“I support Obama but not his mission.”
“I support women but not their right to an abortion.”
“I support gay people but not their right to a recognized civil union.”

Watch libtards freak out if you say any one of them. Then compare it to how they “support the troops but not their mission.”

I call that – CHECKMATE.

Regards,
Peter H.

Now they hang out at BlogActive and IndepGay to encourage the other GayLeftBorg assimilators to trash us.

I wonder if they ever will get the notion behind civil discourse and enlightened conversation?

If you can dismiss BB’s book and its premise without reading it, if you can defend the Imperial Jetliner and limo fleet scandal without cracking a smile, if you can write “I support the troops but it’s time to cut & run” and not suffer a severe personality disorder, I guess debate was never in their long game.

Pity all that. They seem content to drive by and snark… like the aging gay leech at the end of the bar giving three snaps to the young bartender when he isn’t looking and while mixing the leech’s 5th pink cosmo… such brave GayLefties when bravery was never in supply.

Anyway, back to Bawer. The reason the left can’t handle Islamo-Fascism is because their worldview is so rigidly dogmatic, it simply can’t accept the existence of brown-skinned minority people who have no interest in, and are indeed hostile to, the progressive secular agenda. It simply does not compute for them.

And, as the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The left has no other tool than bribing off unhappy minorities with taxpayer-funded welfare. Hence, they believe, as the French do, that the solution to Islamo-fasicsm is to buy off the radicals with grants and welfare. Military defense is off the table because it’s “imperialist.” Securing the homeland physically and culturally is off the table because it’s “racist.”

- Ian’s implied insult to our military and CIA people who have been going after bin Ladin. (Ian’s unspoken implication that they don’t exist; or perhaps that Ian could do better.)

- Ian’s seeming ignorance of Pakistani sovereignty.

- Ian’s implied denial of the fact that Islamo-fascism is a broad, dispersed movement of ideology where no one leader is the key. (bin Ladin has had no role in direct operations since the 1990s; KSM directed 9-11.)

- Ian’s implication that our brave troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere aren’t going after “murderous Islamic militants” this minute and sending a much-needed message.

- Ian’s implied pretense that, if Bush had invaded Pakistan and ‘gotten’ bin Ladin (thus starting WW3 against a nuclear-powered ally), Ian wouldn’t now be criticizing that instead.

That’s his MO: say something with half a dozen unspoken implications, every one of them screwed up.

Wonder what he yells out during sex?

Regards,
Peter H.

Ian’s comment that you quoted is so demented, so detached from reality, so “typically Ian” that it deserves no response. Why feed the troll? It only encourages it. But on the other hand, good people do have to respond to lies at some point (hopefully before they take over a country, a la Hitlerism), plus, whack-a-troll is fun.

Last fall: “Al Qaeda’s No. 2 operative in Iraq, Hamed Jumaa Al Saeedi, has been arrested, the U.S. military and Iraq’s national security adviser announced Sunday. Al Saeedi, also known as Abu Rana and Abu Humam, is said to be second in command in the terrorist group al Qaeda in Iraq, behind Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Al-Masri succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed during a U.S. airstrike in June.”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/iraq.main/index.html

Post 9-11: “At least one senior al-Qaeda commander, Muhammad Atef, died in the U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan, and another top lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, was captured in Pakistan in March 2002. In March 2003, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and al-Qaeda’s treasurer, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, were also captured in Pakistan”

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/

Last week: “Coalition Forces killed three terrorists and detained 26 suspected terrorists including an al-Qaida in Iraq cell leader during raids Monday morning targeting foreign fighter facilitator and al-Qaida in Iraq networks.”

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9698&Itemid=21

How many citations are needed to dispute your silly claim, Ian. Right, we haven’t “captured” or killed Osama bin Laden… if he is still alive… he’s beating all the odds given his chronic renal failure. I bet he was vaporized a long time ago. Is Mullah Omar still around? Sure. Is he a target of the West and its allies? You bet. Are we killing Al Qaeda terrorists and leaders? Damn straight.

I think rather than do the usual drive-by Democrat stunt, Ian, you ought to reflect a moment on how many al Qaeda operatives have been killed and captured… how the terrorists’ financial organization has been disrupted through the concerted efforts of the West and even allies like France and Saudia Arabia.

In fact, Ian, you have alot to be thankful for in the Bush Administration and the US military… they’ve kept you and those you love safe these last 5 years… to play the “Osama bin Laden isn’t captured yet” card shows how closely aligned you are to the GayLeftBorg and MyDD types.

The Left is more interesting in waging war on thier countrymen than they are against a foe they must know in thier hearts is committed to thier destruction.

It’s a scary book. The night I finished it I had trouble falling asleep.

As one of the liberals, or at least to the left of most, on this blog…

Sorry Pat, I can’t agree. Perhaps I could describe you as center-left. When I (at least – can’t speak for anyone else) talk about lefties, I’m specifically excluding you. Instead I mean people like raj, lester, Ian, GCB – the real conservative-hating, Bush-hating comment trolls who (it seems to me) can’t mount a reasoned or factual argument.

Honestly, it bothers me that what appears to be an honest critique of a problem gets dismissed as “Islamophobia.”

I haven’t read this book, although it sounds like an interesting one.

#0 –

One of the disturbing things about many leftists, including a number who have commented to this blog, is that they dismiss ideas they find distasteful with the flick of the wrist and don’t bother to articulate the grounds for their disagreement. They frequently misstate the conservative positions they don’t like…

Indeed. And the positions of non-conservatives (e.g., me) as well. Any queer who doesn’t toe the line.

Another of their tactics is to tell the individual who won’t validate them (by agreeing with them, or telling them what they want to hear) that he or she is “living in an echo chamber”. Irony, anybody?

I’m convinced that certain lefties come here only to bolster their shaky egos by bashing conservatives, real or imagined. Kind of like… oh, I don’t know… gangs of youths looking for perceived gays to bash. More irony, anyone?

But they do so at their moral and intellectual peril. As so many have found, the “victims” here are not only pleased to fight back, but equipped to crush them.

As for ungrounded criticisms of Bawer’s thesis: V the K has a great insight that I’ll advocate here. (V, correct me if the following is wrong.)

Basically, if Islamo-fascism really is a major threat to our way of life, then left-liberal ideology is crap. Moral relativism is crap, pacifism and anti-militarism are crap, multiculturalism is crap, the brotherhood of man is crap, siding with “oppressed” brown people against evil AmeriKKKa is crap, etc.

So, at all costs, the true depth and gravity of the Islamo-fascist threat must be DENIED… or a least shunted aside with a casual, shallow, smug and incorrect flick of the wrist.

Regards,
Peter H.