What's Mallard raving about today?
Terrorists, The Media.
We get it Mallard. You want everything that causes you to wet your pants to be labeled "al Queda" because you feel that will justify the fact that you immediately knuckle under to terror.
The rest of us have a spine, so pardon us if we choose not to wet our pants on your cue.
11 comments:
So...who has ever actually characterized Al Qaeda that way?
...
I'm sorry; I don't know where my head was. I was making the mistake of trying to somehow connect Tinsley's ravings with the real world. Truly, a rookie error.
"Silly Liberal Media! Will you just accept the fact that everyone hates us because we're the best and super-free and oh-so-brave and have God on our side? Stop looking for anything deeper and toe the damn line! Otherwise you're a terrorist sympathizer and besides, thinking about things makes my head all hot. But that just means YOU'RE dumb."
>Sigh< More of the same tiresome "liberals are always apologizing for evil and want to serve our enemies tea and crumpets" folderol that modcons have been spewing ever since they realized that they didn't give a rat's ass about al-Qaeda before 9/11, and needed to find a target on which to project their fear and guilt.
Well, at least Brucie remembered to draw Mallard's bean bag chair this time.
I wonder what Mallard's explanation is for every white guy who shot up his place of work and killed his fellow human beings who trusted him not to shoot them? Are those all terrorism then? Is that the label every time an employee or student "goes postal"?
And by the way, stress is an explanation, not an excuse. In other words, to a liberal it's more important to find the reasons leading up to the event in case it is preventable in the future and to get proper justice then it is to find a reason to let the guy off the hook. He is an American citizen who chose to shoot those he worked with, he will be served justice, but people need to know why.
But make no mistake, if you dropped the WTC plotters into a crowd of New York liberals, you would probably never find all the body parts.
When looking for causes for aberrent behaviors, I've been accused by 'some' people of looking to excuse the perpetrators' behavior. I've never understood the impulse to not look for sources of societal woes. Apparently the only acceptable response is to label the perps as evil, and use every available tool (from laws to mob rule) to exact revenge (labelled as "justice") and ostracize these people permanently from society.
It might be more effective to identify what causes people to indulge in anti-social behavior and to avoid such exposure early, but that's SO much work! Besides, if you do it that way, you don't get to feel superior by looking down on terrorists/criminals/sickos/insert-label-or-insult-here.
It's interesting, reading the recent book about Columbine -- Eric Harris does fit the bill as a terrorist, inasmuch as one of his goals was to freak out the world in general (Dylan Klebold not so much; he got pulled along in Harris' wake), and make people feel no one was safe. His actual victims were incidental. I would bet he was closer in MO to al-Qaeda than the Fort Hood shooter. And there's been plenty of speculation as to why he did it*, with nary a peep from Brucie. But then, he wasn't brown, was he?
* No, Tinshley, it wasn't the eeeevil goth music or eeeevil videogames or eeeevil liberal schools or anything like that. So stop rubbing yourself there.
Word verification: tration - something Tinshley, like pretty much every neocon ever, has never actually had to eat.
t's very important to Tin Eye's worldview that evil is only something done by Them, and that no attempt must be made to understand it. Otherwise, it might be possible for someone on his side to be evil or do evil, and to consider that is just plain Thoughtcrime punishable by another session in Room 101, being forced to listen to logic and reason in a quiet voice. The pain!
We need buttons for "boredom" and "contempt." I don't feel rage at Mallard because he's such a failure.
WV: alked (adj) Full of research.
(I typed n instead of adj the first time.)
ummm...what the hell is Tinsley talking about? The media is constantly trying to ramp up the terrorist "threat" (especially Faux News), it improves ratings. So is Tinsley saying that Mallard watches something other than Faux News? I have a hard time buying that.
The Neoconservative model:
1. Let it happen.
2. Exploit it.
3. Attack a variety of unrelated targets. Laugh at the casualties.
4. Have your running dogs blame Teh Liberals for it and claim you protected America from it.
5. Encourage it to happen again.
6. Repeat.
The Liberal model:
1. Try to prevent it.
2. Go after the ones who did it.
3. Try to determine why it happened, in hopes of keeping it from happening again.
4. Warn the new guys about it, even though they won't listen.
Oh, yeah, complete pussos.
steve-o ... Tinshley is still trying to profit off the Ft. Hood murders.
Those who demonize our Muslims servicemembers are doing bin Ladn's work. But to tinkley and his ilk, it's profit first, patriotism last.
Post a Comment