D’nouncing D’Souza

You would think that rightwing pundits would take exception to terrorist sympathizer* Dinesh D’Souza’s claim that he is a perfectly mainstream conservative pundit. After all, the idea that terrorists are right to hate America isn’t just edging into Ward Churchill territory. It is exactly the Churchillian sin that got these same pundits worked up into such a frenzy not so long ago. If Churchill’s sins were so heinous then Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin ought to take far more exception when the next Ward Churchill claims to be one of them.

On face value it seems that D’Souza’s claim to mainstream status is, for lack of a better word, perfectly right. He still holds an extremely well-paid post at the mainstream Hoover Institution. His bio lists plaudits from Investor’s Business Daily and an impressive array of prominent media appearances. He served in the Reagan Administration. It is extremely hard to imagine that D’Souza, who finds broad areas of agreement with anti-American terrorists’ about what is wrong with America, does sit squarely in the middle of modern conservatism. Using the Glenn Reynolds rules of punditry, the overall silence from D’Souza’s ideological compatriots indicates quite clearly that they find his ideas largely unobjectionable.

Setting aside other blame America firsters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Flawell, it might still be possible to d’smiss D’souza as a lone nut if his allies kept their agreement to themselves. That was apparently too much to ask Glenn Beck.

“The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We’re a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

“Now I don’t think that we should fly airplanes into buildings or behead people because of it, but that’s the prevailing feeling of Muslims in the Middle East. And you know what? They’re right.”

So much for one lone nut. Glenn Beck is essentially saying that he disagrees with al Qaeda on tactics rather than on principle. If bin Laden limited himself to, say, bombing abortion clinics and beating gays then maybe he’d get on board.

As should be clear by now the common causers represent a meaningful slice of the right, extending from the most extreme Christianists to multiple mainstream pundits with extensive media exposure. It seems impossible at this point to consider these reprehensible views in any way isolated or unique. If conservatives want to escape the impression that they willingly harbor within their ranks an element willing to make common cause with terrorists then it seems time to play their cards a little less close to the chest.

(*) Literally. D’Souza sympathizes with terrorists who hate America because, in his view he hates America for the same reasons.

***

This is an unrelated, probably unfair cheap shot, but conservatives who want to avoid the appearance of making common cause with terrorists should avoid giving them awards.

***Update***

Read Kevin Drum and Steve Benen for more context and a discussion of why this rhetorical tack would have some appeal.

***Update 2***

The good Glenn:

Thus, when one reads any speech given by President Ahmadinejad, it becomes apparent that his views on the dynamics of international affairs and the need to show “strength” — as well as his understanding of what “strength” means — are, at their core, indistinguishable from those who have been governing our country for the last six years. None of that means that there is (or is not) a moral equivalency between the U.S. and Iran. But it does mean that the efforts on the part of our political leaders to descend to the levels of Middle Eastern tyrants and to model our behavior after theirs are proceeding with full force.

h-indeed.

***Update 3***

Via commenter S., Scott Johnson of Powerline has done the right thing. It will be a happy day when I am obliged to eat my words on this.

***Update 4***

Count my friend Rick Moran in as well.






361 replies
  1. 1

    Conservative punditry has never failed to gag the black community (why oh why do they vote 98% Democratic **wail**) guess everyone else is catching up.

    So I guess those of us who thought D’Souza was an asshole who ought to concern himself with widows being thrown alive onto funeral pyres in India back in the days of ‘The End of Racism’ were ahead of the power curve?

  2. 2
    Temple says:

    It really doesn’t take a whole more analysis than what you’ve outlined here to prove the point you’re making.

  3. 3
    cleek says:

    “America Had It Coming” is a Mainstream Republican™ idea.

    pass it on.

  4. 4
    kchiker says:

    From ‘Why do Dems hate America?’ to ‘Why we hate America!’ in four moves. Checkmate.

  5. 5
    legion says:

    C’mon man. Hewett, Reynolds, and Malkin? If you’d only mentioned Charles from LGF, you’d have the Four Horsemen of Intellectual Dishonesty.

    And Glenn Beck supporting the idea? You’ve gone from One Lone Nut to Two Well-Paid Nuts.

    Please, tell me none of these things surprises you…

  6. 6
    Pb says:

    Glenn Greenwald makes a similar point in this post today:

    President Ahmadinejad’s comments yesterday summed up the mentality which drives the Bush administration perfectly, precisely because he shares the same mentality: “If we show weakness in front of the enemy, the expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they will retreat.” This is, in essence, the Neoconservative Anthem. It mistakes mindless chest-beating belligerence, panic and hysteria for strength and resolve, even though such behavior is really the ultimate hallmark of deep-seated weakness and fear.

    When it comes to equating the United States with the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nobody has done more to attempt to bring about that outcome than George Bush and his neoconservative mentors. And they have accomplished that by simultaneously elevating the legitimacy and significance of those petty tyrants and barbarians, while continuously lowering our own behavior to the depths of their savagery and by adopting their insatiable need for violent conflict.

  7. 7
    ThymeZone says:

    Re: Greenwald:

    Hear, hear.

  8. 8
    Snail says:

    Well, while I will otherwise stand by the assertion that the folks at Powerline are paragons of wingnuttery, Scott Johnson has done a pretty thorough slam of D’Souza here:

    http://www.newcriterion.com/ar...../sjohnson/

    At least a few right-wingers a willing to call Dinesh out.

  9. 9
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    If conservatives want to escape the impression that they willingly harbor within their ranks an element willing to make common cause with terrorists

    Typically nonsensical rhetoric that flies like a brick. What makes “common cause” with terrorists is terrorism, not a subjective evaluation of American morality. These same American cultural conservatives had been decrying the slipping morals of America for decades before terrorists made an issue of their similar judgements. What would you have them say? “Well, because of the terrorists, I change my mind — current American morals are just fine by me, never been better”? It is far more correct, but still wrong on many levels, to say that the terrorists made common cause with Falwell & Co. than the other way around.

    What makes people dangerous is not that they are offended by Madonna or Will & Grace or abortion, it’s that they are willing to kill innocents in a misguided effort to force a change. A third-grader could see that was just what Beck was saying.

    And I’m not sure the left really wants to get into a game of real “common cause with the terrorists,” do they? You’d have to own a lot of guys you prolly don’t want to own. Might want to rethink before you test this meme.

  10. 10

    […] commenter S., Scott Johnson of Powerline has done the right thing. I will be more than pleased when I am obligedto eat my words on this. […]

  11. 11
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    while continuously lowering our own behavior to the depths of their savagery and by adopting their insatiable need for violent conflict.

    Wow, that stuff is Drama Queen gold, except for it being a figment of the Sockpuppet’s imagination! Can’t wait for our “savage” and “insatiable” soldiers to see it — I think I’ll forward it myself! I bet they’ll be so impressed that The Five Faces Of Greenwald(s) feels free to slam them like this from the safety of his cabana in Brazil. What a douche.

  12. 12
    JImmy Mack says:

    What makes people dangerous is not that they are offended by Madonna or Will & Grace or abortion, it’s that they are willing to kill innocents in a misguided effort to force a change. A third-grader could see that was just what Beck was saying.

    I agree. Lumping Beck in with D’Souza is silliness. But what do we expect from those who regularly compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler?

  13. 13
    Rick Moran says:

    Keep munching.

    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/a.....criticism/

    Kind of a broad brush for such a little mind, eh Tim?

  14. 14
    Andrew says:

    Good job, Rick. Now you’re batting 0.001.

  15. 15

    “The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We’re a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

    Glenn Beck is a household favorite. I cannot stand his guts, but my girlfriend likes to watch him because he trashes on illegal immigrants.

    Anyway the other day Glenn Beck went off on a tirade against Hillary Clinton. Apparently in his view she showed weakness because she didn’t divorce Bill Clinton for his infidelity. He was going on and on and on about this, and how horrible of a person she was.

    My girlfriend didn’t quite agree with him, and was getting irritated, so I laid down the ass kicking.

    I pointed out, doesn’t Beck constantly bemoan the lack of faith in the family… the divorce rate, etc. Isn’t he part of a group which wants to make divorce hard to obtain.

    How is it then that he can question Hillary reconciling with Bill in order to keep their family together?

    Glenn Beck showed himself for what he was. A partisan hack hypocrite.

  16. 16

    I agree. Lumping Beck in with D’Souza is silliness.

    Oh Really? Here’s more of the effluvia from conservayive mouths guranteed to drive down that 98% from black folk:

    After the interview, Beck attempted to clarify his comments to executive producer and head writer of The Glenn Beck Program, Steve Burguiere, who is known on-air as “Stu.” Beck claimed that Obama “is colorless,” adding that “as a white guy … [y]ou don’t notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?” In addition, Beck said: “I guarantee you, there will be blogs today that will have me being a racist because I say that.”

    To summarize, Obama talks like a white guy and is not a Scary Black Man ™ so Gleen does him the favor of not noticing Obama is one of those negroes.

    But what do we expect from those who regularly compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler?

    No Bush is not Hitler. Hitler had a plan. Though I am guessing the 100,000 Iraqi dead this war has produced might see things differently. If they were.. you know alive.

  17. 17

    Kind of a broad brush for such a little mind, eh Tim?

    That wasn’t a very strong condemndation. Simply claiming that he probably shouldn’t be a scholar.

    I want to see you help get him fired from whatever think tank is paying him. Help liberate him from his scholarly duties so he can get a real job.

  18. 18

    Via commenter S., Scott Johnson of Powerline has done the right thing. It will be a happy day when I am obliged to eat my words on this.

    Fuck D’Souza and Scott Johnson too. One of the right decides not to act like a complete loon for five seconds and what, they deserve roses?

    After 13 years of Whitewater, Hillary’s lesbian lovers, Bill”s hit list, Swiftboat assholes, 3,200 dead soldiers, 24,000 wounded and shoddy care once your face has been burned off they can all kiss my ass permanently.

  19. 19
    ME says:

    How to blame america first:

    If you’re a lefty, blame the government for it’s behaviour

    If you’re a righty, blame the people for their behaviour

    Well, I consider America to be the people, not the government…so it’s really only righties who truly “blame america first”

  20. 20
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Obama “is colorless,” adding that “as a white guy … [y]ou don’t notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?”

    And he’s clean and articulate and bright and nice-looking, unlike the other black leaders of the past.

  21. 21

    And he’s clean and articulate and bright and nice-looking, unlike the other black leaders of the past.

    Yes, Joe Biden is a tool and his presidential campaign is as dead as it deserves to be.

    See the difference between Beck and Biden is Beck is a Republican and Biden is a Democrat. So while occasionally stupid, he is on my side of the political fence.

    So fuck Glenn Beck. Forever.

  22. 22
    cleek says:

    Scott Johnson of Powerline has done the right thing.

    the fuck he did. he complains only about D’Souza’s lack of research, and spends essentially no thought on the fact that the obvious result of D’Souza’s (and Beck’s, and Falwell’s and Robertson’s) thesis is that the US was punished, with justification by religious fundamentalists. he has apparently no problem with anyone advocating the idea that we had it coming. every one of these repulsive demagogues is using 9/11 to push their fucked-up social-conservative ideas. and they are literally siding with the Islamists against the cultural liberals of America (and the west).

    well fuck them and all who refuse to condemn them for it.

  23. 23
    JImmy Mack says:

    And he’s clean and articulate and bright and nice-looking, unlike the other black leaders of the past.

    Don’t forget mainstream, unlike out-there black politicians like J.C. Watts and Vernon Jordan. But Biden’s a Democrat, so he couldn’t possibly be racist, right? He’s much too reality-based for that.

  24. 24
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    See the difference between Beck and Biden is Beck is a Republican and Biden is a Democrat. So while occasionally stupid, he is on my side of the political fence.

    How nuanced of you. GOP=bad, Dem=good. However do you keep that straight?

  25. 25
    Richard 23 says:

    Setting aside other blame America firsters like Pat Robertson and Jerry Flawell…

    Flawell? Nobody’s blaming America. They’re “blaming” secular progressives, secular humanists, decadent liberals, traitors and other un-American scum. How ‘honest’ of you, Tim.

    The only thing the left is better at than lying to themselves and patting themselves on the back is smearing their enemies with vile mischaracterizations and intential distortions.

    All in a day’s work for the unhinged drama queens of the so-called “reality-based” community.

  26. 26
    Tim F. says:

    Typically nonsensical rhetoric that flies like a brick. What makes “common cause” with terrorists is terrorism

    But what, oh lord, makes my rightwing commenters retarded?

    Let’s see. Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Hezbollah both commit terrorism. Therefore, according the the Lambchop doctrine, they make common cause with each other because of a common interest in terrorism. Never mind that MEK is dedicated to the destruction of Iran and Hez is a primary instrument of Iran’s foreign policy. So it appears that no, terrorism is not the most immediate way to make common cause with terrorists.

    Now let’s imagine that an American government wanted to overthrow Iran. What do you know, MEK also wants to overthrow Iran. Even if we didn’t work directly together, although we probably would, we would still be making common cause by virtue of our shared goals. Kind of like how Glenn Beck made common cause with terrorists by declaring that his goals and theirs overlap. Yes, words sometimes mean things.

    But Biden’s a Democrat, so he couldn’t possibly be racist, right?

    How nuanced of you. GOP=bad, Dem=good. However do you keep that straight?

    Um, I have mocked Biden repeatedly.

    Here’s some advice, Lambchop. Jimmy Mack isn’t that bright. He makes frequent mistakes. I don’t think that he means to lie per se, he just doesn’t really understand what he’s talking about. Do yourself a favor and check before metooing his comments.

  27. 27

    How nuanced of you. GOP=bad, Dem=good. However do you keep that straight?

    Easy.

    Democrats: against torture
    Republicans: for it

    Democrats: against warrantless violations of my rights
    Republicans: for it

    Democrats: for sexual freedom
    Republicans: against it

    Democrats: against inept warfighting
    Republicans: for it

  28. 28
    ThymeZone says:

    GOP=bad, Dem=good. However do you keep that straight?

    Heh. Try reading the paper.

  29. 29
    Pb says:

    So… Given everyone’s posts on the matter, it seems that a broad spectrum of commentators on both sides agree that Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book and the arguments therein is rather pathetic, even if we might disagree somewhat as to exactly why that is. However, I will agree with Rick Moran that given D’Souza’s work, he doesn’t deserve his wingnut welfare checks.

  30. 30
    Rome Again says:

    Heh. Try reading the paper.

    A torturous task, indeed!

    Is it as bad in AZ as it is in FL? Hmmmmm.

  31. 31
    Rome Again says:

    Um, I have mocked Biden repeatedly.

    Here’s some advice, Lambchop. Jimmy Mack isn’t that bright. He makes frequent mistakes. I don’t think that he means to lie per se, he just doesn’t really understand what he’s talking about. Do yourself a favor and check before metooing his comments.

    Yup, very true, Tim. As a former Delawarean who lived under Biden as my senator since I was a child, I wrote him a letter not that long ago telling him I thought he was the suckiest Dem I knew.

  32. 32
    Steve says:

    It’s kind of interesting to compare what Scott Johnson and Rick Moran have to say about D’Souza’s prior works.

    Johnson:

    [H]e established himself as a writer of substance with his 1991 book Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, a critique of political correctness and multiculturalism. Intensely reported, the book was full of astute commentary and analysis. It justly won the applause of such knowledgeable observers as the eminent historian Eugene Genovese, who celebrated the book in a New Republic cover story.

    Moran:

    I would add that Illiberal Education, as a dialectic, was an utter failure. Logical fallacies abound in the book and it should have finished the young man as a serious critic.

    Johnson:

    Thus in his 1995 book The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society, D’Souza ably summarized a massive body of scholarship and literature. While there was much to disagree with in the book, he presented the evidence in such a way that an intelligent reader could both learn from him and form his own opinions.

    Moran:

    The End of Racism was even skewered by some conservatives for being wretchedly sourced and borderline bigoted. Two black fellows at The American Enterprise Institute resigned in protest over the think tank’s promotion of the book as well as D’Souza’s continued affiliation with the group.

    One of the black fellows who resigned, Glenn Loury, wrote a review of The End of Racism in which he called the then 34 year old D’Souza “the Mark Fuhrman of public policy” which may have been a little unfair but indicative of the effect that D’Souza’s shallow critique of black culture had on genuine intellectuals like Loury.

    I’m not sure I’m qualified to referee this contest, but I think Moran loses the tiebreaker round when he unfavorably compares D’Souza’s analysis of campus culture to the “much more scholarly efforts of David Horowitz.”

    This serves to illustrate my belief that conservative critiques of political correctness and campus liberalism peaked in the 1980’s and have been steadily declining in impressiveness ever since. Once people figured out that you can make a lot of money by writing like Ann Coulter, they all started writing like Ann Coulter, it seems.

  33. 33

    Yup, very true, Tim. As a former Delawarean who lived under Biden as my senator since I was a child, I wrote him a letter not that long ago telling him I thought he was the suckiest Dem I knew.

    The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

    That applies to Star Trek movies too.

  34. 34
    legion says:

    Flawell? Nobody’s blaming America. They’re “blaming” secular progressives, secular humanists, decadent liberals, traitors and other un-American scum.

    Ah. So only people who adhere to Richard 23’s moral code get to be “Americans”. Make a note, because Falwell and Robertson specifically called out homosexuals as being to blame for 9-11. And since a significant majority of the-people-who-live-in-Richard23’s-America(TM) don’t want gays kicked out (and also elected “decadent liberals” to power in Congress), I’m guessing Richard23’s America (TM) is a very lonely place. And he likes it that way.

  35. 35
    legion says:

    The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

    That applies to Star Trek movies too.

    KHHHAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!

  36. 36

    >That applies to Star Trek movies too.

    To clarify, the worst Star Trek movie is better than the best Star Wars movie.

    But I digress.

  37. 37
    Rome Again says:

    I’m guessing Richard23’s America™ is a very lonely place. And he likes it that way.

    Uh, excuse me legion, but wouldn’t kicking out those gays make it a lonelier place?

    From my experience, gays are very entertaining folk. Nothing lonely about them at all.

  38. 38
    Rome Again says:

    I liked Nemesis best, until Data died.

  39. 39
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m guessing Richard23’s America™ is a very lonely place

    He’s singin’ like fuckin’ Bobby Vinton.

  40. 40
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Therefore, according the the Lambchop doctrine, they make common cause with each other because of a common interest in terrorism.

    Even with your intentionally missing the point (which I explained in detail, but which you totally ignored so you could spin a tangent off of a few words of the post), yes,I’m still far closer to being correct than you are.

    I’ll restate: The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals, it’s their willingness to kill people to express their judgement. So it’s a ridiculous argument to claim any sort of meaningful “common cause” between the terrorists and American social conservatives based on their similar judgements of the state of American morality, when 1) the Americans were complaining about values long before the terrorists were and 2) those complaints are totally irrelevant to what is outrageous about terrorism.

    To dumb it down further for you, it’s kind of like saying that Green Bay fans helped the Colts beat Chicago, because they don’t like the Bears, either. Jimmy Mack (who you claim “isn’t that bright”) got my un-dumbed point immediately, because it couldn’t be missed by an honest reader. Doesn’t say much for you.

    Do yourself a favor and check before metooing his comments.

    What,oh lord, makes the liberals here so retarded? Do yourself a favor and check whether I’m responding to you or Richard Bottoms before you whine. Hint: If I’m responding to you, I’ll blockquote your comments. See how that works? Jebus, look what I have to put up with…

  41. 41
    ThymeZone says:

    Jebus, look what I have to put up with…

    Spoofing, like being Preznit, is just HardWork(tm)

  42. 42
    srv says:

    I’m not sure I’m qualified to referee this contest, but I think Moran loses the tiebreaker round when he unfavorably compares D’Souza’s analysis of campus culture to the “much more scholarly efforts of David Horowitz.”

    Another gem from Moran:

    But the same conservative network of foundations, think tanks, and study groups that raises up and propels brilliant thinkers like Michael Ledeen, Fred Kagan, and Jeffrey Hart to prominence also brings us the occasional dud.

    Wow. The Fluffersphere(tm) only has two dimensions. Be sucked or suck up.

  43. 43
    ThymeZone says:

    “Brilliant thinkers like Michael Ledeen?”

    What is that, from the frigging Onion?

  44. 44
    Rome Again says:

    yes,I’m still far closer to being correct than you are.

    Typical human vanity, what human wouldn’t believe they were more right than someone else?

    Newsflash, when two people completely disagree, they can’t both be right.

    That goes for lambchops too (which I personally believe are more dinner fare than informed political blogger.)

  45. 45
    Pb says:

    Ah. So only people who adhere to Richard 23’s moral code get to be “Americans”.

    Yeah, I think that’s in The Constitution. Or maybe it’s 8 USC 1481. Something like that, anyhow.

  46. 46
    Detlef says:

    “The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We’re a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is off the charts.

    Speaking about promiscuity…
    Does that mean that Glenn Beck and Dinesh D’Souza are calling for the punishment of Senator John McCain (married two times and “engaging in extramarital affairs upon returning from Vietnam” according to wikipedia) and Rudy Giuliani (married three times)? And maybe Newt Gingrich (married three times)?
    Each of these guys were divorced and married several times? Which possibly involves adultery?
    I eagerly wait for Glenn Beck and Dinesh D’Souza to call for their stoning…:)
    Likewise any Republican representative and right-wing preacher “engaged” in gay sex (or adultery)….
    After all, you should take care of your own house before pointing a finger at your neighbour….

  47. 47

    Each of these guys were divorced and married several times? Which possibly involves adultery?

    No way. These guys are paragons of virtue.

    Just ask Bill Bennett.

    Seriously, I can understand conservative men voting for these lying hypocritical power mingers because, what guy doesn’t appreciate being a power monger.

    But why do women vote for them?

    I know that lying, cheating spouses is a fact of life, but these men all claim to be supporters of the family and protectors of little virgins and shit.

    Republican women know they aren’t or haven’t been since wife #2 or #3 so what’s the attraction? Their big swinging cod?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  48. 48
    Tim F. says:

    Lambchop, believe me, your point was childish enough to pick up the first time. Let’s move beyond tje idea that declaring a common purpose (a “cause,” if you will) is not the same as adopting common methods. Means and ends. So yes, pretty much by definition “common cause” includes any two groups whose interests closely align. The same distinction no doubt also applies to you and Operation Rescue. It’s a truism, an inane point by virtue of its sheer obviousness. I only find it interesting because of the hysterical outrage that most of the right brought to bear when leftwingers suggested that we try to figure out what terrorists want. I also, incidentally, find it incredibly offensive when someone implies that America deserved to be attacked because of its liberties.

    Distinguishing who made common cause with whom is a sophistic attempt to confuse groups with individuals. Al Qaeda declared common cause with nobody in America, least of all the religious right. Robertson and Falwell, as individuals, only implied a sense of common cause when they suggested that immorality brought the attacks in a general sense. Since those two morons did the same thing with Katrina I would lump them into a more general blame America for everything category.

    Beck and D’Souza, as far as I know, were the first people to explicitly reach across the burning towers and say yep, except for the murdering thing I’m with them. Of course they already believed in their cultural nonsense, that was the point. The two degenerates chose to use fear of terrorists the same way that Robertson uses God, as a cheap scare tactic to force the change they want in society. It’s the same tossing around of dead bodies that got John Cole so riled up during Katrina.

    The more offensive thing is that they are simply wrong. They’re making it up. Terrorists who attacked America didn’t hit us because of our cultural liberties. If you can support that, great. Go for it. I doubt that you can do it without obvious propaganda like public speeches and al Jazeera videotapes.

    Their actual strategy documents show a coherent vision that has little to do with boobs on TV. On 9/11 they bet that they could mire us in Afghanistan like they did Russia. Bin Laden lost that bet, for a while. Then we invaded Iraq. But that, as they say, is for another thread.

  49. 49
    pharniel says:

    “It’s just like that movie we watched!”

    “Is that a Huffey? OH baby, you treat me so well”

    sorry. just through American Dad could add to the discussion.

    anyway. d’zousa is a dick, ans so are his freinds. and EEEL, right here buddy.

    What’s so hard about me wanting to hurt badly somone who said bob was right for raping my sister? because that’s pretty much the position.

    also, they’re idiots for not recognising that the ‘crusader zionist’ bullshit is just geopolitical coverup.
    Islam is a nice red herring to get the masses up in arms and feel special. Religion is a tool, not the be-all, end all.

    jesus wept.

  50. 50
    Tim F. says:

    Jimmy Mack (who you claim “isn’t that bright”) got my un-dumbed point immediately, because it couldn’t be missed by an honest reader. Doesn’t say much for you.

    No, Jimmy’s still not that bright. Check to see how many times I have compared Bush to Hitler.

  51. 51
    Detlef says:

    Richard,

    Schroeder and Fischer in the former German government were each married several times too. But they never ever tried to tell us that they were “paragons of virtue”. :)

    Seriously though, this calls for the heavy guns! :)
    Genesis – Jesus He Knows Me

  52. 52

    This serves to illustrate my belief that conservative critiques of political correctness and campus liberalism peaked in the 1980’s and have been steadily declining in impressiveness ever since.

    I disagree. They’ve taken their past works and learned from them.

    What else is David Horowitz but a big preacher of Political Correctness? Same with William Donahue. The War on Christmas whiners, etc.

    The Republicans have now become the champions of Political Correctness they claim they used to dislike.

    It’s even worse than that. You start digging into the Schiavo manipulators and you’re gonna hit a lot of PETA members.

  53. 53
    Steve says:

    I think the right-wing critiques of D’Souza have been more compelling than the left-wing critiques, simply because the Right tends to know more about radical Islam (hell, they’re fuckin’ obsessed with it), and thus they’re correct to point out that D’Souza is simply wrong as a factual matter when he asserts bin Laden cares deeply about the depravity of Hollywood.

    The left-wing critique is that D’Souza’s thesis is offensive, and of course, it is. But the right-wing critique is that he’s simply WRONG, exactly like Pat Robertson is wrong to blame gays for Katrina.

  54. 54
    JImmy Mack says:

    Let’s see if I have this right: Glenn Beck is bad because he said one thing that some might call racist while Joe Biden and Ward Churchill deserve our respect.

    Is that the general point of this thread?

  55. 55
    cleek says:

    Beck and D’Souza, as far as I know, were the first people to explicitly reach across the burning towers and say yep, except for the murdering thing I’m with them

    Roberston and Falwell did it on 9/12/01

  56. 56
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Lambchop, believe me, your point was childish enough to pick up the first time. Let’s move beyond tje idea that declaring a common purpose (a “cause,” if you will) is not the same as adopting common methods.

    So what on earth was the purpose of your ridiculous post, then? Oh, wait for it:

    What’s so hard about me wanting to hurt badly somone who said bob was right for raping my sister?

    OK, now I see. Tim got what he wanted out of this ridiculous “making common cause” argument. He’s gotten a few idiot drones to think that someone on the right said the terrorists were “right” to perform 9/11.

    Great job, Tim. Really intellectually honest of you.

  57. 57
    Rome Again says:

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Richard Bottoms, do you really need to ask? It’s the number commas in the checking account, of course!

    Just ask my mom! (you’d have to raise her from the grave, but I’m sure if she wanted to impart any virtue of truth after death, she’d willingly agree).

  58. 58
    cleek says:

    Let’s see if I have this right: Glenn Beck is bad because he said one thing that some might call racist while Joe Biden and Ward Churchill deserve our respect.

    uh. wow.

  59. 59
    Richard 23 says:

    Glenn Greenwald makes a similar point in this post today.

    Oh boy. The sockpuppet from Salon. You may as well have linked to a ‘balanced’ article by Dhimmi Carter.

    ThymeZone on Greenwald: Hear, hear.

    I rest my case.

    I want to see you help get him fired from whatever think tank is paying him.

    Just like Spocko trying to get patriotic KSFO host Melanie Morgan fired, liberals show time and time again how totalitarian they are: anyone they disagree with should lose their livlihoods. Typical.

    I’m guessing Richard23’s America™ is a very lonely place. And he likes it that way.

    Nice way to totally mischaracterize what I said. Leftist wackjobs do enjoy arguing with men made of straw and caricatures they themselves create. But I’ll bite: I prefer quality over quantity any day.

    Actually my name has a space. I guess you were talking to someone else.

  60. 60
    Rome Again says:

    Genesis – Jesus He Knows Me

    Thanks Detlef, one of my most favorite bands of all time (the old progressive rock stuff, not so much the commercialized Abacab crap) but, boy that was a fun video. Thanks for sharing.

  61. 61
    Detlef says:

    Let’s see if I have this right: Glenn Beck is bad because he said one thing that some might call racist while Joe Biden and Ward Churchill deserve our respect.

    Is that the general point of this thread?

    Short answer, no. :)
    Long answer, did you or any of your friends ever try to have sex with a girl / woman you´re not married with?
    Assuming you´re a man?

    If yes, then according to Glenn Beck and Dinesh D’Souza, you´re a part of the general “moral collapse”. And one tiny reason why Bin Laden attacked the USA according to them.
    Simply put, you are guilty because you didn´t provide Burkas for the cheerleaders so that they wouldn´t inflame your – maybe existent – sex drive.

  62. 62
    Richard 23 says:

    I only find it interesting because of the hysterical outrage that most of the right brought to bear when leftwingers suggested that we try to figure out what terrorists want.

    And then try to give them everything they want. The leftist credo. White flag yellow bellies.

    Robertson and Falwell, as individuals, only implied a sense of common cause when they suggested that immorality brought the attacks in a general sense. Since those two morons did the same thing with Katrina I would lump them into a more general blame America for everything category.

    There you go again, Tim. They blamed “immorality,” not America. You can’t even read your own comments, can you?

    Their actual strategy documents show a coherent vision that has little to do with boobs on TV.

    With the exception of Dan Rather, I think we can all agree we should have more boobs on TV.

  63. 63
    Detlef says:

    Rome Again,

    I love them. Since I was a teen in the 1970s. Back then of course it were other songs. :)

    But this song / video seems to capture a tiny bit of the Christian “business” in the USA. I remember German newspaper articles in the late 1980s / early 1990s about an American preacher telling his “flock” that he would be killed by God if the faithful wouldn´t raise a million dollar by day “x”. I remember being amazed by that claim. I didn´t think God was in the business of “protection money”.
    I suspect “Genesis” was amazed as well…

  64. 64
    John Cole says:

    I am actually starting to feel bad for D’Souza. He didn’t say or write anything that Ann Coulter doesn’t say on a daily basis.

    I guess the moral of this story is you can only call half of America traitors and get away with it if a lot of conservatives want to fuck you.

  65. 65
    Pb says:

    Steve,

    the Right tends to know more about radical Islam (hell, they’re fuckin’ obsessed with it)

    That’s what they think–however, most of the time, whatever it is that they’re obsessed with is precisely what they know the least about.

  66. 66
    Detlef says:

    Richard 23 is totally right!

    There you go again, Tim. They blamed “immorality,” not America. You can’t even read your own comments, can you?

    Richard 23 was just apologizing for all the gay, adulterous Republican politicians still involved in American politics. Not to mention the Republican politicians who drank and snorted coke in their youth. Like a current American President…
    Unlike the Republican party hero Bin Laden!
    He spent his youth and his money in Afghanistan fighting the godless Sowjet-Union. And while the Republican party doesn´t approve of his methods (9/11 comes to mind) they do approve of his religious ideas!

    With the exception of Dan Rather, I think we can all agree we should have more boobs on TV.

    Absolutely not!
    And not even on Fox News!
    Unless of course the women wear a burka.
    I wait for Glen Beck, Dinesh D’Souza and Richard 23 to finally push for it in the USA.

  67. 67
    dreggas says:

    John Cole Says:

    I am actually starting to feel bad for D’Souza. He didn’t say or write anything that Ann Coulter doesn’t say on a daily basis.

    I guess the moral of this story is you can only call half of America traitors and get away with it if a lot of conservatives want to fuck you.

    I think the bottom line here is that Coulter is a complete twit and unless you are a total mouth breather you recognize that fact so she is easy to dismiss. Conversely, for some odd reason, D’Souza was a “bright star” of the right, worked in the admin of Reagan and wrote books that a lot of conservatives agreed with. Add to the fact he was their equivalent of south park’s token in that he was an immigrant or a child of one who “lived the American dream” or some such horse shit and people took him seriously. So when he comes out and finally pulls back the curtain showing that, yes, the right is just as bad as the terrorists in some if not many of their ideologies then he will get heaped on because of it and the fact that he is actually saying he sympathizes with the terrorists and that the right should as well because they have a common enemy in liberals and “immorality” as they define it.

  68. 68
    Detlef says:

    Richard 23,

    I´m pretty sure that you know that Europe is decadent and practically beyond help. I mean, just look at it, some of them don´t even speak English!
    It´s hard to believe, I know, but those pesky “continental Europeans” just refuse to change their language. And even worse, we Europeans refuse to be ashamed of the mini-skirt and the bikini.
    Given all that moral people like you simply have to side with Bin Laden to avoid further poisoning from the immoral people living in Europe. /snark

  69. 69
    demimondian says:

    Indeed. Detlef, and you know that Real Americans only read left-to-right, and that means that the Islamists are right — very, very right — when they say that America is a backwards-thinking nation.

    Bring out your Burkas!

  70. 70
    Rome Again says:

    Cool Detlef, I’m a huge fan of the old stuff (Trespass to Wind & Wuthering) but even some of the stuff after that made an impact.

    I remember MTV playing this video about 25 years ago, I’m no so sure we’ve improved much since then.

  71. 71
    Detlef says:

    I am actually starting to feel bad for D’Souza. He didn’t say or write anything that Ann Coulter doesn’t say on a daily basis.

    I guess the moral of this story is you can only call half of America traitors and get away with it if a lot of conservatives want to fuck you.

    Uhh, I did see some pictures of Ann Coulter. Not to mention some videos. Her ideas are totally crazy. And she herself is a stick. Not in any way desirable.

    If any American conservatives “want to fuck” her, they lost their (sane) minds and they lost their (normal) sex drive.
    You did see Letterman?

  72. 72
    Steve says:

    Coulter is still in the mid-90s Limbaugh stage where every high-profile conservative claims that she’s just an act, even as the base eats her up. If you thought they’d never dare to claim Limbaugh was a serious thinker, you were wrong. It’ll still be a few years for Coulter to get to that point, though.

  73. 73
    ThymeZone says:

    People want to fuck Ann Coulter?

    Jesus, NMYM, and Jesus, MYM, wept. Wept and wept.

    Oh my god. That’s just gross.

  74. 74
    Jesse Ewiak says:

    It’s a sliding scale, though. Coulter’s quasi-attractive, if you like blondes that look a certain way (used). However, when compared to the rest of the conservative bretheren, she’s freakin’ Marilyn Monroe.

  75. 75
    Detlef says:

    Rome Again,

    I remember MTV playing this video about 25 years ago, I’m no so sure we’ve improved much since then.

    Now that´s a cool video too!
    And you´re probably right…
    Back then, “Genesis” and other bands were at least mentioning some of our daily political problems. Be it preachers or politicans. :)
    Of course, being “old” myself today, I might simply miss similar videos or songs today.

  76. 76
    carpeicthus says:

    I can’t keep track here: Is Richard 23 an “out” spoof like DougJ? Because 6:42 post, at least, is Spoofy McSpoof.

  77. 77
    srv says:

    1) the Americans were complaining about values long before the terrorists were

    Lambchop, like a typical Bush-lover, you don’t know what happened before, any more than you know what is going on now:

    Sayyid Qutb was writing material for the Ward-Churchills-of- the-Right like D’Souza, Darrell, Hewitt and Beck long before you got your talking points from Rush.

  78. 78
    Jimmy Mack says:

    People want to fuck Ann Coulter?

    Hey, I’d rather fuck her than one of the left-wing pinups like Hurricane Katrina Vandeuevel or Maureen Dowd? Lara Logan, though…

  79. 79
    ThymeZone says:

    So Jimmy, the attraction thing is all political to you?

    WRT to Coulter, my disgust is about …. Coulter. I mean, she’s a gross human being, inside and out.

    I’d be afraid to be in the same building with her. The same precinct. Some of her evil energy would suck the soul right out of you.

    Are you human, or are you posting from Mars?

  80. 80
    Andrew says:
    People want to fuck Ann Coulter?

    Hey, I’d rather fuck her

    That means you’re gay.

  81. 81
    Hyperion says:

    …Europe is decadent

    worse, actually. those europeans are GODLESS.

    i read the whole Powerline piece. the author seems most upset about the lack of footnotes in D’Souza’s book. no outrage that i detected. however, there’s so much outrage (fake and real) out there now that maybe the lack of it is a good thing. but i hate to think what the Powerline response would have been if lots of footnotes had been provided.

  82. 82
    Richard 23 says:

    I wouldn’t have sex with Ann Coulter unless we were married and/or I was really really really really really really really really incredibly drunk.

    If Jimmy would like to have sex with Ann Coulter, he’d probably have sex with Helen Thomas after one beer (Miller Light probably). Jimmy is obviously a spoof. Nobody wants to “make love” to Ann Coulter. Unless they’re a “bottom.”

    Richard 23 is totally right!

    A truer statement has never been uttered.

    I´m pretty sure that you know that Europe is decadent and practically beyond help. I mean, just look at it, some of them don´t even speak English!

    Shocking. Hopefully we can get some missionaries over there. Detlef, hmmm? Are you from the land previously known as Yugoslavia?

    And even worse, we Europeans refuse to be ashamed of the mini-skirt and the bikini.

    You’ve got me wrong there, buddy. I have no problem with mini-skirts and bikinis. I don’t wear them of course. But I prefer the classic Bettie Page look to the contemporary Ann Coulter look. Jimmy, though…. He’s got serious problems.

    Man, look at the wiki picture of Bettie and then compare it to Coulter. No contest.

  83. 83
    Richard 23 says:

    Read about the experience Jimmy Mack wish he had with Ann Coulter. Not for the faint of heart.

  84. 84
    cleek says:

    but i hate to think what the Powerline response would have been if lots of footnotes had been provided.

    well, it would’ve been the same as their reaction to Coulter: “Look how well-researched and documented her book is! How can you refute all that well-researched and documented evidence? Oh she’s got you liberals on the run! You only criticize her because you can’t refute her copious footnotes!””

    Dick 23:
    I rest my case.

    then why are you still talking?

  85. 85
    Richard 23 says:

    then why are you still talking?

    I can’t help myself.

  86. 86
    demimondian says:
    [T]hen why are you still talking?

    I can’t help myself.

    In Richard’s case, it’s far better than thinking.

  87. 87
    Rome Again says:

    People want to fuck Ann Coulter?

    Well, if I were a biker chick type,I might say “I’d like to fuck her up…”

    Alas, I am not.

  88. 88
    Krista says:

    WRT to Coulter, my disgust is about …. Coulter. I mean, she’s a gross human being, inside and out.

    I’d be afraid to be in the same building with her. The same precinct. Some of her evil energy would suck the soul right out of you.

    Exactly. Even if she was Jessica Alba’s twin sister, her hatred and dementia would destroy any vestige of attractiveness from the inside out. I really, really hope that someday, she’ll be on Larry King and will say, “Gotcha! You guys didn’t honestly believe all that crap I wrote, did you? I was just trying to show how ridiculous some of these conservative viewpoints can be when taken a step farther.”

    I hope that, because if she really does feel the way that she does about everything, then my soul just curdles a little to think that such a beast can exist in this day and age.

  89. 89
    Rome Again says:

    I really, really hope that someday, she’ll be on Larry King and will say, “Gotcha! You guys didn’t honestly believe all that crap I wrote, did you? I was just trying to show how ridiculous some of these conservative viewpoints can be when taken a step farther.”

    I hope that, because if she really does feel the way that she does about everything, then my soul just curdles a little to think that such a beast can exist in this day and age.

    Don’t bet on it. She loves every minute of her sickening fame.

  90. 90
    ThymeZone says:

    I wouldn’t have sex with Ann Coulter unless we were married and/or I was really really really really really really really really incredibly drunk.

    Man, I could never be drunk enough for that. Even if she were married to you.

  91. 91
    Rome Again says:

    Man, I could never be drunk enough for that. Even if she were married to you.

    TZ, don’t even think about it, it is damaging to your soul. You might get lost forever.

  92. 92
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Lambchop, like a typical Bush-lover, you don’t know what happened before, any more than you know what is going on now: Sayyid Qutb was writing material for the Ward-Churchills-of- the-Right like D’Souza, Darrell, Hewitt and Beck long before you got your talking points from Rush.

    That’s rich. Absolutely ignorant, but rich. American critics only beat Qutb to the punch by about 120 years. I mean, the subject of declining American morals had already been beaten to death domestically by the time The Great Gatsby came out in 1925. Qutb in the 1950’s — a latecomer to the party. Your need to frame this as some kind of Rush Limbaugh thing (????) is a symptom of your ignorance and dementia, that’s all.

  93. 93
    ThymeZone says:

    Your need to frame this as some kind of Rush Limbaugh thing (????) is a symptom of your ignorance and dementia, that’s all.

    Let’s see, that’s supposed to be some sort of sideways support for the fat disgusting intellectual pig, Limbaugh? And you think that is …. cool? Funny? Honorable? What, exactly? What exactly is behind a defense of Rush Limbaugh? Explain. Seriously, tell us all about it.

    Who in the world would speak in defense of that fucking beast?

  94. 94
    Richard 23 says:

    Man, I could never be drunk enough for that.

    Hahaha! I should’ve pasted more “really”s in there.

    Even if she were married to you.

    Hmmm, there’s some kind of weird subtext in there I don’t really get. But yeah, even if she were married to me I wouldn’t go there either. But Jimmy would.

  95. 95
    Rome Again says:

    Who in the world would speak in defense of that fucking beast?

    My parents did, they’re both deceased now. I think it was the deed that forever banished them from the living.

  96. 96
    ThymeZone says:

    My parents did, they’re both deceased now.

    I get a kick out of business people who play the pig on the radio in their stores and places of business.

    They are too stupid to realize that over half the people out there wouldn’t do business with them if their lives depended on it. I would sooner go without that give a nickel to anyone who listens to that piece of shit.

  97. 97
    tBone says:

    And I’m not sure the left really wants to get into a game of real “common cause with the terrorists,” do they? You’d have to own a lot of guys you prolly don’t want to own. Might want to rethink before you test this meme.

    Yeah, good point. The Dems are crawling with treasonous terrasymps who are working night and day to bring down our society. Republicans, on the other hand, just engage in good clean fun like funneling money to terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

  98. 98
    Rome Again says:

    They are too stupid to realize that over half the people out there wouldn’t do business with them if their lives depended on it. I would sooner go without that give a nickel to anyone who listens to that piece of shit.

    I gotta tell you, I once had a postal worker who would always play Limbaugh while delivering my mail, and it would be so loud the entire neighborhood could hear it (she had to deliver to an apartment complex, so it took some time to take care of mail for about 500 people) and I was NOT happy that she was in charge of my mail. I almost complained, perhaps I should have.

  99. 99
    srv says:

    That’s rich. Absolutely ignorant, but rich. American critics only beat Qutb to the punch by about 120 years. I mean, the subject of declining American morals had already been beaten to death domestically by the time The Great Gatsby came out in 1925.

    Beatan to death? By what swath of “Americans” in your rich world of historical revisionism? Fitzgerald and his shadow? Gatsby was a literary and social dud until it found fervent home with the Elvis pelvis-thrusting hating puritans of the Eisenhower era. Beaten to death by Twain in the Gilded Age? Oh, that’s why it had such a huge impact on the commentariat at the time.

    Stop reading Conservipedia for your material and go to a real school.

    Oh, and by the way, it’s Lamb Chop and not Lambchop.

  100. 100

    Let’s see if I have this right: Glenn Beck is bad because he said one thing that some might call racist while Joe Biden and Ward Churchill deserve our respect.

    Who is Ward Churchill?

  101. 101

    Man, I could never be drunk enough for that. Even if she were married to you.

    Why are you fucking Richard’s wife? And Richard, why did you marry this chick if you don’t even want to fuck her? Don’t you feel sex is an important part of a long-term, God-sanctioned union?

  102. 102

    […] Between the religious right, the homophobes and racists, and the Neo-cons (who would see this group as easiest to manipulate and don’t really care about social or economic issues anyway), the Hate America Firsters would likely grab a hold of power. Because the more you look, the more you see Americans out there that just plain despise the United States and everything it ever stood for. […]

  103. 103
    RSA says:

    Who is Ward Churchill?

    I believe he is a major demon in neocon theology, on the second tier in the demonic hierarchy (Academia Sinister). He reports to directly to Howard Dean.

  104. 104

    I believe he is a major demon in neocon theology, on the second tier in the demonic hierarchy (Academia Sinister). He reports to directly to Howard Dean.

    Sorry, guess I didn’t get the memo.

  105. 105
    cleek says:

    the subject of declining American morals had already been beaten to death domestically by the time The Great Gatsby came out in 1925

    preachers were complaining about the sorry state of America’s morals before America was even a country.

    “declining morals” is a staple of the conservative mindset, and as such, is a permanent complaint from one segment of humanity. complaining about how rotten other people are is what conservatives do.

  106. 106
  107. 107
    Darrell says:

    Awesome! Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested For Child Rape Porn Videos!

  108. 108
    chopper says:

    you think child rape is awesome? that’s just sick.

  109. 109
    srv says:

    preachers were complaining about the sorry state of America’s morals before America was even a country.

    “declining morals” is a staple of the conservative mindset, and as such, is a permanent complaint from one segment of humanity. complaining about how rotten other people are is what conservatives do.

    Regardless of Lamb Chops attempt to obfiscate, the topic of the day was D’Souza. D’Souzas thesis isn’t that conservatives and 19th century moralists have so much in common with AQ. It is a connection he makes with postmodernity and liberalism, which is as related to Gatsby and the 19th century as my ass is.

    Re his second point:

    2) those complaints are totally irrelevant to what is outrageous about terrorism.

    The Bush base disagrees:

    Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

    The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”

    There can be no doubt who that 24% is. It’s people like D’Souza, Darrell, Hewitt and Lamb Chop. These people don’t hate terrorism. They just hate it when they’re on the receiving end. These are people who rationalize Hiroshima by saying “We killed more civilians firebombing Tokyo!”

  110. 110

    you think child rape is awesome? that’s just sick.

    I didn’t realize he was a member of NAMBLA, but I guess it doesn’t surprise me.

    He does have a curious fascination with boyscouts.

  111. 111

    The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”

    Oh come on.

    We’re bombing them for their own good.

  112. 112
    Darrell says:

    These are people who rationalize Hiroshima by saying “We killed more civilians firebombing Tokyo!”

    I take it you oppose the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although by dropping nuclear weapons on those cities, we almost certainly saved Japanese civilian lives… as Japan would not have surrendered otherwise, and a bloody Okinawa-like fight (Okinawa killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined) on Japan’s homeland would have cost more lives on both sides by far.

    In some extreme cases, killing enemy civilians is the “least bad” choice to minimize blooshed.

  113. 113
    Darrell says:

    chopper Says:

    you think child rape is awesome?

    What’s awesome is that with the arrest of that former ACLU chapter President, there will be one less sicko Democrat out there preying on children.

  114. 114
    Darrell says:
    2) those complaints are totally irrelevant to what is outrageous about terrorism.

    The Bush base disagrees:

    In which srv, noble patriot that he/she is, goes on to advance the argument that bombing Hiroshima was equivalent to islamic terrorists killing innocents.

    Despicable comparison? Absolutely.. but typical of the left.

  115. 115
    chopper says:

    man, i can’t believe you think child rape is ‘awesome’.

    there will be one less sicko Democrat out there preying on children.

    yep. now he’ll get to join all the sicko republicans who no longer prey on children.

  116. 116
    srv says:

    I take it you oppose the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although by dropping nuclear weapons on those cities, we almost certainly saved Japanese civilian lives… as Japan would not have surrendered otherwise, and a bloody Okinawa-like fight (Okinawa killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined) on Japan’s homeland would have cost more lives on both sides by far.

    Another Darrell trait. If you repeat something enough, it just becomes a universal truth. Sorry, but the likes of MacArthur, Eisenhower, Nimitz, Leahy, Spaatz, etc, think you are full of shit.

    I know you inherently believe Bush and Truman over anything the experts say. It’s easier than thinking. Wiping out populations centers saved lives. Destabilizin Iraq saves lives.

    You people aren’t any less sick than child molestors. You just like molesting people in greater numbers.

  117. 117
    Darrell says:

    I know you inherently believe Bush and Truman over anything the experts say

    How convenient that those experts never once offered estimates of how many lives would have been lost if a conventional war had taken place on the Japanese homeland. Truman made right decision. The Japanese refused to surrender at Potsdam, and as they made crystal clear in Okinawa, they were determined to fight it out to the last man if we invaded mainland Japan. Hell, even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tojo still refused to surrender until the emporer had to intervene.

    Leftist filth like srv compare our bombing of Nagasaki to terrorists killing inncocents. Incredible that they consider themselves to be speaking ‘truth to power’.

  118. 118
    Darrell says:

    Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby’s own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

    Source.
    And that’s not even counting the Japanese civilian casualties.

  119. 119
    srv says:

    How convenient that those experts never once offered estimates of how many lives would have been lost if a conventional war had taken place on the Japanese homeland.

    Potsdam flopped over the Emperor issue. Just as MacArthur knew it would. He understood you needed god on your side (which is what we ended up doing anyway, dipshit!)

    All of those ‘leftists’ like MacArthur, Eisenhower and the rest believed a convential invasion was not necessary. What they said at the time, and what the experts confirmed after actually talking to :

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    You and Lamb Chop need to do better than Conservipedia. You really are lame at this.

  120. 120
    The Other Andrew says:

    You’re getting more and more desperate, Darrell. It’s pretty fun to watch.

    “Let’s have a serious debate about the dangers of fundamenta–”

    “CHILD RAAAAAAAAAAPE TERROR SCARY GAY MARRIAGE CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER”

    Don’t worry, though. I’m sure those ponies will come around the bend any moment now. Yes sir, any moment.

  121. 121
    srv says:

    Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone.

    Wow. Just wow. You claim his cherry-picked estimate made on “if there was an Olympic” as an authority, and then toss what he actually advised to Truman.

    To wit:

    It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

    And later:

    The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

    Why do you hate our soldiers Darrell? How can you sit there and snidely counter Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy? WTF is wrong with you? Pull that corn-cob pipe out of your ass, you lose.

  122. 122
    demimondian says:

    I hate to back srv on this, since he and I disagree about the ultimate morality of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but…D-boy? You’re full of shit. srv *is* an expert on the end of the second world war. There are legitimate and complicated questions about the number Japanese casualties the allies expected if an invasion was pursued. It’s not clear how much of Truman’s willingness to use the bomb reflected his humanitarian concerns and other geopolitical concerns.

    The experts are still divided, and we’re sixty years after the events of August, 1945. The only thing upon which all serious scholars agree is that the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far, far worse than anybody’s most gruesome nightmare.

  123. 123
    Darrell says:

    Potsdam flopped over the Emperor issue

    False.

    As for guaranteeing the emperor, Asada notes that this was not the sole sticking point, that the Japanese military demanded also no occupation, no war crimes trials, and no forcible disarmament.

    More here:

    An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan’s only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda). In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a “We surrender” note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six–in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled

    Oh my, I guess it wasn’t “just” about the Emporor after all, huh nitwit?

    All of those ‘leftists’ like MacArthur, Eisenhower and the rest believed a convential invasion was not necessary

    MacArthur, even though he never disputed the casualty estimates I cited above, was in favor of a land invasion of Japan at a cost of millions of lives. He was a bit nuts. He wanted the invasion in order to shoot his career to the top the way D Day did with Eisenhower. Keep in mind MacArthur is the guy who advocated dropping nukes on China during the Korean war.

    Eisenhower and the rest made a judgement call, as 300,000 asians/month were getting killed in the months just preceding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Furthermore, Eisenhower did not have direct experience with the Japanese on the intelligence level.

    We know for instance that Eisenhower thought Japan was already defeated, assuming they were like the Europeans. They weren’t, as has been already established, the Japs weren’t ready to surrender even after the 1st bomb as they thought it might have been a one-time weapon. Eisenhower’s assessment was wrong. He said the Japanese were already defeated. We know definitively that was not the case.

    Leahy said the atomic bomb was of no material assistance to the war effort. He was wrong too. It was very material.

    Nimitz also stated that the Japanese had been defeated,when in fact, we know they had not been, and generals closer to the ground war were of a different opinion.

  124. 124
    Darrell says:

    D-boy? You’re full of shit. srv is an expert on the end of the second world war. There are legitimate and complicated questions about the number Japanese casualties the allies expected if an invasion was pursued.

    WTF? srv is an “expert” on WWII. What a joke. If he/she were an expert, he wouldn’t be presenting such half-baked arguments, comparing our actions in WWII to islamic terrorism blowing up markets and pizza parlors, which having her other “facts” shredded to pieces.

    Sure there are “questions”. But after Iwo Jima and Okinawa (230,000 killed, Japs fighting to the last man) just before dropping the bomb, we can use those examples to see the writing on the wall on how things would have almost certainly unfolded with a fight-to-the-death kamikaze mentality fighting the Japanese on their mainland.

    Again, more people were killed in Okinawa alone, than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined

  125. 125
    srv says:

    There wasn’t any negotiation at Potsdam because they never got past the Emperor issue, jackalopes aside. The Peace Faction got nothing to work with. Given that there was even a Potsdam should tell you the Big Six weren’t all powerful. There’s what they wanted and what the Peace faction and Hirohito would have accepted.

    Oh, and re it taking two bombs, Hirohito sided with the Peace Faction before Nagasaki. It’s in the history books.

    MacArthur thought the war was over but still wanted to outdo Eisenhower? Right. How long it would have taken for the Peace Faction to prevail is debateable, but alot of generals and admirals did not see it as an Olympic vs. Nukes choice. That’s why they didn’t want either. Most of them believed this before the Trinity test.

  126. 126
    Zifnab25 says:

    Alright, its worth noting that Japan didn’t surrender after Hiroshima. And, if I remember correctly, the Japanese military was on the verge of a coup against the Emperor to keep fighting after Nagasaki. The Japanese Commanders were, in fact, fucknuts insane. One might call them “Rumsfeld-esque”.

    Its also worth noting that we killed far more people with firebombings than with nuclear weapons. One nuke could do the damage of a hundred convention bombs, but that didn’t mean America was shy about using said conventional bombs. By 1945, humanitarian conserns had more-or-less fallen by the wayside with the bombings of Berlin and Tokyo.

    I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that if a US soldier kills a family of 8 with a misfired tank shell in Iraq and terror-lamo-facist kills a family of 8 with a HEX vest, the events are equally tragic. If Truman’s nuke slaughters 3000 innocent Japanese citizens and Bin Laden’s airliners murder 3000 innocent American citizens, Truman’s hands aren’t cleaner because he’s American. The fishermen and citygoers at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t deserve death any more than the businessmen and tourists deserved death in the Twin Towers.

    The life of an American serviceman is worth exactly the same as the life of every other human being on the face of the planet. Please don’t preach about necessary evils and cost-benefit analysis, Darrell. Your moral code is so far out of wack, you’ve got no room to talk.

  127. 127
    Darrell says:

    srv Says:

    There wasn’t any negotiation at Potsdam because they never got past the Emperor issue, jackalopes aside

    “Jackalopes” in the dimwitted ‘reality-based’ community =

    the Japanese military demanded also no occupation, no war crimes trials, and no forcible disarmament.

    speaking of jackalopes, we have a perfect example

    Oh, and re it taking two bombs, Hirohito sided with the Peace Faction before Nagasaki.

    If that is the case, then why didn’t they just surrender? The allies had told them from the beginning that the price of aggression in this war was unconditional surrender. If they were ready to surrender, all they had to do was say, “we surrender”. It would have been that easy, and the bombs would not have been dropped.

    Of course, your comment was a dishonest jackalope because we know it was not that easy for them, as who would have said “We surrender”? The civilian leadership? Would the military have gone along with it? Certainly not at that time. They revolted and tried to remove Hirohito by coup when he tried to surrender even after the a-bombs were dropped. Definite jackalope, and proof that srv is not arguing in good faith

    MacArthur thought the war was over but still wanted to outdo Eisenhower?

    Of course halfwit, MacArthur believed the war to be “over”, that’s why he was so busy planning for the invasion of mainland Japan he was to lead, even moving up the invasion date a month earlier.

    Fact is, in war, there are often no good choice, only “less bad” ones. Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was the best decision, and it saved lives compared to the alternatives.

  128. 128
    ThymeZone says:

    Aerial warfare is mechanized terrorism carried out on civilian populations.

    It is no different from any other form of terrorism save for the technical disconnect between the killers and the victims.

    There is no moral basis for believing that aerial warfare is “better” than other forms of terrorism, and there is no ethical basis for supporting it other than the coercion of civilian populations to bring about change not possible or practical by other military means.

    The donning of uniforms and the operation of machinery do not present a moral shield for the perpetrators of aerial warfare. It’s a perception shield which has no actual moral basis whatever.

    This blog is routinely spammed and harassed by Darrell, a person who supports the use of aerial warfare — terrorism — aganst civilian populations, including sleeping children and their mothers.

    Post here and alongside this disgusting beast at your own risk.

  129. 129
    srv says:

    Alright, its worth noting that Japan didn’t surrender after Hiroshima.

    Hirohito had voted, it was already over.

    Its also worth noting that we killed far more people with firebombings than with nuclear weapons.

    As the Darrells of the world are quick to chime in with.

    The point is, 24% of Americans think killing civilians is peachy. In an existenial clash-of-civilizations, if that’s what you believe in, there are no civilians, there are no innocents. This isn’t dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin shit, you either believe it’s OK or you don’t. D’Souza believes. Darrell believes. They think they’re different. They’re just a Ward Churchill by another name.

  130. 130
    ThymeZone says:

    Its also worth noting that we killed far more people with firebombings than with nuclear weapons

    Shorter DarrellBeast: Nuclear weapons, the ultimate in terrorism against civilian populations, good.

  131. 131
    Darrell says:

    I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that if a US soldier kills a family of 8 with a misfired tank shell in Iraq and terror-lamo-facist kills a family of 8 with a HEX vest, the events are equally tragic

    Except that intent matters. One does not convict a driver of a car accident for premeditated murder. Similarly, an accidental killing of innocents in war is in a very different moral category than intentionally targetting innocents, and it’s more than a bit kooky of you to go to such pains to draw an equivalence. I’m glad you explained yourself though, so people can see how far out there you truly are.

  132. 132
    Darrell says:

    The point is, 24% of Americans think killing civilians is peachy

    More dishonesty to the extreme. Nothing in that survey to indicate anyone thinks killing civilians is “peachy”. The only thing it showed is that a number of Americans believe that in some cases killing civilians may be the least bad alternative in war.

  133. 133
    ThymeZone says:

    Similarly, an accidental killing of innocents in war

    There are no accidental killings in aerial warfare against civilian populations.

    You support the bombing, burning and killing of sleeping women and children. Who the fuck are you to presume to lecture here about war?

    Get out, you disgusting beast, you scab on the ass of humanity.

  134. 134
    ThymeZone says:

    Nothing in that survey to indicate anyone thinks killing civilians is “peachy”.

    It is according to you. Would you like to go back and revisit Lebanon, 2006?

    Do you now oppose the use of aerial warfare against civilian populations including sleeping women and children? The rocket attacks against carloads of fleeing families?

    The kids with their faces burned off in front of their screaming mothers?

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    There are no accidental killings in aerial warfare against civilian populations

    You’ve already told us, repeatedly, that Israelis “targetted” women and children on bombing runs in Lebanon during their recent conflict with Hezbollah. That’s really all we need to know about your judgement.

  136. 136
    Rome Again says:

    The only thing it showed is that a number of Americans believe that in some cases killing civilians may be the least bad alternative in war.

    I’ll tell you what, Darrell, let’s drop you in the middle of downtown Baghdad for about 12 months and see if you still agree with that assessment.

  137. 137
    ThymeZone says:

    Do you or do you not oppose the use of aerial warfare to bomb and burn cilian populations, including children and their mothers, you lying worthless piece of shit?

    Yes or no? For once, answer a fucking question, motherfucker. Answer it now.

  138. 138
    Rome Again says:

    Yes or no? For once, answer a fucking question, motherfucker. Answer it now.

    Breathe slowly TZ, it’s not worth getting all worked up over Darrell.

  139. 139
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m fed up with that sonofabitch.

    I have an unlimited supply of IP addresses. Darrell will never fucking post here again without me being in his face over this question, and to remind people of who he is.

  140. 140
    Darrell says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    Do you or do you not oppose the use of aerial warfare to bomb and burn cilian populations, including children and their mothers, you lying worthless piece of shit?

    Ah yes, the perpetually morally outraged TZ. Eloquent as always. Enlighten us as to what the difference is between civilians killed by an artillery shell or aerial bombardment. And don’t forget to remind everyone, as you’ve done before, about how those jews targetted women in children in Lebanon.

  141. 141
    Zifnab25 says:

    As the Darrells of the world are quick to chime in with

    The point I was trying to make is that a nuke isn’t any more or less ethical than a rain of bullets or a machette through the face. Hiroshima was a tragedy because we killed people, not because we killed people with nukes.

    Except that intent matters. One does not convict a driver of a car accident for premeditated murder.

    Intent matters because it represents the probability of a repeat offense. If I accidentally hit you with my car, my defense attorney will argue that next time I am behind the wheel, I will be more careful. If I throw a grenade into your kitchen window, the “Oops” defense no longer flies.

    But US soldiers in Iraq can’t be any more careful. The tank driver who shoots a suspected carbomber can’t afford to play it safer next time. Safer for the suspect means more deadly for the soldier. Thus, the intent is rather meaningless. Given the exact same set of circumstances, the soldier will act exactly the same way, and kill exactly the same number of innocent civilians.

    And the dead don’t care about intent. Mothers don’t get their daughters back because US soldiers feel bad about the people they accidentally kill. No one sleeps any better because their loved ones were killed by Americans.

  142. 142
    Darrell says:

    I have an unlimited supply of IP addresses. Darrell will never fucking post here again without me being in his face over this question

    Truth to power!

  143. 143
    Perry Como says:

    The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals

    This is one of the most idiotic things I’ve recently seen. Really. It’s profoundly ignorant.

  144. 144
    ThymeZone says:

    Truth to power!

    Answer the question, Darrell. I’m not going away.

    Do you or do you not support the use of aerial warfare against civilian populations, including the bombing and burning of children and their mothers?

    Yes or no, asshole. Answer the question, because I am going to put it in your face until hell freezes over.

  145. 145
    Darrell says:

    This is one of the most idiotic things I’ve recently seen. Really. It’s profoundly ignorant.

    More than this?

    I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that if a US soldier kills a family of 8 with a misfired tank shell in Iraq and terror-lamo-facist kills a family of 8 with a HEX vest, the events are equally tragic.

    or this?

    The point is, 24% of Americans think killing civilians is peachy

  146. 146
    Darrell says:

    Answer the question, Darrell. I’m not going away.

    The mentally deranged never do.

  147. 147
    ThymeZone says:

    I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that if a US soldier kills a family of 8 with a misfired tank shell in Iraq and terror-lamo-facist kills a family of 8 with a HEX vest, the events are equally tragic.

    I have no idea who posted it, but I certainly agree with it, you fucking moral and intellectual pygmy.

    Meanwhile, when are you going to answer the question here Darrell? Do you or do you not support the use of aerial warfare against civilian populations, including the bombing and burning of children and their mothers?

    Yes, or no? It’s not going away. Sand up for something for once in your worthless and embarassing life, and answer the question.

  148. 148
    ThymeZone says:

    The mentally deranged never do.

    Answer the question, asshole, because your day here is over until you do.

  149. 149
    Rome Again says:

    I’d like to go out on a limb here and say that if a US soldier kills a family of 8 with a misfired tank shell in Iraq and terror-lamo-facist kills a family of 8 with a HEX vest, the events are equally tragic.

    What is it that you disagree with in that statement Darrell? Why is any human more superior than another?

  150. 150
    srv says:

    Of course, your comment was a dishonest jackalope because we know it was not that easy for them, as who would have said “We surrender”? The civilian leadership? Would the military have gone along with it? Certainly not at that time. They revolted and tried to remove Hirohito by coup when he tried to surrender even after the a-bombs were dropped.

    They? Who in the Big-Six supported the coup? Your making shit up trying to equate a couple of Colonels to the general staff.

    Terms had only been in play for less than two months. You think they were just going to play footsie with an invasion impending? They were getting desparate, and we knew that from the cables. Yes, it was going take time and some negotiating, but it wasn’t the either-or choice you make it out to be. MacArthur saw all that and was shocked we didn’t bargain at Potsdam.

    This “practically all of Trumans general staff joined the Nitze apologist cabal” in the strategic bombing review is really amazing. Jesus, how did we win that war with all those leftists?

  151. 151
    Darrell says:

    Perry Como Says:

    The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals

    This is one of the most idiotic things I’ve recently seen. Really. It’s profoundly ignorant.

    Of course, in lefty bizarro world, all good points are “profoundly ignorant”. Here it is:

    The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals, it’s their willingness to kill people to express their judgement.

    Yes, yes, so “controversial”, so ignorant. I can really see your ‘point’ Perry. Deep thoughts.. keep ’em coming.

  152. 152
    Darrell says:

    They? Who in the Big-Six supported the coup? Your making shit up trying to equate a couple of Colonels to the general staff.

    Tojo himself did not want to surrender even after the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  153. 153
    ThymeZone says:

    remind everyone, as you’ve done before, about how those jews targetted women in children in Lebanon.

    The moral question doesn’t hinge on targeting, you moral pustule.

    It hinges on not caring whether the civilians are going to get killed, and then lying later and calling the deaths “an accident.” It’s not an accident, it is willful terrorism under the cover of words.

    In peacetime an action like that is called homicide. In warfare, it’s called terrorism until the liars show up, then it is covered up with the kind of spew that comes out of your ugly mouth.

  154. 154
    Rome Again says:

    Why do you agree that it’s okay for Americans to kill while it is not okay for anyone else to kill?

    You equivocate too much Darrell. If foreigners shouldn’t kill Americans, then we shouldn’t kill them either.

  155. 155
    ThymeZone says:

    Tojo himself did not want to surrender even after the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    So what? What does the advocate of burning children in front of their mothers think he has to say to us about another war in another time?

    Go away, you moral brain tumor.

  156. 156
    Darrell says:

    It hinges on not caring whether the civilians are going to get killed, and then lying later and calling the deaths “an accident.” It’s not an accident, it is willful terrorism under the cover of words.

    There you have it, the Israelis engaged in “willful terrorism” against women and children in Lebanon.

    Tell us shit-for-brains, all those civilians who were killed in Afghanistan when we were fighting Al-Queda and the Taliban there.. was that “willful terrorism” on our part too?

  157. 157
    Darrell says:

    Rome Again Says:

    Why do you agree that it’s okay for Americans to kill while it is not okay for anyone else to kill?

    Strawman alert! Rome, if you were more honest, you would admit I never said or even suggested such a thing.

  158. 158
    ThymeZone says:

    There you have it, the Israelis engaged in “willful terrorism” against women and children in Lebanon.

    Tell us shit-for-brains, all those civilians who were killed in Afghanistan when we were fighting Al-Queda and the Taliban there.. was that “willful terrorism” on our part too?

    There you have it. This blog is constantly spammed by this lying piece of moral feces who will not state that he doesn’t support the burning of children in front of their mothers. Who will say fucking anything to avoid the question and revealing himself for the fucking monster he is.

    Answer the question Darrell, it is never going away and you are never posting here again without facing it.

    You’re toast, Darrell. You’re done. Answer the question.

  159. 159
    ThymeZone says:

    if you were more honest, you would admit I never said or even suggested such a thing.

    You lying fuck. Everybody here knows who you are, you aren’t fooling anybody.

  160. 160
    Rome Again says:

    Strawman alert! Rome, if you were more honest, you would admit I never said or even suggested such a thing.

    Bullshit, you’re saying the same thing right here:

    Tell us shit-for-brains, all those civilians who were killed in Afghanistan when we were fighting Al-Queda and the Taliban there.. was that “willful terrorism” on our part too?

    You have no problem with civilians on the other side getting killed, it’s obvious.

  161. 161
    Darrell says:

    Answer the question Darrell, it is never going away and you are never posting here again without facing it.

    You’re toast, Darrell. You’re done

    Ah yes, TZ carries on the self righteous noble struggle of the mentally deranged left, vowing to relentlessly pursue me with his ‘truth’.

  162. 162
    ThymeZone says:

    You have no problem with civilians on the other side getting killed

    Darrell has no actual moral positions. They aren’t necessary to the perpetual lying and ankle-biting that he does here. When challenged, he just changes the subject.

    Don’t take my word for it. Ask around … has anyone here ever seen Darrell take an actual moral position on any subject? Seen him say “This is what I believe, and here’s why?”

    Two years in, I haven’t seen it. Not once. What I’ve seen is a coward fleeing the scene when the going gets rough.

  163. 163
    ThymeZone says:

    vowing to relentlessly pursue me

    That’s right, you little twerp. How’s your thread going so far?

    Why don’t you just answer the question, you fucking coward?

    What’s your problem?

  164. 164
    Darrell says:

    Bullshit, you’re saying the same thing right here:

    Tell us shit-for-brains, all those civilians who were killed in Afghanistan when we were fighting Al-Queda and the Taliban there.. was that “willful terrorism” on our part too?

    Rome, I used to think you were just a harmless simpleton, but now I see you’re also dishonest as hell. If you disagree, then tell us how in the world my statement above could in any way be interpreted to mean this:

    Rome Again Says:

    Why do you agree that it’s okay for Americans to kill while it is not okay for anyone else to kill?

    Of course you can’t explain it.

  165. 165
    Pb says:

    Agreed. Answer the question (for once), Darrell, or STFU. And while you’re at it, turn off the war porn, and put your cheeto-stained dick back in your pants, for fuck’s sake.

  166. 166
    Rome Again says:

    I can explain it, Darrell. I see you constantly protecting the right of American military to take whatever action is necessary to get rid of people who you call Terrorists, and I call humans who are sick of the way America butts her nose into everyone else’s business.

    You see no moral compunction to having civilians killed, so long as it helps America get rid of terrorism. I can go through any number of threads for the past two years and cite your own words to prove this.

    It is YOU who is dishonest, you lying prick.

  167. 167
    Darrell says:
    vowing to relentlessly pursue me

    That’s right, you little twerp. How’s your thread going so far?

    Why don’t you just answer the question, you fucking coward?

    How’s the the thread so far? Well, you’ve certainly changed subject and tone of it.. For now, I’m entertained by your willingness to so openly flaunt your psychological issues. Maybe Michael Savage was right when he said that liberalism is a mental disorder.

  168. 168
    ThymeZone says:

    Of course you can’t explain it.

    You aren’t fooling anybody here, Darrell. Everyone knows who and what you are.

    Look around, do you see any defenders? You’ve convinced every single person who has posted here in the last two years to basically hate your guts. Detest you. Nobody but fucking spoofs will take your side on anything.

    You’re a joke here. The proprietors tell you you suck. The commenters think you stink. You have no spine, won’t answer simple and direct questions, repeat the same harassments over and over again.

    Other than the fact that you are the biggest ass on the board, what do you think you are proving here?

    If I am wrong about your position of burning children, why don’t you just come out and state your position and prove me wrong? What are you afraid of, you bottomless pit of cowardess? Do you think you will melt if you actually state a position?

    Answer the question, you little prick. Unless you want this treatment every time you post here.

  169. 169
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, you’ve certainly changed subject and tone of it..

    You made yourself the subject, Darrell. You did that, and you did it deliberately.

    So here we are, you are the subejct.

    So answer the question, you miserable excuse for a human being. Stand up for something just once in your useless life.

  170. 170
    Darrell says:

    Pb Says:

    Agreed. Answer the question (for once), Darrell, or STFU

    What question is that Pb? You part of the deranged crowd too?

  171. 171
    srv says:

    Tojo himself did not want to surrender even after the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    What the hell does Tojo got to do with the Big Six? If you mean Togo, he was leading the peace faction.

    And I’m sure the Big-Six also wanted a lifetime supply of Hershey Kisses at Potsdam. That doesn’t mean it’s relevant.

  172. 172
    Perry Como says:

    Yes, yes, so “controversial”, so ignorant. I can really see your ‘point’ Perry. Deep thoughts.. keep ‘em coming.

    Ah, Darrell. You’re just trolling for a fight today. The problem with Stalin wasn’t his value judgment, it was his willingness to kill people to express his judgment.

  173. 173
    ThymeZone says:

    You part of the deranged crowd too?

    Sure Darrell, the crowd is ‘deranged” and you are the sane one.

    So answer the question, and prove it. Do you or do you not support the bombing and burning of children and their mothers?

    Yes or no. It ain’t a hard question, Darrell. Anybody here can answer it in one word.

    Here’s mine: No.

    Period. No matter who does it or for what reason. Period.
    No ifs, ands, or buts.

    See? Not that hard. Just open your mouth and form a word. Y or N?

    No dancing, no deflections, no waitaminutes, no You’re All Deranged whining, no bullshit. Just a simple Y or N.

    I dare you.

  174. 174
    Darrell says:

    I can explain it, Darrell. I see you constantly protecting the right of American military to take whatever action is necessary to get rid of people who you call Terrorists

    Well, that’s not much of an explanation. And for the record, you do acknowledge that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations exist, right? I ask, because you inserted the disclaimer about “people who you call Terrorists” as if there aren’t terrorists who we are fighting.

  175. 175
    Darrell says:

    Ah, Darrell. You’re just trolling for a fight today.

    Not really, I just took exception to the fact that you truncated the quote and then dismissed it without explanation.

  176. 176
    ThymeZone says:

    as if there aren’t terrorists who we are fighting.

    Then you do support terrorism, as long as it can be said to be “fighting terrorists?”

    Then answer the question, Darrell? Do you support burning kids and their mothers in order to fight terrorism?

    Yes, or No?

  177. 177
    Rome Again says:

    Well, that’s not much of an explanation. And for the record, you do acknowledge that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations exist, right? I ask, because you inserted the disclaimer about “people who you call Terrorists” as if there aren’t terrorists who we are fighting.

    No Darrell, I am not afraid of al Qaeda. I realize they are a group who is doing what they can to stop American imperialism from taking away the lives of civilians (and after all, let’s admit, that is the crux of the question as to why terrorism exists) and I don’t begrudge them their hatred of America the way you do. I understand that they hate America because America is wrong in so much of what we do. You and I will never agree on what a terrorist truly is. My idea of a terrorist is someone who currently occupies the white house.

  178. 178
    Darrell says:

    You aren’t fooling anybody here, Darrell. Everyone knows who and what you are.

    Look around, do you see any defenders?

    You know what? After seeing your deranged outbursts on this thread, you can bet that most normal people wouldn’t want to engage with filth like you. As for me, I’m just watching the spectacle you’re making.

  179. 179
    Perry Como says:

    And while you’re at it, turn off the war porn, and put your cheeto-stained dick back in your pants, for fuck’s sake.

    Darrell is Josh Trevino?

  180. 180
    ThymeZone says:

    you can bet that most normal people wouldn’t want to engage with filth like you. As for me, I’m just watching the spectacle you’re making.

    Really? Then let’s take a vote. You or me, off the island. No do-overs. Decision of the voters is final.

    You lose, you never post here again. I lose, I never post here again.

    Ready? Just say the word. Right now.

  181. 181
    Perry Como says:

    Not really, I just took exception to the fact that you truncated the quote and then dismissed it without explanation.

    I’m surprised you didn’t call Mac on that bullshit statement too.

  182. 182
    Darrell says:

    No Darrell, I am not afraid of al Qaeda. I realize they are a group who is doing what they can to stop American imperialism from taking away the lives of civilians

    Ah yes, the benevolent Al Queda, nobly defending others against American “imperialism” and protecting innocents from our bloodthirsty clutches.

    ’cause the “real terrorist” is in the white house. I’m investing in tinfoil, to take advantage of the shortage.

  183. 183
    Rome Again says:

    Define filth Darrell. I see filth as someone who equivocates reasons to kill humans. TZ doesn’t do that at all. TZ cares about every single human on the face of the earth, with the possible only exception being you.

  184. 184
    Darrell says:

    I’m surprised you didn’t call Mac on that bullshit statement too.

    Why should I have? I agree with it.

  185. 185
    Rome Again says:

    Ah yes, the benevolent Al Queda, nobly defending others against American “imperialism” and protecting innocents from our bloodthirsty clutches.

    I didn’t say benevolent. Al Qaeda is a hell of a lot smaller and much less capable of ruining lives than America is, and America is willing to do so much more to shape the world to its own liking. You’ll never understand, so spare me the crocodile tears when I don’t thoroughly explain it to you.

  186. 186
    ThymeZone says:

    Ah yes, the benevolent Al Queda

    You mean “Al Qaeda” don’t you Darrell? Al Quesadilla is a mexican restaurant next door to your parole office.

    Answer my question, Darrell. Do you support the bombing and burning of children and their mothers?

    Yes, or No?

  187. 187
    Darrell says:

    TZ doesn’t do that at all. TZ cares about every single human on the face of the earth

    BWWWHHHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    You can’t pay for this kind of entertainment. Rome, are you a person, or a cartoon? I can’t tell.

  188. 188
    Perry Como says:

    Why should I have? I agree with it.

    So you agree that terrorists have a valid point, you just disagree with their methods?

  189. 189
    ThymeZone says:

    TZ cares about every single human on the face of the earth, with the possible only exception being you.

    Even the despicable Darrell is entitled to a life free of terrorist attack. He is just not entitled to practice and support terrorism in order to have that protection.

  190. 190
    Darrell says:

    Answer my question, Darrell. Do you support the bombing and burning of children and their mothers?

    In what context? War is hell. You have stated that you support our actions in Afghanistan, which involved bombing and burning of children and their mothers. So did bombing the Serbs in the 90’s. You support that one too?

    Has it dawned on you yet what a freak you are?

  191. 191
    Rome Again says:

    BWWWHHHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    You can’t pay for this kind of entertainment. Rome, are you a person, or a cartoon? I can’t tell.

    I would much sooner trust my life in his hands than I would yours. Fuck off asshole, you have no idea of what you speak.

  192. 192
    Darrell says:

    So you agree that terrorists have a valid point, you just disagree with their methods?

    Lambchop never suggested that he agreed with their points, he only said that the real problem with terrorists isn’t their beliefs, but their willingness to kill innocents in order to advance those beliefs.

    What part of that do you find soooo “profoundly ignorant” (your description)?

  193. 193
    ThymeZone says:

    In what context? War is hell. You have stated that you support our actions in Afghanistan, which involved bombing and burning of children and their mothers. So did bombing the Serbs in the 90’s. You support that one too?

    Did you see my post above? What part of “no” don’t you understand? I do not support the use of terrorism (i.e. aerial warfare against civlian populations) under any circumstances. You are to cowardly to say so, but you don’t either. You try to weasel out of it by claiming that military or tactical imperatives take precedence over the objection when it suits your purposes, such as last summer in Lebanon.

    But that’s just rationalization. That’s the way the warmongers try to negotiate down the moral standard. That’s just lying. The fact is, you will go against your own moral standard in order to support your team in a fight.

    So, at least have the guts to stand up and say so. Take a stand. Cut the crap.

  194. 194
    Darrell says:

    I would much sooner trust my life in his hands than I would yours

    What’s ironic is that leftists spoof conservatives without realizing that the overwhelming majority of lunatic statements and positions come from themselves and their fellow lefties.

  195. 195
    Rome Again says:

    The fact is, you will go against your own moral standard in order to support your team in a fight.

    Boom, there it is…

  196. 196
    ThymeZone says:

    War is hell.

    Profound, Darrell. You know what I think hell is?

    A place where people say one thing and do another, talk morality and then turn away when a moral outrage is committed in their name.

    Moral catastrophe happens when people find ways to negotiate and rationalize immoral acts in order to achieve supposedly moral objectives.

    It’s called Ends Justify Means. That is hell, and you are the chief salesman for it here.

  197. 197
    Rome Again says:

    What’s ironic is that leftists spoof conservatives without realizing that the overwhelming majority of lunatic statements and positions come from themselves and their fellow lefties.

    What’s truly ironic is that conservatives are afraid to take stands that are controversial, so even if they might believe something such as that killing women and children is wrong, they’ll still agree it’s okay to do it because they don’t want to be caught on the unpopular side of the issue. COWARDS that they are.

  198. 198
    ThymeZone says:

    the overwhelming majority of lunatic statements and positions come from themselves and their fellow lefties.

    So, “no burning of kids and their mothers” is a lunatic statement, Darrell?

    Explain, tell us more.

  199. 199
    Darrell says:

    What part of “no” don’t you understand? I do not support the use of terrorism (i.e. aerial warfare against civlian populations)

    Now you’re hiding behind you’re own dishonesty. One of the hallmarks of terrorists is that they intentionally intermingle with civilians. How, in the context of a war against them, in Afghanistan for example, can you fight terrorists without incurring civilian casualties? You have stated previously that you supported the war in Afghanistan which resulted in the incineration of innocent children and their mothers.

    Do you similarly oppose the aerial warfare against ‘civilian populations’ in France during the D Day assault? Because tens of thousands of innocent French children and women were killed in that assault.

    Has it dawned on you yet what freak you are?

  200. 200
    Perry Como says:

    Darrell Says:

    Lambchop never suggested that he agreed with their points, he only said that the real problem with terrorists isn’t their beliefs, but their willingness to kill innocents in order to advance those beliefs.

    What part of that do you find soooo “profoundly ignorant” (your description)?

    I thought the problem with Islamofascists was their beliefs and their tactics. Are you now saying that Sharia law is a good thing?

  201. 201
    Darrell says:

    You try to weasel out of it by claiming that military or tactical imperatives take precedence over the objection when it suits your purposes, such as last summer in Lebanon.

    No weaseling needed, as you have categorically stated that the Israelis willfully targeted women and children in Lebanon with their bombing raids. Most normal people recognize immediately what a deranged fool you are when you make such statements. I’m just watching the show.

  202. 202
    Rome Again says:

    It’s called Ends Justify Means. That is hell, and you are the chief salesman for it here.

    Darrell is probably the least likely to ever leave the Bush camp, I fear. I wonder if he is closely aligned with any of the PNAC movers and shakers? Hmmm? Perhaps a brother of Paula Dobriansky? Or a close cousin of Doug Feith? Hmmmm.

  203. 203
    ThymeZone says:

    Now you’re hiding behind you’re own dishonesty. One of the hallmarks of terrorists is that they intentionally intermingle with civilians. How, in the context of a war against them, in Afghanistan for example, can you fight terrorists without incurring civilian casualties? You have stated previously that you supported the war in Afghanistan which resulted in the incineration of innocent children and their mothers.

    I supported the war. I do not support attacks on civilian populations. Under any circumstances.

    You love to cite WWII as an example of the Good Terrorism. We saved all those American lives by incinerating civilians. Too bad, no sale to me. The price of being a free moral society might be to do what it takes to stand up for something, and if that means NOT incinerating civilians even though it is an expedient act, then so be it. There’s a price.

    If we aren’t willing to pay the price, then we don’t deserve to be called moral people.

    Do you similarly oppose the aerial warfare against ‘civilian populations’ in France during the D Day assault? Because tens of thousands of innocent French children and women were killed in that assault.

    Yes.

    Has it dawned on you yet what freak you are?

    I’m a freak for opposing death for civilians?

    Okay, then I’m a freak, and proud of it.

  204. 204
    ThymeZone says:

    as you have categorically stated that the Israelis willfully targeted women and children

    They targeted civilian populations without regard for the consequences. Then they lied and referred to the casualties as “accidental.”

    It’s not accidental, it’s homicide.

  205. 205
    ThymeZone says:

    Most normal people recognize immediately what a deranged fool you are

    Really? You speak for “most normal people?”

    Since when?

  206. 206
    chopper says:

    norml people, thyme; ‘norml’ people.

  207. 207
    Rome Again says:

    Most normal people recognize immediately what a deranged fool you are

    Darrell, as a result of you being a Republican who still toots Bush’s horn, I don’t think you have any sizable monopoly on the understanding of “normal people”.

  208. 208
    Darrell says:

    I thought the problem with Islamofascists was their beliefs and their tactics.

    Someone who harbors sick thoughts in theirs heads but never acts upon those thoughts, is much less a problem/threat than those who harbor those same thoughts but act them out in violent fashion, which was Lambchop’s point which you said was so “profoundly ignorant”

    Are you now saying that Sharia law is a good thing?

    Sharia law is not just a belief or opinion, it’s a form of acting out those beliefs, forcing others to conform. I kind of see your point on the Sharia law, but in the case of terrorists, their actions are much, much more of a problem than their beliefs.

  209. 209
    ThymeZone says:

    Heh. I totally support NORML.

    I am not in favor of a nation of potheads, but I am in favor of getting rid of the insane “war on drugs.”

    It’s almost as stupid as the “war on terror.”

  210. 210
    ThymeZone says:

    their actions are much, much more of a problem than their beliefs.

    Too bad you don’t apply the same standard to yourself.

  211. 211
    Rome Again says:

    I kind of see your point on the Sharia law, but in the case of terrorists, their actions are much, much more of a problem than their beliefs.

    Take away American imperialism, and you wouldn’t even know that those people existed. They wouldn’t hurt anyone because they would have no reason to.

  212. 212
    Darrell says:
    Do you similarly oppose the aerial warfare against ‘civilian populations’ in France during the D Day assault? Because tens of thousands of innocent French children and women were killed in that assault.

    Yes.

    Typical leftists idiot. The Germans never could have been defeated without such aerial bombardments. The French themselves, who suffered so heavily from those attacks, begged us to do it in order to save them. War is hell.

  213. 213
    Rome Again says:

    I am not in favor of a nation of potheads, but I am in favor of getting rid of the insane “war on drugs.”

    I promise to only be a pothead on Sundays, it’s my form of religious freedom.

  214. 214
    Darrell says:

    Take away American imperialism, and you wouldn’t even know that those people existed

    WTF? What American ‘imperialism’ caused terrorists to fly planes into the Trade Center?

    Yeah, we “created” the terrorists, right whackjobs? Spoofers, you taking notes?

  215. 215
    Pb says:

    The fact is, you will go against your own moral standard in order to support your team in a fight.

    Darrell has a moral standard? That’s news, because I haven’t seen him display one yet. Evidence, please? Link?

  216. 216
    Rome Again says:

    Typical leftists idiot. The Germans never could have been defeated without such aerial bombardments. The French themselves, who suffered so heavily from those attacks, begged us to do it in order to save them. War is hell.

    TZ, Darrell will never admit that wars are set up as intrigues and that humanity shouldn’t kill humanity. It’s a futile exercise. Darrell is lost to humanity, for all eternity. He thinks war is necessary. Let the idiot be.

  217. 217
    ThymeZone says:

    War is hell.

    Exactly why war should be avoided at all costs, another principle you refuse to stand up for.

    You’re nothing but a pimp for war and death, who pretends to be taking a moral position.

    Your moral position is that you can kill people when you think it’s okay. Simple as that. That’s you, in a nutshell.

    Mine is held to a little higher standard. Killing people is not okay just because it makes some objective easier to achieve.

    Germany could not have been defeated without bombing France?

    Germany was already toast at that point, you idiot. The only question was how long it would take to close the deal, and who would get to Berlin first. Germany was not going to win the war. Get out of here. Don’t insult peoples’ intelligence.

  218. 218
    Rome Again says:

    WTF? What American ‘imperialism’ caused terrorists to fly planes into the Trade Center?

    Yeah, we “created” the terrorists, right whackjobs? Spoofers, you taking notes?

    We most certainly did. Perhaps you’re forgetting our role in supplying bin Laden with arms during the Russian/Afghan war? Perhaps you are forgetting our keeping American troops on Saudi soil? Perahps you’ve forgotten that we’ve had an eye on their oil for eons?

  219. 219
    Perry Como says:

    Someone who harbors sick thoughts in theirs heads but never acts upon those thoughts, is much less a problem/threat than those who harbor those same thoughts but act them out in violent fashion, which was Lambchop’s point which you said was so “profoundly ignorant”

    Sharia law is not just a belief or opinion, it’s a form of acting out those beliefs, forcing others to conform. I kind of see your point on the Sharia law, but in the case of terrorists, their actions are much, much more of a problem than their beliefs.

    So you’re either profoundly ignorant or fundamentally dishonest. The War on Terror is “teh most importantist evar!” because of the “existential threat” that faces the US. At least, that’s what people like Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice have been saying. Let’s clear up a few things to determine whether your problem is dishonesty or ignorance (I’d guess a little of both):

    Do you think Islamic terrorists criticism of American values is valid?
    Do you think America should change its values?
    Would changing America’s values in the face of terrorist criticism be considered appeasement?
    Do you like pie?

    kthxbye

  220. 220
    ThymeZone says:

    I promise to only be a pothead on Sundays, it’s my form of religious freedom.

    Occasional use is not “pothead” behavior, though.

    A pothead to me is somebody who can’t function without the drug in their system a large percentage of the time.

    I have been around such people. They are not “occasional” users. They are occasionally not stoned.

  221. 221
    fishbane says:

    It is far more correct, but still wrong on many levels, to say that the terrorists made common cause with Falwell & Co. than the other way around.

    Then why is it that I do not see books by “the terrorists”, but do from the big D?

  222. 222
    Darrell says:

    What’s so bizarre about you loons, is that you seriously believe that it’s possible to support a war (in Afghanistan, Balkans, WWII, etc) while at the same time opposing any action which might cause a civilian to get killed.. handcuffing our military fighting an enemy who intentionally hides among civilians in the case of terrorists. That’s a certifiably insane position to have, but hey, it’s who you are.

  223. 223
    Darrell says:

    So you’re either profoundly ignorant or fundamentally dishonest.

    Ah yes, sweeping assertion without argument.. a leftist hallmark

  224. 224
    Perry Como says:

    Ah yes, sweeping assertion without argument.. a leftist hallmark

    You didn’t answer the questions. Inquiring bakers want to know.

  225. 225
    Rome Again says:

    What’s so bizarre about you loons, is that you seriously believe that it’s possible to support a war (in Afghanistan, Balkans, WWII, etc) while at the same time opposing any action which might cause a civilian to get killed.. handcuffing our military fighting an enemy who intentionally hides among civilians in the case of terrorists. That’s a certifiably insane position to have, but hey, it’s who you are.

    What’s so bizarre about you Darrell, is that you seem to think killing people and figthting wars actually solves problems.

  226. 226
    Darrell says:

    The War on Terror is “teh most importantist evar!” because of the “existential threat” that faces the US.

    It’s such a threat, because of those who are willing to kill innocents (kafr) in order to advance their beliefs. Nothing dishonest or profoundly ignorant about it.

  227. 227
    Darrell says:

    What’s so bizarre about you Darrell, is that you seem to think killing people and figthting wars actually solves problems.

    Do you disagree that WWII solved the “problem” of Hitler and Imperial Japan?

  228. 228
    Rome Again says:

    It’s such a threat, because of those who are willing to kill innocents (kafr) in order to advance their beliefs. Nothing dishonest or profoundly ignorant about it.

    Hypocrisy at its finest.

  229. 229
    Rome Again says:

    No, actually, I don’t Darrell. I think we forced our way of live on others and that through force we created future problems. I lived in Germany, I saw older men riding bicycles past one of Hitler’s headquarters (Merrill Barracks in Nuremburg) doing the Nazi solute everyday. The mindset that believed in Nazism still exists today. We never solved that problem.

  230. 230
    Perry Como says:

    It’s such a threat, because of those who are willing to kill innocents (kafr) in order to advance their beliefs.

    So if they advanced their beliefs without killing innocents, you’d be okay with that? Here’s a hint: You’ve got a bucket of paint and a brush and 3/4 of the floor is wet.

  231. 231
    Rome Again says:

    live = life
    solute = salute,

    sorry!

  232. 232
    Perry Como says:

    The mindset that believed in Nazism still exists today. We never solved that problem.

    The problem with Hitler wasn’t his beliefs, it was his willingness to kill people to express his beliefs.

  233. 233
    Darrell says:

    Question posed:

    Do you disagree that WWII solved the “problem” of Hitler and Imperial Japan?

    Leftist response (so rich a spoofer couldn’t improve on it)

    No, actually, I don’t Darrell. I think we forced our way of live on others and that through force we created future problems

    I don’t think you, or most other leftists here, fully grasp how bizarre you truly are. But it’s interesting to watch… at least for a little while

  234. 234

    […] Glen Beck joins Dinesh D’Souza in saying that al Qaeda hates our freedom–and who can blame ‘em? Add to: Bloglines | document.write(“Del.icio.us”) | Digg it | +Google | Y! MyWeb […]

  235. 235
    Rome Again says:

    I don’t think you, or most other leftists here, fully grasp how bizarre you truly are. But it’s interesting to watch… at least for a little while

    Bizarre is hearing the lunatic ravings of someone who still steadfastly agrees with the Bush Administration despite all the twists and turns the administration has taken, and after how many people have dropped off the rope in those exercises of manipulation. Perhaps you’ve forgotten Darrell, your side lost last November, and it’s not out of the question that you’ll lose the next few presidential elections either.

    You go again and hold on to your idealistic bullshit, your fear, it’s the only thing that allows you to sleep at night.

    I am not afraid. Bet you can’t say that, can you?

  236. 236
    ThymeZone says:

    WWII solved the immediate problems of Hitler and Imperial Japan, but that doesn’t mean that every policy and action in the course of winning that war was right, was moral, was acceptable, or should be a model for future activity.

    If anything, the wars proved that prolonged and large scale slaughter of civilian populations didn’t lead directly to victory. What lead to directly to victory in Japan was demonstration of a profoundly superior weapon. The firebombings of Japanese cities prior to that became largely moot at that point, did they not?

    Hitler continued to wage his war despite having cities burned to the ground with the people still in them.

    Aerial warfare against civilian populations is mechanized terrorism. You can support it as expedient if you can prove that it was, in fact, expedient, although that is not a given. But you can’t support it as moral. It isn’t moral.

  237. 237
    The Other Andrew says:

    Most of America wishes we’d never invaded Iraq, Darrell. That makes you the bizarre one.

    I like how you keep bringing up the “left”, btw. Conservatives, liberals, moderates, and independents have all criticized what you routinely attempt to defend. Trying to minimalize this is actually a pretty good debate tactic, but it’s blatantly dishonest. What is it, a third of Republicans that oppose Bush on the war? This is a healthy majority, not a fringe thing.

  238. 238
    ThymeZone says:

    But it’s interesting to watch… at least for a little while

    But you aren’t watching. You’re deliberatly harassing and trying to disrupt. You’re a troll. You’re an asshole.

    Go watch and shut the fuck up.

  239. 239
    Darrell says:

    The Other Andrew Says:

    Most of America wishes we’d never invaded Iraq, Darrell. That makes you the bizarre one.

    Hey, way to stay on topic. How about that Ward Churchill ‘little Eichmanns’ flap?

    Conservatives, liberals, moderates, and independents have all criticized what you routinely attempt to defend

    What I have “defended” here on this thread is our decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in WWII, and the idea that you can’t avoid civilian casualties in war. I don’t believe conservatives, liberals and moderates are all so critical of such a position.

    TOAndrew, do the random thoughts just enter your head, and you type whatever the voices tell you to to type? Just curious at to the thought process behind your completely off-topic incoherent post.

  240. 240
    Rome Again says:

    Hey, way to stay on topic. How about that Ward Churchill ‘little Eichmanns’ flap?

    Darrell, what is it about Ward Churchill that you seem to think turns on anyone left of Rush Limbaugh? Why? Who gives a fuck about Ward Churchill, and why are we talking about him so damned much over two years after he made that statement?

  241. 241
    Perry Como says:

    What I have “defended” here on this thread is our decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in WWII, and the idea that you can’t avoid civilian casualties in war.

    You’ve also defended the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists. Your LGF membership is revoked.

  242. 242
    srv says:

    Typical leftists idiot. The Germans never could have been defeated without such aerial bombardments.

    Wrong again. The efficacy of strategic bombing in Europe has long been debated. It had an impact, but to say they could never have been defeated without it is idiotic. Hollywood aside, it was a bit part in the real war.

  243. 243
    ThymeZone says:

    What I have “defended” here on this thread is our decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in WWII, and the idea that you can’t avoid civilian casualties in war.

    Wow, that’s pretty brave, Darrell. Defending WWII. You must be the pride of your fucking trailer park.

    And “you can’t avoid civilian casualties in war.”

    Wow, courageous. Are you saying that all civilian casualties in war are just acceptable because “war is hell?”

    Which civilian casualties in any war do you find not not acceptable, Darrell? Name the unacceptable ones.

    Name them, right here and now. Or are you going to say that there aren’t any in that category?

    You do actually have a moral brain cell in your head, right? You do actually have a conscience, or are you in fact just a John Cole class project?

  244. 244
    Darrell says:

    Let’s go back in that time machine to earlier today when we were debating whether or not dropping a bombs on Japan was justified, when you TZ entered the thread to grace us with your charm

    This blog is routinely spammed and harassed by Darrell, a person who supports the use of aerial warfare—terrorism—aganst civilian populations, including sleeping children and their mothers.

    Post here and alongside this disgusting beast at your own risk.

    This blog is routinely spammed and harassed by Darrell, a person who supports the use of aerial warfare—terrorism—aganst civilian populations, including sleeping children and their mothers.

    Post here and alongside this disgusting beast at your own risk.

    You lying fuck. Everybody here knows who you are, you aren’t fooling anybody.

    I have an unlimited supply of IP addresses. Darrell will never fucking post here again without me being in his face over this question

    Yet I’m the one who was disrupting.. such is life in the reality-based community

  245. 245
    Rome Again says:

    What I have “defended” here on this thread is our decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in WWII, and the idea that you can’t avoid civilian casualties in war. I don’t believe conservatives, liberals and moderates are all so critical of such a position.

    So, what you mean to say is that because you believe civilian casualties can’t be avoided, you don’t want to consider the fact that they were real people with real lives that were cut short and which are regrettable. Gotcha, okay, carry on Mr. Pragmatist.

  246. 246
    Darrell says:

    The efficacy of strategic bombing in Europe has long been debated. It had an impact, but to say they could never have been defeated without it is idiotic.

    From what I’ve read here today, I’m no longer shocked to read such lunacy. srv is seriously asserting that had allied airpower had little or no effect in WWII.

    Fun fact: Toward the end of WWII, the US was producing more airplanes than the rest of the world combined.

  247. 247
    ThymeZone says:

    Yet I’m the one who was disrupting

    Like I said, let’s take a vote. You, or me, off the island. I’m disrupting? Then let them vote me off and keep you.

    What are you afraid of, you lying fucking coward? Agree to the vote, and let’s see who is disrupting whom.

    What are you waiting for?

  248. 248
    Darrell says:

    You’ve also defended the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists

    The first sign of intellectual defeat, is when you get caught in blatent lies like this. Where Perry, did I “defend” the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists?

  249. 249
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m no longer shocked to read such lunacy.

    From a guy who supports the burning of children.

    Go away, you moral shitstain.

  250. 250
    ThymeZone says:

    Where Perry, did I “defend” the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists?

    You support the burning of children.

  251. 251
    Rome Again says:

    Fun fact: Toward the end of WWII, the US was producing more airplanes than the rest of the world combined.

    Fun fact #2: even though my father was a pilot with the Army Air Corps, his most memorable stories were always about stealing the house clean in Berchtesgaden. My father got away with some of the dining room silver.

  252. 252
    Darrell says:

    Like I said, let’s take a vote. You, or me, off the island. I’m disrupting? Then let them vote me off and keep you.

    I love these petulant challenges from the halfwits. Real deep thinkers you all are.

  253. 253
    Darrell says:

    From a guy who supports the burning of children.

    Clinically insane, and not afraid to show it, eh TZ?

  254. 254
    ThymeZone says:

    I love these petulant challenges from the halfwits

    You what? It’s a real challenge, asshole.

    You or me, off the island. What’s your problem? What are you afraid of? Agree to the vote and live by the decision.

    What’s the matter, democracy too unfair for you?

  255. 255
    Rome Again says:

    I love these petulant challenges…

    Prove it, take him up on it.

  256. 256
    ThymeZone says:

    Clinically insane, and not afraid to show it, eh TZ?

    Name the civilian deaths in war that you find unacceptable, Darrell.

    You support the burning of children. Everyone here knows it. Why are you afraid to just stand up for what you believe in? Why are you such a fucking coward?

  257. 257
    Perry Como says:

    Where Perry, did I “defend” the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists?

    When you defended Mac’s statement that there’s nothing wrong with Islamocommienazifascists’ value judgments.

  258. 258
    Darrell says:

    You or me, off the island. What’s your problem? What are you afraid of? Agree to the vote and live by the decision.

    Do each of you loons get a separate vote for each of your multiple personalities? How about spoof votes? You’re a pathetic creature TZ… I’m sure there are many psychiatrists out there who would be fascinated by your ‘insights’

  259. 259
    ThymeZone says:

    You’re a pathetic creature TZ…

    Why are you making fun of the challenge, Darrell?

    What’s your problem? You’re all “leftist scum” and full of the blarney, until somebody calls you on your shit.

    You’ve been called. Agree to a vote. We all know who the regular posters are. There aren’t going to be any stuffed ballots or hanging chads. What’s the matter?

    Take the vote. You, or me, outta here. Do it right now.

    Go ahead. Stop pretending this is a joke. It isn’t.

  260. 260
    Rome Again says:

    I don’t have multiple personalities,and John Cole can verify that. Although I’ve posted from different IP addresses lately, I still only post under one singular name. I invite John or anyone of his choosing to verify.

  261. 261
    Darrell says:

    When you defended Mac’s statement that there’s nothing wrong with Islamocommienazifascists’ value judgments.

    Moving goalposts alert! You said, and I’ll quote you verbatim that

    You’ve also defended the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists

    yet Mac never “defended” or excused their beliefs. He merely pointed out that the big problem with terrorists, is that they act out their beliefs in violent fashion by chopping off heads of construction workers, flying planes into buildings, exploding bombs in crowded markets, etc.

  262. 262
    srv says:

    Fun fact: Toward the end of WWII, the US was producing more airplanes than the rest of the world combined.

    That has about as much to do with the efficacy of strategic bombing as your made-up Tojo being in the Big-Six and being behind the coup against Hirohito.

    The thread wasn’t about Hiroshima, Einstein. It was about the common-cause you, Lamb Chop and D’Souza have with AQ. You’ve pretty much nailed that one. Thanks for playing.

  263. 263
    ThymeZone says:

    Shorter Darrell:

    Democracy is hell.

  264. 264
    Rome Again says:

    The thread wasn’t about Hiroshima, Einstein. It was about the common-cause you, Lamb Chop and D’Souza have with AQ. You’ve pretty much nailed that one. Thanks for playing.

    Absolutely srv, uncanny, isn’t it?

  265. 265
    Rome Again says:

    Shorter Darrell:

    Democracy is hell.

    More accurate Darrell:

    Democracy is Hell, and War is Acceptable.

  266. 266
    Perry Como says:

    yet Mac never “defended” or excused their beliefs.

    In case you are having trouble with English, I’ll cite Mac’s point again:

    I’ll restate: The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals, it’s their willingness to kill people to express their judgement.

    Talk about extreme points of view…

  267. 267
    Darrell says:

    That has about as much to do with the efficacy of strategic bombing as your made-up Tojo being in the Big-Six and being behind the coup against Hirohito.

    Where did I say he was behind the coup? I never said that. As for “made-up”, I take it WWII “expert” srv is not familiar with General Hideki Tojo and his influence in Japanese politics at the time.

  268. 268
    ContrarianLibertarian says:

    Removing the terrorism context of D’Souza’s thoughts and examining only the state of moral culture in modern day America, I think he makes a fair enough point.

    Our morals have fallen into the gutter. Of course, as soon as you say something like that, you’re liable to be tarred with the “Falwell” label — but you shouldn’t be.

    I’ve never been one to say that we should be codifying morality, of course. But you don’t have to in order to observe our culture and conclude that we’ve drifted quite a bit morally.

    If that’s all D’Souza is saying, then I’m not sure I have a problem with it.

    However, I’m also don’t think that the jihad has much to do with our moral state. The mere fact that we embrace such things as religious pluralism, the legalization of alcohol and other vices, secular governance, etc. combined with the fact that Westernism is spreading is enough to do the trick.

    My guess is that Islamist condemnations of Western moral depravity to the broader Muslim world are more propaganda tools than any sort of actual catalysts of jihad. Rather, I just believe they see a divine duty to not only protect the imposition of shari’a in Muslim lands but to carry it elsewhere.

  269. 269
    Darrell says:
    The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals, it’s their willingness to kill people to express their judgement.

    Talk about extreme points of view

    What’s extreme, is that you think his mainstream comment is extreme. The problem is absolutely not with terrorists’ value judgement of American morals, but with their willingness to kill innocent people to express that judgement. Lambchop wasn’t defending “all” terrorists beliefs, he was only making an obvious point which was lost on you.. because, well, because your so blinded by dogma that you can’t acknowledge the truth of his statement.

  270. 270
    ThymeZone says:

    General Hideki Tojo

    You are spending way too much time at the karaoke bar, dude.

  271. 271
    Darrell says:

    The thread wasn’t about Hiroshima, Einstein

    you were the one who raised the issue in your lowlife smear in which you accused America of terrorism, just like Al Queda, because we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima

  272. 272
    Rome Again says:

    What’s extreme, is that you think his mainstream comment is extreme. The problem is absolutely not with terrorists’ value judgement of American morals, but with their willingness to kill innocent people to express that judgement.

    and yet you support the bombing of innocent people by American forces to reach our militaristic goals. Hmmmmm, how very hypocritical of you Darrell.

  273. 273
    srv says:

    srv says:

    They? Who in the Big-Six supported the coup? Your making shit up trying to equate a couple of Colonels to the general staff.

    darrell says:

    Tojo himself did not want to surrender even after the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    WTF does Tojo have to do with coup? Nothing, but here’s a jackalope!

  274. 274
    Perry Como says:

    What’s extreme, is that you think his mainstream comment is extreme. The problem is absolutely not with terrorists’ value judgement of American morals, but with their willingness to kill innocent people to express that judgement. Lambchop wasn’t defending “all” terrorists beliefs, he was only making an obvious point which was lost on you.. because, well, because your so blinded by dogma that you can’t acknowledge the truth of his statement.

    Damn you are dense. Saying that you have no problem with an ideology that wants the rule of law based on the most batshitinsane interpretations of the Koran is extreme by definition. The problem with Islamic terrorists is their means and their ends.

    I can’t believe that you are actually defending the fucking motives of terrorists.

  275. 275
    Darrell says:

    and yet you support the bombing of innocent people by American forces to reach our militaristic goals.

    and yet you actually wrote that WWII did was about imposing our lives on others. You’re a lunatic, but at least you put it out there for everyone to see.

  276. 276
    ThymeZone says:

    their willingness to kill innocent people

    Who are you to make such a comment? The guy who supports killing innocent people when it suits your purposes?

    Fuck you.

  277. 277
    Darrell says:

    Saying that you have no problem with an ideology

    Except that neither I, nor Lambchop, nor D’Souza for that matter ever wrote or suggested that there is “no problem” with islamofascist ideology.

    It’s telling lies like that, is what gets you in trouble Perry.

  278. 278
    ThymeZone says:

    and yet you actually wrote that WWII did was about imposing our lives on others

    What exactly do you call burning cities to the ground with the people still in them, Darrell? Persuasion? Urban renewal?

  279. 279
    ThymeZone says:

    what gets you in trouble Perry.

    In “trouble”, with a guy who promotes burning kids?

  280. 280
    Darrell says:

    WTF does Tojo have to do with coup?

    There was an attempted coup on the emperor. I NEVER wrote or suggested that Tojo was involved with the coup, but he opposed surrender at the time, and he had an influential following in the military at the time.

    You still stand behind your hairbrained assertion that allied airpower had so little effect in WWII, that we would have won without it?

  281. 281
    Darrell says:

    srv, do you still claim that Tojo was “made up”, because you were too damn ignorant to know who he was?

  282. 282
    Rome Again says:

    and yet you actually wrote that WWII did was about imposing our lives on others. You’re a lunatic, but at least you put it out there for everyone to see.

    well Darrell, perhaps if it wasn’t for Archduke Ferdinand’s death, none of that would have happened. War World II was after all only a German reaction to the loss of World War I. All of it was a manipulation, and you seem to think it’s perfectly okay to scheme a war, so long as the ideology is to fight extremism. I got news for you, those who profited from both of those wars were the extremists, and you seem to be defending them.

  283. 283
    Darrell says:

    Who are you to make such a comment? The guy who supports killing innocent people when it suits your purposes?

    Fuck you.

    Let’s be clear about TZ’s lunacy. Anyone who supports military action in war which ended up killing innocent civilians = supports ‘killing children’.. He’s said so right on this very thread.

    This includes D Day bombing in France, bombing of Serbs in the Balkans, and fighting Al Queda and Taliban in Afghanistan.

    Batshit crazy? you bet. Welcome to the reality based community.

  284. 284
    Perry Como says:

    Except that neither I, nor Lambchop, nor D’Souza for that matter ever wrote or suggested that there is “no problem” with islamofascist ideology.

    lrn2read d00d:

    I’ll restate: The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals, it’s their willingness to kill people to express their judgement.

    Have you hugged your inner-Islamofascist today?

  285. 285
    Rome Again says:

    Let’s be clear about TZ’s lunacy. Anyone who supports military action in war which ended up killing innocent civilians = supports ‘killing children’

    He gave you numerous chances to deny it, you didn’t.

  286. 286
    srv says:

    You are such a moron:

    Of course, your comment was a dishonest jackalope because we know it was not that easy for them, as who would have said “We surrender”? The civilian leadership? Would the military have gone along with it? Certainly not at that time. They revolted and tried to remove Hirohito by coup when he tried to surrender even after the a-bombs were dropped

    To which I asked “Who’s they?” – none of the Big-Six supported the coup. To which you started rambling about Tojo. WHO I POINTED OUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COUP!

    Sheesh.

    You still stand behind your hairbrained assertion that allied airpower had so little effect in WWII, that we would have won without it?

    The efficacy of strategic bombing in WWII Europe was topic number one in the Air Corp/Force vs. Army debate since, oh, 1947 or so. It’s still debated, which you are too ignorant to apparently know.

  287. 287
    Darrell says:
    I’ll restate: The problem with terrorists isn’t their value judgement on American morals, it’s their willingness to kill people to express their judgement.

    Have you hugged your inner-Islamofascist today?

    And I thought you lefties did nuance.. guess not, if it conflicts with your dogma.

    So agreement that terrorists’ value judgements on American morals isn’t the problem, but rather the terrorists’ willingness to murder innocents = “support” of islamofascist ideology

    Very intelligent analysis, very nuanced deep thinking.

  288. 288
    Darrell says:

    To which I asked “Who’s they?” – none of the Big-Six supported the coup.

    The military leadership did not want to surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some within the military were so upset by the possibility of surrender, that they attempted a coup to overthrow the emperor. You had previously asserted that Hirohito had already agreed to surrender months earlier, to which I reasonably asked: “then why didn’t Japan surrender?”. The obvious reason being, is that it wasn’t all Hirohito’s decision.

  289. 289
    Rome Again says:

    And I thought you lefties did nuance.. guess not, if it conflicts with your dogma.

    Oh come on Darrell, get off the high horse about lefty behavior. Lefties are individuals, we don’t all think, act or behave the same way. We don’t run to a higher power to get talking points either. We are individuals, and as such, you cannot hang any certain behavioral modes on any of us. Some of us do nuance, some of us don’t. Some of us think Bush is a dangerous man, some of us only think he screwed up Iraq. Your desire to corral lefties all into one field won’t work, we are much more diverse than that.

  290. 290
    ThymeZone says:

    Anyone who supports military action in war which ended up killing innocent civilians = supports ‘killing children’

    Lying sack of shit. Anyone who cannot state that he is against the burning of children, who will not point to a single civilian casualty in any war and say, “That’s not acceptable,” supports killing children. And that is you.

    Do you support Israel’s killing of children, Darrell?

    Yes or No? Why are you afraid to answer that question?

    You and I both know the answer to that one.

  291. 291
    Perry Como says:

    So agreement that terrorists’ value judgements on American morals isn’t the problem, but rather the terrorists’ willingness to murder innocents = “support” of islamofascist ideology

    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

  292. 292
    Darrell says:

    Do you support Israel’s killing of children, Darrell?

    I’m not really sure how anyone could respond to a question like this. It’s a weird variant of the ‘how many times did you beat your wife this week’ type of question, but with a more disgusting slant to it.

  293. 293
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m not really sure how anyone could respond to a question like this

    You don’t know how to answer a direct question, that’s one reason why everyone here thinks you’re shit.

    I gave you my answer, above. It was “no.”

    What part of that don’t you get? No, I don’t ever support it. No rationalization, no phony moral argument, no expediency is good enough.

    For you, apparently, it’s easy to accept such deaths. You do it here, tacitly, every time the subject comes up.

    For you, it’s all about “Yeah, but …”

    No, it isn’t. It’s about saying “no” and meaning it. That’s the basis of a moral position. Or, say “yes” and mean it, which would be the true statement of your position. You do support it, otherwise you could say “no.”

    You won’t say no, and are too much of a coward to say yes.

    Simple as that. You are okay with burning kids, as long as you can justify it. That’s your position. If you think I got this wrong, maybe you can find somebody here who thinks your position is other than what I just described? Go ahead, ask around.

  294. 294
    Rome Again says:

    TZ, glad to know a traveling spirit, that was truly AWESOME!

  295. 295
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, the motherfucker says it’s “disgusting” to ask the question, yet he can’t answer it.

    After seven months of this, I think it’s reasonable to draw a rational conclusion from the things he has said, since he refuses to state his actual position in a couple of simple sentences.

  296. 296
    ThymeZone says:

    Bomb evil terrorists = Good.. that’s all we understand.

    That’s Darrell’s summation of the dead children question from July 20, 2006.

    As long as you are bombing “evil terrorists” then it’s just too fucking bad if children get in the way.

    That’s the Darrell Doctrine in a nutshell, as told by the lying sociopathic motherfucker himself.

    Darrell, if you want to revise your stated views, here’s your chance. Put some other spin on your fucking mass murderer declaration.

  297. 297
    ThymeZone says:

    I’ve got $5 that says Darrell either now disappears, or tries to change the subject.

  298. 298
    Richard 23 says:

    the Japs weren’t ready to surrender even after the 1st bomb

    Please don’t call our Japanese friends Japs. Although I do realize you’re a spoof/troll, please don’t make us principled conservatives look like racists. That’s a caricature.

    Why leftists enjoy arguing with caricatures of conservatives, such as Darrell, is anybody’s guess, but at least it keeps them off the streets. So for that I congratulate Darrell. Just lay off on the racist epithets.

  299. 299
    Rome Again says:

    I think he already disappeared.

  300. 300
    Richard 23 says:

    Recall that Darrell doesn’t post at 5:34 am, unlike the leftists who can’t sleep due to the (islamofascist) voices in their heads.

  301. 301
    tBone says:

    Recall that Darrell doesn’t post at 5:34 am, unlike the leftists who can’t sleep due to the (islamofascist) voices in their heads.

    That, and they can stay up all night indulging in disgusting, hedonistic behavior because none of them have jobs they have to go to in the morning. Unless you count lining up for welfare or methadone as a “job.”

    To be fair, though – the problem with the Leftists isn’t their beliefs, but their willingness to kill innocent embryos in order to advance their beliefs.

  302. 302
    Rome Again says:

    Recall that Darrell doesn’t post at 5:34 am, unlike the leftists who can’t sleep due to the (islamofascist) voices in their heads.

    WTF are you talking about Richard 23? You posted that at 9:57 pm

  303. 303
    ThymeZone says:

    Richard 23 … man of mystery.

  304. 304
    Rome Again says:

    Haha TZ, I hadn’t noticed that, thanks ;)

  305. 305
    Richard 23 says:

    Rome Again, I was referring to this comment by cariacture conservative and spoof/troll Darrell on another thread:

    Yeah? You won’t find me commenting at 5:34 am like so many of you loons who can’t sleep because of all those voices in your head.

    I was speculating that there were other times when he was unable to post. Perhaps Superfriends or Spoogebob Squarepants is on.

  306. 306
    Richard 23 says:

    I still can’t handle that “Jap” thing. Bombing civilians is one thing. But don’t call Japanese “Japs.” It’s about as cool as calling people Africoon, Afro-Saxon, Ahab, Alabama Blue Gums, Alligator bait, Ape, Apu, Aunt Jemima, Banana, Beaner, Brownie, Camel Jockey, Charlie, Chee-chee, Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Chigger, Ching Chong, Chink, Chinky, Clog Wog, Coconut, Coolie, Coon, Crow, Cunt-eyed, Curry-muncher, Dago, Dumb in a can, Dune Coon, Flip, Fritz, Frog, Gook, Hafrican, Hajji, Heeb, Jerry, Jigaboo, Kike, Kraut, Macaca, Mick, Monkey, Mosshead, Napkin Nigger, Nig-nog, Nigger, Nip, Patel, Pickaninny, Platano, Polack, Plastic Paddy, Porch Monkey, Porridge Wog, Pork in a Can, Pork Chop, Powder burn, Raghead, Rastus, Redskin, Rhineland Bastard, Salvi, Sambo, Sand Nigger, Sheeny, Skibby, Skip, Slope, Smoked Irishman, Snowback, Snowman, Socketface, Spade, Spaghetti Bender, Spaghetti Nigger, Spick, Spook, Spudnigger , Taffy or Taff, Taig, Tar baby, Teapot, Thicklips, Twinkie, Uncle Tom, Wetback, Wigger, Wog or Wop.

    How many of these do you use on a daily basis, Darrell the troll?

  307. 307
    grumpy realist says:

    Darrell needs to go to the museum at Hiroshima and see such things as….

    …the shadow of a vaporized person etched on a wall.

    There are some things one does not joke about.

  308. 308

    I still can’t handle that “Jap” thing. Bombing civilians is one thing. But don’t call Japanese “Japs.”

    I’d noticed that too, although I don’t much care for the rest of your post.

    Sure there are “questions”. But after Iwo Jima and Okinawa (230,000 killed, Japs fighting to the last man) just before dropping the bomb, we can use those examples to see the writing on the wall on how things would have almost certainly unfolded with a fight-to-the-death kamikaze mentality fighting the Japanese on their mainland.

    Again, more people were killed in Okinawa alone, than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined

    February 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Is it okay to bomb civilians if they’re racially inferior, then? Do we all agree on that one?

  309. 309
    Rome Again says:

    Rome Again, I was referring to this comment by cariacture conservative and spoof/troll Darrell on another thread:

    Aha! I missed that. Thanks for the explanation. :)

  310. 310

    Darrell needs to go to the museum at Hiroshima and see such things as….

    …the shadow of a vaporized person etched on a wall.

    There are some things one does not joke about.

    Darrell was joking? I thought he was serious. I thought he seriously believed vaporizing 200,000 civilians was okey-dokey, since we’d already incinerated way more than that anyway.

  311. 311
    ThymeZone says:

    I thought he seriously believed vaporizing 200,000 civilians was okey-dokey,

    According to the Darrell Doctrine, it is okey-dokey, as long as there’s a really bad guy in your sights.

    See, if those 200,000 people had really been innocent, they wouldn’t have been there.

  312. 312
    tBone says:

    See, if those 200,000 people had really been innocent, they wouldn’t have been there.

    Glad you moonbats are finally waking up to reality. Honestly, we’d be justified in blowing up the entire Eastern Hemisphere. And the Southern too. And everywhere above 50˚ N or so.

    Basically, we could bomb anywhere east, west, south and north somewhat with no moral qualms. If people don’t want to get bombed, they should be born in the United States in their next life. And then convert to Christianity, because we don’t truck with that reincarnation nonsense here. Believing in that crap is a good way to get yourself bombed, as a matter of fact.

    Sure, that may seem harsh, but sorry, whackjobs – war is hell.

  313. 313
    raj says:

    Let’s understand something.

    D’Souza-phone is a wind instrument blown by right wing cash. Nothing more, nothing less. The main reason why D’Souza-phone gets so much attention from fish-wrapping and birdcage liner manufacturers is that, if the fish-wrapping and birdcage liner manufacturers didn’t give him the attention, they would have less to sell.

    It really is as simple as that. It really is.

    Follow the money

  314. 314
    raj says:

    Let’s understand something.

    D’Souza-phone is a wind instrument blown by right wing cash. Nothing more, nothing less. The main reason why D’Souza-phone gets so much attention from fish-wrapping and birdcage liner manufacturers is that, if the fish-wrapping and birdcage liner manufacturers didn’t give him the attention, they would have less to sell.

    It really is as simple as that. It really is.

    Follow the money

  315. 315
    ThymeZone says:

    D’Souza-phone is a wind instrument blown by right wing cash

    Somebody needs to open his spit valve.

  316. 316
    Zifnab says:

    SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

    ‘Bout fucking time. We should have seen this sort of thing three years ago. But better late than never.

  317. 317
    Dave says:

    Here’s a serious question for every one not named Darrell.

    Why do you even bother to respond to this idiot? He doesn’t engage in serious debate, he doesn’t care what you have to say. He cares about finding an apropos talking point that he can jam in as a response to something so he can call you a leftard or moonbat to validate whatever it is that is obviously missing in his life. Hell, when he doesn’t have an apropos talking point he changes the subject until he can find one.

    I mean the amount of responses he posts on a weekday shows either he doesn’t have a job or he lives with his parents.

    There is no “debating” Darrell, there is no reasoning with him.

    Question: why do you bother to respond?

  318. 318
    Perry Como says:

    Why do you even bother to respond to this idiot?

    It’s more fun than farming motes.

  319. 319
    mclaren says:

    Probably the best way to deal with ignorant delusional sociopaths like the person too unimportant to be named here is to set up a web page detailing their pathological compulsive lies and garbled reasoning. Give ten or twenty examples of each type of dishonesty and ignorance and mangled illogic, then simply link to it whenever one of these sociopaths pops up and gibbers crazed drivel like “We have to fight the terrorists over there so we don’t need to fight them over here!”

    When one of these socipoaths start shrieking hysterical lies, just point out:

    “As is well know, this person is a compulsive pathological liar who has exhibited sociopathic behavior and repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the facts and his contempt for observed reality. To put it bluntly, this person qualifies as the L. Ron Hubbard of politics, and has as much credibility when talking about Iraq as Erik Von Daniken had when talking about ancient astronauts. Here’s the evidence: [link 1] [link 2] [link 3] … [link N]

    “It’s unnecesary to respond further to this person because as a self-deluded sociopath of proven dishonesty, he has shown so often that he is completely detached from relaity that there’s no need to debunk his lies and arguments by tautology any further. Bluntly, this guy is a kook, and having destroyed his credibility long ago, he has no further claim on anyone’s attention.

    “So let’s continue discussing the real issue, which is… [fill in blank]”

    As the kooks continue to shriek hysterical lies and babble incoherent circular reasoning, the links can become more and more terse and the dismissal more and more cursory. Eventually it’ll get to the point where everyone can simply post something like: “This person is a proven crackpot and kook, as these links show [major link]. Ignore him. And now, continuing with the discussion at hand… [fill in blank].”

    This, by the way, is more or less the way the mainstream media _used_ to deal with the Michelle Malkins and Pam Atlases and Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Reynolds and Ann Coulters of the world. The MSM used to just ignore those kinds of people. They’ve always been here, of course. These people didn’t appear out of thin air, kooks like Reynolds and Coulter and O’Reilly and Malkin have always been howling crazed lies at the top of their voice.

    I remember as a kid I used to hear certifiable psychotics like Coulter and Limbaugh on the radio shrieking that the Red Chinese army was massing on the Tijuana border, ready to invade America is a giant pincert movement the moment America pulled troops out of Viet Nam. But only on tiny local radio stations. You never heard that kind of crap on the mainstream media because no one would let that horseshit on the air. It was just too crazy. The mainstream media used to have standards. UFO enthusiasts and pereptual motion machine inventors and people like Rush Limbaugh who spouted histrionic delusions with no relation to reality were not permitted airtime on national networks or column space in major newspapers. They had to resort to publishing their own hand-mimeographed pamphlets, like the immortal “Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles.”

    Fringe lunatics like O’Reilly used to beat their podiums and scream with apoplectic reddened faces that evil Communists were using fluuridation of America’s water supply as a fifth column subversion to destroy our red-blooded sex drive and sap the American will to fight from within. But when they did, they were only addressing an audience of two guys and a dog in some empty American Legion hall somewhere. No one listened.

    There’s nothing new about pathological compulsive liars like Malkin and Reynolds and Limbaugh. Their self-delusions have always been around, just slightly different in form — in years past it was the godless-atheistic-internationl-communist-conspiracy-aided-by-the-fifth-column-of-pink-comsymp-liberals,
    while today it’s the islamofascist-international-terrorist-conspiracy-aided-by-the-atheistic-perverted-kiddy-raping-liberals
    who are destroying America and polluting its precious Purity of Essence.

    The big difference is that in years past, the mainstream media never gave these psychotics the time of day. You hardly ever used to read about the head of the John Birch Society shrieking that the TV show “I Love Lucy” was communist propaganda, or crazed escapees from the locked ward at Bellevue like G. Gordon Liddy blabbering sociopathic tripe about how antiwar protestors had to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. But today, G. Gordon Liddy has a freakin’ _radio show_. I mean…think about that. This lunatic gets paid to howl insane delusions over the radio to millions of people! It’s mind-boggling.

    Once upon a time, that sort of crap got at most half a column inch in the back pages of newspapers, and it got stuck around section Z, down there with Sidney Omarr’s daily astrology column. And it was usually a man-bite-dog type of column, with a heading like, “CRAZY PROPOSAL FROM LUNATIC FRINGE” and then a quote from Egil Krogh or Liddy.

    Today, these psychotic sociopaths now have a national platform on which to gibber their drivel. Today, serious opinion-makers like Larry King actually _debate_ insaity like the claim that Barak Obama is unqualified to be president because of the suits he wears. In years past, when someone like Glenn Reynolds proposed that America assasinate Iranian political leaders and leading scientists, he would’ve been shown the door and become persona non grata in every serious media outlet in America. A guy like Larry King would’ve contemptuously refused even to discuss that kind of craziness on the air.

    Back in the day, people like Pam Atlas were recognized as the the intellectual and moral equivalent of Uril Geller. No one took them seriously. And there were a lot of people like Glenn Reynolds back in the day. You used to occasionally hear one of these nut cases on campus howling and raving that America needed to train assassins to murder the Viet Cong in their beds and hang their genitals from the bedposts to create a climate of terror that would force an end to the Viet Nam war. But usually those people were escorted off-campus by campus police. Those psychotics were simply shut out of the serious public debate. They existed, but no one gave them the time of day. Because everyone knew they were nut jobs.

    Today, Glenn Reynolds and other psychotics just like him get tenure from major instutions of higher learning and a huge public platform when they stand at a podium and shriek and howl for the assassination of leaders of a foreign government. That’s a big change.

    In fact, the one thing that surprises me about today’s mainstream media environment is that O. J. Simpson doesn’t have a national TV show. It should be a marital advice show. Every week O. J. could host couples with marital difficulties. He could adivse them on how to patch things up. That would be a huge ratings draw. Fox should jump on it. In fact, I’d be surprised if such a show isn’t already in the planning stages.

  320. 320

    There is no “debating” Darrell, there is no reasoning with him.

    Question: why do you bother to respond?

    I like to make fun of him. Does that count as response?

    Most of the time he doesn’t even realize it, he just goes on ranting about leftwing moonbats or something.

  321. 321
    ThymeZone says:

    Question: why do you bother to respond?

    Why swat at a fly?

  322. 322

    See, if those 200,000 people had really been innocent, they wouldn’t have been there.

    Good point, but I think we’re maybe overlooking an important aspect of the equation: to Darrell (and/or the writers of the character known as “Senator Darrell”), do A-Rabs and “Japs” even count as people?

  323. 323
    ThymeZone says:

    In the Scooter Libby trial, Mr. Cheney’s former communications aide, Catherine Martin, said that delivering a message on “Meet the Press” was “a tactic we often used.” No kidding. That mention of the nonexistent Prague meeting was the first of five times that the vice president would imply an Iraq-Qaeda collaboration on that NBC show before the war began in March 2003. This bogus innuendo was an essential tool for selling the war precisely because we had lost bin Laden in Afghanistan. If we could fight Al Qaeda by going to war in Iraq instead, the administration could claim it didn’t matter where bin Laden was. (Mr. Bush pointedly stopped mentioning him altogether in public.)

    The president now says his government never hyped any 9/11-Iraq links. “Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq,” he said last August after finally conceding that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact everyone in the administration insinuated it constantly, including him.

    Frank Rich absolutely nails the liars in the White House for their runup to the failed war in Iraq …. and says that they are now losing the war on terror in general. Do what you need to do to read this piece in today’s NYT or wherever you can find a copy of it.

    It’s sobering, and scary.

  324. 324
    ThymeZone says:

    to Darrell (and/or the writers of the character known as “Senator Darrell”), do A-Rabs and “Japs” even count as people?

    They are secure in their people-iness, yes, as long as Darrell can point to them in order to expose leftists’ abuse of the race issue. As you may know, Scruff, it was liberals and Democrats, mostly, who used to string coloreds up from trees.

    You may recall the song, “Strange Liberal Fruit.”

  325. 325

    I remember as a kid I used to hear certifiable psychotics like Coulter and Limbaugh on the radio shrieking that the Red Chinese army was massing on the Tijuana border, ready to invade America is a giant pincert movement the moment America pulled troops out of Viet Nam. But only on tiny local radio stations. You never heard that kind of crap on the mainstream media because no one would let that horseshit on the air. It was just too crazy. The mainstream media used to have standards. UFO enthusiasts and pereptual motion machine inventors and people like Rush Limbaugh who spouted histrionic delusions with no relation to reality were not permitted airtime on national networks or column space in major newspapers. They had to resort to publishing their own hand-mimeographed pamphlets, like the immortal “Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles.”

    Times must have been tough for spoofers, too. If the right wing ever gets any more powerful in this country, I fully expect spoofers to reap windfall profits as the Colbert phenomenon turns into a cottage industry. Well, either that, or they’ll end up in detention centers. But first they’ll probably make a lot of money, anyway.

    Back in the day, people like Pam Atlas were recognized as the the intellectual and moral equivalent of Uril Geller. No one took them seriously. And there were a lot of people like Glenn Reynolds back in the day. You used to occasionally hear one of these nut cases on campus howling and raving that America needed to train assassins to murder the Viet Cong in their beds and hang their genitals from the bedposts to create a climate of terror that would force an end to the Viet Nam war. But usually those people were escorted off-campus by campus police. Those psychotics were simply shut out of the serious public debate. They existed, but no one gave them the time of day. Because everyone knew they were nut jobs.

    That’s hilarious. But lay off Pam Atlas. She’s super-foxy. I bet getting into a foursome with her and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter would be, like, the greatest thing ever. I bet if you’re a member of the Christian Right, and you lead a virtuous life, that’s what awaits you in Heaven. That, and getting to hobnob with Stonewall Jackson, Curtis LeMay, Edmund Burke, and Charlemagne in a liberal-free environment.

    Powerful incentive indeed to crack open that musty Bible on your bookshelf, folks.

  326. 326

    They are secure in their people-iness, yes, as long as Darrell can point to them in order to expose leftists’ abuse of the race issue. As you may know, Scruff, it was liberals and Democrats, mostly, who used to string coloreds up from trees.

    So, they’re human when it’s politically expedient? And they’re bomb-fodder when it’s politically expedient, also. I’m sensing a pattern, here, but it’s Sunday and I don’t feel like overthinking life right now. I’m gonna go get drunk with my cats. Have fun with the ghost-writer Darrell-people, dudes. He should be back later to cite my post as an example of the “unhinged”, “racist”, left. Also, to change the subject when anyone confronts him with his use of the word “Jap.”

  327. 327
    ThymeZone says:

    That, and getting to hobnob with Stonewall Jackson, Curtis LeMay, Edmund Burke, and Charlemagne in a liberal-free environment.

    Not sure, but this might be the best line ever written on these pages.

  328. 328
    ThymeZone says:

    So, they’re human when it’s politically expedient?

    Yes, that pretty much describes the right’s attitude toward peoplehood in general, to a tee.

  329. 329
    Zifnab says:

    Oh, sorry.

    “There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

    ~link!

    Hey Darrell? Why are some of our top Admirals and Generals so unAmerican? You’d think they would vet for people like that. Maybe they’re a bunch of commie-lammie-extremo-fascinistas.

  330. 330
    Rome Again says:

    I bet if you’re a member of the Christian Right, and you lead a virtuous life, that’s what awaits you in Heaven. That, and getting to hobnob with Stonewall Jackson, Curtis LeMay, Edmund Burke, and Charlemagne in a liberal-free environment.

    Charlemagne is NOT in Heaven. None of my ancestors are.

  331. 331
    Rome Again says:

    I mean the amount of responses he posts on a weekday shows either he doesn’t have a job or he lives with his parents.

    I think if you continue to use the criteria you are using, you will find that quite a few people here seem to be unemployed, and that’s not exactly true. Posting privileges at work vary for different people.

    I’m just saying, Dave, this part of your post was really dumb.

  332. 332
    Rome Again says:

    http://www.darrell.com? Hmmm, I could have a lot of fun with that!

    Damn, too bad the name is already taken.

  333. 333

    Charlemagne is NOT in Heaven. None of my ancestors are.

    Not true. Technically speaking, Valhalla does, in fact, constitute some form of Heaven. It might not be one you and I would like to visit, but it’s probably one where Stonewall Jackson and Charlemagne would have a blast.

  334. 334
    Rome Again says:

    Charlemagne is NOT in Heaven. None of my ancient ancestors are.

    Had to correct… I cannot vouch for the truthfulness of this statement for my most recent forebears but I can emphatically state that the most influential and ancient ones did NOT go to a place called Heaven.

  335. 335
    Rome Again says:

    Not true. Technically speaking, Valhalla does, in fact, constitute some form of Heaven. It might not be one you and I would like to visit, but it’s probably one where Stonewall Jackson and Charlemagne would have a blast.

    Sorry, Valgrind was locked, they are in Hel.

  336. 336

    Charlemagne is NOT in Heaven. None of my ancient ancestors are.

    Had to correct… I cannot vouch for the truthfulness of this statement for my most recent forebears but I can emphatically state that the most influential and ancient ones did NOT go to a place called Heaven.

    Wait a minute- didn’t Dante put him in Heaven? Was Dante incorrect?

  337. 337
    Rome Again says:

    Wait a minute, didn’t Dante put him in Heaven? Was Dante incorrect?

    Aha! You are referring to the riddle of the ages (it is the riddle that makes “The Riddle of the Sphinx” only a testing ground. I cannot tell you the answer, you have to find it for yourself.

    Dante was indeed wrong. A man writes a fascinating book and you think everything he imagines is real?

  338. 338

    […] give Churchill a regular platform, why bestow one on the likes of Beck? Posted by Mona @ 12:34 pm, Filed under: Main « « Shhhhh…About the Body Parts in the Palm Trees | Main| […]

  339. 339
    ThymeZone says:

    A man writes a fascinating book and you think everything he imagines is real?

    Well, yeah, duh! I read 1984. And here we are, living it.

  340. 340

    Aha! You are referring to the riddle of the ages (it is the riddle that makes “The Riddle of the Sphinx” only a testing ground. I cannot tell you the answer, you have to find it for yourself.

    Sorry, I’m confused. Can you at least tell me what riddle I’m referring to?

    Dante was indeed wrong. A man writes a fascinating book and you think everything he imagines is real?

    If Dante’s wrong, I don’t want to be right. I’m all about Purgatory!

  341. 341
    Rome Again says:

    Well, yeah, duh! I read 1984. And here we are, living it.

    Orwell was more prescient than Dante. I am not sure how Orwell tapped into the fruth he found, but he had something there.

    Dante was just plain wrong.

  342. 342
    Rome Again says:

    ZSC, the riddle of the ages is something that you think you are not speaking of when you are. By saying Charlemagne isn’t in hell, you are in fact referring to the riddle of the ages and yet are totally unaware.

    Charlemagne cannot go to Heaven because of the riddle of the ages.

    I cannot tell you what the answer to the riddle of the ages is, but I can point you to the question… it is in Genesis chapter 6 (pay particular attention to verse 4).

  343. 343
    Rome Again says:

    If Dante’s wrong, I don’t want to be right. I’m all about Purgatory!

    Purgatory is a concept that I believe in… I imagine it is my first stop after this life, to purge something that is not allowed in Heaven; something which I contain inside me.

  344. 344

    Well, yeah, duh! I read 1984. And here we are, living it.

    See? That means it was real.

  345. 345
    Rome Again says:

    Orwell was more prescient than Dante. I am not sure how Orwell tapped into the fruth he found, but he had something there.

    Meant to say truth, although fruit might have worked too.

  346. 346
    ThymeZone says:

    to purge something that is not allowed in Heaven; something which I contain inside me.

    You must first renounce all Darrellisms.

  347. 347
    Rome Again says:

    See? That means it was real.

    Orwell and Dante are not the same person. One was more prescient than the other.

    Orwell tapped into a truth that I do not understand how he tapped into it.

    Dante was just playing on the imaginative using basic concepts of Heaven and Hell and not really having any truly visionary understanding of the real nature of certain humans. If he had, he wouldn’t have put Charlemagne where he did.

  348. 348

    Orwell was more prescient than Dante. I am not sure how Orwell tapped into the fruth he found, but he had something there.

    Dante was just plain wrong.

    Oh, I see. Dante was wrong because he supported the war in Revelations, unlike Orwell. How typically dishonest of you leftist scumbags.

    The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

    Genesis 6:4

    I’m gonna go lay down, now.

  349. 349
    Rome Again says:

    You must first renounce all Darrellisms.

    No, it’s much more than that TZ, the Darrellisms are petty compared to what I must purge.

  350. 350
    ThymeZone says:

    the Darrellisms are petty compared to what I must purge

    Oh dear.

  351. 351
    Rome Again says:

    The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

    Genesis 6:4

    I’m gonna go lay down, now.

    If you look up Charlemagne’s bloodline, you’ll see he is a member of the royal bloodline which springs from Kings/Princes/Pharaoahs from all over the world, (as am I), these are the men of renown. The part that makes renown interesting is not any single human, it is the bloodline . The people who head nations, they are not completely human ZSC, they have angelic blood in their veins.

  352. 352
    Rome Again says:

    Oh, I see. Dante was wrong because he supported the war in Revelations, unlike Orwell. How typically dishonest of you leftist scumbags.

    Revelations is a bastardization of older writings. The fact is the entire New Testament is a bastardization and is proven to be wrong in the books of Isaiah and Zechariah.

  353. 353
    ThymeZone says:

    Where’s my car magazine …..

  354. 354
    Pb says:

    The people who head nations, they are not completely human ZSC, they have angelic blood in their veins.

    Dick Cheney + The Prophecy = …

    Well, I guess Lucifer was an angel too…

  355. 355
    Rome Again says:

    Well, I guess Lucifer was an angel too…

    They certainly aren’t benevolent.

  356. 356
    ThymeZone says:

    Angels? Did somebody say Angels?

    Memories of Nolan Ryan. The Big A. Dick Enberg on the radio.

    Those were the days!

  357. 357
    Rome Again says:

    Yes, I said Angels.

    (Note – even this linked page doesn’t get the Jesus question right, humans are so ignorant of what’s really going on around them, and hours wasted in Sunday School only serve the purpose of making them more ignorant.)

  358. 358
    Zifnab says:

    Angels? Did somebody say Angels?

    And who broadcasts Angels games? Fox Sports Network.
    Coincidence?

  359. 359
    John Spragge says:

    Anybody still want to discuss Dinesh D’Souza?

    Assuming anybody does, I’d like to dispose of one argument, and bring up another flaw in D’Souza’s thinking.

    To quote Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop:

    What makes “common cause” with terrorists is terrorism, not a subjective evaluation of American morality. These same American cultural conservatives had been decrying the slipping morals of America for decades before terrorists made an issue of their similar judgements.

    In fact, the terrorists judged that their grievances permitted them to attack Americans by flying jets into buildings. If you claim that those you accuse of creating that grievance “caused” 9/11, then you must accept the terrorists’ claim of justification. You either blame the terrorists for 9/11 or you blame someone else, and you can only blame someone else by claiming someone else did something to justify the actual atrocities of 9/11. If you state your agreement with someone’s grievances, and at the same time justify their actions, then you have made common cause with them.

    Now this argument has limited relevance, considering D’Souza’s other two critical mistakes. First, the motivation for the 9/11 attacks almost certainly had nothing to do with culture. In my opinion, you can find the best description of the actual strategic considerations which motivate terrorists here. Culture (to paraphrase Mae West) has nothing to do with it.

    Second, even if culture had anything to do with the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, the culture that most upsets the Muslim world has nothing to do with the Left. Mohammed Atta did not drive a suicide plane into the twin towers to protest Bob Roberts, Romero, Dead Man Walking, or even Bowling for Columbine. You can find a more complete discussion of this issue here.

  360. 360
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    If you claim that those you accuse of creating that grievance “caused” 9/11, then you must accept the terrorists’ claim of justification.

    Why? That’s nonsense. I’m not backing D’Souza’s assertions here, but you’re talking rubbish. Everyone knows that to get angry is your right, but to take violent action based on that anger is not. Anyone can disagree with the “Hollywood Left morality” while realizing that all one can do morally to change the situation is to demonstrate, boycott, and lobby. At the same time, one need not accept for a millisecond that the terrorists are in any way justified in killing innocents because they share an anger over modern “culture.”

    You either blame the terrorists for 9/11 or you blame someone else, and you can only blame someone else by claiming someone else did something to justify the actual atrocities of 9/11.

    No, blame is not necessarily an either/or. Shared blame is common, and that’s probably what D’Souza would say. Not intending to read his book, I’m guessing he’s saying that the cultural left created the environment that would make evil nuts like the Islamist terrorists behave as immorally as they did. In his mind, if the cultural right held sway in America, the terrorists wouldn’t have had a big enough beef with the US to attack as they did (I’d love to hear someone ask DD’S about this).

    If you state your agreement with someone’s grievances, and at the same time justify their actions, then you have made common cause with them.

    Who on the right has said, “The terrorists were justified in killing 3,000 Little Eichmanns innocents?” Those two TV evangelists never even went that far.

  361. 361

    Why? That’s nonsense. I’m not backing D’Souza’s assertions here, but you’re talking rubbish. Everyone knows that to get angry is your right, but to take violent action based on that anger is not. Anyone can disagree with the “Hollywood Left morality” while realizing that all one can do morally to change the situation is to demonstrate, boycott, and lobby. At the same time, one need not accept for a millisecond that the terrorists are in any way justified in killing innocents because they share an anger over modern “culture.”

    And the terrorists attacked us because these techniques weren’t working out for them?

    No, blame is not necessarily an either/or. Shared blame is common, and that’s probably what D’Souza would say. Not intending to read his book, I’m guessing he’s saying that the cultural left created the environment that would make evil nuts like the Islamist terrorists behave as immorally as they did. In his mind, if the cultural right held sway in America, the terrorists wouldn’t have had a big enough beef with the US to attack as they did (I’d love to hear someone ask DD’S about this).

    Sayyid Qutb’s beef with America goes back to the late 1940s, when the cultural right did hold sway. Geopolitics are why we’re experiencing more Islamist anger than, say, Sweden.

    Bottom line is, it’s offensive to the point of idiocy to suggest that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are more responsible for thousands of American deaths than are the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East that others in the world view our government as being responsible for. They (the terrorists) don’t make that argument, ony fringe wingnuts here do. Why are you guys so eager to rationalize their behavior for them?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] give Churchill a regular platform, why bestow one on the likes of Beck? Posted by Mona @ 12:34 pm, Filed under: Main « « Shhhhh…About the Body Parts in the Palm Trees | Main| […]

  2. […] Glen Beck joins Dinesh D’Souza in saying that al Qaeda hates our freedom–and who can blame ‘em? Add to: Bloglines | document.write(“Del.icio.us”) | Digg it | +Google | Y! MyWeb […]

  3. […] Between the religious right, the homophobes and racists, and the Neo-cons (who would see this group as easiest to manipulate and don’t really care about social or economic issues anyway), the Hate America Firsters would likely grab a hold of power. Because the more you look, the more you see Americans out there that just plain despise the United States and everything it ever stood for. […]

  4. […] commenter S., Scott Johnson of Powerline has done the right thing. I will be more than pleased when I am obligedto eat my words on this. […]

Comments are closed.