« Rightroots Challenge -- Day 7 | Main | Hamadi: Once an Islamofascist, Always an Islamofascist »

Islamofascists Try to Take Over US Embassy in Syria

From the AP:

Islamic militants attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in Damascus on Tuesday using automatic rifles, hand grenades and at least one van rigged with explosives, the government said. Four people were killed in the brazen attack, including three of the assailants.


No Americans were hurt, and the attackers apparently did not breach the high walls surrounding the embassy's white compound in the city's diplomatic neighborhood.

But one of Syria's anti-terrorism forces was killed and at least 11 others were injured, the country's official news agency reported. The wounded including a police officer, two Iraqis and seven people employed at nearby technical workshop.

A Chinese diplomat also was hit in the face by shrapnel and slightly injured while standing on top of a garage at the Chinese Embassy, China's government news agency said.

A witness said one Syrian guard outside the embassy also was killed, but the government did not immediately confirm that. At the embassy in Damascus, as at most American embassies worldwide, a local guard force patrols outside the compound's walls while U.S. Marine guards are mostly responsible for guarding classified documents and fighting off attackers inside the compound.

Witnesses also said the gunmen tried to throw hand grenades into the embassy compound, shouting "Allah Akbar!" or "God is great!" It was not clear if any of the grenades made it over the walls, which are about 8 feet high.

The attack came at a time of high tension between the United States and Syria over the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war in neighboring Lebanon. In Damascus the sentiment has become increasingly anti- American sentiment.

Syria has seen previous attacks by Islamic militants. In June, Syrian anti-terrorism police fought Islamic militants near the Defense Ministry in a gunbattle that killed five people and wounded four.

After Tuesday's attack, pools of blood lay splattered on the sidewalk outside the embassy, along with a burned car apparently used by the attackers. A sports utility vehicle with U.S. diplomatic tags had a bullet hole through its front window, and the glass windows of nearby guard houses also were shattered.

We're waiting on a statement from the White House.

The UK Times Online has more information:

Syrian officials [said] that the attack started at around 10am (0700GMT), when the four men pulled up in two vehicles outside the embassy in the Rawda area which also houses vital security installations, the houses of senior Syrian officials and other embassies.


Although initial reports were confused it appears that the men lobbed grenades at the building and shot at Syrian sentries, one of whom was reported to have been killed, although that was not confirmed.

During the shootout, two of the men were said to have taken refuge in a nearby building, but were chased down by Syrian security forces. One car bomb exploded but a second was safely defused, officials said. In all, the incident lasted about 20 minutes.

UK Telegraph:

Ayman Abdel-Nour, a Syrian political commentator who witnessed the attack, said at least one Syrian security guard had been killed by the attackers, who had been shouting Islamic slogans.


He added: "I saw two men in plain clothes and armed with grenades and automatic weapons.

"They ran toward the compound shouting religious slogans while firing their automatic rifles."

Syrian state television said the attackers had tried but failed to detonate a car bomb.

Television footage of the scene showed a van packed with gas canisters and detonators taped to them, as well as bloodstains on the pavement and several damaged vehicles, including a white bullet-riddled car that a truck was preparing to haul away.

It sounds like the terrorists wanted to kill the Syrian guards outside the embassy and then use the car bombs to blow a hole in the protective wall to get in. If they had succeeded, they would have met the US Marines who are protecting the embassy from the inside. We need to be prepared for other attacks on American interests overseas.

Analysts on Fox News are speculating it may be the Muslim Brotherhood that is behind this attack. Does it really matter, though, which Islamofascist group is behind it? The point is that, again, they will not stop trying to kill us.

Update: David Schenker at Counterterrorism Blog has some insightful analysis, including this:

The true details of what happened today in Damascus may never emerge. The Asad regime, of course, will look to exploit the security "success" to try and entice US and European engagement. Still, it's important to note that this attack comes just one week after the attempted assassination in Lebanon of Lieutenant Colonel Samir Shehade, deputy chief of the intelligence department in Lebanon's national police force, responsible for the investigation into the killing of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri. The Syrians have been implicated in the Hariri assassination--and are likely involved in the Shehade business as well.


In terms of context, though, the key point is that if this attack was indeed perpetrated by Islamists, it is the direct result of the double game being played by the Asad regime. The regime supports Sunni and Shiite Islamist militants in Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, and Iraq, and in the past has not acted against terrorists entering Jordan. Syria no longer cooperates with the US on Al Qaida, either. Given the regime's friendly disposition toward terrorists, it would be no surprise if some unauthorized terrorist organizations were setting up shop in Damascus.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Islamofascists Try to Take Over US Embassy in Syria:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with 3 Killed Outside U.S. Embassy in Syria

» The Political Pit Bull linked with U.S. Embassy In Syria Attacked

» Staunton News linked with Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq

Comments (106)

Instead of customizing each... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Instead of customizing each story with a new headline, you could really save time by just doing it this way:

Islamofascists Try to Take Over (insert country/embassy/mode of transportation)

It doesn't stop and it neve... (Below threshold)

It doesn't stop and it never will until they are thoroughly defeated. Our president was absolutely correct in his address last night. I just wish the lunatic fringe could recognize that THEY are in as much danger as the rest of us who understand the threat!

Gayle, unfortunately I don'... (Below threshold)

Gayle, unfortunately I don't think it's the "lunatic fringe," it's the mainstream.

I'm sure the ultimate goal ... (Below threshold)
jp:

I'm sure the ultimate goal was to take down the American Flag flying above and replace with the black flag of Islam

Bush turned a day of mourni... (Below threshold)
RED:

Bush turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday. Shameful.

Just days after the Republican controlled Senate reported that Saddam and Iraq had no links to Osama and Al Qaeda, Bush uses 9/11, and the nation's focus on it, in an attempt bolster support for his war in Iraq.

Where is the decency in that?

A car bomb that did'nt expl... (Below threshold)
plainslow:

A car bomb that did'nt explode? Rantburg has two stories, one of a car bomb exploding at the wrong time and a sucicide belt going off at the wrong time. Have we killed enough of thier top people, that they are losing the expertise to build bombs?

RED - Apparently y... (Below threshold)

RED -

Apparently you disregard the possibility that our actions in Iraq are intended to reduce or eliminate the possibility of future events like 9/11.

Disagreement with this proposition can be presented as a rational argument - but such disagreement does not make arguing for our efforts in Iraq 'a cheap political stunt'.

Thinking that it does is a warning sign of acute BDS, so you might want to be tested to see if you are actually thinking, or merely extending the echo chamber.

Also, you might be better advised to get your own blog, rather than pasting the same comment over and over. Or do you feel that 'one thought fits all'?

the Senate report is a poli... (Below threshold)
jp:

the Senate report is a political document and the summary page the reports are on are different than the overall doc....that said, Clinton's own appointed Judge ruled in the Court of Law that Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked

CNN in 1999
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9...ghan.binladen/
Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.


http://www.husseinandterror.com

do you feel that 'one th... (Below threshold)
Clay:

do you feel that 'one thought fits all'?

That's the problem with the LLL, all they can do is cut & paste the DNC talking points. And they haven't had an original thought in decades.

The point is that,... (Below threshold)
thegeezer:
The point is that, again, they will not stop trying to kill us.

And, once again, they are Muslim.

Speaking of politizing even... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Speaking of politizing events, seems there were a couple of funerals where politizing was Liberally applied.

As far as IF goes....it's us or them. Wake up.

"Analysts on Fox News ar... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Analysts on Fox News are speculating it may be the Muslim Brotherhood that is behind this attack. Does it really matter, though, which Islamofascist group is behind it?"

What kind of insanity is that, Kim? Of course it matters -- we are a people who do not prosecute indiscriminately. What an absolutely insane thing to say.

Do you know what the phrase... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Do you know what the phrase "Take no prisoners." means Lee?

"Firing automatic weapons a... (Below threshold)
Scott in 'CA:

"Firing automatic weapons and shouting religious slogans"...Amish? Quakers? Lutherans? Buddhists? Jews? Zoroastrians?

Nah.

Lee wrote today:W... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Lee wrote today:
What kind of insanity is that, Kim? Of course it matters -- we are a people who do not prosecute indiscriminately. What an absolutely insane thing to say.

Lee wrote on a previous thread:
I blame Bush for what is Bush's fault, but the large majority of blame for what has gone wrong in the last 6 years lies with the people who (1) voted for Bush, and (2) lie to defend and apologize for the horrendous job he's done.

Oh yes, you're the epitome of moderation.

I have a solution for the I... (Below threshold)
G.:

I have a solution for the Islamofascists problem.
Silence Mecca
You figure it out.They only understand brutality and force.Look whats happening in Abu Grab now that Iraq has taken control. I bet the prisoners wish they could do the naked pyramid again now, instead of what is taking place under Iraqi control.If they start PUBLIC hangings of these fascist they'll soon scare the S--t out of them. I think the religion IS the problem. Silence Mecca, Silence Mohammed.Permanently.

There are No men in... (Below threshold)
G.:

There are No men in Islam,they're cowards (like the left)anyway.

Lee's arguments: About as e... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Lee's arguments: About as effective as a terrorist that can't toss a grenade over an eight foot wall. LOL

GGood advice.... (Below threshold)
914:

G
Good advice.

I don't get it. So, when t... (Below threshold)
Bloodstomper:

I don't get it. So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc., etc. Now, after the "terrorists" attack an embassy in Syria, how come none of you are calling for President Bush to stiff-arm his way into Syria--with you marching behind him, of course--and tear that country a new arsehole before they blow up the World Trade Center in NYC or something? Are you sissies, or what, guys? I think you need your mama.

Bloodstomper-Go wait in Mec... (Below threshold)
G:

Bloodstomper-Go wait in Mecca.:-)

So, when the terrorists ... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc.

Lemme get this straight; when terrorists blew something up in, say, Kenya, you think "patriots" wanted us to blow up Kenya?

You mean, like, again?

How fucking stupid are you? [Rhetorical]

SS

Lee:"Analysts on ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Lee:
"Analysts on Fox News are speculating it may be the Muslim Brotherhood that is behind this attack. Does it really matter, though, which Islamofascist group is behind it?"

What kind of insanity is that, Kim? Of course it matters -- we are a people who do not prosecute indiscriminately. What an absolutely insane thing to say

If Hamas, Al Quaida, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigad, etc, would have claimed responsibility, please describe the how it would have altered the significance of the attack ?

I think the difference here... (Below threshold)
comeonsense:

I think the difference here Bloodstomper is that the Syrian incedient is new and developing and the ruling government took proper control of the situation.

Oh, yeah, no Americans where harmed, thats a big point too.

Bloodstomper:"Blew... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Bloodstomper:

"Blew something up"??

Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with what happened in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

Over 200 dead, the embassy buildings themselves destroyed. Somewhat different from four guys who manage to get themselves killed, don't you think?

But if we do decide to flatten Damascus, it's good to know you'll be one of those who supported it. And we'll send any dead kiddies' parents to your front door.

Attacks on Embassy in Syria... (Below threshold)
yo:

Attacks on Embassy in Syria?

... staged.

Bloodstomper and Lee are ty... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Bloodstomper and Lee are typical brain dead democrats, or maybe they are members of the soon to be really dead Islamofascist faction. Democrat-Islamofascists. They seem to be one and the same and have the same target, destruction of the U.S.. They chose to forget that the once terrorist government of Syria has already conceeded defeat and joined the free world in fighting the Islamofascist. Wasn't there several tons of WMD, including an advanced nuclear program dismantled in Syria and the material is now residing in Oak Ridge Tn., by the way with several tons of (non-existant) partially enriched Uranium from Iraq.
The democratic talking heads are running around on every news show that will allow them on to complain that the Presidents speach used 9-11 for political purposes. DUH, wasn't it 9-11, five years later? They should go watch 'Chuckie' Schumer (D NY)and 'Moran the Moron' (D Va) if they want to see two total a**holes. Moran the Moron made the mistake of mouthing off in public and the only thing he got was booed off the stage and told by those that lost loved ones on 9-11 to shut his trap.

This is almost certainly th... (Below threshold)

This is almost certainly the action of the Syrian government. A terrorist attack, a very inept one, in the heart of the capital of one of the most dictatorial states on the planet? And, in a very high security neighborhood, full of VIP's?

This has happened in that very same neighborhood at least two other times that I can recall. Curiously, both attacks were on unoccupied buildings.

This is Assad trying to prove he's a good guy in the War on Terror.

I question the timing.... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I question the timing.

That was a joke, by the way... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

That was a joke, by the way.

Witnesses also sai... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Witnesses also said the gunmen tried to throw hand grenades into the embassy compound, shouting "Allah Akbar!" or "God is great!" It was not clear if any of the grenades made it over the walls, which are about 8 feet high.

If, while shouting "God is great" you fail at multiple attempts to get a grenade over an 8 foot wall...I think it speaks volumes about how great God thinks you are.

"The democratic talking ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The democratic talking heads are running around on every news show that will allow them on to complain that the Presidents speach used 9-11 for political purposes. DUH, wasn't it 9-11, five years later?"

Actually - the President used the occassion of 9/11 to pump up his failing war in Iraq - which every thinking American now knows had nothing to do with terrorism, Osama bin Laden, or the attack on the WTC on 9/11.

First of all:In ... (Below threshold)
Bill:

First of all:
In Damascus the sentiment has become increasingly anti-American sentiment.
Nice bit of writing from the department of redundancy department.

RED:
Bush turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday. Shameful.

So, he should have spent more money on the political event?

Just days after the Republican controlled Senate reported that Saddam and Iraq had no links to Osama and Al Qaeda,

Lie. The Republicans may have a majority in the senate, but that did not stop Sen. Rockefeller, a DEMOCRAT, from releasing a completely partisan Democrat report full of similar lies and misrepresentations. Your intentionally misleading wording implies the report was endorsed by the Majority, which of course it was not. Problem for you: It's an easy thing to check, and when people find out you lied about that, they have to ask themselves what else you're lying about.

... Bush uses 9/11, and the nation's focus on it, in an attempt bolster support for his war in Iraq.
Where is the decency in that?

LOL! And if he had NOT mentioned Iraq in his address, you would have been all over him for it! "He didn't mention Iraq! He knows it's a quagmire!" Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The President, on the other hand, stands by his beliefs and forthrightly defends them. That this helps him politically (as you apprently fear it does or you would not be griping) is just a bonus.
----
Bloodstomper:

I don't get it. So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc., etc. Now, after the "terrorists" attack an embassy in Syria, how come none of you are calling for President Bush to stiff-arm his way into Syria--with you marching behind him, of course--and tear that country a new arsehole before they blow up the World Trade Center in NYC or something? Are you sissies, or what, guys? I think you need your mama.

It's a little difficult to take seriously a taunt like that, since it's clear you don't MEAN what you say! You obviously DON'T want the administration to attack Syria! (And how shocking of you to use a homophobic slur like "sissies", you bigot!)

Here the administration is doing what you would wish, NOT over-reacting, and instead of applauding them for it, you're pretend-egging them on. Can't you see that in attempting to point out hypocrisy of others you're demonstrating your own? Fight back the sarcasm urge once in a while, for your own sake as well as everybody else's.
-----
As for the incident itself, I wonder if the Syrians had a mole inside the terrorist cell, and decided to let them go forward with the attack, so that the government could look good defending the Americans against the awful terrorists. These guys don't seem to have been the most fearsome fighters. They attacked a heavily guarded compound in broad daylight? They couldn't get their grenades over an eight-foot wall?

Actually - the President us... (Below threshold)
jp:

Actually - the President used the occassion of 9/11 to pump up his failing war in Iraq - which every thinking American now knows had nothing to do with terrorism, Osama bin Laden, or the attack on the WTC on 9/11.

Posted by: Lee at September 12, 2006 01:23 PM


You are a delusional ignorant fool

ever read the actual War Resolution passed by congress? didn't think so
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Or Bill Clintons 1998, "Regime Change In Iraq Policy"....of course not

I wonder who is right about... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I wonder who is right about Iraq. Lee, who said it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism or Bin Ladin who said it is the place they must defeat America. I suspect Lee and his ilk will dismiss what Bin Ladin has to say, as they know what the terrorists want more than the terrorists do.

I wonder who is correct con... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I wonder who is correct concerning the war on terror. Lee, who said Iraq has no connection, or Bin Ladin who says we must defeat America in Iraq. Lee and his ilk will dismiss what Bin Ladin has to say, as they know what the terrorists intend better than the terrorist do. Lee should lead the country.

This must have been quite a... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

This must have been quite a test for Syrian security forces -- who do we shoot? Them? Us? The embassy? I bet smoke came out of their ears.

Ha! Good one astifaga.... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Ha! Good one astifaga.

Silence Mecca<... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Silence Mecca

Y'know, a few years back I would have recoiled at such a suggestion. But recent world events (gee, I dunno, beheadings...kidnappings...embassy bombings...Iran...etc.) have made me rethink my attitude. I'll be as clear (and, yes, intolerant) as I can be for the survival of my children and this country: This war is against Islam. We fail to understand this at our own demise. They sure aren't confused, so why should we continue to be?

Silence Mecca? Put me down for 'yes'.

"This must have been quite ... (Below threshold)

"This must have been quite a test for Syrian security forces -- who do we shoot? Them? Us? The embassy? I bet smoke came out of their ears."

astigafa - I have heard reports that their eyes WERE spinning counterclockwise!

Time has come to ignore Lee... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Time has come to ignore Lee. Or at lest look at him with pity like you would that crazy uncle in the family. Delusion cannot be cured. Delusions are additive. You cannot reason with one delusion because another delusion supports the first. and so on.

I am tired of the narrow phrase "the war in Iraq". That is pigeonholing what we are doing. It's not the war in Iraq. It's the War on Terror which, in part, is being fought in Iraq.

Remember the phrase "It's the economy, stupid?"? Well it's the War on Terror, stupid and it's worldwide.

Silence Mecca, You figur... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Silence Mecca, You figure it out... Silence Mohammed. Permanently.


And thus "G" reveals the true agenda of conservatism.

Hey wizbangers, explain how G's comment -

1) is NOT inherently evil?

2) this does not make "G" and your website a sympathizer of state-sponsored terrorism?

3) this does not suggest that conservatives are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Thanks!


Gadfly, to win WWII we dest... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Gadfly, to win WWII we destroyed Berlin and Tokyo. This, call it what you might, is a holy war. They are holy warriors, at least in the eyes of islam. As long as Mecca, Medina and other Islamic holy sites are allowed to exist, they will claim Allah is on their side. With those places vaporized, they will get the idea that Allah has forsaken them.

Sure Gadfly!I woul... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Sure Gadfly!

I would love to expand your mind a bit, so please allow me.

1) Who said it wasn't inherently evil? Don't answer, you might accidentally fire a synapse.

2)It may make G a sympathizer of state-sponsored terrorism, but in applying that final chromosome that separates us from apes, you'd make the logical conclusion that a lone poster does not A) represent the rest of those on the site and B) the rest of the site itself.

3)See the answer to number 2, then to number 1, then see about getting that high school equivalency degree.

Thanks!

Your welcome!!

Heralder,Wow, that... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Heralder,

Wow, that was astoundingly evasive and morally bereft.

Let's try again. Wizbangers - Please clarify if you think:

1) "G" is advocating state-sponsored terrorism in the "silence mecca" post.

2) If, like "Clay" and "914", you agree with G.

3) How that is NOT inherently evil.

4) ...and hypocritical.

Thanks again!

Gadfly,Evasive am ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly,

Evasive am I? How could you not understand what I said to you?

One or two people commend him on his suggestion and now you ask for the rest of us (wizbangers) to all form a nice queue and sound off so as not to be judged by who...you?

You follow, almost as a (really weak) bluff, that the entire site is in danger of being branded a sympathizer of state-sponsored terrorism because of an errant poster and one or two that agreed with him.

And you finish with another staggeringly ignorant generalization about how G posting his (decidedly off) point of view makes anyone else here who is a conservative, a hypocrite.

Well then, I suppose I could call you a terrorist sympathizer since I'm sure someone on the liberal side is...that is of course unless you answer my three question test.

Your logic is broken.

Oh, I know you must like to throw the various incarnations of the word "moral" around, such as "morally bereft"...but do me a favor and try to use it when it makes sense.

Democrat supporters are... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Democrat supporters are as dumb as they sound.

"but the large majority" LARGE MAJORITY?

As in "secure security" "Wet Wetness" "STUPID DUMMY"

Hey Lee,

shut up stupid.

Instead of customi... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:
Instead of customizing each story with a new headline, you could really save time by just doing it this way:

Or just go Ace's route and choose the following two:

"What did they blow up now?
"Who did they kill/decapitate/blowup/torture/strangle now?

RED:Bush "Inves... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

RED:

Bush "Investigate 9/11" turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday.

There, RED, fixed it for ya.

test... (Below threshold)
test:

test

RED"Investigate... (Below threshold)
test:

RED

"Investigate 9/11-Loose Change Crowd"turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday.

Okay, now fixed it for ya, RED.

I don't get it. So, when... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I don't get it. So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc., etc. Now, after the "terrorists" attack an embassy in Syria, how come none of you are calling for President Bush to stiff-arm his way into Syria--with you marching behind him, of course--and tear that country a new arsehole before they blow up the World Trade Center in NYC or something? Are you sissies, or what, guys? I think you need your mama.

Seeing as you are probably in the UK, would you like us to stormtroop our way to London to take care of that Underground bombing problem for ya? Shall we tear your country a new arsehole?

Sod off stimpy, learn to construct a coherent thought. This is what Comprehensive Education in Britain has brought you. What did you get your A levels in---buffoonery, idiocy and tripe? Bet you got all 1s there. Do they have a sixth-form in stupidity, because you should go all balls-out for it.

No wonder my parents left that little island.

Scrapiron:Blood... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Scrapiron:

Bloodstomper and Lee are typical brain dead democrats

Bloodstomper isn't from the US. He's a Brit, probably a Green or Liberal party guy. Maybe he's defected to the Respect party with rest of the lunatics (sort of the Leftists version of the BNP).

Otherwise, you are probably correct.

1) "G" is advocating sta... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

1) "G" is advocating state-sponsored terrorism in the "silence mecca" post.
2) If, like "Clay" and "914", you agree with G.
3) How that is NOT inherently evil.
4) ...and hypocritical.

1. Well, he didn't specify how to silence him. Me, I would say "Clear out the city and nuke it". That's pretty specific.

2. Well, it would shut up the Islamfacists for a bit, wouldn't it? They want a war? They'll get the mother of all Wars.

3. And yet divebombing two jet-liners into a couple of towers isn't? Hey, at least I'm willing to give Mecca a little warning...after all, it takes about 15 minutes for a ballistic ICBM to reach apoapsis.

4. When we start going around cutting off people's heads, and using towers of civilians as target practice, and sundry other things for the past 20 some years, then you can throw your "hypocritical" epithet at me.

These guys have used up their chances...unless the other muslims want to step up, strap on some balls and denounce LOUDLY their disenchantment with these fucks, then they are as complicent as the ordinary German citizens during WWII with the extermination of Jews and the various invasions.

Heralder,1. You're... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Heralder,

1. You're right. I judged the whole group (conservatives) based on the lunacy of a few.

Did you notice in your zeal that "G" was advocating the same thing? On a genocidal level? Yet you're apparently more angry about my post.

Can you see why I now find your position morally bereft AND hypocritical?

Here's another way of looking at it -

Heralder's anger and effort against the illogical critic (me) - PASSIONATELY HIGH.

Heralder's anger and effort against the poster who advocates destroying Mecca and apparently advocates direct military attack on innocent Muslims - DEMONSTRABLY LOW.

What's not morally bereft about that? Please, take your time. Remember, it's often called genocide, if that helps.


2. So here's the tally -

Wizbangers (in this thread) that advocate direct war on innocent Muslims purely on the basis of their faith:

Total= 4 (G, Clay, 914 and Zelsdorf)


Wizbangers who explicitly reject that:
Total=2 (Me, and tepidly, Heralder)

Go conservatives!

2. So here's the tally -... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

2. So here's the tally -
Wizbangers (in this thread) that advocate direct war on innocent Muslims purely on the basis of their faith:
Total= 4 (G, Clay, 914 and Zelsdorf)
Wizbangers who explicitly reject that:
Total=2 (Me, and tepidly, Heralder)

You forgot me, though I don't base it on the faith alone, but how they use the faith to justify their horrific deeds.

Go conservatives!
Beat Michigan!

2. So here's the tally -... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

2. So here's the tally -

Great, you wanna cookie now? Go back to Kos and ask them for one instead.

Hey gadfly:It's ca... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Hey gadfly:

It's called destroying a city; it hasn't yet reached a "genocidal level" (unless, of course, we were planning on wiping out ALL Arab Muslims). I believe that the idea behind the suggestion to destroy Mecca was to take out a cultural/religious symbol of a people--sound familiar? Or was it simply an accident that the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and (possibly) the White House or Capitol were the targets on 9/11? Does this make sense?

Oops--wrong question.

James -When we ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

James -

When we start going around cutting off people's heads, and using towers of civilians as target practice, and sundry other things for the past 20 some years, then you can throw your "hypocritical" epithet at me.


I don't have to wait until then to call your position hypocritical. You're already there.

1) You reject terrorism when done by others.
2) Here, on this thread, you advocate intentionally killing INNOCENT civilians on a (presumably) massive scale. (Not collateral damage, mind you, actual targeting of civilians, just like Islamic terrorists).

Thus - your position is hypocritical.

And genocidal.

Tally:
Genocidal hypocrites - 5
Critics of that - 2


Gadfly:2) Here,... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Gadfly:

2) Here, on this thread, you advocate intentionally killing INNOCENT civilians on a (presumably) massive scale. (Not collateral damage, mind you, actual targeting of civilians, just like Islamic terrorists).

Here we go again with this moral equivalence crap.

Simple question (betcha don't answer it):

Was America's decision to drop two atomic bombs in Japan during WWII an act of terrorism? Yes or no?

Gentlemen- please!? ... (Below threshold)
G:

Gentlemen- please!?
I'm not advocating state sponsored terrorism-I'm advocating WAR that has already been declared on us.I have children too. They want me and mine to die.I say YOU first. I will not be silent. I will not submit. I have not heard ANY in Islam trying to seriously prove they want to really help stop their fellow misguided "brothers". I merely advocating that we first show, We, are no longer a paper tiger, and when this TIGER finally BITES!!- IT BITES WITH FEROCITY AND FINALITY OF PURPOSE!! Our lives and those of our neighbors DEPENDS on it. If you have anything to say, you can say it to me directly. I've been gone for a few hours. Sorry to have missed the-excitement?:-) Have you seen the above post on a possible nuke in this country. Although nothing may come of it -what if it does. What then?Please don't hurt me anymore mister terror man?:-(

Oh I forgot-SILENCE MECCA, ... (Below threshold)
G:

Oh I forgot-SILENCE MECCA, SILENCE MOHAMMED!!!

Permanently!!<... (Below threshold)
G:

Permanently!!

Goodnite.

Doug,...betcha ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Doug,

...betcha don't answer it.

Bethcha I do, you adorable defender of genocide!

Hiro and Nagasaki. No. Not terrorism. Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death. Therefore, they were combattants.

Whereas the bombing of Mecca and the mass targeting of Muslims (wow, I can't believe I have to actually argue AGAINST this. Many of you really are insane) purely on the basis of their religion -- the rate of innocent vs. combattants killed would be almost entirely flipped vis-a-vis Japan. Very much akin to the terrorists we condemn. Not unlike Hitler. Therefore hypocritical. And genocidal.


Wizbang insanity tally -
Genocidal hypocrites (or defenders thereof) - 6
Critics of that - 2


(G - nice to see you back! Thanks for the post)


Oh I forgot-SILENCE MECC... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Oh I forgot-SILENCE MECCA, SILENCE MOHAMMED!!!

Hey, can I vote twice? Then put me down for another 'yes'.

Until you emasculated dem-puds can figure out that the islamo-bitches want you, your wives, and your children dead you are in danger of losing it all. It's war on these bastards. That's all they get. And if their muslim brothers don't start policing their own religion, they get to go down with them.

Because at that point al... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death.

Wow. Not like there's any irony in that, huh?

2) Here, on this thread,... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

2) Here, on this thread, you advocate intentionally killing INNOCENT civilians on a (presumably) massive scale. (Not collateral damage, mind you, actual targeting of civilians, just like Islamic terrorists).

Eh, if you had read carefully, and of course, you didn't, I said I'd give them warning to get out of Mecca first.

Perhaps you could go ahead and dance around the black meteorite and warn them first.

If you really think I care about your judgement, then you have another think coming. I don't. You are a boil on the bum of the blogosphere. Insignificant. Not worthy of actual debate. Just snarking. The only reason I'm bothering here is that I'm waiting around for my girlfriend to show up and I need a few minutes to kill...

Revised Tally:
Wizbang insanity tally -
Genocidal hypocrites (or defenders thereof) - 6
Critics of that - 2
Someone who doesn't give a shit except his next upcoming blowjob by hottie girlfriend-1

Good day.

Someone who doesn't give... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Someone who doesn't give a shit except his next upcoming blowjob by hottie girlfriend-1

Uh-oh. Can I vote again?

Hiro and Nagasaki. No. N... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Hiro and Nagasaki. No. Not terrorism. Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death. Therefore, they were combattants.

Hm, doesn't the Koran command all good muslim to partake in jihad against the infidels? Therefore, they are all combatants.


"War is enjoined against the Infidels." II, 215
"Oh True believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you." IX, 124
"When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them." XLVII, 4

Uh-oh. Can I vote again?... (Below threshold)
Bill Clinton:

Uh-oh. Can I vote again?

Sure you can, I just did, and no blue dress this time.

We democrats know about voting more than once.

Gadfly:Bethcha ... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Gadfly:

Bethcha I do, you adorable defender of genocide!

"Adorable"? Maybe to my wife, but certainly not to you.

"Defender of genocide"? (sound of buzzer) Wrong description! If you had said "defender of the U.S." or (more generally) "defender of Western civilization," then yeah. I might agree. But genocide? Nope. Not even close. I just thought that G's suggestion (destroying Mecca) had a certain symmetry to it. Y'know, us having lost nearly 3,000 people when terrorists flattened the WTC and all.

And guess what, gadfly? Because terrorists by definition don't wear uniforms, it's more than a little difficult for us to determine who's a combatant and who isn't. So until the bad guys start playing by the universally accepted rules of engagement, INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL DIE. That's not our fault. It's THEIRS. And that's the way they want it, because they don't give a damn how many innocent people die. In their world, all infidels deserve death.

And finally (do I really have to explain this?), I am not advocating the mass destruction of Muslims purely because of their religion. But if their religion tells me I have to convert or I die, then we've got a problem here. Don't we, gadfly? How would you suggest we "resolve" this "slight misunderstanding"? (sarcasm off)

Your moral equivalence arguments are so very, very tired and inept. If we were truly like these bastards, Mecca (and a few other cities) would not be standing today. Hasn't happened yet, has it? Didn't think so. Oh: and if were we truly like them, then maybe Katie Couric would have been forced to broadcast a beheading last week from the prison at Gitmo during her debut on the CBS Evening News. I didn't happen to see that last week--did you?

Gadfly, do you think we're really in a war today, or is this simply a result of Bush's "insatiable quest for supreme power" (or whatever the hell you think he's up to)? Is there any possibility that he believes what he says--that America is in mortal danger and that he will do everything he can to protect us from further attacks? Or are we all safe and sound?

If everything is OK (and Bush has been overstating this threat), please do us all a favor: Assuming we all survive another attack here at home, please don't come back here and blame Bush for it. Just look in the mirror.

Clay -Hey, can ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Clay -

Hey, can I vote twice? Then put me down for another 'yes'.

Sorry Doug, that would help my argument that many conservatives embrace a hypocritical and morally unhinged homicidal impulse on the issue of "war on terror". Don't want to throw off my data.

Just to be clear, we're talking about the knowing, intentional, targeting of non-combattants (disproportionately), just like the terrorists do, by the U.S., on a massive scale, targets selected soley because they are Muslim. As implicitly and explicity advocated above by "G" and others.

Oh, Clay, had a good question -

"Does the Koran make all Muslims combattants?"

I'll answer that if you answer this -

Do the Christian Gospels make all Christians love their enemies?


Wizbang Tally -
Genocidal hypocrites (or defenders thereof) - 6
Critics of that - 2

I'll answer that if you ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I'll answer that if you answer this -

Do the Christian Gospels make all Christians love their enemies?

If you are a devout Christian, yes, you do love your enemies.

So, if you are a devout Muslum...

Wizbang Tally -Genoc... (Below threshold)
Rasmussen Pollster:

Wizbang Tally -
Genocidal hypocrites (or defenders thereof) - 6
Critics of that - 2
Waiting on blowjob-1 (two if Clay votes twice)

I want to vote Gadfly off t... (Below threshold)
Richard Hatch:

I want to vote Gadfly off the island, and shake my naked booty on the beach!

Oh, Clay, had a good que... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Oh, Clay, had a good question -

"Does the Koran make all Muslims combattants?"

Putting that good public school education to work? IOW, I didn't ask that question, dummy.

But, you can put me down for 'yes' on that, too. See, if they believe what they read then, yes, they are combatants. And they need to be taken care of. I do advocate a warning though. I'm not that cold-hearted.

It's pretty easy to spin you up, huh?

Now run along, li'l pud.

I said git!... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I said git!

Oh my. I just had a moment ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Oh my. I just had a moment of clarity. The reason we're not getting through to gadfly is 'cause he doesn't have a wife...he's got a pahdner.

Okaaay....Let me s... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Okaaay....

Let me see if I can understand this, Mr. 'Fly:

1. On the issue of Japan and WWII you said:
Hiro and Nagasaki. No. Not terrorism. Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death. Therefore, they were combattants.

2. On the issue of Muslims and the GWOT you said:
Just to be clear, we're talking about the knowing, intentional, targeting of non-combattants (disproportionately), just like the terrorists do, by the U.S., on a massive scale, targets selected soley because they are Muslim. As implicitly and explicity advocated above by "G" and others.

So....

The Japanese were combatants because their Emperor ordered them to fight to the death.

And...

Muslims are not combatants, even though their Holy Book says things like this:
"War is enjoined against the Infidels." II, 215
"Oh True believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you." IX, 124
"When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them." XLVII, 4
(Thanks for the quotes, James.)

My head hurts. Someone help me here.

Clay said:Oh my... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Clay said:

Oh my. I just had a moment of clarity. The reason we're not getting through to gadfly is 'cause he doesn't have a wife...he's got a pahdner.

Thanks, Clay. That explains a lot. My head's feeling better already!

Doug,My good point... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Doug,

My good points. I agree with most of it. But you addressed an argument I didn't make.

Now, on moral equivalence -
I didn't say we ARE moral equivalent to them (terrorists). Try to find it.

I said the position advocated by G, Clay, 914, etc, (see below) IS IN FACT the moral equivalent of the terrorists.

Therefore, they are hypocrites. Plus, since it's advocated on a mass scale, it's genocidal.

(However, Clay & Jim would warn them first, before they bombed Mecca. So they advocate terrorism rather then genocide. That is indeed less evil.)

Wizbang Tally -
Genocidal or Terrorist Hypocrites - 6
Oppose that - 2

Doug,I mean, your ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Doug,

I mean, your earlier post. I'll get to your recent, and good, point about Japan in a sec.

Doug - The Japa... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Doug -

The Japanese were combatants because their Emperor ordered them to fight to the death.

And...

Muslims are not combatants, even though their Holy Book (commands war with infidels).


Absolutely, because in Japan it was universally, legally, binding. And the Japanese had demonstrated they would follow universally (or nearly so).

Whereas the Koranic injunctions you cite are not universally binding, accepted, or followed. And, like many violent Hebrew laws, it is counter-balanced by contrary -- i.e. compassionate -- injunctions. The vast majority of Muslims reject the narrow war-mongering interpretation just as the vast majority of Christians don't love their enemies. (Though I try).

But your persistant defense of those who are advocating genocide -- IF perpetrated by the U.S. -- is duly noted.

No one else want to defend ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

No one else want to defend genocide?

Okay final tally. Very revealing!

Wizbangers who advocate INTENTIONAL slaughter of innocent Muslims (or warning them first before indescriminately bombing their cities) -

6

Wizbangers who reject that -

2 (one reluctantly, the other is me)


Wow, that suggests to me that wizbangers positions on the war on terror, disproportionately, lean toward being hypocritically, homicidally, morally unhinged.

Thanks to all of you - G, Clay, Brad, 914, the Z guy, James C for showing the dark side of conservatism.

Jim Addison - please begin your ad hominem attacks (thus defending the genocidal position)... NOW

Excuse me, But I resent you... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Excuse me, But I resent you using paint brush tactics to smear this site.

"Wow, that suggests to me that wizbangers positions on the war on terror, disproportionately, lean toward being hypocritically, homicidally, morally unhinged."

Your very first post was meant to hijack this conversation, and you did a very good job of it.

So lets cut the crap and get back On Topic.

Islamic Fascist terrorists attacked a U.S. Embassy.

I resent you using paint... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

I resent you using paint brush tactics to smear this site.

First and foremost, I didn't mean to smear this site.

I meant to condemn the numerous individuals on this site who were advocating intentional slaughter of innocent civilians (based soley on their religion) as morally corrupt.

Then, by extention, condemn the many other individuals on this site who refused to condemn an obvious evil advocated by many posters within this site.

Then, by extention, raise the question of whether or not the conservative community is populated by an unhealthy portion of supporters of genocide.

If it makes you feel better, I suspect that the ACTUAL supporters of genocide in the larger conservative community are smaller than represented on this thread of wizbang.

Wow, I had the last post on... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Wow, I had the last post on this thread last night when I turned off my computer, Gadfly has been in condemnation overdrive.

You want to know why I so "PASSIONATELY" responded to you and not to G? Because G is entitled to his opinion regardless of whether I agree with it, whereas you tried to make me RESPONSIBLE for his opinion if I didn't answer to YOU.

So I'll say it again, morality has absolutely no bearing in our discussion.

Now, take a pin and deflate your ego my friend, I don't give a shit about your tally and no one has to answer to you. Just saying with a healthy dose of pretension that you condemn someone doesn't magically make you a good person contrary to liberal belief.

Gadfly:Fi... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly:

First and foremost, I didn't mean to smear this site.

hm.

Gadfly:

2) this does not make "G" and your website a sympathizer of state-sponsored terrorism?


To the left and some on the... (Below threshold)
G:

To the left and some on the right:
I really do Not want this nation to Have do what I said above. But there seems little other choice .Muslims of the world are just becoming more emboldened to strike us. The topic of this very thread.What should we do? Talk them into peace with us? As I recall the First demands of Osamma,Usamma-bin Ladin was for westerners to leave all muslim nations. Now it's submit to Islam or die. We can not kill just the terrorist with out collateral damage.They want any damage at any cost. If the nations of Islam are not like the terrorist, then why are they not doing more to stop and denouce them? I see their lack of action as agreement with their terrorist Muslim brothers. Don't You? Don't you? Perhaps a warning to all of them to get off their asses and speak up or else, would help. A small reminder of some power in a Islamic desert perhaps. I don't think they'll arise to the occasion without it. Besides more and more of them think they have a chance of WORLD domination. Don't you see it? Some of Europe seem to have already given up.We as a nation are, as I see it, in very grave danger. Osama already has a clerics Fatwa for 10 Million lives.10 MILLION!Want to be one or do you say to THEM YOU first. WE Must Silence this threat or perish. We must silence the threat of the religion of Islam. Hopefully with their help. If not, we must act without it.

Gadfly (if you're still aro... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Gadfly (if you're still around and reading this thread):

I knew there was a point in this discussion where we accepted one of your premises when we should not have. And I think I finally found it (I've taken out a little more context for the sake of brevity--anyone interested in the post I'm referring to should look at the one from 10:45 PM last night):

Heralder's anger and effort against the poster who advocates destroying Mecca and apparently advocates direct military attack on innocent Muslims - DEMONSTRABLY LOW.

What's not morally bereft about that? Please, take your time. Remember, it's often called genocide, if that helps.

That's where we went off-track. You used a highly-charged word ("genocide") to derail this thread. You call it "genocide"; others here might call a scenario like that (the theoretical destruction of Mecca) a very unfortunate development in THIS WAR.

I think most of us here (a) Do NOT advocate wiping Mecca off the map (unless it will end hostilities, as bombing Japan did in WWII), and (b) Do NOT accept your description of that possibility as "genocide."

Therefore, all debate/argument past this point is, frankly, a waste of everyone's time.

Oh, crud. Part of Gadfly's ... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Oh, crud. Part of Gadfly's post that I wanted to quote in my last response was not italicized, so now it looks like my response. Let's try this again:
_____________________

Gadfly (if you're still around and reading this thread):

I knew there was a point in this discussion where we accepted one of your premises when we should not have. And I think I finally found it (I've taken out a little more context for the sake of brevity--anyone interested in the post I'm referring to should look at the one from 10:45 PM last night):

Heralder's anger and effort against the poster who advocates destroying Mecca and apparently advocates direct military attack on innocent Muslims - DEMONSTRABLY LOW.

What's not morally bereft about that? Please, take your time. Remember, it's often called genocide, if that helps.

That's where we went off-track. You used a highly-charged word ("genocide") to derail this thread. You call it "genocide"; others here might call a scenario like that (the theoretical destruction of Mecca) a very unfortunate development in THIS WAR.

I think most of us here (a) Do NOT advocate wiping Mecca off the map (unless it will end hostilities, as bombing Japan did in WWII), and (b) Do NOT accept your description of that possibility as "genocide."

Therefore, all debate/argument past this point is, frankly, a waste of everyone's time.

Main Entry: gad·flyP... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Main Entry: gad·fly
Pronunciation: 'gad-"flI
Function: noun
Etymology: 1gad
1 : any of various flies (as a horsefly, botfly, or warble fly) that bite or annoy livestock
2 : a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism

The moniker says it all. He came here looking for a fight.

Doug:That... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Doug:

That's where we went off-track

You give him too much credit. He went off track the second he clicked 'post' on his first entry. His reasoning behind trying to paint everyone with one brush and have us answer to him was corrupt from the start, anything he said after that is just him piling more dirt on his head in my opinion.

His problem with trying to characterize my argument was he was still attempting to debate content under the terms and rules that he had specified, whereas I was ignoring content and arguing the very fact that he was arrogant enough to think he could set terms and make rules.

This is why he tried to call me out on moral standards when it had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. He tried to take the initiative, and failed. Utterly.

Doug,I appreciate ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Doug,

I appreciate your attempt to back peddal from the genocidal conservative position.

But, in fact, "G" "914" and other wizbangers were advocating, not just destroying Mecca, but also Medina and other Muslim holy lands, "silencing Mohammad Permanently" (G added "you figure it out") and I think James C, advocated the uses of nukes.

The position remains -
1) Hypocritical.
2) Genocidal.
3) Evil
3) The wizbang winner 6 to 2.

So I'm now more confident in my conclusion that an unhealthy portion of conservatives harbor a morally unhinged homicidal impulse in the war on terror.

Thanks for chiming in.

Gadfly:So... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly:

So I'm now more confident in my conclusion that an unhealthy portion of conservatives harbor a morally unhinged homicidal impulse in the war on terror.

That's impressive math. With your ridiculous tally of a few people you've come up with a physchological characterization of somewhere around 100 million people (very loose estimate).

Stop typing Gadfly, every time you hit 'post' you look more and more stupid.

Heralder,With y... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Heralder,

With your ridiculous tally of a few people you've come up with a physchological characterization of somewhere around 100 million people (very loose estimate).

EXACTLY my point vis-a-vis Islam.

So,
1) You react zealously when it's done to you.
2) But not so zealously when it's done to others. Even when advocating genocide.

Your typical conservative hypocrisy is duly noted.

As for the homicidal impulse of conservatives?

Yes, based on the posters here, I'm now more confident in my conclusion that an unhealthy portion of conservatives harbor a morally unhinged homicidal impulse in the war on terror.

Thanks

Gadfly:So... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly:

So, 1) You react zealously when it's done to you. 2) But not so zealously when it's done to others. Even when advocating genocide.

Did you miss my post this morning?...I guess so...here it is again:

"You want to know why I so "PASSIONATELY" responded to you and not to G? Because G is entitled to his opinion regardless of whether I agree with it, whereas you tried to make me RESPONSIBLE for his opinion if I didn't answer to YOU."

and

Just saying with a healthy dose of pretension that you condemn someone doesn't magically make you a good person contrary to liberal belief.

and also the post after that where I explained the reasoning behing my position...you never responded.

In case you haven't caught on, I'm deliberately not responding to the conservatives in question, or your silly little points for the VERY REASON THAT YOU'RE ASKING, IN FACT, BAITING ME TO.

Why?

Because you're arrogant to think I need to [or else].

You bolding the last part of you post doesn't change what I said, you're grossly generalizing.

Your welcome.

Because you're arrogant ... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Because you're arrogant to think I need to (respond)

Heralder,

I never said you NEED to respond to me.

I merely contend that your unwillingness to respond (to calls for genocide against Muslims) is indicative of a hypocritical and inherently evil position. And it helps deepen my understanding of conservatives.

Gadfly,I ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly,

I merely contend that your unwillingness to respond (to calls for genocide against Muslims) is indicative of a hypocritical and inherently evil position.

Then that's your (wrong) contention

Heralder,So you RE... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Heralder,

So you REJECT calls for genocide against Muslims?

yep.Did I say I di... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

yep.

Did I say I didn't?

Did I say I didn't (reje... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

Did I say I didn't (reject the calls for genocide against Muslims)?

No, you just failed to actually do so. But thank you for doing so now.

So, Heralder remains the only wizbanger on this enormous thread willing to explicitly reject the numerous calls (above) for genocide against Muslims.

Anyone else on wizbang want to back up Heralder's anti-genocide position?

Gadfly,I think we'... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly,

I think we're the only ones left here.

I think it's important, however to point out that failing to say one thing doesn't mean you mean another.

That's part of what I was trying to say earlier. You can't start saying people stand for something that they don't because they haven't answered your questions. Perhaps if we were all sitting in a big conference room that line of reasoning would work, but on a blog if you don't even know if what your asking is being read, there's an unhealthy amount of assumption going into your decision making.

I think we're the only o... (Below threshold)
the gadfly:

I think we're the only ones left here.

LOL!

Now that the dust has settled. Heralder, you are absolutely right about my presumptuous accusations. And I do apologize for my approach.

I only felt that, given the stakes, it was important to call people out, and confront many of the posters into acknowledging the huge implications of what they were so casually advocating.

In truth, I know this group I pointed out is only a small fringe of conservatives. But I think in self-reinforcing communities, like political blogs left and right, fringe malevolence can fester and grow if not confronted.

Sorry for being obnoxious.

See you 'round

Gadfly,I understan... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Gadfly,

I understand the reasoning for your questioning but didn't agree at all with the execution.

I was really hard on you though and attacked you alot personally which was unwarranted and not usual for me to do. I suppose I was in terrible that day. Sorry about that. Next time will be better.

Yes... the islamo maggots a... (Below threshold)
Keith Balzer:

Yes... the islamo maggots and their drone bitches seek hegemony over you... Let us not forget about the maggots here in the USA who have attempted to use this as leverage to promote their deluded version of reality.

The solution?

Complete political separation from all the religious powers of Earth. How can we have freedom when the resources of Earth are mostly in the hands of savage plunderers? To live in a community with such individuals and work in a hiearcical organization run by such individuals is an insult to humanity... And any guard that would allow me to be in such jurisdiction needs to be out my fukkin life in that capacity like yesterday... To handle my metaphysical affairs you gotta have courage... and making me live somewhere where these maggots control... is cowardly...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy