Wingnut Logic At Work

Typical of ignorant milbloggers, such as our fave wingnut perv Ace of Spades, this photo celebrates a victory that didn't happen and confuses the situation. But who cares about being accurate, right?

[photo from Reuters]

Of course, you can't explain anything to these people. Do you think THIS explains why so many flocked to the recruiting station?

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday honored the militias of the parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, i.e. the Da'wa (Islamic Call) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They were singled out for having fought alongside government security forces, and some 10,000 of them were inducted into the latter.

Al-Zaman points to a double standard, insofar as the government has not similarly honored, or accepted into the state apparatus, most members of the Sunni Awakening Council militias that have been fighting the Qutbist Jihadis.

The induction of Badr Corps fighters (the paramilitary of ISCI) and those of the Da'wa Party into security positions came in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny.

You gotta love the wingnut milblogger. There's no way of knowing for certain whether the men depicted in the picture are, in fact, Badr brigade members, but a careful check of their attire shows them to be fairly prosperous compared to most Iraqis, unafraid of a suicide bomber and definitely motivated to join a military that probably hadn't welcomed their participation until now. Celebrating the ascendancy of Iranian-trained and backed paramilitaries must be all the rage these days...

Nice Try, Dumbass

Everyone's favorite pervy wingnut moves the goalposts and tries to justify that which escapes him:

I had meant to post on this earlier. I am tired of the Clintonian claims about "no direct operational connection," which sounds an awful lot like "no sexual relations." Well, what does "sexual relations" mean? And what does "direct, operational link" mean? The very language itself screams there was in fact a link by denying only a specific, and quite unifying link and, by implication, allowing for links short of the "direct, operational" variety.

Okay, that kind of link didn't exist -- Al Qaeda and Saddam maintained separate command and control and did not in fact unify their separate terrorist organizations. Did they help each other achieve their joint goals, on the other hand?

The answer appears to be "yes," as it has always appeared.

And yet the media continues blaring "no direct operational link" without pausing to note that gee, there sure are some indirect, non-"operational" links.

"Appears to be? Well, if you can't read and you don't have the ability to perform basic analysis, sure. You could read it that way. You'd be wrong, however. Here's the part that sorta blows your lameass shit out of the water and directly contradicts what you just read.

The documents cited in the report do reveal that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and terrorist activities inside and outside Iraq.

"The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," according to the report.

Most of the terrorism was aimed at keeping Hussein and his Baath party in power, according to Pentagon officials.

Supporting al Qaeda would mean that Saddam would be supporting an organization that was diametrically opposed to his interests--as in, Saddam represented secularism, al Qaeda was a sworn enemy of secular governments in the Arab world.

See, that's how that works. Stick with ogling the boobies, Ace. Leave the analysis to the professionals. I don't know what's more fun--debunking bullshit or using "paint" to fuck up his logo. I'm getting better at it. Some of the ones I've done are only mildly debased and amateurish.

Gender Politics From Ace of Spades

Only a handful of delusional right wing hate merchants rise to the spectacular level of misplaced snark, misogynistic declarations of intent to do something that would never happen, and overall shitheadedness as Ace of Spades.

Fixed the logo for you, by the way.


Hitchens vs. Poehler, Silveman, Wiig, Etc.

...Now, I mention this, because if you click on that vid, you might be a bit taken aback by Hitchens seemingly casual exclusion of "dykes" and "Jews" (and "hefty" women too) from the female sex altogether. I was; I started out this post asking what the hell he was trying to say here. Vanity Fair milks the comment by doing a sinister three stage zoom in as he says "dykes, or hefty, or Jews."



However, whether you agree with his point or not (and I don't -- he's just making shit up as he goes to be provocative, but there's no crime in that), it isn't the offhandedly brutal bit of antisemitism (and anti-lesbianism, and No Fat Chickery) it seems to be at first. He's just rescuing his point by setting those three categories apart and branding them a sub-type of male humor.

Anyway, more ammo for the gender war, I guess.

Man, is Kirstin Wiig cute. I would hit that like the cannonball hitting the fat guy's belly in slow motion.

By the way, I'm not really kissing up to women again in saying Hitchens is just making shit up. Of course man are more frequently funny than women, and of course men are funnier than women on average, and all the rest of it. I mean, duh.



But his original article claimed there were no funny women (except those male-ish dykes, Jews, and fatties), which is obviously just stupid.

Uh huh. Glad to know you would "hit that." Too bad the only thing you're hitting is the floor when the blood runs out of the pencil-sized dick you're rubbing like a lotto ticket on payday.