Blogger advocates blowing up the State Dept.
By
MikeAdamson
on November 16, 2006 at 08:46 am
38 Comments
Not very civil of her...would this constitute an act of treason in American law?
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Comments
I don’t see where she called for blowing up the State Department, but I see at the end where she takes a cue from Shakespeare and says “First kill all the diplomats.”
I doubt she’s serious about that, but certainly that sort of rhetoric isn’t very useful or constructive. And yes, advocating for the death of our diplomats - as much as I may disagree with those diplomats at time - is treasonous. As treasonous as when radio jockeys on Air America crack wise about assassinating the President.
This sort of stuff is why I hate Ann Coulter. Is Ann right about a lot of things? Yes she is. Do a lot of the things she’s right about get ignored because she’s an abrasive old hag? Absolutely.
But that’s her schtick, I guess, and some people respond to that.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Diplomacy is for pussies. Let’s just bomb the piss out of whoever doesn’t agree with us in the name of democracy.
Rob...I wouldn’t want her charged or anything but I was curious. The reference to State is about halfway down.
Accepting Hamas? Perhaps Hamas will blow up State. Someone has to.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
This sort of stuff is why I hate Ann Coulter.
AC doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of our govt. Big difference.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
AC doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of our govt. Big difference.
No, but she says dumb stuff like “Kill all the terrorist leaders and convert their followers to Christianity.”
Now I wouldn’t mind seeing all the terror leaders dead, but convert everyone to Christianity? As I said, that sort of rhetoric isn’t very helpful or constructive.
I know you’re a fan of her’s, and I’ll admit that she does make me laugh from time to time, but mostly I just find her irritating.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
No, but she says dumb stuff like “Kill all the terrorist leaders and convert their followers to Christianity.”
That was satire, don’t you know? That is exactly what they threaten to do to us, and she turned it around, just to show how horrific they are. The PC MSM was horrified at what she said, but makes apologies for the terrorists, which was her point.
I must say that I advocate the violent overthrow of all terrorist regimes, though. Better them than us.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
The PC MSM was horrified at what she said, but makes apologies for the terrorists, which was her point.
Hogwash. I’d like to see an MSM article that apologises for the terrorists...are you sure this isn’t one of those urban myths?
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Hogwash. I’d like to see an MSM article that apologises for the terrorists…
That’s funny; I have been seeing them since right after 9/11. Stuff blaming the US for Islamic terrorism, because we haven’t been treating them right; stuff blaming 9/11 on the President, so it wasn’t the terrorists’ fault at all, stuff blaming Israel for retaliating against Hez, stuff favorable to Chavez and Mahmoud; the MSM is full of it, including several recent network references to the “so-called war on terrorism”, as if it doesn’t really exist. Furthermore, isn’t the MSM carrying the terrorists’ water in their reporting on Iraq, which conveniently only reports deaths of US soldiers and our allies, but never mentions how many terrorists are killed, how we are damaging their infrastructure, or how we are improving things for the Iraqi people.
Just because you haven’t seen it, Mike, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
Then it should be really easy to post some links.I have been seeing them since right after 9/11.
Rob:
So should that blogger be executed? Or at least put on trial?And yes, advocating for the death of our diplomats - as much as I may disagree with those diplomats at time - is treasonous.
So should that blogger be executed? Or at least put on trial?
No, because it only meets my personal definition of treason and not that which is laid out in the Constitution.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
"blaming the US for Islamic terrorism, because we haven’t been treating them right;”
Well, I thought we were treating them too well in the 80s: funding, arming and training them!! N’est-ce pas?
This does not of course excuse the terrorists - but am I right in thinking that the US was told to remove two army bases near holy Saudi cities, or risk dire consequences? I repeat that doesn’t make it The US’ fault that 9/11 happened, I’m just interested to know.
And let me get this straight - everything in the British, German, Swiss and American media about Afghanistan getting worse (bumper poppy crop this year, too)and Iraq getting worse - that’s all lies?
Can somebody help me with Israel, please? I thought they occupied land illegally? Normally that’s a bad thing, isn’t it?
r108 said
just because you haven’t seen it, Mike, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Very true although I’m not convinced that you don’t consider anything short of full throated approval of the Bush approach to fighting terror as apologising for the terrorists.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
MikeA
I don’t think r108 is like that. He stresses his appreciation for diversity and individuality - as part of his conservative ideal - despite the fact he has no tolerance for anyone who doesn’t gree with him. DUH.
Well, I thought we were treating them too well in the 80s: funding, arming and training them!! N’est-ce pas?
Interesting sidetrack, but it does illustrate something; the terrorists are ungrateful, and hate us, no matter what we do. My comment was that the MSM is sympathetic to the terrorists, and you have just reinforced the fact that we have been good to them, and they hate us anyway, thanks!
And let me get this straight - everything in the British, German, Swiss and American media about Afghanistan getting worse (bumper poppy crop this year, too)and Iraq getting worse - that’s all lies?
If you read what I wrote
, you will notice I said all they report is the bad stuff, and they ignore the good stuff. That was my point, and you missed it, either purposely or you just didn’t get it. While I think they are lying about the damage to some extent(staging phony events, fauxtography), their major lie is that of omission. They give a false impression by doing one-sided reporting; only the bad stuff, no good stuff. They want to create the impression that it’s “a disaster” or “a quagmire"(in the desert?), which is, in itself, supporting the strategic goal of the terrorists: to get us to give up and lose heart, since they can’t defeat us any other way. Both the Dems and the MSM are aiding them to succeed with that strategy, whether they know it or not.(I can’t see how they could be that ignorant, though)with comprehension
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
...I’m not convinced that you don’t consider anything short of full throated approval of the Bush approach to fighting terror as apologising for the terrorists.
Not true, but I don’t see how that matters, in reality. I want us to win, and the MSM is aiding the terrorist strategy, as I explained in the previous comment. Give those two choices, I choose the President. Now, you are wrong in particular, as I thought Fallujah should have been flattened the first time, and would have pursued the war much more vigorously. Nothing changes what the MSM is doing, though.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
I don’t think r108 is like that. He stresses his appreciation for diversity and individuality
Real diversity, not the phony BS the lefties peddle. I don’t try to suppress a diversity of opinion, like the lefties do.
- as part of his conservative ideal
For me, conservatism is a living reality, not an ideal. Unlike Marxism, free enterprise doesn’t require perfection to work, which is why we don’t slaughter people like the Marxists do.
- despite the fact he has no tolerance for anyone who doesn’t gree with him.
I have very little tolerance for either untruth or for foolishness, insincerity or stupidity.DUH.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
r108 said
Not true, but I don’t see how that matters, in reality.
It matters in that what you take as sympathy for the terrorists is in fact not sympathy for the terrorists. This may not make a difference to the position you take but it does make a difference in how others perceive your comments.
r108 said
Now, you are wrong in particular, as I thought Fallujah should have been flattened the first time, and would have pursued the war much more vigorously.
That’s a legitimate opinion but it also highlights how the objectives in Iraq aren’t always compatible. Flattening Fallujah is a logical tactic as part of the war on terror but it sort of sucks as part of the liberation of the Iraqi people.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
MikeA: What was not true was your contention that I was only following the President, and I clearly indicated that I was not. Why it doesn’t matter is that it was a personal attack on me, rather than a logical argument. Understand?
I think that winning the war on terror is part of the liberation of the Iraqi people; not taking out all the terrorists earlier is the root of the present problems. I would have closed down the border with Iran, as well, because that it where the terrorists and materiel is coming from now.
You constantly attempt to portray me as an unthinking advocate of the President’s every whim, in spite of all the evidence I have presented to the contrary. You think that is an adequate rebuttal to my reasoning, and it isn’t. I don’t mind your stance against American policy, but try to attack it with reason instead of personal attack.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
Why it doesn’t matter is that it was a personal attack on me, rather than a logical argument. Understand?
No...how you can construe that as a personal attack is beyond me. The Bush approach to fighting terror is military rather than diplomatic in nature and the invasion of Iraq has been justified on the grounds of advancing the war on terror and liberating the people of Iraq. Feel free to correct me if you disagree.
I think that winning the war on terror is part of the liberation of the Iraqi people…
That’s fine as far as it goes but flattening Fallujah to liberate the residents sounds rather Orwellian to me.
You constantly attempt to portray me as an unthinking advocate of the President’s every whim, in spite of all the evidence I have presented to the contrary.
Then let me set the record straight. I have never believed nor have I ever stated that you are an unthinking follower of his every whim. You have certainly advocated policies and actions that the President advocates but I do not believe that you do so simply because Mr. Bush is who he is and I am quite aware of the differences you have had with him in a variety of areas. I was responding to what you said above and I would prefer that you consider my comments in that context lest I think that you’re trying to deflect me.
I don’t mind your stance against American policy, but try to attack it with reason instead of personal attack.
I will but please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming personal attack when one is not there.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
Robert108,
For what its worth, I think that MikeA is sincere in stating that he intended no personal offense. I wouldn’t make that assumption with any of the other “moderate” Democrats and assorted leftards here, but I believe Mike’s record bears out his good will… in spite of an occasional snide adjective or two.
Mike,
On another note, I’d really like to know more details about your “diplomatic” approach to the War on Terror. (While I understand the President’s intent to not offend, I find the name GWOT to be inanely “nuanced,” ineffectual, and borderline dishonest.) Who would you engage diplomatically, and how? Through what forums? What would you be inclined/willing to negotiate and what would you expect/hope to achieve in return? Finally, please explain what possible good could come from “negotiation” absent any sort of credible military threat. Thanks, in advance.
B One...I appreciate your words of moderation. I will try to cobble together a proper response for you this weekend...I’m out the door shortly so you’ll just have to wait. 
I will say that the simple answer is to talk with whoever wants to talk while the slightly more serious answer is to talk to those who have influence on the sources of jihadist terror. I’m not suggesting that we talk to every terrorist in the world but we will likely have to talk to some. Fixing Iraq will involve talking to Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the Saudis at the very least. I’m being dragged towards the door as I type but i will return.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
MikeA,
I’m out to dine as well. Later.
MikeA: When you wrote:
...I’m not convinced that you don’t consider anything short of full throated approval of the Bush approach to fighting terror as apologising for the terrorists.
That statement was about me and your speculation of how I think; it contained no factual information, only your opinion of me. Now let me be clear; I’m not offended by this; it’s only that there is really nothing to which I can reply, other than your inaccurate portrayal of my thinking, which I did. My point was that neither of us was advancing the argument, since their was a distraction of personal attack instead of reason. Understand? If you have thinking about this, I would like to hear it, but your opinion of how I think, or your guessing about how I arrive at my opinions, is simply irrelevant. If you can, deal with the conclusions of my thinking, not what you suppose precedes it. Your continued attempts to win by invalidating me is becoming boring. It’s like a burger with no patty between the buns.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
That should be: “...since there was a distraction...”
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
r108...I honestly can’t tell if you’re sincere in this or just pulling my leg. If it’s the latter then my hat is off to you. If it is the former, then your assertion that the media is apologising for the terrorists is not factually supported and thus I disagree with your opinion. Hope this helps.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
They’re actually not that bad.It’s like a burger with no patty between the buns.
MikeA: I don’t know how to make it any more plain than to quote you trying to invalidate my thinking with an inaccurate generalization, instead of replying to what I said. The two arguments possible against my assertion that the MSM sympathizes with the terrorists are these:
One: Their words were not really sympathetic, but meant something else, which you would illustrate,
or,
Two: They are sympathetic to the terrorists, but that is the proper thing for them to do, along with the reasoning behind that one.
You did neither. Maybe this approach is so ingrained in your thinking that you don’t realize what you do. In any case, it is an impediment to further discussion between us. I don’t want to spend the time to correct your incorrect assumptions; I would prefer to just discuss the subject matter.
Two more examples of the MSM sympathizing with the terrorists:
The NYT revealing the secret cell phone intercepts of calls to and from terrorists, and the blowing of the secret financial monitoring program to track terrorist financial transactions.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
One: Their words were not really sympathetic, but meant something else, which you would illustrate,
This is of course what i was saying...I didn’t realise I had to spell it out so clearly. I simply don’t want to go through the meaningless exercise of citing media stories that don’t apologise for the terrorists as the onus is obviously on you to support your assertion. The two examples which you cite are not apologies for or even expressions of sympathy for the terrorist position which doesn’t bode well for your argument. In my opinion, the nature and content of those two revelations aren’t considered sympathetic to the terrorists but rather reporting of programs which may not comply with legal requirements. You still live in a free society as far as I know and, like it or not, such unusual programs are news.
I don’t want to spend the time to correct your incorrect assumptions
You realise what a disadvantage I am at on those occasions when your “facts” are really “opinions” but you decline to recognise them as such. From what i can see, your problem with me is that I’m not laying out the factual material for you to criticise and dismiss. I thought we were at the stage in our relationship where we could skip the humdrum “facts” and joust over the real differences in our views of the world. I know your sources are nonsense and you know my sources are nonsense so what’s the point? If you want to quit talking then that’s fine by me and until you abandon this unreasonable and unworkable stance then it’s probably for the best.
"The nation has been hypnotized by the swaying and the gesturing of the Watusi and the Frug.”
*J. Helms*
I know your sources are nonsense and you know my sources are nonsense so what’s the point?
You are welcome to speak for yourself, but not for me. I seek to discuss on the basis of ideas. I would rather hear your ideas and your logical train of thought than wade through a bunch of stuff where you speculate on what I am thinking or what you think I believe. If either your ideas or mine are right, it doesn’t matter how we arrived there.
The two examples which you cite are not apologies for or even expressions of sympathy for the terrorist position which doesn’t bode well for your argument. In my opinion, the nature and content of those two revelations aren’t considered sympathetic to the terrorists but rather reporting of programs which may not comply with legal requirements.
Now that’s something to discuss! I knew you could do it! That was the NYT’s justification for publishing the secret material, but there are no instances that have surfaced where some citizen’s “rights” were violated by those programs; it is mere speculation that something might happen. In light of that, even with the rationalization, it is apparent that the NYT made a value judgement that it was better to compromise our ability to surveil the terrorists than to take any sort of chance of maybe violating some citizen’s rights, no matter how unlikely that would be. It is a fact that it interfered with our security, but to date, no one’s rights have been demonstrated to have been violated. In other words, they sympathized more with the terrorists than with the President. IMO, their rationalization about “rights” was self-serving BS; their real purpose of revealing covert surveillance programs was to “get the President”. So, there you are: facts plus my opinion on the purpose behind the NYT’s actions. Fire away!
BTW, I don’t think discussing ideas on their merits is an “unreasonable and unworkable stance”. I do consider attacking the other person in any manner to be “unreasonable and unworkable” though.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
One more thing, Mike: I never said that the MSM “only” distributes material sympathetic to the terrorists. I don’t think the media in this country should write anything sympathetic to the terrorists, but our beloved MSM makes it a regular practice, like CNN distributing the terrorist sniper videos while refusing to air videos from our own military. Some MSM people have also used the phrase “the so-called war on terror” which implies that we are just making it all up. That is also sympathetic to the terrorists.
If you have any explanation or justification for those examples, I would like to hear it.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
Q: What do “God” and “the MSM” have in common?
A: They’re both omnipotent in the eyes of conservatives.
Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all night.
Semantically, to call it “a so-called “war on Terror"” is totally reasonable. “War on Terror” is a soundbite, a cynical misuse of language straight from Orwell. You can’t fight against an abstract emotion, let alone with guns and bombs. If anything, you will actually raise the Terror quota.
“War on Terrorism” is a bit better, but since people don’t all believe that ending terrorism everywhere is what they’re after, the phrase “so-called” is totally fair enough. It reflects the declining public confidence in the motives of the warmakers, rightly or wrongly. It’s not the job of the media to cheer on the Administration.
It’s not the job of the media to cheer on the Administration.
Thanks for making my point! This is exactly the attitude of our beloved MSM, who benefit from all the freedom and prosperity in this country, and yet who continue to be sympathetic to the terrorists, who would behead them if they could, as subhuman infidels. The phrase “so-called war on terror” is not a semantic nicety; it is a denial of reality, in order to create the illusion that terrorism isn’t really all that bad; it’s just some “freedom fighters” who have a just cause, according to the MSM.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
With respect, I don’t think you’ve addressed the points I have raised. “War on Terror” is a piece of Orwellian nonsense, in the strict, not pejorative, sense of the word. You cannot wage war on an abstract emotion, and if you state that you are, there are two consequences. One: you look foolish when you yourself help create a nightmare of fear and disorder ("to end terror you have to first create lots of it” seems to be what’s happened).
Two: you can justify a state of endless war, because people will always be afraid, especially if we encourage them to be afraid. If there is fear, then war as a fight against “terror” can always be justified, regardless of international law, the ethics of pre-emption or any other constraints.
cd: While you jerk around splitting metaphorical hairs, the terrorists keep on killing people. Duh
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
I think it’s a little more important than splitting hairs. Truth is at stake, and the role of language in distorting or representing truth. We also keep killing people, and I think given that’s the case it would have been nice if the “war on terror” hadn’t got its name from a marketing department. Something’s far wrong here. Plus we picked a country with little or no links to terrorism, so I wonder how committed the Administration really is to its stated premise.
Plus we picked a country with
little or no links to terrorism…
Now, that’s just willful ignorance; or lying, I don’t know which.
The secret of financial success:
If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it. Even if you can afford it, that’s no reason to buy it.
Page 1 of 1
Bat One
2Hotel9
Hawk
RebTex
The Whistler
Chief RZ
Hannitized
Rodney Graves
Joel
robert108