Allen West threatens scumbags
Apparently, Allen West’s wife is suffering stalkers and harassment at her work place and LTC West is drawing a line in the sand according to The Blaze;
“This is not a threat, it is a promise that if Angela calls and tells me of one more incident, you will face me, the side of me you do not want to see.”
Yeah, I might have admitted that is indeed a threat, but good on him. A husband is supposed to stick up for his wife (is that sexist, Insipid?). But, the filthy little hippie scum are trying a new tactic;
In response, a student filed a complaint with FAU police against West, claiming his online warnings made her feel “in danger.” Stephanie Rosendorf of the Florida College Democrats wrote the complaint, according to Raw Story. In it she stated:
As students, we deserve to feel safe exercising our First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and express our grievances with the University. These days you never know if a threat on social media is to be taken lightly, and in this case it certainly should not be. Allen West is making me feel in danger at school.
Well, there is a reasonable solution, you petty, immature little turd, stop harassing people. And your First Amendment rights don’t extend to making a woman afraid to come to work.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: I hate hippies
@NR Pax:
You asked how this woman could feel threatened even if LTC West didn’t identify her by name, and I’d wager that a stupid stunt like routinely stalking Mrs. West at her office would result in her being a known person to the sorts of people who care – both her Democratic friends, and West’s fans. It’s conceivable in our idiotic, overly partisan society that she could feel threatened that those people who know who she is and listen to West’s words could seek action against her.
To put it another way, if some author writes a book critical of Islam, and a mullah tweets, “If someone writes one more word critical of Islam, they’ll see a side of me they don’t wish to experience!”, the author could understandably feel somewhat threatened that the mullah’s followers would be inspired by his words.
And no, I’m *certainly* not comparing LTC West to a mullah, or conservatives to Islamic followers – I just picked an example that seems relevant given this blog. I personally disagree with LTC West on a lot of things, but I’m sure his wife is a lovely woman, and nobody deserves this sort of harassment. It’s pathetic, and the student should be ashamed of herself. I simply wish he’d ridiculed her for what is ultimately very ridiculous instead of chest-thumping and ‘threats’, which I think does no good here.
A free life lesson; if your excuse for something you did starts with “well by my read of the Geneva Convention…” you have screwed up very badly.
Mr West’s victim was a non-combatant in his charge when Mr West tortured him. Note I am not saying he is innocent or guilty because that is irrelevant to how you treat a detainee in your charge. Though it should also be noted that no physical evidence was ever found to indicate this IP was anything other than just an IP. Ignoring his obligations, while in Command no less, Mr West had him beaten then discharged a firearm as a threat. Mr West is scum, a cowardly punk who was working directly against our efforts.
Now I’m sure there are those who would like to rationalize his choice to be a punk or make excuses, but those are misguided and ignorant. If you lose sight of why we fight, of why we are different, you are pissing on the sacrifice of those who carried our efforts with honor before you and you must be gouged out of our ranks and tossed to the side of the trail.
wow, stopping someone who appears to be reaching for a weapon and firing a pistol near him is torture?
Anony-puss: your opinion is noted. It will be given the amount of credence deemed appropriate.
Now, in return here’s a little “life lesson” for you: if you can contribute nothing to a particular discussion except an off-topic rant that is completely irrelevant to the matter being discussed, you’re best off keeping your yap shut. That’s particularly true when you don’t bother to read replies in full before replying with some asinine, half-assed rebuttal.
It’s obvious you either (1) didn’t bother to read comments above completely, or (2) have a problem with details and/or the English language. Had you bothered to read fully the comments above, you’d have seen that West’s behavior was (1) acknowledged to have been contrary to Army policy, and (2) that he was punished for what he did. You may not agree with the punishment he received, but to ignore that fact and go on and on and on beating the same dead horse shows blatant bias and an agenda. Both are obvious in your comments.
And equating a detained terrorist with a POW or captured lawful combatant? Please. You really should take the time to read the Geneva Conventions (all 4 of them) and learn the difference between a terrorist and a lawful combatant – as well as what is required to qualify as a lawful combatant. You seem to have a serious problem distinguishing between the two.
I haven’t read the Geneva Conventions in a while, but isn’t a non-uniformed combatant supposed to be executed with a quickness?
@98, who asked you anyway?? Go fuck yourself. Working in a DFAC chow hall on a FOB is not “fighting along side”.
@101- the statement from the mullah in your example would have brought about an image of Salmon Rushdie, or those Danish newspaper editors to the people reading it, based on the history of such h statements coming from mullahs in the past. A statement from a former congressman should carry a different image, wouldn’t you say?
@102. Yeah, it’s time to start vebally abusing anony-pussy. I will borrow from MGySgtRet. Go f— yourself, bud–or Daisy–whatever you are or were.
Twist: not automatically; if they pose no imminent threat, they should instead be detained. However, if they’re not wearing a uniform or other distinguishing device and carrying arms openly, they are not entitled to the status of a lawful combatant under the 3rd Geneva Convention. If captured while in civilian clothes, they may be treated as a detained civilian or, if circumstances warrant (e.g., captured in a room full of bomb-making materials with a map in hand), as an unlawful combatant (AKA a terrorist).
A detained lawful combatant is entitled to treatment prescribed by the 3rd Geneva Convention for POWs. In contrast, unlawful combatants are entitled to humane treatment, but are not entitled to POW status and have far less protections under the Geneva Conventions than do POWs.
@teddy996: In theory, yes. But our own political partisanship has extreme elements, too – it’s uncommon, and again, I find the idea of a *credible* threat unrealistic, but people get blinded by their politics. She might PERCEIVE a threat, hence the complaint. Many here PERCEIVE threats from the Obama administration which others don’t see as likely or reasonable, but that’s their perception so they’re welcome to voice their opinion.
Again, I don’t want to be in the position of defending her, since I think she’s an idiot and no probable threat exists, but I think being able to understand the viewpoint she might have is useful.
@110- I don’t think there is any evidence that she has done anything which needs to be defended at this point. All we know is that something happened, and a former congressman, who has been somewhat of a lightning rod for “progressive” political attacks, posted a “stop fucking with my wife” statement on Facebook. The girl, who has associated herself with the “progressive” political agenda, posted that she feels threatened.
Her letter is a political stunt, and is to be expected from someone into her brand of politics. She is trying to carve a name for herself on the back of one of her party’s political boogeymen. West is used to that kind of thing at this point.
It is what drove him to that Facebook post, and whomever is behind that, which matters. The girl may or may not be associated with those actions.
@111: Good point, and understood.
It would be funny, in a twisted sort of way, if this woman was as much of a poser as the Stolen Valor cases that become famous at TAH. Maybe the dirty hippies will make their own website to call out straphangers who try to get publicity and claim glory for stalking and harassment they didn’t carry out.
@104,
“Hondo”,
SURPRISE….some people who have been doing this for a long time may disagree with you. Instead of stomping your little feet and shaking your little fist while yelling “shut up shut up shut up” perhaps you should stop talking and listen. You may not be past capable of learning.
Mr West was a negative to our goals and should have been publicly crucified, and should never be referred to without including mention of his heinous acts against the US war effort.
Anony-puss: I am aware that “some people who have been doing this a long time” may disagree. They are entitled to their opinion. They are not, however, entitled to dictate US policy in the matter. I don’t happen to agree with them (or you); and the plain and unambiguous language of the Geneva Conventions does not support their position concerning the matter.
Now: if you have something to add to the discussion that was the original subject of the article – e.g., the unlawful harassment of West’s spouse and his reaction to same – please speak your peace. Otherwise, please be silent.
FYI: by continuing to repeat the same irrelevant points you appear to be doing nothing other than engaging in some type of personal vendetta against West using TAH as a pulpit. Your repeatedly doing that does nothing but reaffirm that to anyone who reads these comments.
Oh, and regarding “doing this”: when you get past 30 years of “doing this” yourself, let me know. Then we can discuss the matter as equals.
“Mr West was a negative to our goals and should have been publicly crucified…”
Gee, this tool likes to repeat himself. How about this: Your statements are incendiary, w/o apparent grounds, lacking and semblance of evidence–even anecdotal–and, in short, aren’t worth shit.
Anony-puss, your obvious distaste and disrespect (“MR. West,” instead of “LTC West”, for example) has me curious. Have you had personal contact with LTC West?
@ 43 Anonymous Says:
April 18th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
I say: You do not have the courage to do what he did!
On Miss Stephucknie: She listed her LSAT score on her Linked In page … Translated: she is a Class A, Type 1, Mod O, Serial # 0000000001-1 COMPLETE FUCKIN’ MORON (CFM)
Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf Stephanie Rosendorf
@ 98 Gallagher Fan Says:
April 19th, 2013 at 10:27 am
You say: “@94, I fought alongside the 5th Marines and those guys are real warriors. Contrast that with your candy ass “service” on a billion dollar sub, you faggot piece of shit.”
I say: “Go fuck yourself, no self respecting service member would speak to another like that!”
“Again … go fuck yourself!”
And BTW … yes … I modified the rules so I could tell you that!
@115,
Wow, thirty years eh? To be frank you may want to seek a refund. If you would defend someone who would abuse a detainee in his charge you are a cancer that must be cut out, that defiles the memory of good men. While the fault rests primarily with your leaders at all levels, you must accept some portion of blame for yourself. They taught you poorly, but you accepted poor lessons. I assure you I don’t seek to be seen as your “equal”, I fear it. Please, choose another line of work.
Hondo, I can’t remember where or when in the archives, but we’ve seen this “I’ve served with better men than you” argument before. Jonn called out DeWald in another post, and I’m wondering about our “Anony-puss” now?
@117
Nope. I was not the unfortunate bastard to walk into Mr West’s AO. I have, however, had my share of experience with those who have forgotten why we are not mere killers and bullies but instead warriors for a righteous cause. I refer to Mr West as Mr West because he used a Battalion of American soldiers to act out his own personal “bad ass” fantasies. He is a cowardly punk, and the only people who have anything to fear from his tough guy routine are those being held down by better Soldiers than he.
AnonyPUSS, IF you ever served, (And I’m certain that you’re a poser!) WHAT was your job? Finance Clerk? Mail Clerk?… You sound like one of the HQ types in Camp that never left the wire.
Well obviously you’re not that certain then.
Col West is a great officer and greater man. Willing to sacrifice his own carreer to protect those under him. How many of us can say we have served with an officer that would do the same? ive know a lot of them to throw an enlisted man under the bus to gain brownie points with higher ups, but never to risk his carreer for our benefit. I hope he never backs down from his principles, and some day runs for president! Anony, there are very very few better soldiers than Col West, nor are there likely to be many in all the years that follow us on this planet. If the US Army would have taken Col West into the center of baghadad and pinned a medal on his chest instead of forcing him out, the war on terrorism would have ended on the spot with every one of those bomb toting bastards shitting their pants.
I was an infantryman, i wish i could have served under Col West. Col West protected his men at his own personal cost, have you ever made any such sacrifice?
also, contrary to what you may think, the person (i use the term loosely) was hardly innocent. Col West knew that the guy he had was bad and had information. Col West did what he did to gain information that would save his men and others out side the wire. all it took was a little psycological trickery (not torture, ill bring my pliers and teach ya the difference)and the guy miraculously spoke perfect english and spilled his guts on operations that would have cost hundreds of US soldiers lives. Col West is a hero
“What’s the LTC West support count?”
“You don’t want to know.”
“Yes, really, I do.”
“Okay. It’s one against and everyone else for.”
“But I saw a lot of comments against LTC West.”
“True, but they were all from the same unhappy person.”
The laws against stalking and harrassment apply to everyone. It doesn’t matter whether we like the parties involved or their families.
This series of comments is quite illustrative of the application of situational ethics. What, it’s OK to harrass someone just because you don’t like them? And attack their families??
Is this the new normal? No thanks!
Anony-puss: you might want to ask for a refund on your education, fella. Or maybe you’re just not particularly bright and got by on what we used to call “social promotions” and “gentleman’s Bs” (assuming you went to college at all) – or perhaps by “cribbing” and buying papers.
Above, you won’t find a single instance of my defending West’s actions during the incident in Iraq. Indeed, I observed his conduct was against Army policy and that he was punished for same.
Rather, what I did was to defend the longstanding US policy of treating detained terrorists differently than captured lawful combatants (AKA POWs). You apparently failed to recognize that and jumped to the conclusion that I was defending West’s actions. That rather gross error on your part forces me to conclude you’re just not all that bright.
To reiterate what I said previously: detained terrorists do not follow the recognized laws of war; they are therefore not entitled to treatment as POWs under the Third Geneva Convention. Rather, they are simply detained criminals and are instead covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention – which guarantees them “humane treatment” but little else. West’s conduct was against Army policy, and he was punished for it. But it did not violate any “POW’s rights”, and did not constitute a war crime.
I’m guessing your personal agenda and bias concerning this issue overrode your apparently inadequate intellect, resulting in your inane off-topic ranting above. That happens sometimes with people who are emotionally invested in an issue.
Again: if you have something substantive to contribute to the discussion at hand, please speak your mind. Otherwise, the acronym STFU might well be apropos. Perhaps you need that acronym translated?
Alternatively, you can simply keep opening your mouth and proving yourself a naive idiot with inadequate experience and intellect to debate the issue about which you’re obsessing. Your call.
Gee, whiz, do people really get up this early to spew vitriol?
@129,
Review your comments again. See exactly how much twisting rationalization you expend to try and justify an unjustifiable act. It’s the evasions and rationalizations of an ethically challenged person. This is a very simple matter: is it acceptable for a US service member to torture a detainee in their charge? The answer was, is, and ever shall be a simple “no”. Anyone providing a different answer is fundamentally wrong and has no place in our ranks.
@127,
Your point being you would keep silent even if you knew you were right if a group of anonymous strangers might get upset with you?
My point being that your two cents is inconsequential.
Hey A-puss,like I asked you, were you a Finance Clerk, Admin Clerk, Mail Clerk, or just a “broke-dick” that got a profile on a regular basis to avoid doing anything? You sound like a loser we had in our section that ran to the TMC for a hangnail, got himself sent home after only four months of a 12 month tour, and told everyone he got shot over there, something we quickly set the record straight on around town, starting with where he worked!
You lose again, A-puss!
Again, Anony-puss – read what I wrote. You’re the one leaping to conclusions and ignoring facts.
I indicated West’s conduct was against Army policy and that he was punished for same. That’s hardly defending his actions. You were the one who called the terrorist detained by West’s men a POW (you did that when you called him a “combatant” in comment 93) above. My discussion regarding this issue started at comment 97 and was a direct reaction to your idiocy in comment 93.
Terrorists are not “combatants”. They are criminals, and do not merit or deserve treatment as POWs. The Geneva Conventions say that quite clearly.
And in any case, West’s conduct in Iraq is absolutely irrelevant to the subject of discussion here (e.g, the illegal harassment of West’s wife and his reaction to same). You’re the one bringing up off-topic issues.
Are you incapable of understanding that, or are you being deliberately mendacious? I can buy either at this point, but I’m leaning towards the latter.
I justify and defend his actions. He tortured no one, just played some “mind fuck” games with him. HUGE DIFFERENCE. you can claim it is torture all ya want, it just makes you wrong. everyone knows you are wrong, so as Hondo put it, we must conclude you are not that bright. as i prefer to say, ya arent the smartest man in a room by yourself.
A-Puss: It is one thing to disapprove of what LTC West did and allowed to be done to extract useful information from a would-be assassin. It is quite another to call the man a coward. And that’s where you failed here and lost everyone. I have yet to see in one of your many comments any supportive evidence for your accusation. And it certainly does not follow that LTC West acted with cowardice because of the actions which led to his Article 15– a noncriminal outcome, as I pointed out above. You will also accuse him of other despicable things for which you, again, offer no evidence. If you would like to hit restart and show cause and effect, please do. If you would like to provide evidence of cowardice, go right ahead. And then there’s that call for his public crucifixion. Saying that once may be attributed to hotheadedness, I suppose, but you called for it multiple times. That doesn’t play too well either. And now, you have painted yourself as a martyr for the cause, a person who is willing to stand up in opposition to the majority view. I’m all for that and could admire it, IF what you accused LTC West of had any factual support. Failing that, you come across as a butt-hurt brat who has targeted LTC West out of a nonspecific, personal grudge that only you harbor.
@137- it’s because Allen West is a black man. Anony-puss is clearly racist.
Teddy: Jeez, if I had known that, I could have saved myseld a lot of writing!
Gee, and here I thought the point of this entry was that LTC West’s wife was being stalked and he warned the stalkers to leave her alone or suffer the consequences.
Now that Ms. Rosencrantzdorf has outed herself, she ought to know that if she and her buddies go on bothering Mrs. West, then her hubby and she can file a counter-complaint of felony stalking and harrassment against them, which they should do anyway.
See, if you bully me or stalk me, I’ll document the bullying and stalking and go right over to the police station and file a written complaint against you, with documentation as a backup, possibly pictures if I am quick enough to get them, plus any electronic evidence such as e-mail and/or voicemail. I will also ask for a PRO and haul your silly butts into court, and if appropriate, get some money out of your flabby asses. You have been warned. Oh, yeah, I’ll put all that on YOUR Facebook and LinkedIn pages, just to make sure that potential employers know exactly what you’re like when they are interviewing you.
The point is that no one has to take this lying down and if you don’t have enough sense to heed a warning, then you’re toast, and you brought it on yourself.
Does this have anything to do with a bunch of spoiled brats who think it’s okay to verbally assault people, and that there are no consequences to what they do? You’re damned straight it does.
So, A-pussy Asswipe, you leave LTC West alone, or I’ll let the bitch out of her cage at you, you piece of garbage, you useless pissant shithead.
I feel much better now.
PH2, tell all of us how you really feel about the A-pussy. Nicely done.
Why, thank you, UpNorth. I appreciate the compliment.
@140, you lost me, what b!!ch are you referring to? Regardless West is scum who betrayed the trust placed him.
@135, again with the rationalizations.
@137, perhaps I am assuming the cowardice. He had a man in his charge, used his position and authority to order other men to beat him, then staged a mock execution. I see cowardice in that, but perhaps you don’t.
There’s no defending the indefensible. West is a punk.
there was no beating, there was a 9mm discharged next to the guys head, and a barrel shoved in his mouth. it was a miracle, the terrorist learned english in half a second flat and spilled his guts about every attack that was planned! sounds like a worth while move to me.
@138, *WHAP!* Good hit! Oooooh, that’s gonna leave a mark, too!
HEY, A-PUSS, how much longer are you gonna ignore my question, little booger-munching, snotnosed POSER? Like I said, you’re either a REMF (FOBbit in today’s lingo) that never left the wire or a “profile rider” that used every medical excuse in the book to avoid work! You sound almost exactly like a couple of pukes (“gangsta” wannabes) that I had to put up with in the “B-hut” that I lived in in between missions. They beat most of us, me included, in games of softball, basketball, and HALO (the video game)but one day, when I asked their self-appointed ringleader (and fake badass) that if he thought he was THAT bad, why wouldn’t he come with us on a few missions? His response “OH HELL NO!,…) and proceeded to tell us that HIS job was Supply, and that he’d go STRAIGHT to IG the moment he got told he was going on a mission with us. Despite the wannabe “gangsta” puke he was, I still consider him far more man than you, he was at least honest about what he did, and yes, I consider him smarter than you, too!
@144,
Actually West admits to having his Soldiers beat Hamoody while West watched. West also later said he “may have been wrong about Mr Hamoody”… Because you see there was no actual evidence.
You can’t defend the indefensible and keep your own honor intact.
West is scum.
Anony-puss (or is it Among-puss): no rationalization in what I’ve written above. I’ve confined my comments to US policy concerning the detention of unlawful combatants (e.g., terrorist assholes), not West.
Apparently unlike you, I happen to have actually read the Geneva Conventions. But unlike you, I’m also fully able able to comprehend them – both what they say, and what they don’t say. And also apparently unlike you, I don’t merely accept and parrot talking points written by other who have an agenda as my own thoughts.
Come back when you have an original thought that’s pertinent to the discussion at hand. Otherwise do us and yourself a favor and remain silent. You’re only proving yourself a biased talking head as well as a fool by continuing to spout the same inaccurate bull. We’ve heard it all before, and we weren’t impressed the first 1,000 times.
@147. Hondo. Evidently, the anons are accustomed to making their cases on placards and no more. They FEEL that LTC is a legitimate target for their venom but can not articulate a reasoned case. Instead, as I said, it’s placards reading “Coward” or Punk” or “Crucify Him.” I guess their skills in argumentation and debate do not extend beyond mob rallies.
What is so silly is that apparently the idiots among us feel that saying the same things 87 times elevates their case? Especially when it in no way relates to the discussion at hand??
The law applies to all of us equally. It would not matter one whit who was being harrassed, stalked or what have you – it is illegal and the act of a coward. That this little campus darling so despises someone that she claims being the “victim” of a threat which would only apply to her were she already guilty of having committed a crime is laughable.
But I repeat myself – since saying the same thing over and over again seems to be what we do now in this topic.
“It would not matter one whit….” Love that one whit bit! 99 of 100 people use bit instead of whit–and are wrong.