« The Nixon-Bush Parallel | Main | Turn Off Your Mind »


November 25, 2005

The Facts Are Banned By Confederate Yankee

-- by Gary Boatwright

Regular readers of STF are aware that some warmonger whacko who calls himself Confederate Yankee accused Dave of treason for criticizing Bush's immoral war in Iraq. At the end of his dogmatic screed against political dissent and the Constitution Confederate Yankee links to another fascist over at The Jawa Report, who calls himself Dr. Rusty Shackleford, and accuses Markos of treason.

Confederate Yankee stated the basis for his and Shackleford's condemnation of critics of Bush's war as traitor:

One man’s dissent can very well be another man’s treason. With that you should not disagree.

Confederate Fascist should have added, "And in addition to unilaterally deciding who is guilty of treason, I decide which facts are admissible evidence." This is the error message I got from Confederate Fascist's site when I tried to post a response, before I was banned for disagreeing with the reactionary opinions of Confederate Fascist and Old Soldier:

Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: news.independent.co.uk

Isn't that interesting? I wonder what other sources of factual information Confederate Fascist does not accept?

Posted by Gary Boatwright at November 25, 2005 9:36 AM

Bookmark and Share

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1136

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Facts Are Banned By Confederate Yankee:

» Pray for Confederate Yankee from Seeing the Forest
One of our good friends in the freeper sector of the blogosphere has been afflicted with some sort of unidentified degenerative brain disease. In the interest of transparency and full understanding, I am pulling up the last few exchanges we... [Read More]

Tracked on November 25, 2005 11:51 PM

» Pray for Confederate Yankee from Seeing the Forest
Cross posted at MyDD One of our good friends in the freeper sector of the blogosphere has been afflicted with some sort of unidentified degenerative brain disease. In the interest of transparency and full understanding, I am pulling up the... [Read More]

Tracked on November 26, 2005 12:01 AM

» Pray for Confederate Yankee from Seeing the Forest
Cross posted at MyDD One of our good friends in the freeper sector of the blogosphere has been afflicted with some sort of unidentified degenerative brain disease. In the interest of transparency and full understanding, I am pulling up the... [Read More]

Tracked on November 26, 2005 12:04 AM


Comments

"One man’s dissent can very well be another man’s treason. With that you should not disagree."

Anyone who supports Mr. Bush and his apparent love of freedom should be disgusted by such a remark. A free country is one where dissent is never treason.

Sedition (advocating the armed overthrow of the state), domestic terrorism or espionage are the only points at which a dissenter can choose to become a traitor. Expressing one's dissent is not only loving freedom, but using one's freedom.

Posted by: BW at November 25, 2005 11:12 AM

"Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: news.independent.co.uk"

I'm fascinated by that address. Doesn't uk stand for United Kingdom? Why is this coming from there?

So Connecticut Yankee is a heavily censored site. Yet they seem to feel free to call everybody else traitors. Why am I not surprised? I wonder what other traditional American values they're against, besides free speech and open discussion? Except for themselves, of course. What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: MJ at November 25, 2005 11:31 AM

Why do you lovely people waste your beautiful minds?

Posted by: richard [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2005 12:23 PM

"I wonder what other sources of factual information Confederate Fascist does not accept?"


The sky is blue.

The sun rises in the east.

Dogs bark (and pee on furniture).

He is not a scared puppy.

Posted by: Molly Douthett at November 25, 2005 12:44 PM

OK everyone hold on here. It was almost certainly an automatic filter that trapped Gary's comment, not the blogger. It's just the software - not the blogger - that isn't very smart. It's because it detected a link URL. It happened to me also and I just instead posted a comment saying that my real comment was over at this blog.

It's like the times here when I have to ask people to log in through TypePad because we're getting too much spam, and then TypePad won't let half of you log in...

The wingnuts do a lot of stuff - like accusing me of treason - but I don't think this was one of them.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2005 2:12 PM

Does that blog reject all links or is he a little passive aggressive?

Posted by: grannyinsanity [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2005 2:16 PM

I didn't have any trouble with any of my other links Dave. It seemed curious that the only comment blocked would be a British newspaper and banning "foreign" sources certainly fits their MO.

Here is the entire comment that I posted at Confederate Fascist, without the link to the British newspaper that carried the article:

Confederate Yankee insists that I must provide "names of reputable chemists and artillery experts from any acredited university or NATO military in the United States or Western Europe that will agree with you that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon."

I'm afraid I am not familiar with periodicals or journals used by chemists to comment on political current affairs. Do artillery experts have a periodical or journal they publish peer reviewed articles? Beats the hell out of me.

It apparently doesn't count that the Pentagon itself has admitted using WP against enemy combatants or that phosphorus is a chemical. Conservatives certainly do have a long list of inconvenient facts that are not permitted to participate in this discussion.

Perhaps the fact that US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' would be allowed a special waiver so it can participate. Are facts allowed to participate if they bring a note from their mother?

I don't know what the educational background of these military analysts is or if their background includes training as "artillery experts":

Military analysts said that there remain questions about the official US position regarding its observance of the 1980 conventional weapons treaty which governs the use of WP as an incendiary weapon and sets out clear guidelines about the protection of civilians.

I also cannot vouch for the educational background of Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, but it does appear to be a reputable organization. Daryl does not make the specific statement that "White phosphorous is a chemical weapon," but his intention is clear:

Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, called for an independent investigation of the use of WP during the Fallujah siege. "If it was used as an incendiary weapon, clear restrictions apply," he said.

"Given that the US and UK went into Iraq on the ground that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people, we need to make sure that we are not violating the laws that we have subscribed to," he added.

I suppose a good conservative can quibble that an incendiary weapon that utilizes the chemical phosphorous is not necessarily a chemical weapon.

Perhaps a factual statement from the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas would be granted the right to participate:

The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

I guess I'll leave the discussion there until you fellas decide whether my facts are allowed to participate.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright at November 22, 2005 10:26 PM

As I expected before I even went to his site, Confederate Fascist rejected consideration of any inconvenient facts and then banned me.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2005 3:32 PM

Gary,

I hate to ruin your rant (you seem to be enjoying such a nice one, but I didn't delete your comment. It is still located in the comments for the post "Aid and Comfort." You even responded back to my response for this post.

Perhaps you should lay off the illegal substances.

Idiot.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 25, 2005 6:14 PM

Confederate Fascist,

It was very considerate of you to stop by STF and demonstrate your allergy to facts. If you had the reading comprehension level of a sixth grader, you would not have deluded yourself into thinking I accused you of deleting my comment from your ideologically fascist website.

Ask one of the neighborhood children to read my comment out loud for you and you will discover that I did not complain about my comment being deleted. I simply re-posted it for the convenience of STF readers. I did not wish to subject them to the intellectual dischord of visiting your fascist, fact challenged website.

Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course at your local Community College. I recommend asking them to teach you how to understand what the words on the page say, as opposed to what you would like them to say.

Recommended reading: How To Read A Book by Mortimer Adler.

Free Tip: Read the black parts of the page.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 25, 2005 8:58 PM

Hey Gary:

Perhaps before you try to teach others how to read, you should read The Concise English Handbook. I'm only mentioned in the credits of those who teach how to write, you stupid son of a bitch.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 25, 2005 10:56 PM

Folks, I'd like to apologize for my language. The arrogantly stupid seem to irritate me very badly, and I shouldn't pick on them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 25, 2005 10:59 PM

Yeah, and Confederate Yankee uses the usual tactics of this administration: attack the other person on a personal level rather than discuss the facts. So what else would anyone expect?

How about getting back to the discussion of White Phosphorous and whether or not it's a chemical weapon if used for anything other than illumination? It's not exactly nice stuff.

Posted by: MJ at November 26, 2005 6:52 AM

I'm playing around with another diary. At this point I believe it is a non-issue whether White Phosphorous is a chemical weapon or an incendiary weapon. It's pretty much a question of arbitrary classification of a weapon of war.

One relevant question is how WP was used and whether it was used against citizens or combatants.

Another relevant question is whether the use of tactics that employ WP as an offensive weapon will help win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Of course even those questions are irrelevant, because Bush's war is illegal and immoral. We shouldn't be in Iraq to be using WP in the first place.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2005 8:30 PM

Good Thoughts. I like it. Here a best service provider in India is serving better service to their clients.

Posted by: Praveen Bhalla [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 10, 2010 4:11 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page