other regardless of environment is valid nonetheless.

Our hope is that the physical work we share, coupled with open minds and an abiding sense of civility and compassion can work miracles, like bridging ideological, religious, and other differences that are too often beset by intolerance and invective.

Geir, you are exemplary of that hope. Thank you.

cctjoey...BRILLIANT!

Harry #88,

My comment was about why Coach was unable to find a more palatable version of the WND report than at Free Republic.

I have reread what I wrote and cannot see where I have stated that terrorists do not support Democrats, only that the WND story was weakly sourced. As you know, when Osama speaks, many more sources report it. Is that controversial???

Borat

Borat,

We debated the bona fides of the terrorists mentioned in the article and, like you, realized that this wasn’t the A team. Though not an all-star, we accorded Jihad Jara major league status.

Like many of the posters here I didn’t need Freerepublic or “middle managers” (I like that) of terrorist organizations to tell me that they’d prefer the Dem’s cut and run over death at the hands of U.S. Forces.

What intrigued my is how much these guys’ world and domestic (U.S.) view of the conflict sounded like GOP talking points. So what we have are terrorists sounding like Republicans with regard to the specifics of the conflict and exactly for that reason casting their lot with the Dem’s. That, for me, is the story, even if the sources are middle managers.

And that is why the NYT wouldn’t touch it. That’s more than enough reason. Had the endorsements instead come from Mohammad Deif, Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan, or Marwan Barghouti, as you’d have preferred the NYT most assuredly would still not have printed the story.

The NYT took John Kerry’s despicable slam of U.S. Soldiers and subsequent lies as a Republicans are up to their unfair attacks again piece. They hid Kerry’s words on page 18.

They have a vested interest in getting important stories wrong.

Did you see my post coach? (speaking of learning from each other :p)

I just finished 1776 by David McCullough, and as I understood it, the point of the book was to underscore the very real and almost insurmountable difficulties Washington as a general faced in just getting the Revolution started, in not getting his butt absolutely whipped out of the starting gate.

As McCullough points out, his salient traits were his natural charisma, his ability to learn, and his perseverance. They were NOT political or military genius. He made quite a few mistakes, and was at important moments indecisive. However, he DID NOT QUIT. He carried on, to the best of his ability.

Ross Perot has a quote to the effect that most people give up just short of their goal. I will add to that, that victory often comes to those who endure.

The question we need to ask is this: is our cause in Iraq just and in our national interest? In my considered view, the answer to both of those questions is a decided yes. I would challenge Democrats or other folks who want to cut and run to say otherwise.

We are told we are viewed as an "occupier", and the reason there is violence is because they want us out. Well, who is doing most of the dying? If that were true, shouldn't it be us? Since it isn't, isn't it reasonable to assume that the Islamic Jihadists (among others; it's a complex situation) are doing WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, and making the war as bloody and generally unpleasant as possible--making sure they get proper media coverage--to scare away the squeamish?

The way this works, is it's always easier to roll downhill, than climb up. Cutting and running would feel good, for a time. Personally, it makes me sick every time I read about more violence and bloodshed. It makes me sick.

But it does not follow that if we abandon Iraq, that the violence gets less. There is every reason to think MORE people will die, not less. At some point, more AMERICANS will die.

Violence does not cause violence. When we won the Second World War, the Holocaust stopped, and the German Army stopped fighting. So did the Japanese Army. Where violence creates violence is when it is half-hearted. If you do just enough not to lose, but not enough to win.

As Joey's article argued well, we don't even have to win in Iraq to win. And all our enemies need to win that battle, and move their lines forward to the next battle, is get us to voluntarily lose.

You can't avoid pain in this life. And I have come to realize that every ounce of suffering is an opportunity for growth. And the active avoidance of necessary pain is an essential ingredient in the growth of evil. I would argue the whole of the Islamic terrorist movement derives from two principle things: perception of Western culture as decadent, and the desire to avoid the pain of admitting the many inferiorities of most Islamic cultures and societies as currently constituted. They would much rather change us--at the cost of pain and death--than change themselves. This is common in history.

Age: 36, BW: 175 Lbs.
I did my own wo on Sunday:
5 Rounds for time:
Run 400 Meters
20 Pull Ups
7 Handstand Push Ups
40 Minutes

#77 - Much better, man. Many people assume that it's futile to express their full opinion or a rational argument on any point here, especially conservative ones, but I disagree.

I like your positions and agree with most of them, especially your disappointment with both parties!

We must not get discouraged, change in Government will occur. I think change starts to happen in small forums and discussions just like this one. We just have to be willing to get more involved, speak up, and maybe even participate.

Thanks for following up to your previous post.

Harry MacD wrote "The terrorists would be crazy not to support democrats."

Really?
The Advertising of Terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFwEVYOEnbA

Barry Cooper writes "We are told we are viewed as an "occupier", and the reason there is violence is because they want us out. Well, who is doing most of the dying? If that were true, shouldn't it be us? Since it isn't, isn't it reasonable to assume that the Islamic Jihadists (among others; it's a complex situation) are doing WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, and making the war as bloody and generally unpleasant as possible--making sure they get proper media coverage--to scare away the squeamish?"

Really?
This Iraq veteran does'nt seem to agree:
http://www.bushflash.com/yt42.htm

Barry Cooper also wrote "Violence does not cause violence. When we won the Second World War, the Holocaust stopped, and the German Army stopped fighting. So did the Japanese Army. Where violence creates violence is when it is half-hearted. If you do just enough not to lose, but not enough to win."

"It is organized violence on top which creates individual violence at the bottom. It is the accumulated indignation against organized wrong, organized crime, organized injustice, which drives the political offender to act."
Author: Emma Goldman

Barry Cooper "But it does not follow that if we abandon Iraq, that the violence gets less. There is every reason to think MORE people will die, not less. At some point, more AMERICANS will die."

How do you come to the conclusion that "more AMERICANS will die" if troops are withdrawn from Iraq? What evidence do you have to back this prophecy up?

There is a major bias coming to the surface here,it revolves around the use of certain words,in particular the word "terrorism".William Pfaff points this out when he states:

"All serious observers recognize that the U.S. actions against Afghanistan have and will cause many, many more deaths than the 6,000 killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But U.S. power and self-righteousness, broadcast and justified to the whole world by a subservient media machine, assure that what the United States does will neither be called terrorism, nor aggression, nor elicit indignation remotely comparable to that expressed over the events of September 11--however well its actions fit the definitions. The same bias extends to other Western countries, diminishing in scope and intensity from Britain to the others, and weakening further in the Third World. In the Middle East, for most of the population the bias disappears and U.S. terrorism is called by its right name, although the U.S.-dependent governments toe their master's line, if nervously. In these more remote areas the press speaks a different language, calling the United States a "rogue state par excellence repeatedly defying international rulings whether by the World Court or by U.N. resolutions when they have not suited its interests" and a " bandit sheriff" (The Hindu, India), and speaking of this as an "age of Euro-American tyranny" with tyrants who are merely "civilized and advanced terrorists" (Ausaf, Pakistan)."

He even sees the so-called left as part of the problem:

"But another sad fact is that in this country, and Britain as well, even the Left has trouble escaping the hegemonic definitions and frames. Leftists here regularly discuss the terrorism issue starting from the premise that the United States is against terrorism and that the issue is how the U.S. government can best deal with the problem. They are worried that the United States will go about solving the problem too aggressively, will seek vengeance, not justice. So they propose lawful routes, such as resort to the United Nations and International Court of Justice; and they urge seeking cooperation from the Arab states to crush terrorists within their own states. They discuss how bin Laden money routes can be cut off. Some of them even propose that the United States and its allies intervene not to bomb, but to build a new society in Afghanistan, engage in "nation-building," as the popular phrase puts it, in the spirit of the Kosovo "new humanitarian" intervention.

While some of these proposals are meritorious, we haven't seen any that discuss how a "coalition of the willing" might be formed to bring the United States under control, to force it to stop using and threatening violence, to compel it and its British ally to cease terrorizing Iraq, and to make it stop supporting terrorist states like Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel. Or to make U.S. funding of its terrorist operations more difficult! The hegemon defines the main part of the agenda--who terrorizes-and the debate is over how he and his allies should deal with those he identifies as terrorist. "

Coach actually believes the republican lie that Kerry meant to slam the soldiers? That says it all, right there.

Hey, "me" -
Why hide behind "me" for your more-snide-than-usual commments again, instead of using your "KEN"(taylork@NO.alum.SPAM.mit.edu) persona? Multiple personality disorder does not add to your credibility.

Hassan,

I don't have time at the moment to reply in detail, but do you really believe that polemical quotes from anarchists and socialists is going to sway anyone?

Barry Cooper wrote "I don't have time at the moment to reply in detail, but do you really believe that polemical quotes from anarchists and socialists is going to sway anyone?"

O.K. Barry,since YOU are not swayed by people labeled as anarchists or socialists (as if swaying you was the object of my post in the first place) here are some more quotes that fly in the face of your ""Violence does not cause violence. When we won the Second World War, the Holocaust stopped, and the German Army stopped fighting. So did the Japanese Army. Where violence creates violence is when it is half-hearted. If you do just enough not to lose, but not enough to win." statement:

"What vast additions to the conveniences and comforts of living might mankind have acquired, if the money spent in wars had been employed in works of public utility; what an extension of agriculture even to the tops of our mountains; what rivers rendered navigable, or joined by canals; what bridges, acqueducts, new roads, and other public works, edifices, and improvements . . . might not have been obtained by spending those millions in doing good, which in the last war have been spent in doing mischief."

--- Benjamin Franklin

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs. ~Elbert Hubbard

Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. ~Abraham Lincoln

Hassan:

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

--Homer J. Simpson

We can play the quotes game, too.

"I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli." -- George H.W. Bush

"God will not look you over for medals, degrees or diplomas, but for scars." -- Elbert Hubbard

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." -- Mahatma Gandhi

"Cowardly Dogs bark loudest" -- Anonymous

Yadda, yadda, yadda.... It's easy to quote someone else to make an argument. It's much harder to think, research, and articulate for yourself.

"There's an election on Tuesday? Funny, there's been nothing on the TV about it."
-Ron Nelson

"I'm a sarcastic bastard."
-Ron Nelson

"The internet is on computers now, eh?"
-Homer Simpson

Hassan,

Just to be clear, were the Revolutionary War and Second World War mistakes?

I have more to say, but no time. I'll be back.

Hassan,

Also, did the violence of the Second World War NOT end at the end? Am I missing something? Are you so unconversant with logical argument that you view the comments of a committed anarchist, speaking in a completely different political context, as relevant, much less adequate as an argument? She is arguing, in essence, for terrorism, because she lacked the intelligence and committment to work for peaceful change. For the record, she set her own cause backwards through her stupid and childish violent radicalism.

Fuzznuts dude quote: ""All serious observers recognize that the U.S. actions against Afghanistan have and will cause many, many more deaths than the 6,000 killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But U.S. power and self-righteousness, broadcast and justified to the whole world by a subservient media machine, assure that what the United States does will neither be called terrorism, nor aggression, nor elicit indignation remotely comparable to that expressed over the events of September 11--however well its actions fit the definitions."

How do its actions fit the definitions? From where I'm sitting, we are waging war with people who like to kill people. The Taliban were and are sacks of donkey crap, and the murderous sociopaths in Iraq are no different. We are waging war with the explicit intent of minimizing civilian damage, and to the extent possible saving civilian lives from being taken by their own countrymen. Perhaps you don't know this, but the primary murderers of Arabs are other Arabs. Israel and the U.S. combined can't even shine a pale light on the murders of Arabs committed by other Arabs. Where did Black September get its' name from?

Ben Franklin unambiguously supported the Revolutionary War, and Einstein was undoubtedly speaking there of the First World War, which WAS stupid. WW1 was totally unnecessary.

There was likely other stuff up there I could talk about, but I had something else I wanted to say.

I would like to propose as a principle that the qualitative elevation of an idea is inversely proportional to its' reliance on violence. The better an idea, the more it sells itself. The less coercion needed. Buddhism spread largely through trade. Some other religions relied on violent conquest of other lands.

We are engaged in a violent war in Iraq. Obviously, we are not operating, by this criterion, at a high qualitative level. However, this criterion does not eschew violence; it merely points to the many, many points prior to violence there are. In many cases, qualitatively superior action flows at the ideological level. If we win the war of ideas, we win--or avoid--wars on the battlefield.

This got me to thinking: some people have compared this election--and the truly modest amount of violence in Iraq in the last month--to the comparable era in 1968, when considerably more violence was done by and to everyone in Vietnam.

At that time, we won on the battlefield, and lost in the opinion polls.

Here's my thought: people accept that you need to battle in foreign lands, but fail to see that, logically, if we are losing this war at home ideologically due to persistent leftist propaganda, then WE NEED TO TREAT THE WAR HERE JUST AS SERIOUSLY.

I'm not contemplating the creation of an S.A., to storm leftist meetings. That truly would undermine what we are trying to save.

What I AM saying, though, is that people that think clearly about these issues, and care about them, need to start at a grassroots level adopting Leftist tactics to generate support.

One obvious idea is the creation of book clubs to educate people, and encourage them to think. I think "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" would be an excellent choice. Perhaps if people actually understood what Nazism was, they might be a bit more reluctant to throw those words around.

Likewise with Paul Johnson books, like "Modern Times", and "Intellectuals". These are well-written, carefully thought out books, which contain what in my view are good ideas, supported by plentiful facts.

I am currently reading Chaos, by James Gleick. He has some interesting things to say about weather, so far, but the main point here is that the overwhelming conclusion of researchers is that in chaotic systems--characterized almost paradigmatically by a large-scale democracy--small factors can make large differences. As things stand, we have professors who couldn't earn an honest living otherwise to save their lives pontificating about things they don't understand, in many cases simply to make money and get laid (Sarte was the Mick Jagger of his generation for French women, brown teeth and all). This shouldn't matter, but it does. We are graduating kids that are internet savvy, make good money, and are political morons and historical illiterates.

This need not be. The simple fact of the matter is conservatives and moderates have facts and history on their side. Only the willful perversion of (violence against the facts of. . .) history, or ignorance, support leftist political agendas, especially in foreign policy. Appeasement has never been shown to work, and has almost invariably led to the precise outcome it was designed to avoid.

When our military guys and gals came home from Vietnam, the climate was such that they didn't realize there was still a battle they could fight and win. The lesson of Tet was that the homefront was open and inviting to persistent propaganda attack. The flank that mattered most was not manned well, and the fight was not carried home to the enemy. We didn't learn that lesson then, but we can learn it now.

I have no idea what will happen tomorrow, but regardless of the outcome, I would like for everyone here who sees the self-delusion of our fellow countrymen and women to step up and commit in some small way to beginning to fight seriously against this ideological virus. The way to do this is education. Educate yourself, and educate others.

Do not accept moral relativism. We are right, and they are wrong. We may not be completely right, and they may not be completely wrong, but the fact of the matter is we are committed to abstract notions of human rights that other nations are not committed to. What is repugnant to us--such as the rape of women--is absolutely accepted in most Muslim cultures, in varying forms. The rights of women--although they may technically be protected according to the Hadish or Koran--are practically nil.

Muslims can change, too. We are asking no one to give up their metaphysical beliefs. We are asking only that they focus their search inwardly, and renounce the murder and torture of innocent men women, and children. As long as the Palestinians act like animals, they have no right to be treated as a civilized people. If they want a homeland they need to have the balls of Martin Luther King, Jr, and use non-violence. If they did that, they might just get the right to return. Failing to do that, adopting the tactics they do, they justly earn the contempt of all civilized people.

We should never, ever accept a reversal as a defeat of any form or fashion. Moreover, it is my personal belief that all reversals are not only not bad, but opportunities to push through where we were before, and keep going. To grow. If the Democrats win tomorrow, it may ensure a Republican president in 2008. We need a Commander in Chief that doesn't feel the need to apologize for America.

Take nothing for granted, and never quit. Never.

One other thing, then I'm probably done for a while.

In reviewing these issues, I often get the sense of the doctor in the "12th Monkey" (Terry Gilliam movie with Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis) going back in time to trace the propagation of a killer virus. This is a long term project. The ideological disease is profound, but not ineradicable. The key, it seems to me, is taking seriously our own principles of the rights to life, liberty, and the ownership of property. If we deviate too far from them, then we need to recalibrate.

However, in the same sense that burglars rarely come into people's houses and leave things, it's hard for me to see ANY respect in which our efforts to proactively defend our nation overseas fit the concept of "empire", outside of tortured pseudo-intellectual ratiocinations. We are spending money, not taking it. If you want to run an empire effectively, as the Romans and everyone else knew, you have to levy taxes. This point is quite obvious.

Self evidently, the word "empire" is polemically charged. It's just an incorrect and disingenuous use of an otherwise perfectly good word.

Barry forgive me for daring to challenge your authoritative assertions, I gather you are an expert of some sort by the verocity of your language, it probably makes at least one person feel good to read it. Clearly there is no room for discussion, the thinking has been done, the answer is in, here it is day in and out. The dissenters are morons. Come here the word of ...

However should you get the urge to step of the podium and question your assertions as we all must from time time, let me suggest a book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," by John Perkins, it is not perfect, but it raises interesting issues. I dare you to peruse it and then re-look at your definitve assertions above, the world is not black and white, the answers are buried under BS, smokescreens and feel good statements sold as thought.

If you get a second in between telling the rest day audience at Crossfit how to think every rest day you might want to expand the realm of your assertions about what empires are. I could go on, but I fear I would be wasting my time.

There is so much to learn, and one cannot convince the ideological, they are too busy writing their next arguement for any who will listen. Just because you start evey post with; "I was thinking" and then proceed to lecture us about reality doesn't really make it thinking, it is more like re-organizing your policitics into what you see as compelling evidence of reality. There is a big difference.

Cheers

Barry Cooper wrote "How do its actions fit the definitions? From where I'm sitting, we are waging war with people who like to kill people. The Taliban were and are sacks of donkey crap, and the murderous sociopaths in Iraq are no different. We are waging war with the explicit intent of minimizing civilian damage, and to the extent possible saving civilian lives from being taken by their own countrymen. Perhaps you don't know this, but the primary murderers of Arabs are other Arabs. Israel and the U.S. combined can't even shine a pale light on the murders of Arabs committed by other Arabs. Where did Black September get its' name from?"

The bombs dropped on countries that did not attack the U.S. and which destroy infrastructures as well as causing disproportionate suffering are dropped in your words "with the explicit intent of minimizing civilian damage?" Where do you get such an idea?

Barry Cooper "Do not accept moral relativism. We are right, and they are wrong. We may not be completely right, and they may not be completely wrong, but the fact of the matter is we are committed to abstract notions of human rights that other nations are not committed to. What is repugnant to us--such as the rape of women--is absolutely accepted in most Muslim cultures, in varying forms. The rights of women--although they may technically be protected according to the Hadish or Koran--are practically nil."

Who is right and who is wrong? How can you attempt to reduce issues that are obviously complex into "WE are right and THEY are wrong?" Have you ever heard of cumulative causation?

How many Muslim countries have you been to and who told you that rape is absolutely accepted "in Most Muslim cultures?"

The following is an interview with Prof. Sherman Jackson,"he points out that there is a distinction between what is “Islamic" and what has to do with local cultures. "

http://arabworld.nitle.org/audiovisual.php?module_id=2&selected_feed=225

Prof. Jackson's background is:Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Visiting Professor of Law, and Professor of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan.

1987 -1989 Executive Director of the Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA), The American University in Cairo, Egypt.

1985 -1986 Escort-Interpreter, Language Service Division, United States Department of State

Barry you also seem to buy the "we bomb you because we care" propaganda so instead of going into a long drawn out reply let me recommend a book and a video:

1.)Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Paperback)
by William Blum

Blum formerly worked for the U.S. State Department until his dissillusionment and opposition to American policies in Vietnam caused him to resign from the State Department in 1967.

2)Dispatches: Iraq: The Reckoning

"Peter Oborne, political editor of the Spectator, reports on the West's exit strategy for Iraq. He believes the invasion of Iraq is proving to be the greatest foreign policy failure since Munich. Oborne argues that the plan to transform Iraq into a unified liberal democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East, is pure fantasy. Reporting on location with US troops in Sadr City, and through interviews with leading figures in Britain and the US, Oborne argues that the coalition and its forces on the ground are increasingly irrelevant in determining the future of Iraq - a future that's unlikely to be either unified, liberal or democratic." -channel4

http://www.jonhs.net/911/iraq/iraq_the_reckoning.htm

Hassan,

Let me provide you with just one historical example as to the rights of "infidel" women. Have you ever heard of the Jewish tribe of Beni Kuraizah [Banu Qurayzah]? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayzah Despite twice offering to surrender and leave their land and property, Muhammad ordered the mass beheading of all men, the women and children were sold as slaves or kept as concubines. From what I understand, this is/was among the CELEBRATED exploits of Muhammad.

I do agree that there is a distinction between religous teachings and local tradition. The problem seems that "local" is a relative term.

Excuse me, the tribe thrice offered a peaceful surrender.

But then every culture has had a moment in history that it's not proud of. We have David Hasselhoff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwcLdCT3IsI

Americans are more scared of terrorists than ever. That's all I can really say on this topic with any authority. I've never been to the middle east, nor have most of you.

Remember before 9/11? Everyone was worried about the economy, the defecit and unemployment. Now nobody even cares about any of those words. Sometimes I feel that the underclass truely deserves to be exploited by the rich.

Blake #114

Did you listen to the audio interview with Prof. Jackson or did you just feel the need to write a counterpoint to my post?

Well how about the fact that "Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir complained that after Maarat an-Numan surrendered, the crusaders killed a hundred thousand men. When the Franks conquered Jerusalem in July 1099, Jews were burned in the synagogue; Muslim historians estimated the massacre at 70,000. " from the book Middle East & Africa to 1875.

The point was that these things many times attributed to Muslim societies were pre-existent in the local cultures where Islam took route.Another point is that Islam has no corner on the spreading of religion by the sword market,although the word "jihad" as it is thrown around in the western media and equated with a "holy war" is inaccurate.

Here is another excerpt from Prof. Jackson.
The issue of jihad is addressed in this part of the interview, beginning with the definition. He is asked, does it really mean “holy war" ?

http://arabworld.nitle.org/audiovisual.php?module_id=2&selected_feed=220

So much for this stupid article, Dems won nationwide!!

Okay, I'll bite. Yes, I did listen to the clips.... However weak and unconvincing Prof. Jackson's arguments/rationalizations are, they still do not contradict or address any of my points, stated or implied. I think we are debating apples and oranges, here. Did I not agree with you on the differences of religous teaching and local custom and practices? I do.

Barry Cooper is absolutely correct in his assertion that "[t]he rights of women--although they may technically be protected according to the Hadish or Koran--are practically nil." Case in point, the Taliban. Obviously there is a vast difference between how women are/were treated under the former Taliban and liberalized countries such as Turkey and Jordan. But remember, the Taliban claimed to practice pure Islam under Sharia law. This is where perception comes to play.

In your attempt to deflect the argument about the "prophet" Muhammad, you neglect the most obvious facts. The Crusaders were Christian, yes. Were they acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Certainly not! Alternatively, Muhammad was the founder of the "religion of peace". Yet, Muhammad was himself the author of this massacre. As well, he personally indulged in taking many of the Banu women as trophies. (I concede that it was the custom in many cultures to takes slaves and keep the women as trophies. The Vikings, Romans, and Ancient Greeks for example.) Muhammad himself set the stage for jihad and the rules of war under Islamic law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam

You like to quote Prof. Jackson as a islamic historian. Like I said before, I can p[lay the quotes game too. Here is what Al-Mawardi, and Shafi`i jurist had to say about it back in 1058 AD:
"The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them... in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interst of Muslims and the mostharmful to the mushrikun... Second, those whom the invitation of Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger... it is forbidden to... begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage the acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached" (Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad)

Now I'm going to read some poetry!

"In a truly Islamic society women have the following rights in Islam:

The right and duty to obtain education.

The right to have their own independent property.

The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.

Equality of reward for equal deeds.

The right to participate fully in public life and have their voices heard
by those in power.

The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.

The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.

The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she
simply can't stand him.

The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to for
spending on the upkeep of the house or any persons).

The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband."

In the West rights became part of the law only after women had
been through great political struggles and also partly due to the necessity of
women working in factories during wars.

In Islam, rights were given 'out of the blue' by God through
revelation. They cannot be reversed by anyone's decision. Most Muslims recognize
the purity and validity of the Qur'anic laws even if they are not following
them, but it may be necessary to struggle for a return to them from time to
time. It is quite commonly agreed that all things in life which are worthwhile
require some struggle.

There is considerable overlap of rights that now exist in the Western world and
those which Muslim women have always had (at least in principle if not in
practice). "

Women in the West are far from equal with their male counterparts.Also on the issue of Jesus and what he did or did not do,based off of my research there is no historical record of Jesus existence outside of "Holy" books,so of course he did'nt conduct crusades,he is a mythological character in the mold of the Egyptian Osiris.The Crusades were conducted in the name of this mythological character as were various other atrocities,including the "African holocaust" AKA the Slave Trade.Many of the slaves were actually brought to the Americas on a ship named Jesus!

Blake,

One more point,Barry Cooper uses the 'women are treated terribly'charge as one reason why "we are right and they are wrong" as if this has anything to do with why U.S. troops are there.

Also,let me pre-emptively (oh no not that term!) post the sources of my "Jesus did'nt exist statement before I get flamed!

QUICK ASSEMBLY
Putting the Jesus Puzzle Together in 12 Easy Pieces

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/puzzle1.htm

The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus (Paperback)
by Earl Doherty

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Paperback)
by Acharya S

The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (Paperback)
by Timothy Freke,

Well Hassan, in practice your example in post 121 about Muslim women falls very short. Whether in the west women developed rights from working or by God or by legislation...Most Islamic States are in a bad way.

Islam is becoming morally bankrupt which is ruled by tyrants in the political and religious realms. Either through support of Islamic Radicalism, ignoring Islamic Islamic Radicalism, or cowering before Islamic Radicalism.

Everywhere in the world, if they would put down their weapons their would peace. However, if the opponents of Islamic Radicals put their's down the violence will only get worse.

They brought the fight to us...we are whipping their asses with our hands behind our backs. If West felt the need to buckle down and end this it would be over quick.

At some point these @$$holes will push us to far and we will un-tie are hands.

There is know moral equivelance historically or contemporary... islamic Radicals have messed up their own countries and people. They will not stop Their violence until the world is islamic. The average citizens in these islamic states are least guilty of being cowed.

I don't care about what islam claims to be...I care what it is...and that is on a fast train to irrelavance

You research about Christianity and Jesus is lacking also.

So then is it your allegation that Muhammad was mistaken and that the Koran, a "holy text", contains mistakes?

Hassan...

no, we are over there because Muslims can't police their own.

I don't know what the existance of Jesus has anything to do with the discussion of why the islamic world is a bowl of turd soup.

Please clairify why the islamic world is a bowl of turd soup for us and how that is anyone else's fault.

Their biggest problem is that want to make their problems our problems.

I really gotta stop typing with one hand...

Let me clarify my last post. It was directed at Hassan.

CCTJOEY

You think the U.S. is "over there because they can't police their own."?

The conflict has nothing to do with your assertions and you have a tendency to oversimplify complex problems and or ignore the obvious.

As pointed out by Samuel P. Huntington in his book "The Clash of Civilizations":

"A civilization based world order is emerging:societies sharing cultural affinities cooperate with each other...

The West's universalist pretensions increasingly bring it into conflict with other civilizations,most seriously with Islam and China...

The survival of the West depends on Americans reaffirming their Western identity and Westerners accepting their civilization as unique not universal and reniting to renew and preserve it..."

To those who want to transcend quaint explanations like "Their biggest problem is that want to make their problems our problems" as well as serious students of geopolitics,social science and futurology,I highly recommend Huntington's book.

Another enlightening term to research that will shed a lot of light on the whole "why we are there" issue is the PNAC or Project For A New American Century:

The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.

The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.

The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.

Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'.

In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."

Who is PNAC? Its members include:

* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;

* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;

* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;

* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;

* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;

* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;

* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;

* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;

* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;

* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.

Blake #124

It is my assertion that Jesus was a mythological character,any writings regarding him are all based off of religious (so-called "Holy" books,(Koran,Bible) and not historical documents.

For arguments sake,lets say he did exist.He did not found the religion of Christianity.

CCTJoey wrote with nothing to back up his statement "You research about Christianity and Jesus is lacking also"

The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world.

In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."

(15)
The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, by Barbara Walker, p. 471. Rev. Taylor, in The Diegesis, reports a slightly different version of Leo X's admission: "It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us." (footnote, p. 35.)

PNAC info above was taken from
an article called Blood Money
By William Rivers Pitt

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53

Hassan: Again with the Christianity thing? Really? Look I am aware of the the history of Jesus becoming "Christ" from the perspective you are sharing with us...my contention is the MAN did exist...if you want to argue if he was the Messiah or not is not of interest to me.

Your citings of PNAC is great but old news...about every 3rd rest day someone posts the same thing. We got it and we knew it before you did. I am glad you could join the party. What you are failing to understand is that 9 out of 10 of those people are former LIBERALS. Hence why they are called NEO-CONS.

In many ways they saw things that most of the rest of us wanted to ignore. I do not have any annomosity towards them because all they were doing was promoting an agenda. So far the criticism leveled against them has been unfounded. Libby particularly has been the victim of a leftist which hunt. I guess nothing angers a leftists like a leftist converting.

Your silly conspiracy articles about Neo-Cons are just that...silly...half truths and distortions to draw a picture of some sweeping conspiracy of plotting Neo-Cons out to transform the world around a witch's brew.

Also your biography information above is dated by atleast 2 years.

Explain to me how the Muslim world can police their own Hassan? I want you to focus on the accusation (fact).

Where else in the world do people wrap explosives around themselves and their children to achieve Martyrdom?

Where else in the world are the women wrapped up to be hidden?

Where else in the world do they lie to their children about Jews being apes and pigs?

Where else do people carry automatic weapons around as a status symbol?

The Muslim world is screwed up...the only reason it is not completely irrelevant is OIL...period.

When the world comes off the OIL NIPPLE the Muslim world will go back to the 12 century where it belongs.

There is no excuse for the behavior of the leaders of Muslim countries, both political and religious, for the train wreck they have caused throughout the Middle East, South East Asia, and the Horn of Africa. These MUSLIM areas are corrupt to the core. Try as they might to blame it on America...there is no excuse for this level of corruption. If it is violent anywhere on planet earth...Muslims are at the very least half the problem.

Muslims and Muslims, Muslims and Jews, Muslims and Christians, Muslims and Anglo-America, Muslims and the French, Muslims and Spainards, Muslims and Buddists.

Darfur
France
Isreal/Palestine
Iraq
Philippines
Horn of Africa
Cashmire Region
"Kurdistan"
Spain
Australia
England
Germany
Denmark
Bali
Former Chzech Republic
Indonesia
Afghanistan
ETC...ETC!!!!!

That is just the off the top of my head where Muslims are resorting to violence with explosives or beheadings.

I would love to believe Islam is a religion of peace, but I don't see it in practice.

Tell me more about a Neo-Con think tank and how that compares to Muslim Extremists again.

I am loving how you are using Liberal garbage to deflect from how messed and barbaric up the Islamic world is and how it is doing everything it can to intimidate the rest of the world through violence.

I forgot to add that most of them can't fight for crap either. Nor do most of them have any loyalty under stress or with a hundred dollar bill. Not to mention the whole "women are for children and men are for pleasure thing".

When the Islamic Community can get its people to stop crapping in their living rooms, wiping with their hands, forgetting how to install running water and sewage without Western help, using assault weapons as a substitute for penis size or alpha status, shooting into the air in celebration, treating women like cattle, wrapping kids in dynamite, using kids to clear minefields, burning American and Isreali flags after prayer, using the poor to blow themselves up and kill innocents, supporting terrorists, creating terrorists, hiding terrorists, high-jacking airplanes, taking embassy workers hostage, running airplanes into buildings, blowing up trains and buses, using chemical weapons and generally being the A$$Pain of the world then I will be ready to seriously discuss a bunch of Neo-Cons who no longer work for the Government and going into Iraq even though saddam had weapons at one time, ignored UN resolutions, regularly shot at our planes securing the "no-fly" zone, gased 180,000 Kurds, ran his country like a gangster, attacked Kuwait and put a "hit" out on a sitting President.

Quit changing the subject...answer for the here and now...hell for the last 50 years.

This isn't about Jesus or Neo-Cons...it is about how F****ED up Islamic Establishiment(s) is in its current form and how it fails to co-exist with any of the rest of the world including itself.

It is that simple.

CCTJOEY

Great retort "we knew all this before" "you are using liberal garbage" ,etc.

You seem to have a very narrow view of geopolitics and fail to undersatnd that these Neo-Cons are controlling policy and their PNAC is the reason why the U.S. is in the Middle East, not your assertion "When the Islamic Community can get its people to stop crapping in their living rooms, wiping with their hands, forgetting how to install running water and sewage without Western help,etc." Check out the

You keep getting the same info because it did'nt seem to sink in the first time.You claim "I do not have any annomosity towards them because all they were doing was promoting an agenda. So far the criticism leveled against them has been unfounded. Libby particularly has been the victim of a leftist which hunt. I guess nothing angers a leftists like a leftist converting."

Let me address your dismissal of the PNAC info with a piece from Jason Leopold a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire:

"It's no secret that these think tanks have had a major impact in shaping US foreign policy, particularly in dictating exactly how Bush should deal with Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein.

Bush has used, virtually word for word, the written statements by PNAC members when he speaks publicly about the Iraq crisis.

Most of its members cut their teeth in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. However, many of its former members, notably Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, are working in the current Bush administration. William Kristol, the editor of the ultra-conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, heads PNAC.

Over the past several years, the organization has succeeded in getting the Bush administration to scrap the Army's Crusader Artillery Program and in getting Congress to approve a one-year increase of more than $48 billion for national defense. But it was PNAC's position to drive America into a war with Iraq that seems to have influenced Bush the most.

Dozens of letters and reports by PNAC members regarding Iraq have been posted on the think tank's web site, which lays out in startling detail how war is the only way to deal with the so-called threat from so-called rogue nations."

CCTJOEY wrote "even though saddam had weapons at one time, ignored UN resolutions, regularly shot at our planes securing the "no-fly" zone, gased 180,000 Kurds, ran his country like a gangster, attacked Kuwait and put a "hit" out on a sitting President."

Lets see what Iraqis are saying now:

from *Inter Press Service*
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily-

""It is much worse than in the time of Saddam Hussein," Communist Party
member Nayif Jassim told IPS. "Most Iraqis wish Saddam would be back in
power now that they lived out the hardships of the occupation. The
Americans did nothing but loot our oil and kill our people.

On every level of infrastructure measurable, the situation in Iraq is
worse now than under the rule of Saddam Hussein. That includes the 12
years of economic sanctions since the first Gulf War in 1991, a period
that former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Dennis Halliday
described as "genocidal" for Iraqis.

The average household in Iraq now gets two hours of electricity a day.
There is 70 percent unemployment, 68 percent of Iraqis have no access
to
safe drinking water, and only 19 percent have sewage access. Not even
oil production has matched pre-invasion levels.

The security situation is hellish, with a recent study published in the
prestigious British medical journal Lancet estimating 655,000 excess
deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion and occupation.

The group Medact recently said that easily treatable conditions such as
diarrhoea and respiratory illness are causing 70 percent of all child
deaths, and that "of the 180 health clinics the U.S. hoped to build by
the end of 2005, only four have been completed -- and none opened."

A proposed 200 million dollar project to build 142 primary care centres
ran out of cash after building just 20 clinics, a performance that the
World Health Organisation described as "shocking."

Iraqis are complaining louder now than under the sanctions. Lack of
electricity has led to increasing demand for gasoline to run
generators.
And gasoline is among the most scarce commodities in this oil-rich
country."

As far as the Jesus issue,my statement stands,there was no historical Jesus,he was a mythological character.He did not found Christianity. The actual founders and their subsequent heirs carried out just as much carnage as the Muslims. They have on their resume the Crusades,the traingle trade AKA Slavery,the Inquisition,the wholesale slaughter of Indigenous peoples across the world and on and on.

Another point on Conspiracy Theories since CCTJOEY seems so fond of using that term:

"Many historical conspiracies (starting with the murder of Julius Caesar) are widely accepted facts. When it comes to current or ongoing conspiracies, however, we are much more likely to find that the predominant view is set by the conspiracy naysayers. These are social commentators of various ilk, ranging from network news anchors to public relations spin doctors to bar stool jockeys.

You can not simply call something a “theory” just because you have not looked closely enough to see the facts that have been presented."

Hassan...

I get it. You don't like Neo-Cons...

Here is the point...I don't care...this is not about neo-cons...
Iraq was trash before neo-cons had influence...Hell President clinton called for Regime change...did that make him a Neo-Con??

It does not matter to me...they were right...the only way to get Iraq back to some symbolance sanity was to remove him and the Bathe party. So enough with the Neo-Con crap.

Then you quote a random Communist party member who passes abject distortions and opinions as facts. Good job!

Muslims have killed far more Muslims and Christians than Christian ever did.

Just face it...the Muslim world lead by Radicals is the single largest cause of problems in the world today...at least the Communists have learned to stay in their borders.

Your shots at Christianity and Christians will not change that no matter how much you change the subject.

Islam is bankrupt at this point. It's only hope is that after the radically are dispatched the West will take it under its wing and make it productive, peaceful, and vibrant. As opposed to brutal, corrupt, and oppressive.

You need to lose your thin skin and see what you are defending.

There is no dismissing children strapped with dynamite. There is no dismissing brutalizing women.

Yet you are by bringing up things that are not even relevant to why the Islamic world is disfunctional.

So answer...Why is the Islamic world so disfunctional???

CCTJOEY "So answer...Why is the Islamic world so disfunctional???"

You broadbrushed the Islamic World as "dysfunctional", not me.Do you actually think that the reason why U.S. troops are in the Middle East is because "the Islamic world is so disfunctional"?

Do you think that the United States is functional,a country with the worlds largest prison population that incarcerates people at a rate six to 10 times higher than most other democracies? http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1643973.htm

Do you think that the United States is functional,a country where a woman is raped every 2 minutes,according to the Department of Justice? http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

In a recent book ("America at the Crossroads") that constituted Francis Fukuyama's resignation from neoconservatism,of which he was always the most intelligent member,he noted that American policies today rest on the claim to an "American exceptionalism that most non-Americans simply find not credible." He added that the claim was not supported by any American demonstration of superior competence.

The fact is that whatever your intentions,invading countries means tearing them up,killing and destroying,making people miserable,driving them into extreme reactions,and prying open all the sectarian,religious,tribal,social and class divisions and conflicts that in peacetime are conventionally covered over.

CCTJOEY "Just face it...the Muslim world lead by Radicals is the single largest cause of problems in the world today..."

You seem pretty naive. The United States disregarding of the laws of physics is the single largest cause of problems in the world today.The fact that actions create reactions of equivalent energy is a physical law with a political application.