The Shotgun Blog
Friday, October 28, 2005
The Deceptions Never End
Some men are better than others:
Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.
Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr died on April 30th, several months after he wrote the passage quoted above in a letter to his girlfriend.
It would seem hard to do but check out how the NY Times used the passage to slander the memory of a fallen soldier.
Any man who would give his life in the service of others deserves our everlasting gratitude. Any man who would insult the other's memory... what he deserves I'll leave up to you.
[Via Tim Blair]
crossposted to canadiancomment
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Deceptions Never End:
Its time to put the number of casualties in Iraq in perspective.
Every life lost is valuable and their memory sacred, but that's no reason to be timid in the face of evil.
Posted by: JDS | 2005-10-28 2:23:36 PM
It strikes me strange how a Corporal can be so clear as to the mission while the left-wing pinkos can't find there hind-end with both hands. Jeff is a true hero in my eyes.
Posted by: themaj | 2005-10-28 5:22:57 PM
In my never-to-be-humble opinion, it's not all that hard to understand...the leftys are in the islamist's corner because they want the same thing. Top down global control of how we live our lives. That someone would freely give there life to allow another to freely live theirs is totaly beyond there ken. Cheers, D.
Posted by: Darren | 2005-10-28 10:01:59 PM
Thank you Jeff Starr. See you on the other side.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-28 11:19:07 PM
Wow. I realize there's alot of national division on issues that are in the Western Standard, but I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to respond to pretty much all of them. First of all, nobody likes the Liberals. Eveyrone knows they're crooks and have engaged in some rather unsavoury actions. The question is, do central Canadians believe that the Conservatives could do any better? Even if they did 'do what they set out to do', would htat make them any more attractive to Canadians? The answer is probably no. Canadians don't want a government that is going to take away the rights of gays or minorities. Considering that gay rights is not an issue that affects anyone who is not gay, it is mystifying to most Canadians that so many people are against allowing gays the simple right go marry each other. It affects neither you or I so what does it matter.
Besides, until the Conservative party of Canada can appeal to urban voters (which comprises 80% of the population), it will remain to be seen as a regressive force. Even in Alberta, an increasing amount of the population is urban, and that population is going to be the population that makes the economy run. This is coming from a small town guy I should add.
Now to focus on the last post by Darren. How exactly are the leftys in the 'Islamists corners'?
If we take a look at the war and decide that its all about spreading freedom to the Iraqis, then why weren't the Americans as adamant about freedoms in Central and South America? Why didn't they actually spread freedom in Chile adn Nicaragua instead of spewing rhetoric about freedoms they had no idea about, while installing authoritarian dictatorships just as murderous as Saddam Hussein's? Guatemala, Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras and Chile are just a few of the examples of countries in South and Central America where the United States has actually stepped in and impeded democracy by taking away people's freedoms with the goal of pursuing self interests. So why is it that journals like the Western Standard are so steadfast in their support of the United States' infliction of terrorism in Central America? One can only imagine.
Perhaps it is the right wing establishment in the United States government that wants the same thing as the Islamists. That is a full out war between the West and Islam. A clash of civilizations as Samuel Huntington has put it is actually a self fulfilling prophecy. The more people who think it is something inevitable, the more people are doomed to repeat history's mistakes.
Islam is not a violent religion despite what the majority of Canada's conservative media establishment may believe. It, like other Abrahamic religions, preaches a message of peace and tolerance. Unfortunately, this message has been forgotten by fundamentalists by folks of all religions.
Top down control of our lives is exactly what the Islamits want, I will agree. Being overly concerned with security instead of personal freedoms is also something that the Islamist terrorists want . Responding with the same hatred and ignorance will, as history has proven, play right into the hands of the Islamist extremists. Responding with a realization of the colonial era in the Middle East will only allow us to counter the Islamist propoganda. It is little known in the Western world that the British and then American empires encouraged regional governemtns to forget thier national cultures in order to pursue a fast paced modernization. This fast paced modernization in a foreign culture with a foreign way of living resulted in a societal collapse which left the youngest generation with no clue as to what their identity was. The Islamists also feel that by giving their lives, they are protecting their future generations. It is important to note that the dictionary definition of terrorism can be equally applied both to religious terrorists and to the Washington regime at the same time.
Understanding the reasons behind the alienation of the Middle East is the only way to understand today's complex problems. Villifying the region in terms of us versus them is only serving into the hands of the religous terrorist, and does not serve any productive purpose. Understanding the region requires more than simply saying "Canada likes terrorism", because thats simply ignorant. Canada has taken its stand on the Iraq war because it realized that Iraq did not attack New York and Washington, and furthermore it realizes that Washington's hypocritycal stance on terrorism denies all the many actions that Washington has taken towards countries it disagrees with that have resulted in the installation of many dicatorships that have nothing to do with freedom in any way or sort.
Posted by: Dave | 2005-10-29 12:58:12 AM
You talk about fundamentalism like it is something bad. I am a Christian fundamentalist. That means that I take the Bible literally in every word. Islamist fundamentalists take their koran literally and that is the reason why the want to kill all infidels. The koran doesn't breed "peace" but rather hatred and racism.
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-29 3:37:24 AM
Americans should now institute task force Iranian Freedom in co-operation with Israel. I wouldn't trust that guy for one second. There is another man who needs to be killed.
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-29 3:39:24 AM
"Dave" is out to lunch in so many ways I don't know where to start. Question for Dave, does this evil "modernization" being forced upon those poor brown-skinned people who are just trying to hang onto their traditional way of life include education and health care? I'm just wondering because Dave sounds like the kind of guy who thinks we have to do something about AIDS in the third world and feed the hungry and provide disaster relief but then he chatters away here about how offensive it is to try and share other "modern" concepts with them. Sort of like the old "give a man a fish or teach him to fish" thingy, Dave only believes in giving out fish I guess. In your own words Dave, you "can only imagine" because deeper thought is beyond you. Another clue of David's idiocy is his babbling about the US taking away people's freedom in Latin America, I guess he thinks Ernesto Guavera had a better plan for Latin America and the US diabolically prevented the spread of the socialist utopia. One more question Dave, a big one, do you admire Fidel Castro?
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-10-29 6:11:40 AM
The crack is affecting you're thinking... ease up a bit.
Posted by: Dana | 2005-10-29 8:19:04 AM
Typical angry conservatism shows its ugly face. This website and magazine have been an interesting glimpse into some rather strange thougth patterns that thankfully will never get taken seriously in most places. If my 'idiocy' is proven by bringing to light the thousands of people killed in the name of "freedom and democracy" that resulted in right wing dictatorships across Latin America that did nothing but take away people's freedoms and democracies, then so be it.
What I meant by modernity being forced upon people, I need to make clearer. I do not mean that the people in Iran and the Middle East are oh so offended at our technological riches because most people in Iran have no problem with that at all. If you study the Shah's policies they included attempts to ban religious clothing because he thought that being progressive meant eliminating religion from people's lives. Now, the United States is more of a poster child for westernization than anything, but in knowing this, America's reactions to the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East only served to brew more hatred instead of trying to win people's hearts.
Posted by: Dave | 2005-10-29 11:43:11 AM
Gee whillikers Dave there seems to be some kind of democracy epidemic in South and Central America now, the Cubans, as Soviet proxy revolutionaries, failed to spread their revolution there, thanks in part to American intervention, I'm still waiting for your opinion of Fidel Castro, it might help me understand the basis for your theory that the Americans bring nothing but death and loss of freedom to areas all over the globe, installing "dictatorships just as murderous as Saddam Hussein's"... oh oh I have to stop typing, I can't stand it hahahahaha, Dave you're one dumb bunny alright, c'mon tell us what you think of Castro...
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-10-29 1:29:11 PM
I for one am very happy that those brutal, murdering, beheading, torturing," believe what we believe or we'll kill every last one of you"
animals that dare to try to pass themselves off as Human Beings hates our American neighbors and are the apitome of anti-Americanism! If they were pro- American, wouldn't you be very, very afraid to live next door to the United States?
Many, if not most of us wouldn't admit to that feeling of security, but you know we all feel it.
Is the US without sin? of course not. What country is? Is Canada?
I know you'll give me some smart ass answer to this question but let me ask it anyway.Can you imagine for a moment what would happen to the world if the US and all it's military power were to disappear from the face of the earth right now! They are not perfect like I said before, but even a rabid lefty like yourself must admit that without them to hold back the wolves,this planet would be an infinitely more dangerous place than it already is.
Posted by: Steve | 2005-10-29 1:57:59 PM
Dave - I have a few problems with your comments.
1)You state that you feel it's your 'duty as a Canadian to respond'..but remember, we are, most of us on this blog, also Canadians, so I think that you ought to realize that there are a fair number of people who don't think as you do.
2)You state that "Canadians don't want a government that will take away the rights of gays and minorities". Don't you think that you should speak only for youself; when were you given the right to speak for all Canadians?
And - what 'rights' of gays? What rights of minorities? Would you please tell us?
And- what is your proof that a CPC government would take away these rights?
Oh- and if you are, with reference to gays, referring to SSM - that's not a right. The Supreme Court acknowledged that it's not a constitutional right and refused to consider the case. It's a SOCIAL decision and ought to have been decided by the people of this country. Instead, the Liberals refused to permit the people to make that decision. Martin kept on, lying, that it was a 'Charter Right' - not true. And, it ought to have been a referendum vote, as it was in the US.
Again- what rights of minorities would the CPC take away?
3) How do you know that 'it is mystifying to most Canadians'??? How do you know what 'most Canadians think?
4) What is 'regressive' about the CPC?
5)Could you provide some proof that the Western Standard is/has supported the US "infliction of terrorism in Central America"?
Could you provide proof that the installation of communism in Chile and Guatemala was also an installation of democracy? The two modes of government are antithetical to each other. Brazil??? Nicaragua??
6)You state that the Islamists want a 'full out war'. Why?
Could you also provide proof that Islam is not a religion of violence?
7) You seem to feel that the 'colonial' era in the ME has something to do with terrorism. Why? I, for one, have analyzed this same era, and come up with a very different conclusion. So- could you explain your reasons?
8) Are you serious about 'forgetting national cultures'???? Do you seriously think that a national culture is like a museum artifact and meant to be retained, unchanged, over centuries and centuries?? That's pretty repressive!
9)Could you provide proof of your claim that the terrorism is due to a 'fast-paced change'?? I certainly disagree! If you want a country that has changed rapidly - try Japan. No terrorism.
10) What is Washington's hypocritical stance on terrorism?
By the way - you have a habit of writing as if you were speaking for all Canadians. That's rather arrogant.
11)Do you know the reason for the Iraq War? There are certainly different analyses; I've given mine often enough here and won't repeat it - but- it has to do with population dynamics, i.e., the exponential rise in population and tribal political infrastructures in the ME.
12) Could you provide a list of dictators installed by Washington?
Could you also provide some evidence to show how Central and Latin American are now operating within dictatorships rather than democracies. That would include Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, Nicaragua.
13) What does being a 'poster child for modernization' mean?
14)What were American's reactions to the anti-Americanism in the ME?
The problem I have with your posts - apart from your habit of asserting that you speak for all Canadians rather than only for yourself - is their ambiguity, their mixing 'fact with fiction', and their ignorance of basic history.
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-29 2:28:14 PM
He died under government propaganda's grip.
How sad. But history is full of such fools.
Let's hope God allows him to come back -- as someone smarter.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-29 2:57:20 PM
Dave: It, like other Abrahamic religions, preaches a message of peace and tolerance.
There is a great deal of disagreement as to whether Islam is a religion, let alone an Abrahamic religion. I'll let theology scholars sort that one out.
There may well be a message of peace and tolerance. However, it is drowned out by repeated head hackings done to screams of allah ackbar; by murdering school children, also to screams of allah ackbar; by surah after surah commanding the faithful to kill the infidel wherever found; and most importantly, by the deafening silence of the huge majority that haven't “hijacked a peaceful religion”. That so few real condemnations are heard, the ones without a “but it’s Israel’s fault or America’s fault, or we’re so humiliated by X (insert any western value you like), maybe tells us that even the so-called moderate Muslims are scared to death of the real practitioners of the real Islam. And if they’re scared by these people and this religion, we should be as well.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-29 4:05:57 PM
Let me refer everyone to this post ""Ghazw": For those who can't say "terrorist":
'For institutions like our taxpayer-funded CBC who can't bring themselves to use the word "terrorist", the traditional label "ghazw" might suffice:
In its active participle form of gha-zi- ("one who takes part in a gha-ziya"), the word is technical term for a Muslim frontier/march warrior whose constant attacks against a neighboring infidel power open the way for the expansion of Islam. Thus as an institution the gha-ziya fits entirely within the conceptual framework of jihad:
For the gha-zi-s in the marches, it was a religious duty to ravage the countries of the infidels who resisted Islam, and to force them into subjection.
Cambridge History of Islam, p. 283
Gha-zi- warriors depended upon plunder for their livelihood, and were prone to brigandage and sedition in times of peace. The corporations into which they organized themselves attracted adventurers, zealots, and religious and political dissidents of all ethnicities.
When performed within the context of Islamic jihad warfare, the ghazw's function was to weaken the enemy's defenses in preparation for his eventual conquest and subjugation. Because the typical ghazw raiding party often did not have the size or strength to seize military or territorial objectives, this usually meant sudden attacks on weakly defended targets (e.g. villages) with the intent of terrorizing/demoralizing their inhabitants and destroying material which could support the enemy's military forces. Though rules of war in Islam's rules of warfare offered protection to non-combatants such as women, monastics, and peasants (in that, generally speaking, they could not be slain), their property could still be looted or destroyed, and they themselves could be abducted and enslaved.
But then the slavery market is a tough one to get into, and you have to keep your captives alive and such, so these ghazawat partaking in a ghaziya in Indonesia had little choice in preparing this land for the expansion of Islam:
Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.
The girls were among a group of students from a private Christian high school who were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation in Poso Kota subdistrict on their way to class, police Major Riky Naldo said.
Naldo said the heads of the three dead victims were found several kilometres from their bodies.
Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation, but Central Sulawesi has a roughly equal number of Muslims and Christians. The province was the scene of a bloody religious war in 2001-2002 that killed around 1000 people from both communities.
A government-mediated truce succeeded in ending the conflict in early 2002, but there have since been a series of bomb attacks and assassinations of Christians.
Let's recall the CBC rules:
Distributed to staff at cbc.ca, after some poor worker bee made the egregious error of referring to the London transit bombings as "terror attacks" -- which the CBC later went in and retroactively changed to "attacks" in the best traditions of the Ministry of Truth in 1984 -- it reads in part:
"'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': use extreme caution before using either word ... Rather than calling assailants 'terrorists', we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group (my italics)), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun."
"Ghazw" is an excellent choice. For the CBC, it avoids using a word with a technically bad connotation. Indeed, the CBC could even argue that it is being culturally-sensitive.
On the other hand, once people understood was it means to be a ghazw, no one would be fooled by those apologists arguing that Muslim thugs grabbing defenseless schoolgirls and sawing off their heads has nothing to do with Islam. Of course it does, everyone knows it, and everyone would be waiting for the day the ghazw start to show up in major Canadian cities with their bomb belts and car bombs, preparing the ground for the expansion of Islam.
And when it happens, we can all say "Oh well, there ghazw the neighbourhood!"'
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-29 5:09:12 PM
To fundamentalists of ALL creeds, to leftwing bigots of reality, you truly warp the good in Mankind.
I wish our gov't had balls like this!!!!!!!
FINALLY, a Country with some Backbone
Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims (Maybe we
should move to Australia...)
CANBERRA: Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told
on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted
radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a
group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a
special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers
made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.
Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that
some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did
not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by
parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which
has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,"
he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are
teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the
Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false."
If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts,
democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go
to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better
option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be
forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be
asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson
later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local
values should "clear off." "Basically, people who don't want to be
Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and
understand them, well then, they can basically clear off," he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by
saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques; agencies.
A Western Canadian
Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-29 5:09:49 PM
He died for something he believed in.He died for people he saw to be his fellow man that had every right to be as free as he was. People who you probably wouldn't give a drink of water to, he freely gave his life for. He died thinking not of himself, but of others.
In short Justin, he died a real man. But I wouldn't expect you to know much about that.
Posted by: Steve | 2005-10-29 8:05:01 PM
"... the ghazw's function was to weaken the enemy's defenses in preparation for his eventual conquest and subjugation."
Are you proposing that we use this name for the terrorists, or for the CBC?
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-10-29 8:05:19 PM
Poor Justin. Finding no meaning in his life he spends his time belittling those that do.
Posted by: Dana | 2005-10-29 8:30:18 PM
Justzumgai: CBC and CTV.
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-29 8:58:22 PM
"Poor Justin. Finding no meaning in his life he spends his time belittling those that do."
Yes - like the soviets.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-30 5:44:28 AM
Cpl Starr wrote:
"I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives."
"He died under government propaganda's grip.
How sad. But history is full of such fools."
(a) doesn't believe Iraqis are capable of having a free and democratic country, in which case he's a racist, and/or
(b) doesn't believe in democracy and probably has visions of some kind of benevolent dictatorship initiated by revolutionary principles, Maoism shining path sort of thing, some kind of juvenile anarchistic drivel.
Either way he's a running dog, a useful idiot for the forces of evil, his way is the way of death camps, famine, massive human suffering, and he probably doesn't even know it. History is certainly "full of such fools" like Justin. They're the first ones up against the wall being shot when their political dream comes true and, no, gods never really let anyone come back as someone smarter.
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-10-30 6:25:45 AM
Actually, Speller outed the Justin troll on the Grim Milestone thread, which just went into the archives.
Here is Speller's post:
"'i am a pincer' and 'Saladin hmr' are Justin hiding behind MULTIPLE NICS. Click on the names, see the e-mail addresses.(Yahoo/tax/yahoo/taxes etal.)
Click each EBITDA/Can't Speller/Hmmmm/ etc.
Note grammar and arguement patterns and repeated use of fingerprint-like phrases.(cave-dweller, excuse me, snide asides to famous polititians/historic figures)
Every lefty anti-US comment are all from Justin hiding behind multiple nics.
And then Kathryn demonstrated that the Justin troll plagiarizes.
""I feel my job is one of an educator."
Oh goody. Someone else who feels, rather than thinks. I suppose he/she also feels it's okay to pass off others' work as their own.
The first 4 paragraphs are taken directly from
The 5th paragraph is from
I didn't google the rest. It is undoubtedly plagiarised as well. Since he/she feels and steals, R2D2 is another that should go on the permanent scrollover list."
Frankly, how anyone on earth could be a disingenuous fraud who works constantly at manipulation and feels free to plagiarize and expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-30 11:12:48 AM
Greg outside Dallas, not to pick nits, but I didn't say Justin was R2D2, the plagiarizer. Justin later posts that he is not the other trolls. As I'm in a "Little Mary Sunshine" mood today, I'll take him at his word.
BTW, Justin, if you're reading this, there are some pending questions for you on the "Grim" thread, if you'd be so kind.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-30 12:23:31 PM
Justin doesn't mind belittling the honor and courage of a hero, but he sure was upset when I called Cindy Sheehan down for embarrassing the memory of her dead son.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-10-30 1:40:20 PM
I suggest reading the following articles in the NY Times Book Review. Oct.30:
1) 'The Assassins' Gate' Occupational Hazards
2) 'The Right War?' and 'A Matter of Principle': Everybody Is a Realist Now
3) 'Ahmad's War, Ahmad's Peace': One of the Good Guys
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-30 4:59:20 PM
Sorry, my computer won't allow me to go near anything from the NY Times...some sort of left wing defense...
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-10-30 6:04:56 PM
MarkAlta: That is silly prejudice. All the articles cited are intelligent and, in my view, non-ideological. And certainly no Canadian source can provide anything similar. The Globe's Saturday book section, while improving, is really not much.
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-30 6:33:36 PM
Try the conservativebookclub.com. Good books that don't get promoted in the liberal MSM.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-10-30 9:50:13 PM
For the last time - I only post as Justin you simpletons.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-30 11:53:59 PM
A good comment on Justin from, of all people, Punkmeister Kinsella:
...Justin needs quite a few tequilas, by my estimate. Valium wouldn't hurt, either. Percocet and OxyContin, too.
One of these days I'll get around to posting his emails. They are the penmanship of man in serious need of a long vacation.
Posted By Warren K / Posted At 10/31/05 10:23 AM'
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-31 1:37:34 PM
Thanks Mark. You just proved two things about me:
1. I post on other sites using THE SAME NAME AND EMAIL - thus I've never felt the need to use an alias.
2. I target even those on the 'left' that all full of it. I'm equal opportunity which means I don't have knee-jerk political responses like yourself and so many on the Shotgun.
Again thanks! I should hire you to do all my P.R.!
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-31 2:44:30 PM
Aww, Justin, I'm hurt. I stuck up for you one full day before Mark did. What am I, chopped liver?
And not to be a nag, but those questions are still pending.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-31 2:56:22 PM
Justin: I would welcome examples of "knee-jerk political responses" by me.
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-31 3:30:21 PM
Who is this "DAVE" who speaks for so many?
Hey Pal...Listen Up.....you do not speak for me.
And by the way.... what conservatives like me really do not like about liberals like you is your obvious contempt for dissenting opinion and your constant misrepresentation of your opinion and assumptions as fact.
Give us all a break Dave, you may be fooling yourself with the liberalogue rhetoric but you are not impressing very many others.
Of course thats just my opinion...............
Posted by: PGP | 2005-10-31 6:54:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.