« The Distant Sound of Chunder | Main | Blissfulness, togetherness, some fools fool themselves I guess »

anna

Lend Me Your Ears And I'll Sing You A Tune

by anna at 08:28 PM on February 13, 2003

What an ornery old coot I've become. Plus I'm an unabashed bigot. Don't invite me to liven up your dinner party.

I'm uncomfortable coexisting with wild-eyed religious nuts, for instance. Fundamentalist Muslims zealots called Wahibis in particular spark my ire. Osama and his vile ilk belong to this sect. Wahibi doctrine brought you Sept 11 among countless other crimes against humanity. The world would be a better place without any Wahibis. It's their way or the highway, literally. Either you agree to sport unsightly head-to-toe burqas or mandatory facial hair, accept that human portraits are evil and that Winona Ryder's sticky fingers should have been lopped off or you must die. There's no middle ground with them. No kite-flying, booze, unaccompanied women, frivolity, fun, female orgasms, no gays, no nothing. It's called sharia, which is Arabian for "laws from hell."

In pursuit of their twisted aims they've not only perpetrated countless atrocities and lopped off many clitori, but ruined bright sunny days for me. I can no longer revel in a gorgeous blue sky without being reminded of that day which so drastically altered the course of this nascent millennium.

Speaking of which, it pisses me off too. Mill 3 began with high hopes tempered by Y2K fears, only to fizzle out. Ditto for the asshole who's come to epitomize these rancorous times: pompous, overbearing know-it-all Bill O'Reilly.

What's more, I can't stand the way Trista the vacuous Bachelorette chirps "think you" every time a suitor praises her outfit. Pretty but shallow women do this all the time, as if they can't be bothered with pronouncing "thank" whenever someone pays them a complement. Whores.

Last in my laundry list of laments is the traffic. I live 14 miles from my job, yet commuting consumes 10% of my waking hours.

Getting back to the all-too-real terrorist menace afoot in our midst, I reside outside Washington DC. They say F-16 fighters are patrolling the skies. Ominous-looking helicopters hoer like flies at a slaughterhouse. Snipers and antiaircraft batteries are said to be poised to fend off Wahibi scoundrels bent on mayhem.

So what's the prevailing mood here? I'd characterize it as less jittery than fatalistic, which is a helluva lot more than I could say for those weak-kneed French. Gallows humor abounds. Nobody I know is cowering in a well-stocked "safe room." Either American spirit is remarkably resilient or we've all been driven mad by reality TV, this dud of a millennium, traffic woes, the threat matrix and O'Reilly.

Think you very much.

comments (21)

Possible misspelling? "old coot" -> "old cooch"?

by Eviltom at February 13, 2003 9:16 PM


I agree wholeheartedly with Anna's spurt of rage, but is it just a 'spurt'? I would actually feel safer in D.C. right now then in Manhattan, since a subway or bus is mandatory to existence, and I work right across from Grand Central. All eyes on NYC. I have reason to be more pissed, daily. For example, the guy from our London office spurts out a rumor on the P.A today: Grand Central in Manhattan is being evacuated... I'm short U.S. 30yr bonds, and they skyrocket. Of course, I look out of the window after losing my fucking ass fucking formerly kickass bonus, yes, the whole fucking thing, and so I look out the window, and there ain't shit going on at Grand Pussy Fucking Central, but any fucking towel-head rumor about new york city, and the whole world flocks to security. Talk about reverse-inside information. These Wahibi are effecting me in a many ways. Fundamentals are temporary obliterated. Welcome, Geopolitics, enjoy your stay, stupid fucking buzzword, I'd rather deal with 'lockbox' ala Gore, then hear Geo---, I can't even bare to type it again, I will exact a precise and proper vengeance, to the point where it will be so proper, it will not even be considered vengeance. And one more thing: Human portraits are sinful... okay, I can see the argument for that, but all you have to do, is take your favorite porcelain doll, and make a portrait of her! I have one of her face tattooed on my right bicep. Awweeexxxx, Awwwweexxx, oops, I have to tuck her in now. I brought her to Israel with me and dipped her feet in the mediterranean, yay...

by LOCKHEED at February 13, 2003 10:18 PM


Read up about the religion before you make vastly wrong assumptions about it.

I believe bigot was indeed correct.

Oh and before you make another wrong assumption, I'm white and of no religion.

Ignorance breedís hatred and admittance doesn't justify.

by UK at February 14, 2003 8:33 AM


Hey, UK, if Ignorance breeds hatred and you donít like that, then why donít you educate us poor bigots instead of spouting more negativity?

Even though this is a broad statement, I tend to think that ANY religious fundamentalist is a danger to everyone either directly or indirectly. So please, educate me, what part of Annaís rant is off-base?

by MrBlank at February 14, 2003 9:39 AM


I hear you on the D.C. traffic Anna. Don't you just love sitting there, barely inching forward, wondering if there's a wreck ahead. Two miles and twenty minutes later you find the source of your ire. A cop has a motorist pulled over and everyone has to rubberneck to get a good look. I guess flashing lights mesmerize some people. Right after the event........clear sailing. That is, until the next opportunity to rubberneck. Bastards. Rage on Anna.

by EZY at February 14, 2003 9:45 AM


I'm only the educated not the educator. However...

"Wahibi doctrine brought you Sept 11 among countless other crimes against humanity."

Wahibis are a single tribe and nothing to do with Bin Laden, so I beg to differ that they brought you sept11. What are the other countless crimes against humanity? Don't spout shit unless youíre prepared to back it up with some facts. In addition to that are you in the knowledge that in actual fact Bin Laden was funded by CIA black op's in the first place to fight the Russians in the 80's with promises that never came true, when the cold war was over Afghanistan was left in ruins and the US turned it's back. This led to civil war in Afghanistan that raged for near a decade until the Taliban took over.

"The world would be a better place without any Wahibis."

Really? Are you sure? I'd like to think that the world would be a better place if Super powers didn't exist, if they didn't exist they wouldn't feel compelled to fuck with the other countries simple because they "think" they can.

"It's their way or the highway, literally. Either you agree to sport unsightly head-to-toe burqas or mandatory facial hair, accept that human portraits are evil and that Winona Ryder's sticky fingers should have been lopped off or you must die. There's no middle ground with them. No kite flying, booze, unaccompanied women, frivolity, fun, female orgasms, no gays, no nothing. It's called sharia, which is Arabian for "laws from hell."

No if you are a devout Muslim then you accept it's laws and it's faith in full. Just like a Christian accepts the bible and that God created all even though anyone with a brain knows God never existed. The Taliban in there extreme view forced the people of Afghanistan to wear the burqa or the men grow facial hair but since the Taliban are no longer in power then it's kind of wrong to presume that's still law in there country. It is not the law at the moment but you'll find a lot of people are still sticking to it and why's that? Because it's that cultures faith something that you shouldn't really be mocking. After all I'm not mocking your un-answered prayers, or your scientology money raping bullshit. Yes I agree some of the laws in the Arab world are perhaps in-human, just like the death penalty is but again I'm not sat here claiming the US is in-human. Who says no kite flying? Thatís bullshit; booze is against the faith, as is homosexuality for Catholics and many other Western religions. The US in some areas even goes one step further and makes homosexuality illegal.

So much for the free world aye?

"In pursuit of their twisted aims they've not only perpetrated countless atrocities and lopped off many clitori, but ruined bright sunny days for me."

Twisted aims? A bit like using Afghanistan in the 80's as a weapon in the cold war with Russia ruining a country and forcing it into civil war? Ruined your day? Like that is some comparison to what? To a child starving in Afghanistan?, Sept11? The use of uranium tipped shells?

"I can no longer revel in a gorgeous blue sky without being reminded of that day which so drastically altered the course of this nascent millennium."

You think the US is the only country to have suffered under terrorist acts? (Acts that some of my friends have died in) Here in the UK we suffered it for more than 90 yrs, some of that was even funded by the US via donations to the IRA via NORAD. The hypocrisy of you people sometimes drives me nuts. Whilst I'm the first to agree that Sept11 was a tragedy I'm also the first to say, "You're not the only ones"; and that life goes on. It goes on whether you like it or not.

And onto the Saddam thing since you've confused Wahibi with Bin Laden. Saddam IS an evil man, facts I'll agree on from the get go. However looking back through the mists of time it's easy to see why he has a hatred for the US. Just over a decade ago he declared war on Iran when he came to power. The US helped Saddam at first training his troops and kitting him up. What Saddam didn't realise for a short time is that the US was also at the time running guns to Iran to help them fight Saddam. Now it doesn't take a genius to work out why that was? Oil, keep two countries locked in war and hope they crush each other so they have to call to the west for help. Out comes the offering hand, but with a note saying "we'd like to strike oil deals first, before aid". Saddam invades Kuwait in an attempt to gain control of the oil fields because he's pissed that the US has been running weapons to Iran. Of course this means that the west has to intervene/retaliate now because of the pleas from Kuwait. The gulf war begins. Over a decade later we're still enforcing a no fly zone and maintained air superiority over Iraq. Saddam hasn't got any weapons of mass destruction. Just oil. To have weapons of mass destruction you have to be able to protect them, since he has no real army to speak off (as it was decimated in the Gulf war) how can he protect them. Also he isn't daft. He knows one slip with a weapon of mass destruction would lead to his country being wiped from the planet. The West simply wants to disarm Iraq in full because then he can't defend the oil fields and have the US by the balls. It really boils down to that and that alone. Don't forget it's a war on terrorism and Saddam isn't a terrorist plain and simple. The sheer amount of media softening has obviously worked for some of you. For months the west has had it shoved down their throats that some people in the east are bad and you should hate them and want them to be blitzed from the earth.

Itís called the propaganda machine and it appears to be working, well in a few years time when youíre driving that fat SUV petrol guzzling machine, remember innocent people died for your petrol. Enjoy the drive.

by UK at February 14, 2003 11:21 AM


Duck Anna.

UK, if you remember correctly, Russia invaded Afganistan who then came to the US for help. We provided that help in the form of arms, training, food and special ops troops to fight beside the Afgan rebels. The US pulled out support to avoid an all out conflict with Russia. Would you rather have a decimated Afganistan or nuclear winter? It sucks for them but I'll take Afganistan every time. I served in the Army, and saw much bullshit first hand, so I will agree with you that our government's policies are sometimes misplaced, but the amount of good we have done for many countries far outweighs the bad, in my opinion. When you see children smiling because they can go outside and play without getting shot at and it's because we have troops there you can't say that is a bad thing. Saddam Hussein has committed atrocities against his own people that should make any humane person sick. He needs to be disarmed and taken out of power. Whether oil is one of the reasons or not it still needs to happen. I, also, have no doubt that he will, if he hasn't already, aid any group committed to harming the US. This, along with what he has done to the Kurds, makes him a terrorist. As much as I dislike Bush he took a very good position after Sept. 11th. Any country that harbors terrorists or aids them will be considered one of them. Amen. If this doesn't happen it'll be like Vietnam all over again where all the Viet Cong, North Vietnam regulars had to do is jump across the border to Laos or Cambodia and we couldn't touch them. That's bullshit. You also dance around a point that we somewhat deserve to be attacked for our past policies. Talk about hypocrisy, what about Ireland? Also, If "superpowers" didn't exist, and everyone was on equal terms, don't you think there may be more conflicts instead of less. There are only two "superpowers" left anyway us and China. When you are a "superpower" you have that much more influence diplomatically and can avoid armed conflict more times than not. If you were carrying around a plastic spoon would you attack a person with a nine millimeter handgun? What if his friend had the gun and was willing to use it to protect his buddy? How about then? While you make some good points, I think some of them are also short sighted. Later.

by EZY at February 14, 2003 12:58 PM


Man, that's a lot of verbiage for just 7 comments. The only thing I can add is that indeed I am not real well-read on fundamentalist Islam philosophy. But I do know that every single thing I listed was a reality under Wahibi rule in Afghanistan. I didn't make any of it up. Also, I don't think I mentioned anything about Saddam at all. In my myopic view he is a minor problem compared with our sworn enemies. All of which misses the point that this isn't a political site and I probably shouldn't have broached this touchy topic in the 1st place. So let's drop it.

by Anna at February 14, 2003 8:18 PM


Oh wait, I overlooked Ezy's comment about the nightmarish traffic situation here. Today was Valentine's Day, the start of a three day weekend, major storms are predicted and Wahibi terrorists are supposedly poised to strike. Thus it took me two hours to travel 14 miles and to purchase a bouquet of roses. They are lovely.

by Anna at February 14, 2003 8:30 PM


That's funny...noone wanted to defend the French.

by nancy at February 14, 2003 10:25 PM


Funny the Wahibi are from Iraq not Afganistan...

Why drop it? I say keep it coming! Or are we out our depth already? Don't post about serious topics unless you're ready for a serious conversation.

And Ezy pulling out military support was the right thing to do with Afanistan in the 80's you're right there, but to turn your back in full? Thats's wrong.

*shrugs* Fuck it.

by UK at February 15, 2003 1:50 PM


Your an idiot UK. Afghanistan has consistently received humaitarian aid from the United States, up to, and including the period directly preceding 9/11/01. (via the Statistical Abstract of the United States). The same holds true for Iraq. And, even if it wasn't, isn't it one nation's right to not support another nation it finds morally repugnant? Is Belgium the only country in the world allowed to disaprove of the foreign policies of it's global neighbors?

by mg at February 15, 2003 3:38 PM


Mazal Tov, Anna! You finally perfected the art of writing an inflammatory post that creates a Brew-ha-ha by the 6th or 7th comment! Hats off, to my fair lady. Well, I guess everybody is too busy searching their nuts for lumps or gonnerhea/genital herpes this Saturday to post something new, MG has 23 authors? Only about 5 post consistently. It's time to do some Axing. At the very least, can Anna write about Snowmen again?

by LOCKHEEd at February 15, 2003 3:43 PM


The thing that's kind of funny is that yes, I am out of my element in any political or geopolitical discussion. It's just not my cup of tea. And Lockheed, I think that was some kind of baseball reference on MG's part. According to MT, there are like 35 BS authors. Lastly this did turn into quite the brouhaha. I've thus got something else in the works that is as innocuous as the snowman deal. Hopefully.

by Anna at February 15, 2003 4:25 PM


Um no. Sanctions were held on Afghanistan until the outing of the Taliban happened. Still to this day the US and many other countries (including mine) hold sanctions on Iraq. Saddam doesn't suffer, only the people. THOUSANDS of innocent people have died due to those very sanctions imposed. I'm an aid worker and have seen and witnessed with my own eyes the effects of those sanctions, the aforementioned sanctions include medical supplies, Simple medical supplies at that. So Sorry MG (decent into name calling if you think it will add some sort of weight?) I beg to differ there. You're right to say that it's a countries choice as to if they help/give aid but it's not a god given right for any country to fuck with another one for it's own ends. Something the US is VERY good at.

Anyway I can't be bothered; I present a well-read argument, one that I can because I have seen with my own eyes what the west has done. I get called an "idiot" for doing so.

You wonder why us Brits can't take you seriously!

by UK at February 16, 2003 12:04 PM


Well, that's very different, seriously. UK is to be commended. He does know of what he speaks from personal experience. As for these alleged sanctions, I'm stumped. Supposedly Iraq can only sell oil to get food and medical supplies for its beleaguered people. But they don't get either. And CNN tells me France just inked a multi-billion euro deal with.....Iraq. Very strange.

by Anna at February 16, 2003 12:28 PM


Iraq and Afghanistan both continue to receive aid from the United States (and several other countries around the world). However, the aid doesn't go to the government, rather to humanitarian organizations in an effort to ensure that the aid goes to those who needed it. That is a FACT. Look at the link I provided before. I'm using real data to state my case, you are stating your opinion. Where exactly are you an aid worker UK? Don't just say something, expect everyone to believe you without question, and give up your arguement when they don't.

I'm very well versed in the rhetoric of the "anti-war" movement. And for all their talk of the lies and subterfuge of the American governemt to support this war, the anti-war people can't seem to answer one simple question without changing the subject. The Iraqi government is dangerous and proven to have no respect for any international law or organization. What can we try to resolve this situation that hasn't already been tried (and ended in total failure)?

Do you remember during Gulf War I, everytime a missile was fired into Israel (who had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait), the citzens there had to scamble to put on their gas masks? That is the very definition of terrorism. They may or may not have ever used biological/chemical weapons then, but they can, and have done so in the past - attacking their own citizens in the now U.N. protected northern no fly zone.

A nation that takes such actions against it's neighbors and own citizens should never be allowed to develop the capabilities to cause greater damage. The world fucked up allowing North Korea to aquire nuclear weapons; we shouldn't let it get to that point in Iraq.

So, what do we do to get Iraq to abide by any of the 7 U.N. resolutions passed in the past decade? Threats haven't worked, sanctions haven't worked. What else is there to do?

by mg at February 16, 2003 2:43 PM


MG, you make a great point. So often there just seems to be no viable options. But 1 word of caution: For all its high-tech gadgetry,the vaunted US military hasn't fared so well against worthy opponents since WWII. Korea ended in a standoff, and now we see the awful result. 'Nam was a rout and the Viet Cong overran the country post haste. We soundly defeated Iraq in round 1, but now it looks like we'll be tussling w/ them anew. As for Afghanistan, I think the primary war aim was to dismember Osama, Dr. Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and 3-4 top aides, one of whom is dead as is Zawahiri's family. All the rest still exist. Then again, soccer, kite-flying and bare faces are permitted so that's a start.

by Anna at February 16, 2003 4:28 PM


Anna, the US hasn't had the chance to fight a total military run campaign since WWII with the exceptions of Granada, Panama, and the Gulf War. Every war we've been involved in since has been politically affected to the point of making our troops severly ineffective. The model of the Gulf War should be the doctrine we use to wage this battle. Use superior air power to cut communications, destroy military munitions and weapon making abilities then wage a "blitzkrieg" style ground campaign a la Panzer attacks during WWII. Our equipment is better, our troops better trained, and we still have enough vets on active duty that are combat trained in real world scenarios. Our military is, also, all volunteer now which is better than grabbing someone off the street, giving them basic training, then shipping them off to some foreign land to fight for a cause they don't believe in. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the military now signed up for this and are fully aware they might, and probably will, get sent in to harms way at some time. It doesn't mean they want to go but they're ready to go. The last person that wants war is a soldier. It's a lot different, when you're there, than watching it on CNN and I can tell you that from first hand experience. After our Somalia disaster, don't expect the Joint Chiefs to send troops in to a street battle, out gunned and without the proper equipment either. I, also, don't believe we'll have to go it alone. The British, Aussies, Canadians, and other allies that have stood beside us will continue to, I think. Why have a United Nations or NATO if the countries are united only on certain issues and not all? A lot of nations stand to be adversly affected if the United Nations or NATO fails and, politically, I don't believe they'll let that happen. I am hoping for a peaceful end to this and, if that's not possible, a swift and total victory. Sorry so long. Got carried away over here. Later peeps.

by EZY at February 19, 2003 5:05 PM


Ezy, I really do admire your grasp of these military matters. It's something I definitely lack, as evidenced by the fact that I forgot all about the Somalia fiasco. I thought Black Hawk Down was pure revisionist history.

by Anna at February 19, 2003 7:40 PM


Unfortunately, Anna. it wasn't. I lost a couple of friends from Ft. Bragg in that pitiful excuse for a military operation. The lack of and source of their intel alone should have aborted the mission. Fortunately, the upper brass who made the decisions that got our guys killed and drug through the streets are no longer making calls for US service men and women. There was a very in depth inquiry, conducted at the Pentagon, in to the planning, of the operation, in hopes that it would never happen again. I believe we'll have the logistics that doomed those service members ironed out if we have to do it again. I would, really, prefer that we never have to do anything that resembles that again but the world we live in shelters some very dangerous people. If not us then who?

by EZY at February 19, 2003 10:42 PM



comments are closed