Tuesday, November 10, 2009

When awesomely stupid Blogging Tories blog.

BTer Jonathan Strong asks the apparently rhetorical question:

How Could Ft. Hood Be Anything But Terrorism?

Good question, Jonathan, since -- as we all know -- it's standard behaviour for those nefarious, swarthy evildoers to, as part of their nefarious, evil plan, join the U.S. military, then eventually plead for their release, to the point where they offer to reimburse the government for the entire cost of their training and education if that's what it takes.

I have a humble suggestion: To make things easier in the Canadian blogosphere, can Stephen Taylor simply rename the Blogging Tories to "Unbelievably Stupid People Who Hate Muslims"? Seriously, I'm betting that would save folks loads of time they'd normally spend eventually figuring out that those people are all terminally retarded racists.

UNSURPRISINGLY, the terminal stupid continues into Jonathan's comments section, where commenter "Canuckguy" embarrasses all carbon-based lifeforms thusly:

Political correctness reigns. As with crimes where the culprit is obvious, he(Hasan) is still referred to by the media as 'a suspect'.

Quite right, CG, it's just political correctness run amuck. Ignore, of course, that it is absolutely standard procedure to use the word "suspect" even in cases like this. Like when Scott Roeder -- who murdered Dr. George Tiller in front of numerous witnesses -- was still described in the media as the "suspect."

But, hey, CG, don't let reality intrude into your comfortable, tinfoil-wrapped existence.


Anonymous said...

Dave is typical of the panty-waste left who apologize for the enemies of freedom and democracy
That is kind of precious from a racist/xenophobe/ignorant Jesus Warrior....

Maybe sky-daddy has a answer as to why these assmonkeys are so stupid...

Jonathan D. Strong said...

I never inferred that all Muslims are terrorists, but it seems that a great many terrorists happen to be Muslims. If that observation makes me a "stupid" "Jesus Warrior", I'll happily wear that label.

I'd never blanket all Muslims as terrorists, that's nothing short of racism and is abhorrent. However, Islam has a streak of violence that must be addressed by Imams and Muslims (who are the majority I believe) that don't subscribe to such radicalism.

Lindsay Stewart said...

Cripes boyo... Imams are the leaders of prayer in the mosques, they are, rather by definition, Muslims. And after eight years of fear mongering it is little wonder that followers of Islam are now almost automatically profiled as terrorists when they are accused of a crime. I'm an O'Neill on my mom's side after generations of the troubles back in the old country, I can walk about freely and if anyone cared about that side of my family, not a one would leap to the conclusion IRA. Yet I wouldn't be at all shocked to find some distant relation on that roll of terrorists.

There's no shortage of white, western terrorists, the anti-choice murderers and bombers and the abusive zombies that stalk the clinics, the militant militia freaks, the minutemen xenophobes looking for an excuse to shoot a latino, any of a dozen kinds of religious right zealots that counsel hatred against gays... things is they look like you and their names sound like yours and you can turn a blind eye. But the fear of the Muslim, the other that has been inculcated, bred and nurtured by the shallow and the stupid has begun to fester and bleed over into good old fashioned racism.

And thus we have crawling, deperate idiots like Rahelxander MacNadrian who are only to happy to cede our traditions of jurisprudence, to quash the rule of law and convict upon accusation and all the while pretend aloud that they aren't bigots. But fools and bigots you be.

Scanner said...

Fenians, that's it - the BT are all FENIANS!!!!

Justin Hoffer said...

Out of curiosity, if you kill a man that has a gun to the head of a child, is that terrorism?

If not, then why is someone killing an abortion doctor terrorism?

Oh, that's right. I almost forgot, you don't include the unborn in your definition of a human being. Why isn't exactly clear to me, maybe someone can explain?