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.
Richard Bottoms
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?
Temple
It really doesn’t take a whole more analysis than what you’ve outlined here to prove the point you’re making.
cleek
“America Had It Coming” is a Mainstream Republican™ idea.
pass it on.
kchiker
From ‘Why do Dems hate America?’ to ‘Why we hate America!’ in four moves. Checkmate.
legion
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…
Pb
Glenn Greenwald makes a similar point in this post today:
ThymeZone
Re: Greenwald:
Hear, hear.
Snail
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/archives/25/03/sjohnson/
At least a few right-wingers a willing to call Dinesh out.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
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.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
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.
JImmy Mack
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?
Rick Moran
Keep munching.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/01/17/dsouza-and-the-illiberality-of-criticism/
Kind of a broad brush for such a little mind, eh Tim?
Andrew
Good job, Rick. Now you’re batting 0.001.
The Other Steve
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.
Richard Bottoms
Oh Really? Here’s more of the effluvia from conservayive mouths guranteed to drive down that 98% from black folk:
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.
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.
The Other Steve
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.
Richard Bottoms
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.
ME
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”
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
And he’s clean and articulate and bright and nice-looking, unlike the other black leaders of the past.
Richard Bottoms
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.
cleek
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.
JImmy Mack
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.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
How nuanced of you. GOP=bad, Dem=good. However do you keep that straight?
Richard 23
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.
Tim F.
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.
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.
Richard Bottoms
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
ThymeZone
Heh. Try reading the paper.
Pb
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.
Rome Again
A torturous task, indeed!
Is it as bad in AZ as it is in FL? Hmmmmm.
Rome Again
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.
Steve
It’s kind of interesting to compare what Scott Johnson and Rick Moran have to say about D’Souza’s prior works.
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.
Richard Bottoms
The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
That applies to Star Trek movies too.
legion
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.
legion
KHHHAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!
Richard Bottoms
>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.
Rome Again
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.
Rome Again
I liked Nemesis best, until Data died.
ThymeZone
He’s singin’ like fuckin’ Bobby Vinton.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
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.
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…
ThymeZone
Spoofing, like being Preznit, is just HardWork(tm)
srv
Another gem from Moran:
Wow. The Fluffersphere(tm) only has two dimensions. Be sucked or suck up.
ThymeZone
“Brilliant thinkers like Michael Ledeen?”
What is that, from the frigging Onion?
Rome Again
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.)
Pb
Yeah, I think that’s in The Constitution. Or maybe it’s 8 USC 1481. Something like that, anyhow.
Detlef
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….
Richard Bottoms
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.
Tim F.
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.
pharniel
“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.
Tim F.
No, Jimmy’s still not that bright. Check to see how many times I have compared Bush to Hitler.
Detlef
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
The Other Steve
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.
Steve
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.
JImmy Mack
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?
cleek
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
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
So what on earth was the purpose of your ridiculous post, then? Oh, wait for it:
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.
Rome Again
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).
cleek
uh. wow.
Richard 23
Oh boy. The sockpuppet from Salon. You may as well have linked to a ‘balanced’ article by Dhimmi Carter.
I rest my case.
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.
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.
Rome Again
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.
Detlef
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.
Richard 23
And then try to give them everything they want. The leftist credo. White flag yellow bellies.
There you go again, Tim. They blamed “immorality,” not America. You can’t even read your own comments, can you?
With the exception of Dan Rather, I think we can all agree we should have more boobs on TV.
Detlef
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…
John Cole
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.
Pb
Steve,
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.
Detlef
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.
dreggas
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.
Detlef
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
demimondian
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!
Rome Again
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.
Detlef
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?
Steve
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.
ThymeZone
People want to fuck Ann Coulter?
Jesus, NMYM, and Jesus, MYM, wept. Wept and wept.
Oh my god. That’s just gross.
Jesse Ewiak
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.
Detlef
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.
carpeicthus
I can’t keep track here: Is Richard 23 an “out” spoof like DougJ? Because 6:42 post, at least, is Spoofy McSpoof.
srv
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.
Jimmy Mack
Hey, I’d rather fuck her than one of the left-wing pinups like Hurricane Katrina Vandeuevel or Maureen Dowd? Lara Logan, though…
ThymeZone
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?
Andrew
That means you’re gay.
Hyperion
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.
Richard 23
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.”
A truer statement has never been uttered.
Shocking. Hopefully we can get some missionaries over there. Detlef, hmmm? Are you from the land previously known as Yugoslavia?
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.
Richard 23
Read about the experience Jimmy Mack wish he had with Ann Coulter. Not for the faint of heart.
cleek
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!””
then why are you still talking?
Richard 23
I can’t help myself.
demimondian
In Richard’s case, it’s far better than thinking.
Rome Again
Well, if I were a biker chick type,I might say “I’d like to fuck her up…”
Alas, I am not.
Krista
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.
Rome Again
Don’t bet on it. She loves every minute of her sickening fame.
ThymeZone
Man, I could never be drunk enough for that. Even if she were married to you.
Rome Again
TZ, don’t even think about it, it is damaging to your soul. You might get lost forever.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Richard 23
Hahaha! I should’ve pasted more “really”s in there.
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.
Rome Again
My parents did, they’re both deceased now. I think it was the deed that forever banished them from the living.
ThymeZone
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.
tBone
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.
Rome Again
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.
srv
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.
Richard Bottoms
Who is Ward Churchill?
Zombie Santa Claus
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?
RSA
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.
Richard Bottoms
Sorry, guess I didn’t get the memo.
cleek
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.
The Other Steve
Awesome! Now the NRA is eating it’s own!
Darrell
Awesome! Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested For Child Rape Porn Videos!
chopper
you think child rape is awesome? that’s just sick.
srv
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:
The Bush base disagrees:
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!”
The Other Steve
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.
The Other Steve
Oh come on.
We’re bombing them for their own good.
Darrell
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.
Darrell
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.
Darrell
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.
chopper
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.
srv
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.
Darrell
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’.
Darrell
Source.
And that’s not even counting the Japanese civilian casualties.
srv
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 :
You and Lamb Chop need to do better than Conservipedia. You really are lame at this.
The Other Andrew
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.
srv
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:
And later:
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.
demimondian
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.
Darrell
False.
More here:
Oh my, I guess it wasn’t “just” about the Emporor after all, huh nitwit?
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.
Darrell
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
srv
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.
Zifnab25
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.
Darrell
“Jackalopes” in the dimwitted ‘reality-based’ community =
speaking of jackalopes, we have a perfect example
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
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.
ThymeZone
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.
srv
Hirohito had voted, it was already over.
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.
ThymeZone
Shorter DarrellBeast: Nuclear weapons, the ultimate in terrorism against civilian populations, good.
Darrell
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.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Darrell
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.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Rome Again
Breathe slowly TZ, it’s not worth getting all worked up over Darrell.
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
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.
Zifnab25
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.
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.
Darrell
Truth to power!
Perry Como
This is one of the most idiotic things I’ve recently seen. Really. It’s profoundly ignorant.
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
More than this?
or this?
Darrell
The mentally deranged never do.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
Answer the question, asshole, because your day here is over until you do.
Rome Again
What is it that you disagree with in that statement Darrell? Why is any human more superior than another?
srv
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?
Darrell
Of course, in lefty bizarro world, all good points are “profoundly ignorant”. Here it is:
Yes, yes, so “controversial”, so ignorant. I can really see your ‘point’ Perry. Deep thoughts.. keep ’em coming.
Darrell
Tojo himself did not want to surrender even after the Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
ThymeZone
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.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
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?
Darrell
Strawman alert! Rome, if you were more honest, you would admit I never said or even suggested such a thing.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
You lying fuck. Everybody here knows who you are, you aren’t fooling anybody.
Rome Again
Bullshit, you’re saying the same thing right here:
You have no problem with civilians on the other side getting killed, it’s obvious.
Darrell
Ah yes, TZ carries on the self righteous noble struggle of the mentally deranged left, vowing to relentlessly pursue me with his ‘truth’.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Darrell
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:
Of course you can’t explain it.
Pb
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.
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
What question is that Pb? You part of the deranged crowd too?
srv
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.
Perry Como
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
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.
Darrell
Not really, I just took exception to the fact that you truncated the quote and then dismissed it without explanation.
ThymeZone
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?
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
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.
Perry Como
Darrell is Josh Trevino?
ThymeZone
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.
Perry Como
I’m surprised you didn’t call Mac on that bullshit statement too.
Darrell
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.
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
Why should I have? I agree with it.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Darrell
BWWWHHHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You can’t pay for this kind of entertainment. Rome, are you a person, or a cartoon? I can’t tell.
Perry Como
So you agree that terrorists have a valid point, you just disagree with their methods?
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
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?
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
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)?
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
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.
Rome Again
Boom, there it is…
ThymeZone
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.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
So, “no burning of kids and their mothers” is a lunatic statement, Darrell?
Explain, tell us more.
Darrell
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?
Perry Como
Darrell Says:
I thought the problem with Islamofascists was their beliefs and their tactics. Are you now saying that Sharia law is a good thing?
Darrell
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.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Yes.
I’m a freak for opposing death for civilians?
Okay, then I’m a freak, and proud of it.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
Really? You speak for “most normal people?”
Since when?
chopper
norml people, thyme; ‘norml’ people.
Rome Again
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”.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
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.”
ThymeZone
Too bad you don’t apply the same standard to yourself.
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
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.
Rome Again
I promise to only be a pothead on Sundays, it’s my form of religious freedom.
Darrell
WTF? What American ‘imperialism’ caused terrorists to fly planes into the Trade Center?
Yeah, we “created” the terrorists, right whackjobs? Spoofers, you taking notes?
Pb
Darrell has a moral standard? That’s news, because I haven’t seen him display one yet. Evidence, please? Link?
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Rome Again
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?
Perry Como
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
ThymeZone
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.
fishbane
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?
Darrell
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.
Darrell
Ah yes, sweeping assertion without argument.. a leftist hallmark
Perry Como
You didn’t answer the questions. Inquiring bakers want to know.
Rome Again
What’s so bizarre about you Darrell, is that you seem to think killing people and figthting wars actually solves problems.
Darrell
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.
Darrell
Do you disagree that WWII solved the “problem” of Hitler and Imperial Japan?
Rome Again
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Rome Again
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.
Perry Como
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.
Rome Again
live = life
solute = salute,
sorry!
Perry Como
The problem with Hitler wasn’t his beliefs, it was his willingness to kill people to express his beliefs.
Darrell
Question posed:
Leftist response (so rich a spoofer couldn’t improve on it)
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
Rome Again
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?
ThymeZone
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.
The Other Andrew
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Darrell
Hey, way to stay on topic. How about that Ward Churchill ‘little Eichmanns’ flap?
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.
Rome Again
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?
Perry Como
You’ve also defended the beliefs of Islamocommienazifascists. Your LGF membership is revoked.
srv
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Darrell
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
Yet I’m the one who was disrupting.. such is life in the reality-based community
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Darrell
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?
ThymeZone
From a guy who supports the burning of children.
Go away, you moral shitstain.
ThymeZone
You support the burning of children.
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
I love these petulant challenges from the halfwits. Real deep thinkers you all are.
Darrell
Clinically insane, and not afraid to show it, eh TZ?
ThymeZone
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?
Rome Again
Prove it, take him up on it.
ThymeZone
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?
Perry Como
When you defended Mac’s statement that there’s nothing wrong with Islamocommienazifascists’ value judgments.
Darrell
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’
ThymeZone
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.
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
Moving goalposts alert! You said, and I’ll quote you verbatim that
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.
srv
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.
ThymeZone
Shorter Darrell:
Democracy is hell.
Rome Again
Absolutely srv, uncanny, isn’t it?
Rome Again
More accurate Darrell:
Democracy is Hell, and War is Acceptable.
Perry Como
In case you are having trouble with English, I’ll cite Mac’s point again:
Talk about extreme points of view…
Darrell
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.
ContrarianLibertarian
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.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
You are spending way too much time at the karaoke bar, dude.
Darrell
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
Rome Again
and yet you support the bombing of innocent people by American forces to reach our militaristic goals. Hmmmmm, how very hypocritical of you Darrell.
srv
WTF does Tojo have to do with coup? Nothing, but here’s a jackalope!
Perry Como
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.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
Who are you to make such a comment? The guy who supports killing innocent people when it suits your purposes?
Fuck you.
Darrell
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.
ThymeZone
What exactly do you call burning cities to the ground with the people still in them, Darrell? Persuasion? Urban renewal?
ThymeZone
In “trouble”, with a guy who promotes burning kids?
Darrell
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?
Darrell
srv, do you still claim that Tojo was “made up”, because you were too damn ignorant to know who he was?
Rome Again
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.
Darrell
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.
Perry Como
lrn2read d00d:
Have you hugged your inner-Islamofascist today?
Rome Again
He gave you numerous chances to deny it, you didn’t.
srv
You are such a moron:
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.
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.
Darrell
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.
Darrell
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.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Perry Como
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Rome Again
TZ, glad to know a traveling spirit, that was truly AWESOME!
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
I’ve got $5 that says Darrell either now disappears, or tries to change the subject.
Richard 23
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.
Rome Again
I think he already disappeared.
Richard 23
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.
tBone
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.
Rome Again
WTF are you talking about Richard 23? You posted that at 9:57 pm
ThymeZone
Richard 23 … man of mystery.
Rome Again
Haha TZ, I hadn’t noticed that, thanks ;)
Richard 23
Rome Again, I was referring to this comment by cariacture conservative and spoof/troll Darrell on another thread:
I was speculating that there were other times when he was unable to post. Perhaps Superfriends or Spoogebob Squarepants is on.
Richard 23
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?
grumpy realist
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.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
I’d noticed that too, although I don’t much care for the rest of your post.
Is it okay to bomb civilians if they’re racially inferior, then? Do we all agree on that one?
Rome Again
Aha! I missed that. Thanks for the explanation. :)
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
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.
ThymeZone
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.
tBone
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.
raj
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
raj
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
ThymeZone
Somebody needs to open his spit valve.
Zifnab
‘Bout fucking time. We should have seen this sort of thing three years ago. But better late than never.
Dave
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?
Perry Como
It’s more fun than farming motes.
mclaren
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.
The Other Steve
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.
ThymeZone
Why swat at a fly?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
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?
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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.”
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
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.
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.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
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.”
ThymeZone
Not sure, but this might be the best line ever written on these pages.
ThymeZone
Yes, that pretty much describes the right’s attitude toward peoplehood in general, to a tee.
Zifnab
Oh, sorry.
~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.
Rome Again
Charlemagne is NOT in Heaven. None of my ancestors are.
Rome Again
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.
Rome Again
http://www.darrell.com? Hmmm, I could have a lot of fun with that!
Damn, too bad the name is already taken.
Zombie Santa Claus
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.
Rome Again
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.
Rome Again
Sorry, Valgrind was locked, they are in Hel.
Zombie Santa Claus
Wait a minute- didn’t Dante put him in Heaven? Was Dante incorrect?
Rome Again
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?
ThymeZone
Well, yeah, duh! I read 1984. And here we are, living it.
Zombie Santa Claus
Sorry, I’m confused. Can you at least tell me what riddle I’m referring to?
If Dante’s wrong, I don’t want to be right. I’m all about Purgatory!
Rome Again
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.
Rome Again
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).
Rome Again
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.
Zombie Santa Claus
See? That means it was real.
Rome Again
Meant to say truth, although fruit might have worked too.
ThymeZone
You must first renounce all Darrellisms.
Rome Again
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.
Zombie Santa Claus
Oh, I see. Dante was wrong because he supported the war in Revelations, unlike Orwell. How typically dishonest of you leftist scumbags.
Genesis 6:4
I’m gonna go lay down, now.
Rome Again
No, it’s much more than that TZ, the Darrellisms are petty compared to what I must purge.
ThymeZone
Oh dear.
Rome Again
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.
Rome Again
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.
ThymeZone
Where’s my car magazine …..
Pb
Dick Cheney + The Prophecy = …
Well, I guess Lucifer was an angel too…
Rome Again
They certainly aren’t benevolent.
ThymeZone
Angels? Did somebody say Angels?
Memories of Nolan Ryan. The Big A. Dick Enberg on the radio.
Those were the days!
Rome Again
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.)
Zifnab
And who broadcasts Angels games? Fox Sports Network.
Coincidence?
John Spragge
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:
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.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
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.”
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).
Who on the right has said, “The terrorists were justified in killing 3,000
Little Eichmannsinnocents?” Those two TV evangelists never even went that far.Zombie Santa Claus
And the terrorists attacked us because these techniques weren’t working out for them?
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?