(Khar, Pakistan) There's strong indication that a close associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed yesterday in a gunfight in northwestern Pakistan. As a reminder, Zawahiri is second in command of al-Qaeda after Osama bin Laden.
Seized from al-Suri's vehicle were a video camera, a laptop computer, hand grenades and some documents. However, according to a Pakistani intelligence officer, al-Suri is probably
. Nonetheless, since al-Suri was so closely associated with al-Qaeda leadership,
toward the thought that his elimination means the perimeter around bin Laden is tightening.
1
Wow, it's sure tough to be a leftard these days, what with all their heroes getting killed and all. With any luck, they'll join them soon.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 21, 2006 06:58 AM (0yYS2)
2
Our enemy is a "boogyman" or some such thing according to one of the unhinged who called into the Bill Bennett show this morning.
I know of about 3000 or so people who would disagree with him....if they could.
Posted by: mrclark at April 21, 2006 07:28 AM (IMrft)
3
LIVE BY THE SWORD DIE BY THE SWORD nuff said
Posted by: sandpiper at April 21, 2006 07:48 AM (aTvBX)
4
"Terrorism is not a threat."
~~Michael Moore
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 07:53 AM (8e/V4)
5
Great. Another one gone............ just a billion or so more to go.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 07:59 AM (XPviN)
6
Great, looks like IM has found an apostle of hate, who also wants to kill all Muslims.
I doubt anyone with a moeity of his marbles thinks that the Left worships Al Qaeda terrorists. People on the left tend to want sexual equality, personal freedom, religious freedom, gay liberation, limited government...all values that are anathema to Al Qaeda.
But keep it going, guys. This should do wonders for all the readers here who might believe mistakenly that the left spews more hatred than the right. Each advocate of genocide on the Muslims makes up for, oh, about 250 people who advocate abusing conservative columnists (because genocide is a little more serious). (clarification for the reading comprehension challenged--that is NOT an endorsement of leftwing haters--it is merely a comparison)
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 08:12 AM (uT71O)
7
But jd, if the muslims take over, you will be among the first to be beheaded by the 'religion of peace' boys. If there's one group they hate worse than christians, it's agnostic liberals like you.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 09:24 AM (XPviN)
8
My point exactly, Palm. That's why "leftards" don't make heroes of Al Qaeda members or supporters. Sure, some on the left ask the question--why are so many in the Muslim world ambivalent about or supportive of Al Qaeda? And some of their answers offend some on the right. But asking that question is NOT the same as supporting Al Qaeda.
Also--how do you know I'm an agnostic liberal? I hold a lot of views that would disqualify me for both categories. Just because I don't want to kill a billion muslims, I'm an agnostic liberal? And are you serious about wanting to kill all the Muslims? If you are, how would you describe your "religion" or views? Peaceful? For the record, the vast majority of Muslims don't want to kill all Christians and agnostics (hell, even Al Qaeda doesn't want to kill us all--they want to kill enough of us to get us out of historically Muslim lands from India to Spain, and build a new caliphate, but after that, they're happy to let us roast our way to hell by ourselves)
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 09:34 AM (uT71O)
9
I should note that the Islamofascists would probably kill all the Jews, Christians, wiccans, Shi'ites, Bahais, agnostics, atheists, Sufis, Buddhists, and Yazeris who remained in the caliphate lands. Luckily, there is more chance of Donald Rumsfeld winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 than this caliphate will ever be built. Ironically enough, for a movement that venerates history, this would be an act ignorant of history. Compared to Christianity, in the middle ages, the Islamic world was far more tolerant of religious diversity, at least towards Jews and Christians. They considered them "people of the book" who were almost as good as Muslims (the Muslims were much more brutal towards pagans of all kinds, at least until they conquered India). They didn't have full civic equality, they paid a higher tax for not believing, but their general status was higher than religious minorities in the West. It was a much better deal to be a Jew in Baghdad or Damascus than it was to a Jew almost anywhere in the Christian world. And, of course, several of the crusades were about massacring our own pagans in Europe, so pagans had a rough go of it wherever they were. Still, it is only in the last 100 years that Jews have been massacred or persecuted to the extent that they have been forced to emigrate from most of the Muslim world.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 09:50 AM (uT71O)
10
Jd:
Slight correction needed:
I doubt anyone with a moeity of his marbles thinks that the Left worships Al Qaeda terrorists. People on the left tend to want sexual equality, personal freedom, religious freedom, gay liberation, limited government..for the people of the United States.
We know they don't want gay liberation in Iran, religious freedom in Saudi Arabia -- personal freedom? why, that is for the AMERICAN people only, pesky brown people don't deserve freedom.
Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 09:56 AM (CcXvt)
11
>>>People on the left tend to want sexual equality, personal freedom, religious freedom, gay liberation, limited government...all values that are anathema to Al Qaeda.
True dat. If anything is pissing off the terrorists it's the decadent values of the Left. Which proves Bush was right when he said the terrorists hate our freedoms.
But the Left only wants the U.S. to change its foreign policies-- which they claim is pissing off the radical muslims. Is the Left similarly willing to change its own decadent values that also piss off radical muslims? Of course they aren't.
Which just shows what huge hypocrites they are. The Left doesn't mind pissing off radical islam, but then they try to weaken our efforts to protect ourselves against the very terrorism which they themselves help create. Hypocrites and buffoons. That's today's Left.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 10:04 AM (8e/V4)
12
It was one week ago that operation "Mountain Lion" began with the participation of 2500 coalition troops in the Afghan province opposite Bajur. This resulted in a total of 6 casualties for the enemy, Kunar province is the home to Hektmatyar. His group claimed responsibility for shooting down the special operations helicopter in which 19 died. He was probably using one of his leftover stingers.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 21, 2006 10:05 AM (TcoRJ)
13
Amen Jesusland Carlos.
Posted by: Howie at April 21, 2006 10:07 AM (D3+20)
14
Dave--just because they do not advocate invasion of Iran, this means they don't want gay people to be free there, because they are racist? That's a long, tendentious stretch of logic. I agree that sometimes, people on the left have been torn between their egalitarian social values and their anti-colonialism. This point was made most effectively in Allan Bloom's the Closing of the American Mind. A paleo-con (also gay, but whatever), Bloom would stump liberal college students by asking them--you are a colonial administrator in India. A widow is about to be burned alive. You have the power to stop it. What should you do? Enforce your own Western values, as a colonial, or let the woman die, and tolerate male hegemony and murder? They couldn't answer.
But your example is hardly as compelling. If we accept that, say, Amnesty International is a "liberal" group, they have been working against Saudi and Iranian treatment of sexual minorities for decades. And Republicans of the pro-oil variety have been tolerating those same regimes, enthusiastically. Just because someone doesn't want to invade Iran/Saudi, doesn't mean they oppose freedom there. Sometimes invasion is not the best way to bring freedom. Sometimes it is.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:07 AM (uT71O)
15
I disagree that the terrorists are pissed off most by gay liberation here, or our sexual freedoms generally. If you read the lifestories of the major terrorists, or read their writings, they are certainly critics of the decadent west (in terms that echo that of Dobson, etc). But they see these as self-correcting problems. We will become weak, and disease-ridden, through homosexuality, female sexual freedom, etc. They LIKE those things, here, because it helps them win the war. What drives them to commit acts of mass murder are the presence of foreign troops in their holiest areas, the support by the west for the most corrupt and authoritarian and often secular regimes, and our support for Israel (probably in that order). They object, of course, to Baywatch being broadcast in Qatar, but they can handle it by taking over the governments there. It is not baywatch or "our freedoms" that makes them terrorists against us.
In what way is liberalism a mental disorder? At the extremes, all ideologies are populated by the unhinged, whether right or left, because at the extremes you find sociopaths, megalomaniacs, the truly paranoid, and the socially isolated. But this is no more true of the left than the right. Surely there is evidence of mental disorder among far right extremists on these very boards, right?
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:14 AM (uT71O)
16
jd
To be clear, I do not advocate the extermination of all muslims. That is not christian. However, it would be nice if somehow all the devil worshipping cult-like, throat- slitting, wife-beating, child-raping, mega-murdering ones would disappear from the face of the earth.
And you know, they will. When God has had enough of this, He will put a stop to it.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 10:17 AM (XPviN)
17
>>>I disagree that the terrorists are pissed off most by gay liberation here, or our sexual freedoms generally.
Then you would be denying the obvious. If you can't acknowledge obvious facts like that, then what use is there in arguing the more debateable points with you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 10:17 AM (8e/V4)
18
Dave--just because they do not advocate invasion of Iran, this means they don't want gay people to be free there, because they are racist? That's a long, tendentious stretch of logic.
Talking about a stretch of logic, I don't believe I mentioned a military strike against Iran, perhaps you should quote me on it.
I can't remember the last protest I saw, or call to disgrace Iran for hanging homosexuals, or code pink protesting women's rights in Saudi Arabia, they're only obsessed with American rights, screw everyone else.
Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 10:26 AM (CcXvt)
19
I dunno, Jesusland. When have they attacked gays or abortionists or feminists here? Yes, they stone gays there. Yes, they put women in Burkhas there. But the reason they hate us is not because gays kiss in the streets of SF. They hate us because we have propped up Egypt, and Saudi, and those governments have imprisoned and tortured them. They disapprove of our freedoms, but they think God will punish us for them, and that will be good for them. In this, they echo the rhetoric of Falwell and Robertson. In the theocratic worldview, God helps those who resist sodomy, and punishes those who practice it. They aren't blowing us up because we tolerate homosexuality or let women parade around dressed like whores--they are blowing us up because we give 2 billion a year to Mubarak, a corrupt, authoritarian neo-socialist bastard, because we support Israel, and because we have, in their view, exploited the Arab and Muslim world for three hundred years (we, the west). I'm not AGREEING with them. I'm just saying you're wrong to think that they are angry over butt sex over here. Give them a caliphate over there, and we can have all the buttsex we want.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:29 AM (uT71O)
20
>>>I dunno, Jesusland. When have they attacked gays or abortionists or feminists here?
jd,
They don't go around attacking neocons here either. Which proves nothing. But they do attack homos overseas:
It may be Europe's most liberal city - but if you are gay, you had best beware
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1611374,00.html
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 10:34 AM (8e/V4)
21
JD, nobody really cares what you have to say, because we all recognise you for the apologetic dhimmi sycophant that you are. This is the most ironic situation possible; you hate we evil conservatives more than anything else, and side with the terrorists against us, but if the terrorists win, you leftards will be the first to get the chop, as conservative moral values are far more compatible with those of islam than are yours. You are banking on us to lose, which would guarantee your own demise, proving that liberalism is not just a mental disorder, it is suicidal dementia.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 21, 2006 10:36 AM (0yYS2)
22
Dave--maybe you don't spend enough time on gay activist websites, but they do protest Iranian abuse of gays.
http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews32/page1.cfm
Code pink is an anti-Iraq war group. Asking them to work for women's rights in the Islamic world is like asking pro-life groups to support the war in Iraq. Many members may agree with that goal, but it isn't what the group is about. But be certain that if you did some research, you would find MANY liberal women's groups that have tried to bring the world's attention to the miserable status of women in many Islamic countries. One question I love to get liberals with is this: if the women of Saudi Arabia were blacks, would we be in such a tight alliance with that country? After all, by some measures it was better to be black in South Africa than to be a woman in Saudi Arabia. We seem to have, as a nation, a higher tolerance for sex discrimination than racial discrimination.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:39 AM (uT71O)
23
IM--I don't hate conservatives. I often agree with them. Our nation needs liberals, conservatives, and moderates, because truth seldom walks with one group at all times.
Dhimmi? Sycophant I know, but Dhimmi? Democrat? Dimwitted? Demonic? Looks vaguely arabic, but I confess, you got me.
I don't side with the terrorists. You are fond of Mannichean logic, aren't you? If I disagree with the war in Iraq, I must side with the terrorists. I can understand why that is pleasing to you, but trust me, it isn't true. (Zinni? Buckley? George Will? Do we ALL want the terrorists to win? Man, hating America must be more widespread than I thought!)
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:44 AM (uT71O)
24
JD: what point does people protesting in London about Iranian's hanging homosexuals have to do with my point:
..for the people of the United States. I guess because a U.S gay newpaper carried the story?
My point is that their policy is centric only to providing freedom, liberty and justice to the people of the United States, and providing their trust in the United Nations to do the rest, a very bad gamble, the United Nations is tied up by member countries self-interest financial, and political to ever get anything done anymore.
Tell me if you haven't heard the following from left-leaning people:
"it's not the job of America to bring freedom to Iraq, if the people wanted it, they would have overthrown Saddam Hussein"
This is exactly the attitude I am addressing when I said they want these things for themselves, and screw anyone else.
Actually IM summed it up much better in one of his posts the other week, where he said the Left doesn't care as long as they're not the ones doing the suffering or the dying.
Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 11:28 AM (CcXvt)
25
Actually, Dave, if you read the article, it is about demonstrations all over the world, including here. There are many examples, if you look at Amnesty, you'll see. Also, in regards to your earlier post about muslim extremists attacking gays in Europe--I don't think that is the same as Al Qaeda targeting gays. My point is not that Muslim extremists like gays, they clearly don't. They will kill them when they control a polity, and they will kill them individually if they get power over them. I just don't think homosexuality here is a prime motivating force for their activism. Incidentally, consider this: discreet homosexuality is widely tolerated in rural Afghanistan. There is an old Pashto saying: Women for procreation, boys for pleasure. Rich men in Afghan culture sometimes "purchase" boys as companions. I'm not in favor of it, I'm just saying that the Taliban was stoning gays who sought rights, but not those who were rich and discreet. The islamicist attitude about sexual immorality is hardly as monolothic as you suppose, nor is it as large a motivating force as the others I named.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 11:43 AM (aqTJB)
26
Hey, Dave--do you have any problem with citing IM as an authority on anything? He has advocated the extermination of all liberals and Muslims, worldwide. I have friends in both categories, and I would not want to see them slaughtered. How do you feel about genocide, Dave?
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 11:45 AM (aqTJB)
27
jd:
You have a muslim friend? Are you sure? Do you turn your back on him? I wouldn't, because they're all only friendly until it's time to fulfill allahs will to murder.....Islam is not a religion, it is a psycho-pathology, of murder, revenge, hatred and death.
I wonder why you don't know this yet.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 12:01 PM (XPviN)
28
I had muslim friends back in my Lib days whom I was very fond of. I still have the best memories of them. They were elites back home-- not ignorant rubes that Libs like to claim are the radicals-- and they were charming and educated and very warm people. But in hindsight I now understand that despite their personal qualities, they were/are in bondage to a deception called islam.
I got a real wake up call the day the mullahs put a hit on Salman Rusdhies head because of that novel he wrote. Guess what. My "moderate" muslim buddies were all for it. I spent hours yacking my Liberal mouth off trying to reason with them, to no avail. These so-called "moderates" turned out to be nothing of the kind when the rubber hit the road. In hindsight I can now see that Islamic radicalism is their mainstream. And it doesn't make any difference how nice and charming my muslim buddies were. It doesn't change the fact they are in bondage to a lie.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 12:45 PM (8e/V4)
29
Our freedoms are more entwined with the freedoms permitted in other countries than you may think. So railing against those who rob others of their freedoms is in our best interests. Not the
"it's none of our business" attitude promoted by the far-left.
"They hate us because we have propped up Egypt, and Saudi, and those governments have imprisoned and tortured them." And exactly how do they show this hatred? Oh yeah, with imprisonment, torture, beheadings, killing women and children and violating even the most basic of human rights like freedom of religion and speech. It looks pretty simple to me. They don't like that their kind have been punished by someone else, but they're not a bit concerned about others, you know, like Christians or Jews or anyone "not like them". Okay - I get it.
Posted by: Oyster at April 21, 2006 01:13 PM (okCpP)
30
Oyster--thanks for adding "far" to left. I wish more people would do that here when they make statements about the extreme fringes. Don Wildmon isn't "the Right" and neither is Ann Coulter. I agree with you that some on the far left have a neo-isolationist attitude--whatever they want to do over there is fine, just don't invade them, leave us alone. (so do some on the paleo-right, Buchanan, etc) This violates Jefferson's vision of universal human rights. Americans should not be ignorant or uncaring about the rights of others. Neither, however, should we be invading and imposing our values. It is a balance.
Are you really so surprised that the Islamicists are torturing in response to torture? Palm, above, in response to anti-Christian prejudice among Muslims, now judges all Muslims as the same, and advises no one to ever be friends with one. No one to ever trust one. It is not a religion, it is a pathological illness. Jesusland had some Muslims defend the fatwa on Rushdie, and ever since, he's known that all muslims were the same.
They sound exactly like islamo-fascists talking about Christianity, homosexuality, judaism, or agnosticism. We often become a mirror image of that which we loath.
As Nietzsche put it: wrestle ye not with monsters, lest ye yourself become a monster. And know that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 02:49 PM (aqTJB)
31
>>>Jesusland had some Muslims defend the fatwa on Rushdie, and ever since, he's known that all muslims were the same.
jd,
On the contrary, I don't believe all muslims are the same. The muslims I knew back in college were of the "moderate" variety. I don't consider all (perhaps not even most) muslims to be moderate. And if these were the moderates, then no surprise at all that islam is in conflict with its neighbors all over the globe. When the monsters wrestle us, we have to wrestle back. No choice.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 03:03 PM (8e/V4)
32
I know a few "moderate" muslims, and while they don't openly support the slaughter of all non-muslims, they still blame the Jooooooos for everything. Regardless of their particular affiliation to doctrine, I still don't trust any of them for the same reason black people don't trust David Duke.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 21, 2006 03:12 PM (0yYS2)
33
IM--how uncommonly moderate of you. You've gone from wanting to kill them all, to saying that you simply don't trust them. That's progress. I'll start the weekend hopeful for the spread of progressive ideals. As for blaming the Jews--I remember last summer, talking to some Arab students brought over here by our State Dept to teach them about the US. Really educated, elites, much like the folks Carlos is referencing. They seemed so reasonable, so smart...then it got to 9-11. And half of them were convinced that Mossad had done it, to make Muslims look bad. Arab countries have been lying to their people for so long, that such anti-semitic fictions are remarkably and depressingly common. Yet, at the same time, this was when a study of American public opinion was being released. Turns out a majority of Americans at one time (and a majority of Fox News viewers as late as 2005) thought that Iraqis had been on the planes of 9-11. That WMD had been found in Iraq. And that Saddam helped plan 9-11.
Thinking that Saddam helped plan 9-11...that Iraqis were on the planes...not AS crazy/stupid/dumb as thinking Mossad planned 9-11. But still pretty crazy dumb stupid.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 03:23 PM (aqTJB)
34
>>>Thinking that Saddam helped plan 9-11...that Iraqis were on the planes...not AS crazy/stupid/dumb as thinking Mossad planned 9-11. But still pretty crazy dumb stupid.
The former-- that Iraqis were on the planes-- is merely wrong, while the latter-- that jews and "Bush" brought down the Twin Towers-- is lunatic. There's an ocean of difference between wrong and lunatic.
You think yourself subtle and "nuanced" in your little equivalency exercises (that's seems to be your gig here), but you merely exhibit a black or white thinking where, for example, being mistaken Fox viewer is no different than being a loon brainwashed by hateful ideologies inculcated over generations. They aren't the same, and you aren't nuanced for trying to make them the same. You are simplistic.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 03:49 PM (8e/V4)
35
ummmm, jd:
1. WMD have been found in Iraq. Lots of them. 2. Also former Iraqi Air force pilots said they flew many plane loads of them to Syria. 3. Saddam was in touch with al Quaida. 4. He tried to kill G.H.W Bush. 5. An Iraqi was involved in OKC bombing.
Stay tuned as we translate more captured documents, we'll find more evidence of iraqs plans. Oh I forgot, you leftists don't want to know these truths. Because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.......
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 03:50 PM (XPviN)
36
WMD have been found in Iraq? Hmm...like the ones Powell described? Like the ones Cheney described (a "reconstituted nuclear weapons program)? UAVs capable of transporting bio weapons thousands of miles? Or some old shit from 1991, inoperable? I think you mean the latter.
And I never said Saddam wasn't "in touch" with Al Qaeda. I said that at a certain point prior to March 2003, a majority of Americans thought he was involved in the planning. There was never a scintilla of evidence of this. A lot of implied statements from the WH folk, but no evidence.
And you can say that I said it was the same as thinking Mossad planned 9-11, but I distinctly said that was worse.
Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:55 PM (uT71O)
37
JD,
Actually I don't have a problem quoting anyone who made a valid point, I'm sorry if you are
shocked at his opinions on killing Muslims and/or liberals.
I don't care.
Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 11:24 PM (CcXvt)
38
>>>I distinctly said that was worse.
jd,
Of course it's worse. So then why are you trying to compare the two? Answer: because you want your cake and to eat it too. You want to make a stupid comparison, but sound "reasonable" doing it. lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 11:32 PM (8e/V4)
39
JD, can you not understand that one may dislike someone and distrust them at the same time? The two are not diametrically opposed you know, and in fact follow one another. I know you're desperately grasping at straws to find ways to excuse and apologize for terrorists, but you have to do better than that. Now go be a good dhimmi and tell them over at Kos how mean we are here.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:17 AM (0yYS2)
40
I think the essence of nuanced ratiocination is careful comparison of how various concepts and facts are similar or different. My point in making the Mossad did 9-11 to the Saddam did 9-11 stupidities is to say that one must examine one's own country's blindness and prejudices in order to comprehend another country's. The Arab paranoia and anti-Semitism do not emerge organically out of Islam; for many centuries, Islam was more tolerant than Christianity. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not written by Arabs and did not have wide circulation in the Arab world until long after it was popular among Americans like Ford and Lindbergh and Father Coughlin.
Dave--I'm shocked that you don't care about someone advocating genocide. IM's views represent a threat to the health of our democracy--a democracy that he sees as corrupt, and worthy of armed revolt. You can be silent in the face of a Tim McVeigh, if you want. Your call, man.
Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 08:20 AM (uT71O)
41
Ok JD yo see what you just wrote. Now do you understande IM's function? Yes IM says thos things but that's his calling card and when others do the same it just ain't funny because well it's a knock off. Second note the name. Improbulus Maximus. Let me see if understand that I reckon improbulus means improbable or unlikely. Maximus means to the maximum extent possible. So if he says kell em all read that as it's damn near impossible that we will kill everyone but some days I feel like doing that and it would be easy. Also he's funny now and then. First he posts his little bait then you engage him and maybe say something good because you were motivated to by his post. I lie your comment and I dont think you would have ever written it otherwise.
Posted by: Howie at April 22, 2006 08:51 AM (D3+20)
42
So IM serves as a court jester, provoking others to rethink accepted positions? I'll grant the possibility that he really isn't serious--are you willing to grant that those on the left, who call Bush Hitler, are SOMETIMES doing the same? IE, by stating an extreme case of how they see the admin trending, they hope to provoke passion and debate? I very much doubt you would. IF you wouldn't, why not (note: I don't say I would grant them that, but then, I don't really see the utility of granting IM that privilege.)
I think it equally likely that IM is tolerated around here because he voices in raw form the feelings of many, who upon further reflection would reject those expressions, but enjoy seeing their ideological id expressed in virulent and uncompromising terms--which is pretty much why many on the left tolerate "Bush is Hitler" when they should know better. Bush isn't Hitler, and anyone who sat down and thought about it for six seconds would know that. But it FEELS so good to read it, for some people, just as it FEELS so good for some people to read "Liberals are clinically insane" "All Liberals should be shot as traitors" "Kill the Muslims!!!". I'm not denying that these things can provide pleasure--but do they really lead us to discussion and debate and positive outcomes for the country as you think?
Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 10:23 AM (ccFYg)
43
jd:
sounds like a job for the
Thought Police, preemptively taking a slice out of crime -- tomorrow.
Have a read of the following it might help you differentiate true threats -- from thoughts --
The horror!!
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/virginiavblack.html
or perhaps seek a place in "overreact anonymous", seeing as you seem to think an anonymous person's opinion on the Internet is a "true threat".
Posted by: davec at April 22, 2006 11:21 AM (CcXvt)
44
I think it equally likely that IM is tolerated around here because he voices in raw form the feelings of many, who upon further reflection would reject those expressions, but enjoy seeing their ideological id expressed in virulent and uncompromising terms
lol! That was funny. I would put it differently. For instance, I've said on occassion about IM's posts that I agree with the sentiments behind his comments but I disagree with the content. When I say I agree with the sentiments I mean I understand his frustration but that doesn't mean I agree with his faux calls for genocide on a mass scale. I think I speak for everybody on this blog. Alos, IM is the exception on the Right, while the "Bush=Hitler" crowd are the mainstream of the Left.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 22, 2006 11:40 AM (8e/V4)
45
Dave--I wasn't suggesting that IM couldn't say it, or that he should face ANY criminal or civil penalties or even denial of ISP service, or banning by Jawa, or whatever. Please be assured that I would oppose any and all of those. The solution to error in speech is further debate. I was just disturbed that no one said anything when someone advocated killing all the liberals, or that liberalism is a mental illness.
I don't think IM himself represents a threat. Nor do, like Bluto, think that some random internet deaththreat is dangerous. A lot of BS gets said on the web (yes, I'm evidence of that). The problem was that I actually think people LIKE IM's opinions, even if they don't cognitively admit it--like many on the left burst with happiness upon reading Bush=Hitler.
Nice O'Connor opinion--I hadn't spent time with that one before. Bright gal. Almost as good as Scalia's vote in Texas v. Johnson, upholding the right to burn a US flag, for much the same reason as O'Connor articulates here. And the writer who authored the dissent in Texas? That dangerous liberal Stevens, who said it was allowable to punish someone for unpatriotic acts.
Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 11:41 AM (ccFYg)
46
Hey, Dave--do you have any problem with citing IM as an authority on anything? He has advocated the extermination of all liberals and Muslims, worldwide. I have friends in both categories, and I would not want to see them slaughtered. How do you feel about genocide, Dave?
no, what you are saying however is everything he says should be discounted because
you personally do not agree with one particular view he has, and then that should also extend to
me, and that I should therefore have a problem with everything he says, because you do -- and if I don't, I'm worse that mugabe because I agree with someone who makes statements that pertain to "virtual" genocide.
I however am able to see it for what it is, no more than I think the show 'twenty four' is reality, do I believe IM is about to take it to the next level.
Posted by: davec at April 22, 2006 01:09 PM (CcXvt)
47
Well said, Dave. I never thought there was any danger of IM having the power to do anything, and I never meant to suggest you were worse than Mugabe. I guess I was just asking if, since he was so wrong on one point, might he not be wrong on many others? But you make a good case. I seem to be more sensitive to the advocacy of genocide than others, as well as the idea that all liberals are mentally ill and suicidal. Your mileage may, and does seem to, vary. And if you are right, that IM is just provocative and not serious, then your stance is 100% the right way to go.
Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 04:46 PM (uT71O)
48
"Faux calls for genocide"? Where'd you get that idea Carlos? one doesn't learn to live with plague rats; one exterminates them.
As for my handle, as with everything else in Latin, context is everything, but it has nothing to do with improbability. It can be translated several different ways, but applied to myself, it means
the best at being bad, or
the worst at being good. Take it as you will.
The solution to error in speech is further debate.
So when the muslims say they want to kill us and take our women as war booty, etc., that we should talk to them? They are vermin, they are scum, and they should be exterminated to the last. I said it, I mean it, and I will stand by it until they learn civility or are all dead. I know only one way to deal with an enemy; muslims are the enemies of civilization, and liberals are their brothers in arms who stand in opposition to our efforts to defend ourselves from this scourge.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:34 PM (0yYS2)
49
OK, Dave--now that IM has come out and once again reaffirmed that he is not just mouthing this stuff to provoke, that he really believes he is a lonely paladin in an existential struggle with an entire religion...
Incidentally, IM, if Muslims SAY those things, yeah, I think the solution is to talk to them. If they DO those things, ie, attack us, then the solution is a military one. The Muslim world is tremendously weak. They talk a big game because that is the only game they have (other than terrorism). 400 million Arabs have been unable to defeat 5 million Jews. What does that tell you? You are preaching the unnecessary ruthless extermination of 1.2 billion people. I don't for a moment think that you yourself present a threat to liberals or Muslims. I'm quite confident your ignorant bluster (historically ignorant and politically ignorant--and my brother is a Latin-Greek scholar, so we'll soon find out if you are linguistically ignorant as well) reflects not only a lack of knowledge but also a lack of influence of a profound nature. Thank God.
Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 05:59 PM (uT71O)
50
Oh! No! IM repeated another unspecific thought of his!
Quick, someone call the Department of Homeland Security, and tell them to up the threat level to the maximum -- level Neocon.
What color is threat level Neocon you ask? -- Black of course, like their damned scurvy hearts.
400 million Arabs have been unable to defeat 5 million Jews. What does that tell you?
19 Arabs killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen in a single day...
what does THAT tell you?
Posted by: davec at April 23, 2006 12:15 AM (CcXvt)
51
Oh no! JD is all over my case now! I'm doomed! Doomed! DOOOMED!!!
Heh. I can just imagine him sniffing and whining to himself as he posts, and then turning to water his fern, Charles, and telling him how mean I am, and how I'm gonna get it, but then he apologizes for the negative vibes, and Charles forgives him and asks for some organic plant food. Then his mom comes in and mentions that a grown man could at least pick up his room now and then.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 06:03 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
