Because, quite frankly, it’s beginning to get very, very hard to tell the difference between the Loony Left and, say, Ahmadinejad (via LC & IB Ace):
Thus spake Puffington Host poster Russell “Mahdi” Shaw:
I hope and pray we don’t get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.
“Too much”, but obviously not “enough to warrant fighting back”, as has become all too clear from listening to the Fifth Column’s wailing and moaning over the last five years.
If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn’t pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring.
You know, the fact that the deranged sickopath even feels that he has to point this out tells us that we’ve got a huge “BUT” coming, a “but” that immediately negates anything he’s said up ’till now. And, sure enough:
But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.
Indeed. Of course, those 400,000 died fighting the tyrants, which isn’t what Shaw has in mind. Oh no, he wants innocent civilians to die so that the domestic “tyrants” can be defeated.
We told you he was insane.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.
That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:
Prepare for liberal meltdown in 5…4…3…2…1…
This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.
Sure they do. They sit around all day long pondering just how many million American civilians they have to murder to defeat Islamofascism or, in your “reality-based world”, how many times they have to bring down the Twin Towers with controlled demolitions while abducting the passengers from the fictional planes and sending them off to be used as guinea pigs by our Alien Illuminati Overlords at Area 51.
At this point in time, it is painfully obvious that the only question a physician needs to ask before prescribing Thorazine is “did you vote Democrat in the last election?”
What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?
I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has “kept us safe,” and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.
“So, clearly, in order to defeat the Adolf Hitlers in the GOP, we have to prove that we’re not any safer, and what better way to do so than to kill off a half a million of our own countrymen?”
If the FBI aren’t already crawling around so far up the ass of this psychotic terrorist wannabe that they qualify as internal organs, then I want the whole sorry lot of them fired on the spot for incompetence.
If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.
And if the terrorists can’t pull it off themselves (they’re only a “fantasy”, after all, “thought up from whole cloth by the BusHitler Administration”), then perhaps you’re thinking about lending them a hand, perhaps?
Listen, you may very well just be a clinically insane nutball three nervous breakdowns away from selling pencils on the nearest streetcorner while mumbling incoherently about the Freemasons and the Martians controlling your bowel movements, but in this day and age we can’t really afford to take any chances, can we?
And before anybody has a First Amendment Conniption Fit, let me be very clear here: I’m NOT suggesting throwing him in jail for exercising his right to be a vile, psychotic scuzzball in public. What I AM suggesting is that I find his enthusiasm regarding successful terror attacks in order to sway an election sufficiently troubling that I, were I in charge, would most definitely keep a very close eye on him and his activities.
There is nothing more dangerous than the combination of a True Believer, motive and opportunity. Apart, they’re just an annoyance and, at worst, justification for a severe beating if they’re sufficiently obnoxious to spout their bile in the presence of a sane person. But put the three together…
After all, terrorists only have to “get lucky” ONCE.
If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:
Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;
Nevermind that neither hundreds nor thousands of women died at the hands of back-alley abortionists back when abortion was illegal, but who’s counting? It’s not like it isn’t worth sacrificing a few hundred thousand innocent civilians for, right Mr Shaw?
You disgusting, vile, pus-filled chancre on the scrotum of humanity.
Be in a position to elevate the party’s chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:
Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;
“Terrorism For Universal HillaryCare!”
Go with that slogan, you fat, fetid fuckball, I double-fucking dog dare you.
Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;
“…the men, women and children coughing up, quite literally, their lungs in the radioactive ruins of New York would thank us for it!”
More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;
“Nuke Los Angeles so we can have public transportation!”
Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;
Of course, gun control legislation has never done anything of the sort, quite the opposite as a matter of fact, but it’d be worth spreading Ebola in Chicago just to prove the point again, wouldn’t it, Shaw?
Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;
In spite of the fact that embryonic stem cell research so far has led to absolutely nothing but, what the Hell? Let’s bury Cleveland under a cloud of Sarin just so John Edwards can make the lame walk again!
Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;
It wouldn’t be necessary. Once your friends the terrorists are done turning a handful of major American cities radioactive, the labor supply will be so low that the minimum wage will automatically go up. Supply and demand and all that. That’s what you learn in the first semester of school. If you attend one, that is, which you obviously never did.
Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers’ lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.
After all, all of our inactivity prior to 9/11 was quite successful in bringing us — 9/11.
“The best way to defeat terrorism is to let the terrorists win!”
I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful.
And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being.
You aren’t one, so how can you claim to stand for anything as one?
But I’m glad to know that you’ve now decided that it’ll “only” take the murder of 100 of your fellow citizens to achieve your “noble” goal. Let’s just hope that the terrorists whose success you’re praying for agree with you.
A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.
Unless, of course, we’re talking about wars and deaths bringing about a result that you desperately want, but can’t bring about by democratic means. Then you’re perfectly OK with it.
But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this.
We defend ourselves when attacked, we pollute less than almost any other nation on the planet, we have a First Amendment guaranteeing seditionist, treasonous, hate-filled sacks of shit like yourself the right to spew as you want without fear of being arrested and our healthcare is the best on the planet, even for those without medical insurance, and for all of this you want the terrorists to successfully attack us again?
Can we question your patriotism now?
Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:
Alright. Ask away, you sick, sick bastard.
If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?
Any at all?
You want an answer, Dr Mengele?
OK. Here goes:
Blindfold or no blindfold?
Oak or pine?