More Liberal Idiocy

So one of the rat bastard commies at the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation wrote an op-ed on how we should fight terrorisim.

Every time terrorists strike, the civilized world vows not to let them win. Yet time after time, we give them exactly the victory they seek.

How so?

In the Middle East, Palestinian terrorists have attacked repeatedly in hopes of disrupting peace efforts; time after time, they’ve gotten their way.

What? More land? An independent Palestinian state? The destruction of Israel? I thought that was their goal. Doesn't sound to me like they're getting their way.

In the attacks on Sept. 11, Osama bin Laden made it clear that he was trying to provoke the United States into an overreaction; by invading Iraq, an oil-rich Islamic country that had nothing to do with 9/11, we gave him just what he wanted. Iraq became a great recruiting tool and rallying point for al-Qaida.

Actually he made it clear that he thought the United States was a paper tiger after we had left Somalia with our tail between our legs. Even he was surprised at our response. That's why he's been hiding in a cave ever since 9/11.

So it’s pretty simple: If you want to deny victory to terrorists, you figure out what they’re trying to get you to do. Then you don’t do it.

Let's see. They're trying to get us to die, so we won't do it. They're trying to get us to convert to Islam, so we won't do it. They're trying to get us to leave the Middle East, so we won't do it. Is that what you have in mind, Jay?

The goal of the terrorists who attacked Mumbai last week was not to kill hundreds of victims. “Victims are just the language of war,” as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of Sept. 11, told his captors.

So what was their goal, Jay?

To the Mumbai terrorists, those many dead innocents were a means of achieving their goal, which was to undermine relations between Pakistan and India and provoke the two nuclear-armed nations to war. The world is now trying to ensure that rising anger in India —- anger that is natural and justified —- doesn’t give the murderers what they sought.

So they want India to wipe Pakistan off the map? Wow! That will reduce the number of Moo-slimes in the world. It will also reduce a base of operations for Islamic terrorists.

Now for the Kumbaya part of the column.

Ironically, one of the best lessons about how to respond to terror can be drawn from a seemingly unlikely source, the career of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Ah yes. Nonviolence. That's the way to deal with terrorism. Let's go demonstrate in front of mosques in Saudia Arabia, Iran, and other terrorist sponsoring nations. You lead the way Jay and let me know how that works out.

In his own, very different form of assymetric warfare, he too tried to provoke his more powerful opponents into an overreaction that would weaken them, with the very important moral difference that King chose to provoke through nonviolence. And as King discovered, some foes are too smart to play along.

Compare and contrast.

In 1962, King was drawn into the struggle to desegregate the town of Albany, Ga. He led protests and marches, trying to provoke local officials into an overreaction that would reverse the power dynamic. But the Albany sheriff, Laurie Pritchett, had studied King’s tactics and refused to give King what he sought. As Pritchett later explained, he met nonviolence with nonviolence.

King would organize mass demonstrations; Pritchett’s deputies would arrest the demonstrators, but they would do so calmly and professionally. King and his lieutenants would get themselves arrested, hoping to become high-profile martyrs; Pritchett would secretly arrange to let them go.

The good response. So I guess we should arrest terrorists and let them go? Is that what you are saying, Jay? You cannot provoke me Mr. Terrorist. I'm letting you go.

But a year later in Birmingham, King met a more cooperative foe in Police Commissioner Bull Connor. When demonstrators marched, Connor responded just as King hoped, with firehoses and nightsticks and police dogs sicced upon children.

The images out of Birmingham of the strong attacking the weak horrified the nation and forced federal intervention. Within days, legal segregation in Birmingham was ended forever. The weak had beaten the strong.

“We were witnessing police violence and brutality Birmingham-style,” as John Lewis put it. “Unfortunately for Bull Connor, so was the rest of the world.”

The bad response. Unfortunately for Lewis he was hit too many times by a nightstick which has turned him into a blithering idiot who is still living in the 60's.

Military force is a legitimate and necessary tool to defend ourselves and loved ones. When we can find terrorists, we should kill them, and where possible we should deny them sanctuary.

Which is what we are doing and which Jay has been against since about six months after 9/11. Remember when the whole country was against terrorism until about six months after 9/11 when the rat bastard commie Dimocrats decided that Chimpy McHaliburton Bushitler was a bigger enemy than the Moo-slime terrorists?

But it is important to remember that the civilized world is far stronger than they are. Whatever power they have is power that we give them through the anger and fear we allow them to provoke.

So we should Kumbaya them cause killing them gives them so much power?

Jesus H. Christ! This is one of the dumbest columns Jay has ever written and that's saying a lot since he has written so many dumb ones. On one hand he says we should kill them and deny them sanctuary, which is what we are doing, and on the other hand he says we shouldn't respond to terrorist attacks and act like some dude who arrested MLK and then let him out of jail. WTF?

Remember, he gets paid to write bullshit like this.

Freaking amazing!

Posted by denny at December 4, 2008 01:44 PM