Comments

23 Responses to “‘Terrorist Leader’ Threatens To Sue ‘Bruno’ Movie”
( jump to bottom )

1. vagabond trader
   

   1 | July 13, 2009 3:38 pm

   Almost feel sorry for the dunderhead…..naaaaahhh, just kidding!

   Your king Osama looks like a dirty wizard, almost thought he said Obama. lololol.

   
   
2. smokefire
   

   2 | July 13, 2009 3:44 pm

   No sense of humor. Just like the Liberals.
   Thin skinned, self-absorbed.

   
   
3. WrathofG-d
   

   3 | July 13, 2009 3:48 pm

   Another genius “soldier of Allah”.

   
   
4. WrathofG-d
   

   4 | July 13, 2009 3:51 pm

   Mock, mock mock…

   Terrorist Blows Himself Up With Failed RPG Shot

   
   
5. vapig
   

   5 | July 13, 2009 4:00 pm

   ROTFLMAO!!!!!

   Ohhhhhh! THAT is PRICELESS!!!!

   

   
   
6. no2liberals
   

   6 | July 13, 2009 4:56 pm

   I kept expecting Aita to break into an Achmed the Dead Terrorist routine.
   I’ll keel you!

   
   
7. song_and_dance_man
   

   7 | July 13, 2009 5:28 pm

   Ayman Abu Aita, the boy named sue.

   
   
8. jakee308
   

   8 | July 13, 2009 6:11 pm

   Whilst searching for something entirely different, I stumbled across this by Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
   
   Vilifying Manhood: Sound and Fury,Signifying Nothing

   And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
   The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
   Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
   That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
   And then is heard no more. It is a tale
   Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
   Signifying nothing. – Macbeth

   Laziness, otherwise known as sloth in the archaic form, has come to characterize our cultural inattention to language and message. In the words of the renowned Marshall McLuhan, the medium has become the massage. As a cultural body, Americans tend to be swayed to and fro by verbal colors and emotive rhetoric. Our peripheral audition is alerted to the sound and fury of the massage, even when the prevailing themes signify nothing.

   Ideological Idiots step forward and pronounce grand injuries, and demand that the culture accord them redress.

   Nowhere can be found more grand idiots than those who are the gender nihilists of the National Organization of Women (NOW) or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). And the slothful in the culture fail to note that NOW and Homosexual have become synonymous, and that they share a common hatred of all things heterosexually masculine.

   They are in fact hate groups that have refined Orwellian doublespeak in their massage of the very concepts of discrimination and defamation. Strutting and fretting on the stage of victimization they are the Lady Macbeths of an absurd ambition for power, with all the trappings of witchcraft and spells.

   “Now why are these basic realities of the subordination of women to men, for example that only 7.8 percent of women have never been sexually assaulted, not effectively believed…Why don’t women believe in our own experiences?” …
   “These women were “house niggers who side with the masters,” she said. … The Black Movement has Uncle Toms and Oreo cookies. The labor movement has scabs. The Women’s movement has ‘FACT’.” (FACT: Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce) …
   “MacKinnon’s theory holds that male dominance is based on the power to treat women as sex objects. Male dominance began near the beginning of the species and was probably inaugurated by rape: … Hence gender, the definition of male and female, is not biological–not the product of innate characteristics–but social, something that has been forced on women by men.”
   “Some of the proud mothers in the audience (are) sitting next to the men who (have) battered them. Some of the well-dressed fathers (have) once sexually abused the women who (are) now graduating.” Catherine MacKinnon, in her farewell address at Yale at commencement. – In “Catherine A. MacKinnon: The Rise of a Feminist Censor, 1983-1993″
   “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.” – “Gay Revolutionary.”

   Commenting on the meaning of meaningless jargon, Jonah Goldberg quotes George Orwell, who points out the great crime of such incantations is only secondarily that they make lies into truth; but primarily that their politics kill people.

   With all due respect to Goldberg and Orwell, both authors whom I respect, this may be a chicken and egg argument. For Orwell, it was post-hoc language disguising the crime of murder that was the real evil. But I would argue that in a narcissistic culture, it is also the antecedent rhetoric of “permission” to act in service of self and perversion that “empowers” both person and state to exploit the credulity and good intentions of fellow citizens.

   Those who are in the habit of abusing the truth are simple liars. Those who intentionally distort and misrepresent the truth habitually are pathological liars. Those who intentionally distort and misrepresent the truth habitually in service of power over others are totalitarians and nihilists, and their actions are, well, evil – period.

   Having established the great lie, the gender nihilists have merely to resort to key words and phrases to advance their agenda. The incantations used to induce their mad spells are choice, child abuse, domestic violence, homophobia, discrimination, and harassment. The mere whisper of these incantations can drive the politicians and politically correct into a shuddering swoon of lethargic submission.

   Words convey meaning and reality, and it is imperative that we begin to reawaken to the notion that factuality is that which gives words weight. Otherwise, they are simply a collection of consonants, vowels, and sounds, signifying nothing – if not lies.

   If we are to reverse the spells cast by these incantations, permissivity must be retracted and truth reinstated. As Winston Churchill reportedly said, “Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Ignorance may deride it. But in the end, there it is.”

   Let’s look at some truths.

   Choice: Used most often in connection with killing the unborn, the argument is that it is a woman’s body that is at stake, and an unwanted pregnancy may be terminated because there is no life involved, only unarticulated protoplasm.
   Following this permissivity, bioscience is now cavorting in the realm of God, tinkering with life with the creation of artificial protoplasm. Also, consider this. In a letter to the Massachusetts News, Thomas V. Messe, M.D. writes the following: “Many scientists have discovered that unborn children experience pain as early as seven weeks gestation. This has been shown by accelerations in their heart rate and brain waves during an abortion. Similarly, Judge Robert Bork states his reason for opposing choice: “Qualms about abortion began to arise when I first read about fetal pain. There is no doubt that, after its nervous system has developed to a degree, the fetus being dismembered or poisoned in the womb feels excruciating pain.”
   Truth: Choice has become nothing less than rhetorical permission for no-fault murder of a sentient being, and the admission of science to the playground of Creation. Protoplasm, my dears, is the “essential living matter.” I wonder, will there ever be a book entitled “Screams From the Petri Dish”?

   Child abuse: Used most often to vilify parents and the traditional family, feminihilists have abused the power of the state and of the media to propagate the myth that child abuse has reached epidemic proportions. In the words of Letty Cottin Pogrebin, co-founder of MS magazine, “… dads are pathological bullies who abuse their children”. The absolutely mind-boggling carnage resulting from this campaign to separate parents from their children is primarily being executed by federal and state “Social Service” departments throughout the country. One of the vehicles for establishing the myth of child abuse has been the annual NCANDS study published by the Department of Health and Human Services. In my analysis of the 1996 version of this report, which stated that nearly 3 million American children were being abused annually, I found this figure had been systemically inflated by more than 400%.
   Truth: at least 99.1% of U.S. Children are NOT being harmed, and that figure might more likely be as high as 99.6%. Child abuse is gender-nihilist socialist rhetoric intent upon ending the 2000 year-plus influence of the nuclear family; with results antithetical to engendering children’s well being.

   Domestic Violence: Used most often to vilify and sully manhood, as evidenced by that grand unconstitutionality The Violence Against Women Act, this and the sexual harassment statutes perpetuate the myth that men, wed and unwed, are systematically raping, oppressing, and physically / emotionally battering their female partners or acquaintances. The most dramatic impact of this witchery is witnessed in so-called family courts where false allegations of abuse are regularly employed to separate children from their dads, and dads from their incomes. Having compiled more than a hundred “references examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners” Dr. Martin Fiebert argues against this prevailing myth. And he is not alone. Even the ultra-liberal Mother Jones mag reports, “After 20 years of domestic violence research, scientists can’t avoid hard facts”.
   Truth: As summarized from Dr. Fiebert’s bibliography, women are 1.3 times as likely as men to initiate physical violence, and from that and other research, men and women are equally culpable both in frequency and degree of harm inflicted. Domestic violence is code for heterosexual-men-are-sub-species. Alternately, homosexual men are cast as sensitive.

   Homophobia and Discrimination: Used most often to vilify heterosexual males in characterizing their posture toward homosexuals and heterosexual females. The term homophobia is an invented term combining the psycho-term for fear (phobia) and the contemporized slang term for queer (homo). It is defamatory psychobabble for the more literal slang – fear of queers. This phrasing may be troublesome to some homosexuals like the “n” word is for blacks. It seems that only homosexuals are allowed to call each other queers … it’s kind of a gay thing. Despite the convoluted attempts by this minuscule but highly visible minority to recast the human race as being comprised of three genders, biological imperatives belie their efforts.
   Truth: Men and women have visibly different physical equipment, and it is historically, biologically evident that this equipment is intimately related to the propagation of the species. Third-gender sexual gratification propagates only disease and empty physiological spasms. Heterosexuals have every reason to fear queer behavior. Homosexuality produces abnormally abbreviated life spans by as much as 25 years on average. Homosexual behavior is causally related to lives of recurring and often fatal illness. Embracing homosexuality, particularly if one is a parent is tantamount to child abuse in that the parent is intentionally placing their child(ren) in harm’s way. What loving parent would willingly expose their child to an almost certainly morbid (as in death producing) virus – even if medications were available that would forestall death, but not its fear? (for a more extensive discussion see Michael Medved: No such thing as a sex change)

   The continuing abasement of heterosexual men by the gender nihilists has resulted in a kind of everyday lunacy that is akin to that which traditional superstition accorded the full moon.

   Anti-masculinity and Fatherhood: One of the more repellent exercises in this lunacy is a movie that seems to have derived its title, “I am Sam”, from the inspiration of Dr. Seuss. As is typical of the anti-masculinist zeitgeist, about the only father who is worthy of celebration and admiration is one who brandishes the shield of victim weakness. In the movie, the genderist’s archetypal hero is an intellectually challenged man who is struggling to retain custody of his intellectually normative daughter. But the real victim of this farce, and pawn to the gender nihilists, is the daughter who by age seven will be the intellectual equivalent, if not superior of her father. This from an ideology that wants to regard children as autonomous beings just waiting to spring forth like morning glories, untethered by parental restrictions. The gender nihilists would prefer us to believe that the role of parents is to allow themselves to be intellectually broadened by their offspring.
   Truth: Children need firm parental guidance and limit setting, not “victim-power.” The parental ideal is not the ever-befuddled Homer Simpson – yet another acceptable loser, father-substitute.

   Divorce, abortion, fatherlessness, a soaring youthful prison population, youthful sexual promiscuity, and madding science are the questions resulting from the lethargy induced by gender nihilism. Restoring manhood, and the traditions of male chivalry, responsibility, and valor to a cultural place of honor is the multiple-answer choice.

   Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
   February 11, 2002

   
   
9. Rodan
   

   9 | July 13, 2009 6:31 pm

   re: #8 by jakee308

   It is time to start the Heterosexual Men’s movement.

   
   
10. jakee308
    

    10 | July 13, 2009 7:10 pm

    re: #9 by Rodan

    I’ve long been of the opinion that there really aren’t many gay men. Just men who, for whatever reason, find themselves desirous of sexual release with no or limited opportunities to do so with a female.

    If gay men were truly gay then the trait would long ago have been bred out of the racial gene pool. Ergo, gays are really just horny males with lower standards/expectations.

    This even applies to lesbians although, I believe, to a lesser degree as historically lesbians have been less tolerant of male sexuality and penetration.

    The creation of a “Heterosexual Men’s Movement” would, of course, be met with derision and cries of “DISCRIMINATION”, “BIGOTRY” and yes even “RACISM”. Also due to antidiscrimination laws, females and gays would have to be admitted as “The Male Patriarchy” has a long and well documented history of discrimination and bias against females and gays.

    Wouldn’t be much point then, huh?

    (I had planned to use some turn of phrase to make that funny but I found I can’t. Now I’m depressed.)

    
    
11. jakee308
    

    11 | July 13, 2009 7:16 pm

    I don’t know what folks here think of Sarah Palin but this article by Otis A.Glazebrook has some valid points.

    (does he really need to use his middle name? Just askin’)

    
    
12. Bumr50
    

    12 | July 13, 2009 7:19 pm

    re: #9 by Rodan

    “No Ma’am”?

    
    
13. no2liberals
    

    13 | July 13, 2009 7:50 pm

    re: #11 by jakee308
    Great piece.
    I like his ideas…alot.
    Thanks, haven’t been on the ‘puter much today, and hadn’t checked AT.

    
    
14. no2liberals
    

    14 | July 13, 2009 7:54 pm

    The ad that’s driving liberals even nuttier.

    
    
15. Intravenousdemilo
    

    15 | July 13, 2009 8:40 pm

    re: #9 by Rodan

    Just make sure you don’t say “White” Heterosexual Men’s Movement, and you’re good to go.

    
    
16. LanceKates
    

    16 | July 13, 2009 8:49 pm

    ok…. so he’s labeled a “Terrorist Leader” in the film, and he’s upset that Bruno is gay?

    Priorities dude…. priorities.

    
    
17. savage
    

    17 | July 13, 2009 9:00 pm

    re: #4 by WrathofG-d

    That’s right

    
    
18. no2liberals
    

    18 | July 13, 2009 9:01 pm

    An interesting article, even if it is from Christopher Hitchins, and his obligatory a** display.

    What Happened to the Suicide Bombers of Jerusalem?

    Nasty, fanatical old men, not human emotions, decided who died and when.

    He forgot to thank W for killing Saddam. It seemed that when the bounties he was paying for kaboobs stopped, so did they.

    
    
19. jakee308
    

    19 | July 13, 2009 9:42 pm

    re: #12 by Bumr50

    No Ma’am?

    For those of you too young (or had a life/family in the nineties) to remember, Bumr is referring to:

    National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

    Founded by Al Bundy and held in his garage.

    
    
20. jakee308
    

    20 | July 13, 2009 9:45 pm

    re: #18 by no2liberals

    Yeah, funny how that worked. But of course we all know that SADDAM had nothing to do with THOSE terrorists because he was a Sunni.

    /sarc

    
    
21. no2liberals
    

    21 | July 14, 2009 1:45 am

    re: #20 by jakee308
    Yes…funny, and that Sodom Whosane was secular.
    /wink-wink nudge-nudge

    
    
22. Former LGFer
    

    22 | July 14, 2009 3:51 am

    ‘Lose the beards.’
    ‘Your King Osama looks like a dirty wizard.’

    ROTFLMAO!

    I HAVE to see this movie!

    
    
23. CloudyDay
    

    23 | July 14, 2009 7:45 am

    I can’t stand Sacha Baron Cohen, at least what I’ve seen of his movie “Borat.”

    I don’t have a problem with him picking on an Islamic terrorist. That’s not what bugs me about him.

    For some reason, don’t ask me why (because even I don’t know why), I watched his “Borat” movie when it was on HBO a couple of years ago.

    That movie veered from gross-out sexual humor to mean-spiritedness (trying to make everyday people look like fools on camera; many of his victims don’t even realize he is an actor playing a role).

    I also don’t like the tone or undercurrent of this new movie (Bruno): if you disagree with homosexuality, you’re an intolerant pig.

    I don’t agree with homosexuality myself, but I don’t treat them any different than I do straight people (I’ve had friends of friends who are homosexual, and I’ve had homosexual co-workers. I was just as nice to them as I was to straight friends/coworkers).

    Why is it that liberals, and other people on the left, or folks who sympathize with them (like this Cohen guy), cannot wrap their heads around the concept that just because you disagree with a person on one topic (homosexuality in this case), this does not mean you hate that person, or that you would mistreat them or discriminate against them?

    From the Bruno reviews I’ve seen, it seems that Bruno is not much different from Borat (complete with raunchy jokes, and full frontal male nudity), so I don’t think I’d want to watch it.

    ‘Bruno’ doesn’t help gays -The movie is intended to satirize homophobia, but too often it misses the mark.