December 31, 2009

The Left's Permanent War on the War on Terrorism
— Ace

Via Instapundit, this exquisite distillation of the left's Let a Smile Be Your Umbrella defense against terrorism:

Some idiot set firecrackers off on a jet and [we're supposed] to be afraid of that? Al-Q is a joke

And that's from Spence Ackerman, a light of the left (at least of the dimmer variety), not some random Twit-wit.

And it's not just him; another dim light of the left, Matthew Yglesias, is similarly unilaterally lowering his personal Terrorist Threat Condition Chart from "Orange" to "Hakuna Matada:"

Obviously, people shouldn’t be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat....

Ultimately, it does no favors to anyone to blow this sort of thing out of proportion. The United States could not, of course, be “devastated” by anything resembling this scheme. We ought to be clear on that fact. We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.

Emphases added. Although they're barely added. Those sentences pretty much just bold themselves, don't they?

On one hand, he says we should merely treat terrorism as an act of attempted murder. Well -- let's be clear. It's an attempt at mass-murder.

Soo... okay, let's say I treat terrorism as "merely" organized, sophisticated, unending institutionally-sponsored attempts at mass-murder.

I'm sorry-- I'm not clear, what level of alarm am I supposed to have over that? Because you seem to be suggesting I should take a wait-and-see attitude on it. Apparently, by your lights, I'm currently taking this much too seriously.

Though it's nice to see it acknowledged that mass murder is "wrong" and "we should try to stop it." Thanks for that.

This is obvious, but obvious is what I do, so here goes:

The left has four political goals:

1) To reverse the public perception that they are a bunch of sissy-pants (not Sassypants, which is altogether different).

2) To de-emphasize terrorism as a media issue, because terror concerns play well for conservatives. (See Goal 1 and the sissy-pants problem.)

3) To sell the public, politically, on a hateful policy of treating terrorists nicely, because, like, Dostoyevsky said something like "you can judge a nation by the way it treats psychotic murder-cultists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible for no other reason except to masturbate in human blood."

4) To actually reduce terrorism, because doing so achieves Goal 1 and Goal 2, and also would be a great selling point for Goal 3. (See?! It makes no sense but it works!)

Before getting any further, let us note the incandescently obvious that Goals 1-3 are Major Goals and Goal 4 is a sort of "Nice but Not Necessary" sort of thing. If they can accomplish Goals 1-3, in terms of politics, they're all set. If they can sell the public on the idea that a little bit of mass-murder never killed anyone (except for the people it actually killed, of course), they can pretty ignore Goal 4.

Goal 4 is an entirely secondary proposition which merely assists in Goals 1-3. If you nail Goals 1-3, you really don't need Goal 4. And you can pretty much tell they know that by their emphasis on the first three, and blowing off altogether the fourth. ("The system worked," you've no doubt heard.)

Now, on to the slightly less obvious stuff. Slightly.

To achieve Goals 1-3, they have settled on a basic, stupid, unserious, unpersuasive, jackass political message: Only little pussy-fairies are afraid of terrorists and terrorism; real tough strong he-men types, like us on the left, laugh at it as a big joke. Don't you want to join the super-tough guys who laugh in the face of mass-murder? (As long as it's mass-murder killing other people, of course.) So join us, and laugh at terror, be one of the Real Tough Guys with the Cocks of Burnished Blued Steel, and just put your silly-ass concerns about terrorism away. Let's focus on what really matters -- universal health care and the fundamental restructuring of the economy into something more socialistic -- and let us not be distracted by the childish antics of some Muslim head-cases who are, after all, just "acting up" in a particularly aggressive fashion.

Oh, and of course: Let us also be so bad-ass and Rambo-licious as to shower terrorists with kindness and good treatment, because, you know, if you're really a super nail-spitting fire-breathing Hard Case like us, you never let a bit of righteous fury interfere with your civility and dedication to social justice.

Endlessly repeated, endlessly repeated. It's all so stupid. But apparently some blogger -- or someone -- struck up on this idea in around 2006 (around then -- that's when I seem to remember it popping up) and the idea caught on like wildfire.

They really think that with a little "re-branding" they can solve their perennial Terrorist Gap problem.

By the way, Douchebags, not every problem in our lives can be fixed by "re-branding;" get this, some problems are actually real-world physical-reality problems and require real-world physical-reality solutions. A cute and counterintuitive marketing campaign is not, in fact, enough to stop terrorism, the same as it's not enough to cure AIDS, and it's not enough to cure cancer, and it's not enough to re-start the economy.

Their fundamental unseriousness on this topic is revealed right out of the gate as all their emphasis is on slogans and memes rather than actually doing something to stop or at least diminish the threat of terrorism.

Sure, guys, if I define a problem as not a problem at all, the problem does, in fact, effectively go away; or, at least, it goes away in the sense I'm no longer acknowledging it as a problem at all. But the fact that I no longer acknowledge it as such does not actually make it not such.

I can take a very blase attitude towards 250 people dying in an Al-Qaeda plane detonation. And yes, that will make those 250 deaths "not a problem" for me, but you know what it won't do? It won't bring those 250 human beings back to life.

This whole idea permeates the Obama Administration, which not only embraced it as a marketing campaign, but as actual, concrete US policy. The first -- engaging in a marketing campaign to soft-pedal terrorism -- is hateful enough (we are talking about human lives here, or does Hope and Change not concern itself with such petty, less-than-grandiose considerations?), but to actually reify such a vile idea into concrete, tangible US policy is unforgivable and anti-life and palpably evil.

Laugh at terrorism? Treat it less-than-seriously? This demonstrates what, exactly? Seems to demonstrate exactly what it's intended to demonstrate: A callousness to the number of preventable murders of United States citizens.

How to analogize? Well, you know, Friends of the Left, a cynical, jaded homicide cop who doesn't take murder all that seriously might be a "cool guy" and might make for an interesting character in a movie -- so jaded and sophisticated is he that he understands that Murder is an essential and unavoidable phenomenon of the human condition -- but you know what? When someone I know is killed I'd rather have the guy with the less-sophisticated attitude towards Murder, the guy who thinks Murder is a rather large trespass, working the case.

He might be a little less cosmpolitan, and a little less familiar with the New York City underground jazz scene, and maybe his apartment will be a big of disaster and not tastefully minimalist-moderne like the other guy's, but you know, I'd rather have someone who takes murder seriously working them murder cases.


Forgive me for my naive, uncouth Red State attitude toward this. I am, as you know, just a stupid, unenlightened tea-bagger. I'm not smart enough to treat Murder as a blow-off. I am not, as you so plainly are, super-smart totally-awesome bad-ass Ultra-Commandos of Cock Force Five.

The pathetic thing is they really think this crap is working. Wade into any comment section favored by the left and you'll see them all repeating this idea. Dislocating their shoulders to pat themselves on the back for their principled, elevated, hard-ass decision to take the mass-murder of their fellow citizens in an light, European que sera sera sort of fashion.

All I can advise them is: Keep it up. Keep pushing this attitude out there, keep trying to sell the American People on the idea that it's the sissy-pants and pants-wetters and nancyboys who actually take this stuff deadly seriously, and meanwhile those who mock concerns about mass murder potentially killing thousands at a clip are really the true zealots of the Cult of the Brave.

Let's both run on the same thing -- that is, after all, how true political decisions are made by the public. When both parties agree exactly that this is what we each represent, where the discussion isn't muddled by one party disguising its beliefs or trying to "hug" the other party's positions or triangulate or so forth.

When both parties run on the exact same message, the public gets the rare opportunity to make an unambiguous choice, untainted by the deliberate muddying of positions both parties so often engage in.

So let's do this. Let us both of us agree that I and my fellows take terrorism seriously, and you think we're scaredy-cats for doing so, and that you do not take terrorism all that seriously, and it is your belief -- your honest, true, serious belief -- that it makes you Courageous for treating mass murder with a puckish insouciance.

And let's go out there, and let's beat this unified message to death, and let's see what happens. Let's go to market selling our wares with the same basic message and see who tallies up the most sales.


Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (188)
Post contains 1749 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Spence?  Really?  Who would listen to a guy named Spence?

Posted by: Chefess (formerly RushBabe) at December 31, 2009 10:31 AM (LKkE8)

2

insouciance

I do not know what this words means. And I'm even sure I can pronounce it.

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 10:34 AM (alRGo)

3

Come on Ace.  It was terrorism, but it wasn't terrorism-terrorism.

Posted by: Whoopi! Goldberg at December 31, 2009 10:35 AM (QKKT0)

4 there is no try

Posted by: slickdpdx at December 31, 2009 10:35 AM (DRIQQ)

5
Spence Ackerman: "Al-Q is a joke."

I'm not laughing, cocksucker.

Posted by: Daniel Pearle's head at December 31, 2009 10:35 AM (alRGo)

6 Let's not forget, they travel in private jets not like the rest of you squares.

Posted by: erp at December 31, 2009 10:36 AM (BDRHK)

7 This twat's attitude toward just a few hundred people dying on a plane really illustrates the difference between the left and the right beautifully - the left doesn't value life on an individual level.  Even their attitude toward the death penalty illustrates this, as they're discounting the innocent lives lost by keeping someone who is a waste of resources and space and oxygen alive.

Posted by: Alice H at December 31, 2009 10:38 AM (qJHYy)

8 So you're saying I can keep drinking as much as I want and the minute I stop viewing it as a problem, and call all the people that showed up at my intervention little sissies, the problem goes away? Fuckin sweet!

Posted by: Alcoholic Ace of Spades Commentor at December 31, 2009 10:38 AM (SqAkN)

9 Are we still allowed to say twat?

Posted by: Alice H at December 31, 2009 10:39 AM (qJHYy)

10

Here's to hoping Ackerman's kid is on the flight where some "Al-Q joker" succeeds in setting the plane on fire.  Makes the whole terrorism thing a little less abstract when you've got some skin in the game.

Posted by: Cicero at December 31, 2009 10:40 AM (QKKT0)

11 Are these the same Computer Commando Force guys who wet their pants in fear because they saw a "no-Bama" sign at a tea party?

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 10:40 AM (sYxEE)

12 A nice Ace of Spades red meat sandwich for lunch. Thank you sir!

Posted by: Max Power is a brown noser at December 31, 2009 10:40 AM (q177U)

13 The same thinking creates the "You don't need a gun" meme. Lefties are dangerous children in adult bodies.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2009 10:40 AM (Cctty)

14

Here's to hoping Ackerman's kid is on the flight where some "Al-Q joker" succeeds in setting the plane on fire.

Oh, let's not.

Posted by: MDH3 at December 31, 2009 10:41 AM (4u+LN)

15 Great analysis, Ace...

2 things...it goes without saying, which is why I'll say it.  If some guy had walked into an abortion clinic with the a-q undies and attempted the same thing, even though less people would have likely been targeted, these same writers would be foaming at the mouth about the need to crack down on right-wing-nutters.

2.  If the theory of be nice and they'll cooperate is really what they think will work, why don't they try that will the political right in this country first?  When is the last time Spency or MY extended the branch of kissy kissy to a prominent righty like Rush or SP?

 

Posted by: The Hammer at December 31, 2009 10:42 AM (YBTwf)

16 My doctor is such a fuckin sissy. That bastard told me my liver has spots and if I keep drinking I could die. Real men don't talk like that. On the way home I bought a 5th of Johnny Walker black label to ring in the New Year.

Posted by: Alcoholic Ace of Spades Commentor at December 31, 2009 10:42 AM (SqAkN)

17 So they brought a few box cutters, had a couple of flying lessons and now I'm supposed to be scared?

Posted by: Liberal F*ckhead at December 31, 2009 10:42 AM (b0NHc)

18 So you're saying I can keep drinking as much as I want and the minute I stop viewing it as a problem, and call all the people that showed up at my intervention little sissies, the problem goes away? Fuckin sweet!

Calling it a problem to start with is where you screwed up, Bubba.

Posted by: Ace's liver at December 31, 2009 10:43 AM (XIXhw)

19 It amazes me, even though it shouldn't, that lefties are more afraid of AGW, which doesn't even affect them, than they are of actual, real people who want to kill them. So global warming = science settled! War of terror = scaremongering made up by evil Republicans Maybe the lefties should live in Israel for 6 months. It might force them reassess whether or not the terrorists are "serious." And it's Hakuna Matata, ace.

Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 10:43 AM (gofDd)

20
These douchebags make more of a fuss about Christmas trees at City Halls than they do about Islamofascist's plots of mass murder.

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 10:43 AM (z37MR)

21 My fingers are not cooperating today and I haven't even drunk any Valurite yet. That ^ should say "war ON terror."

Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 10:44 AM (gofDd)

22 Cheers, Ace.

Posted by: JT at December 31, 2009 10:45 AM (UBvS/)

23 Terrorism has the potential to unite this country like no other single thing. The left noticed this in mid-September of 2001 and it scared the crap out of them. A united America is an enemy of all their hateful confiscatory social bullshit.

Division is in their blood. Division and conquest.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at December 31, 2009 10:45 AM (b0NHc)

24 Okay ace, one of the ads popping up in the left hand column next to this post is designated "criminal activity" by our IT Dept. Don't know which one because the "flag" they use covered it up.  The "lose 3 lbs. of belly fat" ad did that to me in the past. Think maybe ya could screen these folks a little better?

Posted by: teej at December 31, 2009 10:46 AM (c459z)

25

We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.

because as we know, Powerful people should accept their losses?

powerful countries citizens aren't as valuable?

it's wrong eh.

1) so send them some money

2) say how sorry we are for being powerful

3) be ashamed that our founders set up a society that gave citizens an opportunity to excel

4)blah, blah, so sorry, for shame!

 

 

Posted by: willow at December 31, 2009 10:46 AM (7FgWm)

26 "Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat...." Sure and certain proof insane idiots can type. Notice crime and tragedy are mentioned. Enough time has passed, they think, to restate their initial reaction to 9-11. Not an act of War, a crime. Like a brick through a window. These folks are not fully formed, their development was arrested in some early stage dominated by self-absorption and zero empathy.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2009 10:46 AM (Cctty)

27 We should resolve to treat all these so-called "terrorists" just like regular American criminals, with Miranda rights and lawyers.   These are isolated incidents, there is no organized force arrayed against America, you dumb wing nuts!

Posted by: Typical Liberal at December 31, 2009 10:46 AM (B5cM9)

28

You know what didn't try to kill 250 people on an airplane?

Smoking.

Posted by: Peter Griffin at December 31, 2009 10:46 AM (SqAkN)

29 Let's see, does King Obama the I have the same perception about the problem?  If so, maybe he can lead the way by flying commercial from now on....

Posted by: Buck O'Fama at December 31, 2009 10:47 AM (BOYpf)

30 I'll tell ya a little secret about these brave leftists, When the jihadi puts his knife against their throats, they wet their panties and scream like little girls. That's made easier by their lack of male appendages.

Posted by: maddogg at December 31, 2009 10:47 AM (OlN4e)

31
There is more outrage from the Left over Rush Limbaugh buying a football team than there was about an act of terrorism on a plane full of hundred of people on Christmas day.

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 10:47 AM (z37MR)

32 Terrorist:  Knock knock!
Shopper:  Who's there?
Terrorist:  <Ka-Boom>
Surviving shoppers:  Ha ha!  Nice one!

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at December 31, 2009 10:48 AM (pZEar)

33 When some nutcase radical Muslim is about to chop off the fuckin mellon of Matthew Yglesias, I desperately want to hear the swagger in his voice as he screams...."this is nothing to worry about".

Posted by: Sparky at December 31, 2009 10:49 AM (mXY2a)

34 I hate liberals

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 31, 2009 10:49 AM (ekqTc)

35 23-AQ noticed too.  

Posted by: Cpl. Hudson at December 31, 2009 10:49 AM (Bs8Te)

36 How many blown up planes until the idiots start calling it terrorism?  Or is there no such thing as terrorism?  Or does terrorism only exist as an American/white/hetero/Christianist problem, exemplified by 'our' treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, the poor souls of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, "undocumented immigrants", wymyn, and andrew sullivan?

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2009 10:50 AM (CMPXK)

37 Shouldn't you be working, ergie? Those telecom bills aren't going to lower themselves.

Posted by: tim mcveigh at December 31, 2009 10:50 AM (YFV+t)

38
If only the Left would fight the War on Terrorism with half as much energy as they spend on fighting their War on Christmas...

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 10:50 AM (z37MR)

39 Aren't these the same cocksucking yellow bastards who want to disarm the entire country because someone goes postal in a McDonalds?

Posted by: maddogg at December 31, 2009 10:51 AM (OlN4e)

40

Just so we're on the same page-

"Tea Party" protesters- potentially violent extremists.

Islamic terrorists- Just another type of criminal.  People get murdered all the time, so no biggie if you really think about it.

Yeah, just try to keep selling that line, juicebox.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 31, 2009 10:51 AM (plsiE)

41

Who vomited the stupid on the carpet?

Posted by: Mr. Pink at December 31, 2009 10:51 AM (SqAkN)

42 Well, erg just fell off his Barney Play House again.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2009 10:52 AM (Cctty)

43

"...psychotic murder-cultists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible for no other reason except to masturbate in human blood."

I think you are being culturally judgmental Ace! Until you have masturbated in the blood of innocents, what right do you have to criticize it?

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at December 31, 2009 10:52 AM (F09Uo)

44 Nice fisking, Ace.   (Oh, can we say "fisking"? Or is that strictly an old, pre-anti-conservative LGF thing?)

Posted by: Vile Roman at December 31, 2009 10:52 AM (sOpAl)

45 i know, let's give the terrorists man caused distasters, some art classes, where they can mix with the more enlightened that will work!

Posted by: willow at December 31, 2009 10:52 AM (7FgWm)

46 The ONLY thing allowing the left the luxury of this attitude is general incompetence among jihadis. 

If the quality of jihadis were to improve, the left's position collapses.

Placing your political fate in the hands of unstable people is probably not a good strategy.  At some point AQ will bubble up some leader/planners who aren't mesmerized with splashy high risk attacks.  That's when the shit hits the fan.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2009 10:52 AM (BsmB2)

47
eggmcmuffin takes all the fun out of moonbat sockpuppets. How do you compete with that?

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 10:53 AM (z37MR)

48 Wow, fast clean-up.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2009 10:53 AM (Cctty)

49 Bicycle Johnson tried to downplay it the other day with a post that the material was not explosive, nothing to see here, just move on to dangerous creationists.

That very same day and the next day all the DemSM outlets stated that the exact amount of explosive Umar had in his drawers was enough to blow a large hole in the fuselage, with demo video and all.

Bicycle Johnson promptly flushed that thread down the memory hole

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 10:53 AM (sYxEE)

50

 (we are talking about human lives here, or does Hope and Change not concern itself with such petty, less-than-grandiose considerations?),

Bam!!!

That's the distilled essence of leftist ideology right there. They have this goddamned stupid idea they they are somehow more enlightened than the rest of us...and need , not just want, but a have this deep, deep need to control others

...consequences be damned.

Was Stalin concerned about human lives??... Mao?...Pol Pot???

The American left cannot let go of this impulse. They will never admit Barkys stimulus is a complete and utter failure...or that AGW science cannot be not settled.

I linked to an in interesting article the other day that shows immersion in group think actually causes a neurological condition that makes one physiologically unable to process dissonant information..

There really is no reasoning with them

Posted by: rum, sodomy and the lash at December 31, 2009 10:53 AM (AnTyA)

51

Why on earth DID the country spend so much time and energy on that Charles Manson thing eotjer?

So a handful of people were butchered.

That's hardly a national emergency.

Obviously, we need to get a grip on things and realize that a few thousand mass murders a year is really nothing to interrupt our daily lives of doing dope and cheating taxpayers out of their money, particularly those of us who can't afford to fly.

Posted by: proreason at December 31, 2009 10:53 AM (Rllt+)

52 Conservative's sales award = A Cadillac

Liberal's sales award = You're fired

Posted by: Navin R Johnson at December 31, 2009 10:55 AM (HpT9p)

53

I like what Putin said:  (saw this over at NewsBusters)

If you want to become an Islamic fundamentalist and be circumcised, come to Moscow. We are multiconfessional. We have very good specialists. I can recommend one for the operation. He'll make sure nothing grows back.

 

Posted by: Stillwater at December 31, 2009 10:55 AM (qUdDE)

54

Well, there wasn't a "women's reproductive healthcare provider" on the plane, so it's not the important kind of terrorism.

You should know that by now, Ace.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at December 31, 2009 10:55 AM (XASus)

Posted by: eddiebear at December 31, 2009 10:56 AM (4kVy9)

56 Bicycle Johnson promptly flushed that thread down the memory hole

CJ's all about integrity

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2009 10:56 AM (BsmB2)

57 Conservatives = Sell like Billy Mays

Liberals = Sell like Lloyd Braun

Posted by: Navin R Johnson at December 31, 2009 10:56 AM (HpT9p)

58 So if my math skills are right... (Inexperienced President + dangerous threats to country - meaningful plan to address said threat) * strategy blaming previous Admin = We're fucked Well, in that case I'm drinking til I can't see straight tonight

Posted by: TexMex at December 31, 2009 10:56 AM (laDiv)

59

stoning women and  raped girls a cultural thing

don't get mad get sympathy!

bombing civilians in most countries of the world. it's criminal but please remember they are just silly murderous jerks that would be better handled by trips to the beach. and maybe  more artclasses.

Posted by: willow at December 31, 2009 10:56 AM (7FgWm)

60 I'm Willard T Chadwick and I approve this post.

Posted by: Willard T Chadwick at December 31, 2009 10:57 AM (YwnPw)

61 Wasn't it Sheryl Crow that said the best way to not have enemies is...not to have enemies? Yeah, she's a true brainiac, eh?

Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 10:57 AM (gofDd)

62 the left is every bit an enemy of the USA that AQ is.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, and Buckets of Scorn for this Administration at December 31, 2009 10:59 AM (erIg9)

63 In case you morons missed it the TSA sent it's jack-booted thugs over to some travel bloggers houses because the bloggers had the termerity to post the new travel directives post the panbtybomber.  The very one that had been sent to airline employees around the world...including Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan.


Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at December 31, 2009 10:59 AM (HxrdW)

64

Does anyone know what the official death tally has to be before terrorism becomes a national security threat?  Is there a certain threshhold of deaths per year under which it need not be taken very seriously?

Hell, they seem to be split regarding 9/11- more than one lefty has commented that anyone not living in NYC at the time really didn't have a stake in it.  Or alternatively, that 3,000 people isn't actually that many compared to the number of people that die to accidents or violence in a year.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 31, 2009 10:59 AM (plsiE)

65 Wasn't it Sheryl Crow that said the best way to not have enemies is...not to have enemies? Yeah, she's a true brainiac, eh? Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 03:57 PM (gofDd) Has she reproduced yet? I hope not.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 31, 2009 10:59 AM (ekqTc)

66

The argument that kills me is a combination of the "I'm so tough I don't wet my pants at potential mass murder." attitude you've pointed out with a halfway-serious cost benefit analysis.  You've all heard it before.  It goes like this: We've thrown a trillion dollars down this "non-problem rathole" and only 3,000+ people were killed on 9/11.

The reason this kills me is you can't counter-argue how many people are saved and how much our economy is benefitted by our efforts.  The benefit side of the equation is unknown.  If you point to the absence of terrorist attacks they will correctly point out you don't know it's due to our efforts. 

We're stuck with this awful modulation argument.  If there are terrorist acts, you must turn up your efforts.  If there are fewer attacks, you must save money by turning down your efforts.  It's completely reactive and totally political calculation.  From now to eternity any conservative will be crucified for spending money to fight terrorism AND for any visible act of terrorism against Americans or American interests.  Democrats will continue to play the substitute teacher who found a mess and needs more authority and budget to clean it up. 

Posted by: bonhomme at December 31, 2009 11:00 AM (jvG2F)

67 My current favorite bumper sticker:

God Hates Pussies and Liberals.

But I repeat myself.


Posted by: Winston Smith at December 31, 2009 11:00 AM (BFqyO)

68 The best way to become rich is to get lots of money.

Posted by: Sheryl Crow at December 31, 2009 11:02 AM (QKKT0)

69

Hey Winston, I'm thinking of having a new bumpersticker made up for the new year...

SAVE A MARINE

SHOOT A LIBERAL

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2009 11:02 AM (CMPXK)

70 The Democrats started their political crap during the 9-11 attacks. Tom Brokaw hinted Bush's ME Policy played a role. Soon after, Hillary and other Dems jumped on the "Dust from destroyed buildings is killing everybody" crap.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2009 11:04 AM (Cctty)

71
Al Qaeda is a joke...

brought to us by the same people who waged war on...

trans-fats.

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 11:04 AM (z37MR)

72 Wasn't it Sheryl Crow that said the best way to not have enemies is...not to have enemies?

Yeah, she's a true brainiac, eh?
Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 03:57 PM (gofDd)

Has she reproduced yet? I hope not.


Every time she uses a single sheet of TP.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 31, 2009 11:06 AM (l1Wlr)

73 SAVE A MARINE SHOOT A LIBERAL Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2009 04:02 PM (CMPXK) Urh one problem: MARINES don't need saving. But thanks anyway.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 31, 2009 11:07 AM (ekqTc)

74 Hell, they seem to be split regarding 9/11- more than one lefty has commented that anyone not living in NYC at the time really didn't have a stake in it. I think that's part of the liberal's problem. They have no skin in the game with regards to ANYTHING so it's not their problem. (I mean, look at how many libs actually pay taxes. And then they want to tax us even more.) I was nowhere near NYC on that day and 9/11 changed the entire way I looked at this country. But I'm a conservative. And even if some liberals did get hit enough to shock them into reality, they'd retreat into their denial. That's what they did after 9/11.

Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 11:07 AM (gofDd)

75 Marc Ambinder, of the Atlantic, retweeted Ackerman's tweet.

Another aspect to this attack- had it been successful- is that we wouldn't know what happened for a long time. We wouldn't know on Christmas day that some guy had an undie bomb. It would have taken weeks to reconstruct what happened.  Surely people remember how unsettling that is.

Posted by: MayBee at December 31, 2009 11:08 AM (VK+Dz)

76 Terrorism doesn't matter to me. But how you wipe your ass does.


Posted by: Sheryl Crow'sfeet at December 31, 2009 11:08 AM (b0NHc)

77 Well, that was an HTML fail on my part. I blame Bush.

Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 11:09 AM (gofDd)

78
You know what's really galling and proves what phony cocksucking hypocrites the Left are?

THEY WON'T EVEN CALL IT A HATE CRIME.

The Left invented this hate-crime bullshit and here's the ultimate crime of hate -- a.k.a. muslim terrorism -- and they don't even designate it as such.

Posted by: Posted by at December 31, 2009 11:09 AM (z37MR)

79

Are you wingnuts all H to the OMO? Toughen up sugar britches. See, here is how it is. We are enlightened, urbane, and sophisticated. The man caused disaster people are not.

Now, there is nothing to worry your pretty little heads over. You have your armored SUV, your private security detail, and your own private jet, right?

So what's your problem? God, it's not as if you're one of the little people!

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at December 31, 2009 11:10 AM (usn2e)

80 Our progressive friends seem to have forgotten that important message following the Brighton Hotel bombing.
Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.

Posted by: lotocoti at December 31, 2009 11:10 AM (zJ2yz)

81 This issue is about sovereignty.  3, 300, or 3000 - it makes no difference.  The threat is to our sovereignty.  These jokers just don't give a flip about citizenship, or our country, or heaven forbid, any defense of sovereignty.  They actively argue against it.  

Posted by: KTM at December 31, 2009 11:12 AM (cYJIu)

82 I love the way these left wing clowns want to tell people don't sweat the terrorists who would bomb every plane if they could, but turn around and yell that the NRA and guns are murdering the country, and must be removed so's we can live crime free, like the UK...

Posted by: maddogg at December 31, 2009 11:13 AM (OlN4e)

83 You laughably try to turn the Nut Who Burned His Underwear On A Plane into 9/11 redux.
Posted by: tim mcveigh at December 31, 2009 03:50 PM (YFV+t)

Yeah, if the detonator had worked just a little better it only would have killed 1/10th the people of 9/11... which is no biggie now.  I get that.  300 or so is ok, but where does it become a problem?

Is killing 1,250 people ok, or is that a problem?  I'm looking for some clarification here on where this line is when its an issue?  I've got a list and some plans... although I'm well under 300 with my entire list now; I might look to add a few... what's the cutoff here?  Can you give me a firm number at which it would be bad, and not laughable to have killed X people?

I see this is ok, so X > 300
And you reference 9/11 like it was bad, so X < 3,000

But what about 1,729 people dying at my hand?  Ok, or a bad thing I should be punished for?

You know what they say:
Proper Pedantic Planning Prevents Piss Poor Psychopath's Protracted Painful Punishments


Posted by: Gekkobear at December 31, 2009 11:13 AM (X0NX1)

84 Oh, and before all the M&Ms drink themselves incoherent, I want to say Happy New Year -- may it be LOADS better than this last travesty -- and thanks for saving my sanity.  I found Ace (thank you, too) at teh beginning of '09 and was here for the epic 1400 Memorial Day thread.  Ace commenters bring teh funny, some more than others.  You know who you are.

Posted by: Chefess (formerly RushBabe) at December 31, 2009 11:14 AM (LKkE8)

85 It's all academic isn't it.  The Left, I mean.  Their approach is always from an academic perspective.  It's opinions and actions without consequences.

In their world, "A" does not equal "A", reality is not real and truth is not true.

2010 is going to be a bad year for the Left.  And perhaps for everyone else because of them.

Posted by: SlaveDog at December 31, 2009 11:14 AM (W+E+o)

86

I had no fucking clue who Matthew Yglesias was, so I googled.

Here's a picture of the internet badass.

He makes Perez Hilton look like a fucking Spartan warrior

Posted by: rum, sodomy and the lash at December 31, 2009 11:15 AM (AnTyA)

87 This one gets right to the point:

http://bit.ly/6dDXY6

Posted by: Winston Smith at December 31, 2009 11:15 AM (BFqyO)

88 Posted by / 78 : bingo. The only reason to justify hate-crimes legislation is to define it as an act of political intimidation by X for his group against Y as a separate group. Those are exactly the properties of terrorism. Also, incidentally, they're the properties of Mafia crimes against law enforcement and rival gangs.

Posted by: Zimriel at December 31, 2009 11:15 AM (N8KrH)

89 I'm still working on meh funny.

Posted by: Winston Smith at December 31, 2009 11:16 AM (BFqyO)

90 "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and drink a White Chocolate Mocha Frappuccino."

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan Mencken at December 31, 2009 11:17 AM (muUqs)

91 I ain't funny at all until I get a 12 pack in me. Then I am just funny to myself.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at December 31, 2009 11:17 AM (SqAkN)

92 So trying to blow up a plane isn't terrorism terrorism?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 31, 2009 11:17 AM (0rfK0)

93 Well, these are the guys whose heroes (Stalin, Mao, Castro, pol Pot) all engaged in mass murder. So of course AQ trying to do it is no big deal to them. But if that's the case, all liberals everywhere for all time are forbidden to invoke Godwin. After all, aside from the war and the mass murder, what was so bad to a liberal about Hitler?

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at December 31, 2009 11:17 AM (pJeMA)

94 Stop trying to ruin my vacation, haters.  Just tryin' to play a little golf and watch some movies and all I hear is bitching.  I won, my peeps are in charge now, so shut up!

Posted by: Barry the fascist fraud at December 31, 2009 11:18 AM (9Wv2j)

95 This is really simple:
1) Loudmouth Radical Chic Lefties say "This is not a problem!"
2) Obama has cover to do nothing
3) If Obama does something (rocket the deserving in Yemen), the Lefties can whine and complain
4) Obama can plan to do nothing next time
BONUS:
5) When Israel fights back against terrorism, Lefties can scream and moan that THEY are 'overreacting.' (Cast Lead)

The problem is: there are certain benighted and morally ignorant places in the world (including ME/SWA) where not fighting back against some type of behavior invites more of that behavior.

Posted by: FR at December 31, 2009 11:18 AM (AIyLg)

96

Be careful what you wish for, Ace. Here's an all-too-true tale:

Once upon a time, there were four Republican senators who co-sponsored a bill to address the problem of undercapitalized financial institutions. "It's not a problem," the Democrats said. So these four Republicans faced elections. Two lost their bids for re-election; another ran for president and, though he kept his seat in the Senate, lost his bid for the White House. The last, the one who started it all, decided to retire.

Before I get to the moral of the story, remember another true tale about a brigadier general named Mitchell who warned the nation about the threat from the Empire of Japan. Everybody in the room laughed and laughed -- at least they did in the movie. In real life, they demoted this guy to colonel and enjoyed vindication through the evening of Dec. 6, 1941.

OK, the moral of the story is this: They can win in the short-term. Even given your ideal assumptions about honesty and a choice between clearly articulated, diametrically opposed positions, they can win. But their win will be short-lived. And when their victory expires, we'll all get hurt, quite badly.

 

 

Posted by: FireHorse at December 31, 2009 11:19 AM (Vl5GH)

97 65 Wasn't it Sheryl Crow that said the best way to not have enemies is...not to have enemies?

Yeah, she's a true brainiac, eh?
Posted by: wherestherum at December 31, 2009 03:57 PM (gofDd)

Actually, the best way not to have enemies is to kill enough of your enemies so the rest of them will no longer be your enemies. Google: World War, Second

Posted by: TexasJew at December 31, 2009 11:19 AM (3Uz3f)

98 Hey look, the Nazis are invading Paris! Oh well, its just a series of individual cases of trespass. Call the cops and we can go back to drinking.

Posted by: Saint at December 31, 2009 11:20 AM (8fIcf)

99 >>>So trying to blow up a plane isn't terrorism terrorism? No, it's just attempted murder, and it's wrong, and we should try to stop it, and yadda yadda yadda, but let's toughen up and accept the reality that some people are going to just die and there's no need to get all girlishly weepy about it. On the other hand, we should, when it comes to health care, join Keith Olbmerman's Fight Against Death.

Posted by: ace at December 31, 2009 11:20 AM (O02cD)

100 FireHorse=The Voice of Doom.

Truth, too.

Posted by: Winston Smith at December 31, 2009 11:20 AM (BFqyO)

101 @50  Was Stalin concerned about human lives??... Mao?...Pol Pot???
You beat me to it.  Now clearly these buffoons aren't the equivalent of Mao or Stalin-they lack the discipline and perserverance-so far.  But the mindset is perilously close.  Stalin is purported to have said that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic.  It is a short leap from 200 deaths to a million.  Will is the key thing, not methods or efficiency.

Posted by: pep at December 31, 2009 11:21 AM (DZyVK)

102 61 Wasn't it Sheryl Crow that said the best way to not have enemies is...not to have enemies?

Yeah, she's a true brainiac, eh?

Yup. Hey Sheryl, the best way to stop people from telling you that you can't sing is to stop singing

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 11:21 AM (sYxEE)

103 62 the left is every bit an enemy of the USA that AQ is.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, and Buckets of Scorn for this Administration at December 31, 2009 03:59 PM (erIg9)

At least AQ doesn't try to force the rest of us to pay for their damn healthcare.

Posted by: TexasJew at December 31, 2009 11:22 AM (3Uz3f)

104 49 Bicycle Johnson tried to downplay it the other day with a post that the material was not explosive, nothing to see here, just move on to dangerous creationists.

That very same day and the next day all the DemSM outlets stated that the exact amount of explosive Umar had in his drawers was enough to blow a large hole in the fuselage, with demo video and all.

Bicycle Johnson promptly flushed that thread down the memory hole

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 03:53 PM (sYxEE)

Any way to get a cached version?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at December 31, 2009 11:23 AM (w41GQ)

105 Hell, they seem to be split regarding 9/11- more than one lefty has commented that anyone not living in NYC at the time really didn't have a stake in it.  Or alternatively, that 3,000 people isn't actually that many compared to the number of people that die to accidents or violence in a year.

A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic - Stalin

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 11:23 AM (sYxEE)

106 Hitler has only one ball
Goering has two, but very small
Himmler has something sim-ler
And Dr. Goebbels has no balls at all!!

Posted by: Summer of 42 at December 31, 2009 11:24 AM (BFqyO)

107 Ever notice that the left loves to talk about Hitler and the depredations of the "right wing Nazis" and yet never talk about the mass murdering methods of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao? The Nazis were run of the mill mass murderers compared to these monsters. Some of them would even put Chairman Mao's likeness on Christmas ornaments.

Posted by: maddogg at December 31, 2009 11:24 AM (OlN4e)

108 Does anyone know what the official death tally has to be before terrorism becomes a national security threat?

A single splodydope greasing ~10 liberals at a Starbucks in Seattle or Manhattan is probably enough to effect a quick 180 degree turn

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2009 11:24 AM (BsmB2)

109 75
>>Another aspect to this attack- had it been successful- is that we wouldn't know what happened for a long time. We wouldn't know on Christmas day that some guy had an undie bomb. It would have taken weeks to reconstruct what happened.  Surely people remember how unsettling that is.


I wonder how long planes would have been grounded til they found the cause? At Christmas. Yglesias is an idiot.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at December 31, 2009 11:25 AM (muUqs)

110 You know, Matthew Yglesias would get a lot more readers on his shitty little blog if he would just set himself on fire and then jump out of a 110-story building.

Posted by: TexasJew at December 31, 2009 11:25 AM (3Uz3f)

111 The Liberals really are in bed with the extreme muslims. The more things they blow up, the more people they kill,  ( they truely do not discriminate when it comes to who they kill and maime) The more laws the Liberals can pass to take away more of our Constitutional freedoms. Tell that to a true liberal and watch them go ballistic. They really cannot handle the truth...

Posted by: mystry at December 31, 2009 11:27 AM (kmgIE)

112 A single splodydope greasing ~10 liberals at a Starbucks in Seattle or Manhattan is probably enough to effect a quick 180 degree turn



Hmmm.

Posted by: Winston Smith at December 31, 2009 11:27 AM (BFqyO)

113

I called Dr. Bombay
He came right away
With a dash of Vermouth
And three olives.

Posted by: Tinian at December 31, 2009 11:27 AM (7+pP9)

114 Matthew Yglesias would get a lot more readers on his shitty little blog if he would just set himself on fire and then jump out of a 110-story building

It would be a PPV blockbuster.  He'd get rich. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2009 11:27 AM (BsmB2)

115

What bothers me, along with ignoring the effect another disaster would have on our economy, is that the Left doesn't seem to place any value on thwarting terror. Every time we catch these fucks in the act, an imam cries.

This should delight every American, but for some reason Lefties don't enjoy terror FAIL. Why d'ya suppose that is?

Posted by: spongeworthy at December 31, 2009 11:28 AM (rplL3)

116

People on the left cannot manage to bring themselves to fully grasp that there are actually those who oppose their ideas and they see any who might actually exhibit this flaw in intellectual evolution as an inferior species.  They see those who acquiesce to their benevolence as inferior as well but they thrive on being esteemed – mostly by themselves but also by those who allow themselves to become dependent on them.  The left have this condescending, elitist attitude that because their way of thinking is so much more advanced than anyone else’s that all they have to do is coax, or if necessary force, anyone who opposes them to accept what they say to be true, and that once they succeed, those who oppose them will come around to the fact that they are being led by those of a higher intellect and that what the left is doing for (or to) them is for their own good.   If the opposition fails to reach this level of enlightenment the left, being of a higher and infallible intellect, will be justified to deal with the opposition by any means it sees appropriate.  They are the ancient Greeks.  Some of them are the Greek gods.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at December 31, 2009 11:28 AM (r1h5M)

117 114 Matthew Yglesias would get a lot more readers on his shitty little blog if he would just set himself on fire and then jump out of a 110-story building

It would be a PPV blockbuster.  He'd get rich. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2009 04:27 PM (BsmB2)

I love helping others achieve wealth and fame!

Posted by: TexasJew at December 31, 2009 11:29 AM (3Uz3f)

118

 After all, aside from the war and the mass murder, what was so bad to a liberal about Hitler?

You could argue that Naziism was a just another leftist ideology, but with a more concentrated focus..

...but the point is you still have large numbers of lefties still defending Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Liberal icon Noam Chomsky actually called the murder of 2-3 million Cambodians "a noble social experiment"

 

Posted by: rum, sodomy and the lash at December 31, 2009 11:31 AM (AnTyA)

119 On the other hand, we should, when it comes to health care, join Keith Olbmerman's Fight Against Death. Posted by: ace at December 31, 2009 04:20 PM

Since he broadcast that night, I've taken Brittany Murphy and thousands of others. Face it Keith, you got pwned by me

Posted by: Death at December 31, 2009 11:32 AM (sYxEE)

120

Was this a great posting by Ace?

Does the pope shit in his hat?

Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle?

Yes...in all three cases.

Posted by: Ministry of Fiction at December 31, 2009 11:32 AM (F8sIP)

121 Great post, Ace!  Yeah, I hate these liberal douchebags.  Civillians murdered on 9/11 are just "collateral damage" in their view that should be tolerated every couple of years so that money can be spent on vote buying and social programs instead of our evil miltary and intelligence agencies. These people are not naive, they are hateful and dangerous demogogues.  In their view, Muslim terrorists are just "misunderstood, impoverished victims of America's imperialism" and the real enemies are Bushco, Right Wingers, Tea Partiers, and conservatism. 

Posted by: runningrn at December 31, 2009 11:32 AM (CfmlF)

122 Another hole in one?? That's like my 15th on this round alone

Posted by: Barack Jung Il-Bama at December 31, 2009 11:34 AM (AnTyA)

123

You know who else is a bunch of panty-wetting pussies? The pillowbiters who start shreiking like girls everytime an abortion clinic gets bombed or some abortion doctor in Bumfuck Idaho gets it Corleone-style.

What kind of queerboy gets his frillies in a twist over a 1 in 50,000,000 chance of that kind of random occurence? Cowboy up, faggots. Go buy some insurance. 

Posted by: Anser Speckerman at December 31, 2009 11:34 AM (hqvM3)

124 George Soros is a notorious and documented Nazi collaborator. And oh yeah, a financier of leftist causes.

Posted by: maddogg at December 31, 2009 11:35 AM (OlN4e)

125 "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering the prisons."
~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead.

We can also judge a society by how seriously it takes the mass slaughter of its civilians, no? Protecting your nation's citizens from attack is an entirely civilized notion. Rather courteous and considerate, in fact.

250 families devastated, ho hum, just a bloody nose, we still have plenty of taxpayers left over! A human being that is too morally decrepit to value the lives of his own fellows above the needs of his politics is not trustworthy to make wise decisions for any one, never mind national policy.

Not to mention; if our government doesn't step up to reality and behave as if we are in a war, and behave as if the loss of our innocent lives is actually, really, Big Shakes, what reason are we paying taxes, eh? We pay for that protection, don't we? You could say it's a foundational reason for forming a nation, to begin with. Physical damn safety for us and ours. An entirely civilized notion, upon which most of the other civilized notions depend, since you can't do any of those other civilized things, like treat prisoners well, if you are, you know, dead.

Odd isn't it, these are the same folks who are always arguing for us to look at 'root causes,' but yet they want to treat terrorism as nothing more than a wave of random crimes. Khadafi must be pissed he wasn't born several decades later, he could have murdered lots more Americans and gotten an ass-kissing for it.

Posted by: lauraw at December 31, 2009 11:35 AM (DbybK)

126

At least AQ doesn't try to force the rest of us to pay for their damn healthcare.

Posted by: TexasJew at December 31, 2009 04:22 PM (3Uz3f)


this is true

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Meteors, and Buckets of Scorn for this Administration at December 31, 2009 11:37 AM (erIg9)

127 Another aspect to this attack- had it been successful- is that we wouldn't know what happened for a long time. We wouldn't know on Christmas day that some guy had an undie bomb. It would have taken weeks to reconstruct what happened.  Surely people remember how unsettling that is.

DHA and the TSA would have issued statements to be parroted by the DemSM; "While officials are investigating the cause of the crash of flight 253, they have stated that there are no indications that this was an act of terrorism, they are interviewing witnesses on the ground who reported seeing an explosion before the plane plummeted to the ground killing over 200 people"

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 11:38 AM (sYxEE)

128

40

A libtard I am arguing with on another forum almost said that verbatim.  I just look at his words with literal, utter disbelief.  I'll just never, ever be able to think like those rat bastards. 

Posted by: sybilll at December 31, 2009 11:39 AM (zm7Bh)

129 Another reason why liberals are friends of the militant muslims, is that they are no threat, so far as the liberals small brains know, to take over our country. So what if they knock off a couple hundred people at a time.  Now the Teaparty people, they are a direct threat to their power. They can vote them out of office and undue all their mischief. These people must be brought down to their knees as brutal and quick as possible. Am I wrong on this analysis?

Posted by: mystry at December 31, 2009 11:39 AM (kmgIE)

130 I have a certain sick fascination with leftwing message boards.  And there's one in particular that I can't resist reading.

And on this message board is an anonymous reporter from Michigan.  And he is the embodiment of the liberal cliche, in every despicable way.  He's an asshole  and a knee-jerk partisan (whilst denying there is any liberal bias in the media), and without a doubt he's wishing death upon Rush Limbaugh today.  He fascinates me in his anonymity because I'm sure that he is, in all his assaholic glory, typical of your garden variety liberal reporter working today.

And I mention him here because he can always be relied upon to spew whatever the fashionable Leftist cant of the day is, and, sure enough, he's been doing the "conservatives are pussies because they're afraid of terrorism" pose quite a bit lately.

Posted by: Kensington at December 31, 2009 11:39 AM (BlBnA)

131 This brings up a question in my backward mind. Which is worse? The terrorists who are at least honest about their intent, or the leftists who attempt to destroy us through corruption, lies, and cowardly behavior? I respect AQ more, I'm afraid.

Posted by: maddogg at December 31, 2009 11:40 AM (OlN4e)

132 The cavalier attitude of Ackerman and Yglesias is proof that the system worked

Posted by: Janet Napolitano at December 31, 2009 11:42 AM (sYxEE)

133 The left LOVES it when terrorists murder innocent people, especially Americans.  So of course they are going to downplay the efforts of those terrorists since vigilance on our part makes it more difficult for the Jihadis to kill us. 

The only thing worse than our enemies in the Muslim world are the leftist 5th columnists who undermine our efforts to defeat and destroy them.

The most clear example of this is how even Bush and company described this war as a "war on terror" like it was some kind of natural phenomenon.  He did this to appease the traitorous left under the misapprehension that they were the loyal opposition. 

We are not at war with "terror."  We are at war with Muslim extremists who use terrorism as a weapon. 

These are the people we have to kill. 

Posted by: Lee at December 31, 2009 11:45 AM (8cnnJ)

134 "Forgive me for my naive, uncouth Red State attitude toward this. I am, as you know, just a stupid, unenlightened tea-bagger. I'm not smart enough to treat Murder as a blow-off."

My guess would be that they wouldn't and don't treat it as a blow-off when it's people they know.  But unless they do, victims of violence are not real people to them: they're abstractions and can therefore be treated in abstract ways, as expendable "things."

Posted by: Dave J. at December 31, 2009 11:45 AM (Pw+Zz)

135

Great analysis, Ace.

I cant think of anything to add, coming to the party so late, but am I the only one who laughed when a moronette upthread asked if it was still ok to say "twat?" Only on AOS.

Posted by: di butler at December 31, 2009 11:49 AM (S3xX1)

136 First, understand that for lefties, political violence is admirable. When someone kills in the name of a leftist cause, they make him a star -- Che, Mumia, Unabomber, Mao, Pol Pot... They consider the willingness to slaughter innocents the mark of true dedication.

Second, understand that for the left, the purpose of government is to perfect humanity. Things like "defense", "preserving the peace", and "saving lives" are distractions to them.

Finally, understand that their primary goal right now is to prevent political damage to their Dear Leader. They will say anything, make any claim, DO anything to achieve that. The same people who claim Bush was to blame for 9/11 are suddenly declaring that the president CAN'T be held responsible for policies "from the previous administration". The same people who shrieked at what a horrible thing the very existence of Gitmo was are suddenly shrieking that NO ONE SHOULD HAVE EVER BEEN RELEASED FROM THERE.

The left exists solely for their own power. They don't care about honesty, facts, or the lives of other people. Their "war on the war on terrorism" is just a replay of their anti-anti-communism -- especially now, when they can see the fascism of their dreams being so close to implementation.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at December 31, 2009 11:50 AM (n2wxa)

137 You bunch of goddamn sissies need to grow a pair and quit crying like babies every time a Muslim looks at you crosseyed.  What happened to the men in this country?

Posted by: Alan Alda at December 31, 2009 11:50 AM (+lsX1)

138

Yglesias who?

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at December 31, 2009 11:51 AM (Lqykq)

139 Two words - Sack Up.  One more word - Pussies. 

Posted by: Phil Donahue at December 31, 2009 11:53 AM (+lsX1)

140 I have nothing but pity for you bunch of Kansas City faggots walking around with your tails between your legs.

Posted by: Dennis Kucinich at December 31, 2009 11:55 AM (+lsX1)

141 I'm just a pipe hittin' motherfucker who spends too much time crushing beers & pussy to be scared of no muslim with a firecracker.

Posted by: Woody Allen at December 31, 2009 11:59 AM (+lsX1)

142 It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.

I never heard from Yglesias, andi sullivan-johnson, or the other handwringers that waterboarding wasn't much more than a few guys getting wet, nothing more

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 12:04 PM (sYxEE)

143

The Left on Abu Graib: Underwear on jihadists heads, crime against all humanity

The Left on 9/11: Oh well, wasn't me. Get over it

Posted by: kbdabear at December 31, 2009 12:05 PM (sYxEE)

144

Death to Rush Limbaugh!

Art therapy for our misunderstood Muslim friends! 

Posted by: Warden at December 31, 2009 12:07 PM (QoR4a)

145 141: Lolz

I have no idea what the phrase "Kansas City faggots" means, but I can't wait to slip it into casual conversation as often and as inappropriately as possible.

Posted by: Spud at December 31, 2009 12:08 PM (iaMr2)

146

While we discourage the early, unplanned termination of Citizen Premium Payers, our concern is tempered by the understanding that premium paying units are able to reproduce in exponential fashion.

Posted by: Ministry of Social Justice at December 31, 2009 12:12 PM (QoR4a)

147 The LeftBots have already "forgotten" Sept. 11, 2001.  Roughly 3000 innocent people died that day.  The exact number is not known.  Oh well, like that great thinker of our day Whoopi says, it's not like they were "killed killed" / s

Posted by: sirsurfalot at December 31, 2009 12:17 PM (UPNlB)

148

Radical religious fanatics blowing up planes? C'mon, not really a problem.

Seventy-year olds in walkers protesting at tea parties? Run, fascism is coming to America!

I'll never understand them. No. I. Won't.

 

 

 

Posted by: ClosingTime at December 31, 2009 12:19 PM (l5UQn)

149 23 "Terrorism has the potential to unite this country like no other single thing. The left noticed this in mid-September of 2001 and it scared the crap out of them. A united America is an enemy of all their hateful confiscatory social bullshit.

Division is in their blood. Division and conquest."

I remember it well. Right after 9/11 is probably the only sustained period in our lifetimes when the Left/media lost control of the narrative. I always thought this explained the ferocity of their tearing the country apart after 9/11.

Posted by: andrew at December 31, 2009 12:19 PM (2sel1)

150

To be fair, AQ probably has a lower body count than Ayers would be happy with.

Ayers Qaiida is pretty scary,. too.

Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at December 31, 2009 12:22 PM (dQdrY)

151 Reminds me of the Monty Python skit where the guy says, "Let's not argue about who killed who..."

Posted by: JohnJ at December 31, 2009 12:23 PM (htoME)

152 Its clear they both had fantasies of some quality time with Osama, Obama, and Abdullwhatever.  Sort of that Tingles Matthews thing.

Posted by: Federale at December 31, 2009 12:24 PM (9gRn0)

153 And no, Hope and Change doesn't have room for real human life. Hope and Change is a political philosophy where other people are means to your ends rather than means to their own ends. If they don't serve your ends, they aren't a means to be bothered with.

The concrete humans (well, fleshy ones) are real things to us. To HopeNChangers they're abstractions, characters in a play about themselves where they are both hero and moral arbiter.

Taxes go up "to help the poor" even if it means the poor have fewer jobs. The important thing is that there is a villain - the rich - who is easy to dehumanize because abstractions aren't human anyway. You don't have to bargain with them. You don't have to offer them anything - even moral salvation - in return for the pleasure of plundering them. You simply take what is theirs and pat yourself on the back for your loving-kindness and wisdom.

Abortion is a moral good because unborn babies are the most abstract humans of all. They are human, sure, that's what the DNA says, but they aren't human being, as though any of us has the wisdom to know what that is. Therefore, they are subhuman - an abstraction - and no longer means to their own ends. You may kill them at will to spare yourself the expense of a life with responsibility, or so that they do not get in the way of your plans for greater prosperity.

(That the Liberal Jewish population that supports abortion so fervently doesn't see the horrible irony in it is something I've never been able to explain or reconcile.)

Since other people are also means to your ends, you may seize their wealth to fund the killing of babies. If they complain, so what? They are not ends in themselves. They are not the arc of your story.

That Hondurans want freedom and peace, that Georgians do not want to be under the thumb of Russians, that Iraqis and Afghanis might actually enjoy freedom, that Israelis face existential threats is of no concern. They are not means in themselves. They are in the way of the story where you, with your wisdom, your self-conscious love, your superiority, are able to fix the world with pretty, pretty words and warm sentiments. They are not means to your ends. Let them fall. Such is Hope and Change.

Posted by: Amos at December 31, 2009 12:25 PM (gDWoG)

154

"Forgive me for my naive, uncouth Red State attitude toward this. I am, as you know, just a stupid, unenlightened tea-bagger. I'm not smart enough to treat Murder as a blow-off."

My guess would be that they wouldn't and don't treat it as a blow-off when it's people they know.

That was the only reason the left was upset about 9/11--becuz it happened in liberal NYC to people they know.  Remember Michael Moore's reaction?  "Why attack NY, we didn't vote for Bush!"  If AQ had only hit the Pentagon, the left would have cheered and said it was justifiable, which they pretty much did about NY as well, except they were just a little bit upset that good NY liberals were killed.

Posted by: Pervy Grin at December 31, 2009 12:36 PM (OxKj2)

155 I understand that there was a congressman on the plane with the underwear Islamic terrorist. Does anyone know his name, and has he made any public statements?  Must be a Liberal if he has not quit doing #1's and #2's in his pants yet. Or perhaps Obama kidnapped him and threw him in a locked room

Posted by: mystry at December 31, 2009 12:36 PM (kmgIE)

156

146 Spud

I have no idea what the phrase "Kansas City faggots" means, but I can't wait to slip it into casual conversation as often and as inappropriately as possible.

Watch the first few minutes of Blazing Saddles.  Slim Pickens was hysterical.

Posted by: Pervy Grin at December 31, 2009 12:38 PM (OxKj2)

157 I know a cement-head that told me over 5 years ago that we had to accept a certain level of terrorism in our lives, like Europe does.
Unacceptable.

Posted by: the real joe at December 31, 2009 12:49 PM (SUYSs)

158 99 >>> "So trying to blow up a plane isn't terrorism terrorism? "
NO.  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was formally charged Saturday in a board room at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, where he was being treated for burns suffered in the incident.  He is charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft and placing a destructive device aboard an aircraft.  Obama & Company don't have the balls to charge this Jihadi with a single Terrorism charge?  OK, how about some kinda Hate Crime?  You just know this SOB is going to either walk on these charges, or get probation right?  His dad is or was the chairman of the largest bank in Nigeria.  Just watch this piece of shit counter sue and collect millions.  Also, please note that he is being treated at perhaps one of the best hospitals in the country, well noted worldwide for their burn center.

Posted by: sirsurfalot at December 31, 2009 12:50 PM (UPNlB)

159

I know a cement-head that told me over 5 years ago that we had to accept a certain level of terrorism in our lives,

That was no cement-head, that was Senator John Kerry, sir!

Hey, but watch out for those tea party protesters! You know what one of those guys can do with a walker, sir!? A heckuva lot of damage, sir!

Don't ask me why I'm doing Keith Olbermann.

Sir.

 

 

Posted by: ClosingTime at December 31, 2009 12:55 PM (l5UQn)

160 Well the funny thing here is that the guy wasn't smuggling "firecrackers". He was using a sophisticated technique of mixing chemicals in order to cause an explosion. This was well thought out in an attempt (successful) to defeat airline security. It shows that AQ is working hard to adapt to countermeasures in order to continue their Jihad. Just like it took a number of years after the first attack on NYC & the WTC to get it right, they are nothing if not patient. Unfortunately the United States was in fact "devastated" after 911. The price in human lives as well as the damage to our economy was like Giuliani said at the time "more than we can bear". I am a firefighter who attended some of the hundreds of funerals and my life was changed forever. What AQ did even in failure was start a fire on an airborne jetliner that could in itself could have killed everyone on board the aircraft. Fire is a devastating weapon and God help us if they ever go low tech. This is absolutely something to take deadly seriously.

Posted by: CaptainAmerica at December 31, 2009 01:05 PM (FSyg7)

161 I don't think they'll go low tech until they've smuggled in a few hundred thousand more sleepers. Then, the only planning they'll need is to agree on a day.

Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at December 31, 2009 01:11 PM (dQdrY)

162 we had to accept a certain level of terrorism in our lives

As a rough starting figure, ZERO works for me.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2009 01:11 PM (BsmB2)

163 we had to accept a certain level of terrorism in our lives

Well, if people are going to be getting killed anyway, how about we just kill Leftists? Then, the Muslims will be like "Man, they did that to their own people. We can't fuck with them." Where I come from, that's called killing two birds with one stone.

Posted by: BS, Inc. at December 31, 2009 01:15 PM (H8eTR)

164 lauraw: your post 125 was excellent.

Posted by: Donna V. at December 31, 2009 01:20 PM (Ds+Bk)

165 Once again, American leftists are trying to be "nuanced" and European about this.  When I was in the UK in the '80's I remember the Guardian stating that well, a few IRA pub bombings here and there didn't matter.  The IRA had its reasons and it was an "acceptable level of violence," nothing for Maggie T. to get her knickers in a wad about.

Posted by: Donna V. at December 31, 2009 01:28 PM (Ds+Bk)

166 En Fuego!

Posted by: that guy that shouts en fuego at December 31, 2009 01:33 PM (PD1tk)

167 All I can advise them is: Keep it up. Keep pushing this attitude out there, keep trying to sell the American People on the idea that it's the sissy-pants and pants-wetters and nancyboys who actually take this stuff deadly seriously, and meanwhile those who mock concerns about mass murder potentially killing thousands at a clip are really the true zealots of the Cult of the Brave.

Its funny, because when the left was complaining that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh killed that Census Worker in Tennessee, terrorism was a BFD. Specifically we needed to restrict the 1st Amendment it was such a BFD. It is amazing how much cognitive dissonance there is in your average koolaide drinking leftist.

And actually, it is interesting how the left has adopted Islamist violence as their own. They treat it the same way they treat enviro-terrorists or animal rights wackos - a few isolated extremists, driven to violence by some injustice by Bush, non-leftist America, or the like drove them to violence.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 31, 2009 01:49 PM (bgcml)

168 How to make them understand:

Put on a distinctive piece of clothing, say, a red t-shirt. Find the liberal in question and hit them, hard. While they're lying on the ground, tell them that this will be repeated once a year, at a random time, with the only possible warning that the assailant will be wearing an identical shirt.

Within a few years the guy will either be carrying a gun (destroying his liberal cred) or shitting himself every time he is approached by a person in a red t-shirt. These people don't learn from bad things happening to others. It has to be personal or they simply don't care.

Posted by: epobirs at December 31, 2009 01:49 PM (4dwkY)

169 Granted, I tend to believe everything I ever read on the intertubes thingy, but was not AQ, as advertised by their own PR brochures and the best snooping available, an umbrella organization which merely provided training and coordination for a host of otherwise unassociated mu-slim terrorist groups, both free-lancers and state-sponsored?

- cough - "known state sponsor of terrorism" - cough -

Not that I have ever heard of such a thing as "known state sponsor of terrorism" since 9-11...

Posted by: Druid at December 31, 2009 06:47 PM (Gct7d)

170 2010
Out: Astroglide
In: Human Blood

Posted by: Ostral B Heretic at December 31, 2009 08:11 PM (Tr9MG)

171 What p!sses me off is the following assertions in the Media: 1) It isn't a terrorist act if it didn't succeed in killing hundreds, 2) It isn't a terrorist act if Al Qaeda isn't positively linked to the perpetrators - even when they claim responsibility, 3) All terrorists are stupid, 4) Just because an eyewitness says the pop on board flight 253 sounded like a firecracker going off means someone lit fireworks on board the plane, 5) Flight 253 was just an foiled attempted terrorist act, instead of a successful terrorist act with lesser effect than the bomber desired.

Posted by: Bill at December 31, 2009 08:49 PM (xIgUZ)

172  Simple:  Reduce terrorism by reducing the recognition of terrorist acts!  If we do not call terrorist acts, terrorism, then we do not suffer from terrorist acts.  See?  Prezidunce Zero has eliminated Terrorism!  No one can attack us! (and if they do, it isn't terrorism!)  Oh happy day!

Or something.

Posted by: Nimrod at December 31, 2009 09:56 PM (Vy2E5)

173 Sure, guys, if I define a problem as not a problem at all, the problem does, in fact, effectively go away; or, at least, it goes away in the sense I'm no longer acknowledging it as a problem at all. But the fact that I no longer acknowledge it as such does not actually make it not such. You may not be interested in terrorism, but terrorism is interested in you!

Posted by: Comrade Trotsky at December 31, 2009 11:21 PM (AsApV)

174

I'm missing something in the original argument - if murder isn't a big deal, then what is a big deal?  Where do we get a philosophical argument that there is some issue that trivializes human life? 

I'm a soldier - killing people is in my job description.  I believe it's not necessarily wrong to kill.  But it is a big deal.  It is never trivial. 

Posted by: Penultimatum at January 01, 2010 06:14 AM (CIKgX)

175

What a post! Have had many of the same thoughts but never put it together like this. Thanks, Ace.

I do think this goes a bit deeper. They really do not care if the US suffers a few incidents of terrorism every year. If these attacks happen, to these liberals it is because we are an imperialistic, arrogant nation that is rightly hated around the world, and these attacks are a deserved, justified response. 

They aren't ready to put this on the table yet as their honest belief any more than they will the other detestable elements of their "policy." But as long as it is someone else doing the dying, they are more than happy to see the great satan get its comeuppance.

Posted by: RM at January 01, 2010 09:18 AM (GkYyh)

176 I'm sure those 250 passengers wouldn't have been blasé if their blood were used like so much hand lotion in a dorm. Well fricken' said, sir!

Posted by: KJ at January 01, 2010 10:18 AM (7b8YW)

177 This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/2/2010, at The Unreligious Right

Posted by: UNRR at January 02, 2010 03:07 AM (2D++g)

178 Obama administration is embarrassed that even after sending Hillary on her blame-the-US world tour and kowtowing to Muslim nations, that somebody (allegedly) attempted a terrorist attack (sorry, mid-air protest) on his watch. We obviously can't accuse the misunderstood man with the explosives in his shorts -- so, who do we blame? Heads should roll, just not THE head because the buck stops, you know, elsewhere.

Posted by: LW at January 02, 2010 12:45 PM (0IoTu)

179 DVD to MOV Converter for mac is the one that you have been looking for. Using this software, you can quickly load dvd files and convert them to mov on mac/os x system DVD to MP4 Converter for Mac is an excellent Mac DVD to MP4 ripper, DVD to MP4 Mac converter to fulfill your needs of ripping DVD to MP4 and AVI videos DVD to PSP converter for Mac is a very professional Mac DVD to PSP converter. It is a powerful PSP conversion tool for Mac OS users to rip DVD to PSP MP4 for playback on PSP players. DVD to Youtube Converter Mac

Posted by: sdfg at January 11, 2010 02:44 AM (DGsXc)

Posted by: sxynatu at March 23, 2010 08:33 AM (5g7JG)

181 Shoes for everyone is important, choose the right pair of shoes makes you feel very comfortable, puma sneakers that make you so comfortable shoes.

Posted by: puma shoes at March 28, 2010 07:20 AM (B+4/3)

182 Then hit Control-R and begin to type 'grep'.

Posted by: sunglasses at April 11, 2010 11:10 PM (kZKkI)

183 exclamation marks (!!) will re-execute the last command. The next example executes date twice:

Posted by: heaphones at April 11, 2010 11:11 PM (kZKkI)

184 With DVD to iPad 3G Converter, users can easily convert DVD movies/IFO folder and rip DVD Disc to iPad/iPad 3G for entertainment. If you are looking for an easy-to-use DVD to iPad 3G software, here Aiseesoft DVD to iPad Converter is your best choice.

This DVD to iPad 3G Converter is actually a total DVD Ripper, which allows users to rip DVD movies to any popular video formats, including AVI, MPEG, WMV, DivX, RM, MOV, 3GP, 3GP2, MP4, H.264, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, AVI, DivX, XviD, WMV, HD H.264, HD DivX, HD WMV, HD XviD, etc. And you can play the converted DVD movies on iPad, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP, Creative Zen, etc.

Posted by: dvd to ipad 3g at June 09, 2010 12:34 AM (9MaiN)

Posted by: high power led at June 13, 2010 09:51 AM (B8Kgb)

186 many thanks for it

Posted by: wood doors at July 19, 2010 04:41 AM (pouYP)

187 We provide shoulder leather bags of AAA  quality,real leather bags and upscale canvas bags,all new. have card and dustbag.we collections in wide range: mulberry handbags, shoulder handbags, shoulder leather handbags, Mulberry bags sale, shoulder purses and leather wallets, the hottest brands you can find like Louis Vuitton shoulder bags, Gucci shoulder bags, Hermes shoulder bags, Prada shoulder bags, marc jacobs shoulder bags, mulberry alexa , Burberry shoulder bags, Dior shoulder bags, Chloe shoulder bags, Versace shoulder bags, MiuMiu shoulder bags...Color choose Black leather handbag,designer shoulder bags highest quality materials. Our quality is absolutely the finest you will find in shoulder handbags anywhere.

Posted by: mulberry bags at April 12, 2011 09:03 PM (c8B4s)

188 That is an awfully astounding column you've posted.Thanks a lot for that a fantastically amazing post!

Posted by: oakley at July 13, 2011 05:51 PM (LiYw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
183kb generated in CPU 0.29, elapsed 1.6027 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3777 seconds, 424 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.