Look out! Fake outrage alert! (Part 1.)

If there's one thing the citizens of Wankerville do better than anyone else, it's generate bogus outrage. I mean, fuming, sputtering, gnashing of teeth, howling with righteous indignation kind of outrage that is, with rare exception, ridiculously out of proportion to the actual "sin."

Recently, the Right's favourite British whipping boy, George Galloway, opined that it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to kill British PM Tony Blair, at which point several members of the Blogging Tories went just freaking berserk. What's amusing about this whole incident is that Galloway was perfectly correct and, unlike the BTs, we here in the reality-based community are going to take a minute or two to understand why.

See, there's a "war" on. You remember the war, don't you? The Global War on Terror™? Brought to you by the Project for the New American Century and Halliburton. That's right ... that war -- the one that, after 9/11, changed everything about everything.

Now, the thing about it is, war is a dirty, filthy, stinking business, althought it's not like many of the BTs would appreciate that, seeing as how the closest many of them ever get to actual war is when they flip past it on the evening news, screaming at the TV about how, damn it, what the fuck channel is "American Idol" on and if those damned kids touch the TiVO again, I'll tan their hides, I swear!

The nasty thing about war is that part of it involves people trying to kill other people. You try to kill them, they try to kill you -- it's been like that for quite some time. Most of the time, you have to be satisfied with just killing another grunt on the ground but, if you get the chance, killing one of the enemy's leaders is a major bonus!

As it stands, if one looks at the invasion of Iraq, one sees how George W. McFlightSuit, along with his sock puppet Tony "Lamb Chop" Blair, invaded another country under utterly phony and fictitiious pretenses, wiped out a large part of that country's infrastructure, and proceeded to slaughter thousands of its innocent civilians. (But, please, not to call them "civilians" -- the proper term is, of course, "collateral damage.")

Add to the above the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the Americans clearly settling in for a long stay what with their "long-term" bases and super-duper new embassy and it's not hard to understand why native Iraqis might be a wee bit miffed.

But let's not lose focus here. The issue here is that neo-con wankers everywhere are adamant that this is an honest-to-God war, so what's their problem when someone points out that, in war, part of the goal is to kill the other side's leaders? It's not like this general concept has ever bothered these bloodthirsty chickenhawks before.

When the Coalition forces indiscriminately bomb civilian areas on the off chance that there might be a low-level al-Qaeda operative hanging out there, you don't hear a lot of agonized bleating from the right-wing sheep about the inevitable civilian casualties. It's "unfortunate," those deaths but, hey, this is war, dontcha know?

And you certainly don't hear much objection when wanker role models like Ann Coulter suggest that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Hmmmmm ... "kill their leaders?" That sounds suspiciously like ... nah, couldn't be.

But perhaps the most entertaining part of this so-called "war" is how it's only a "war" when it's convenient. For instance, when it comes to respecting the Geneva Conventions, well, apparently it's not a "war" anymore. All those fighters? "Unlawful enemy combatants," therefore not entitled to any protections.

So, to recap, what we have here is an utterly contrived invasion of a foreign country by a far superior military force that pounded the crap out of them with "shock and awe" which resulted in the devastation of that country's infrastructure and, to this day, ongoing hardship for its citizens, not to mention the also-ongoing military strikes on civilian areas that continue to kill innocent Iraqis, a complete disregard for the fundamental protections of enemy soldiers and let's top it all off with the the obvious observation that this has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with oil and -- appreciating all that -- we have a number of cementheads at the BTs freaking out over a comment by George Galloway.

Let's be clear here -- if this be war, then the assassination of PM Tony Blair by a suicide bomber would be absolutely and entirely justified. And note carefully that the original question that Galloway was responding to involved a suicide bomber who could pull this off without the loss of life of any innocents. I find it fascinating that the same BT wanks who seem wholly unconcerned about Iraqi collateral damage get bent out of shape when discussing a war-time assassination that would kill no one but the intended target.

Naturally, I don't expect anyone over at the BTs to be able to process all of the above, but there's a much simpler way to look at this. Let's ask a simple question. If it were possible to, with absolute certainty, assassinate Osama bin Laden with the accompanying loss of only a few innocent civilians, would these outraged wankers think that was "morally justified?" If it's outrageous for Tony Blair, then it should be similarly outrageous for bin Laden. (And don't even think of saying something stupid like, "But ... but ... that's different!" If you do, I will spank you thoroughly and send you on your way.) But here's what I think is the most amusing part of this.

If you look at the history of the Iraq war, there's a common thread running through it. First, the Coalition made damned sure that, before it invaded, the U.N. inspectors removed as much of Saddam's armament as possible. Then it stripped all enemy combatants of their rights under the Geneva Conventions. And finally, there is the outrage over the suggestion that it might be morally justified for the enemy to try to kill an opposing leader.

What all of the above means is that wanks like the Blogging Tories and others are all gung-ho for war, as long as the other side is not allowed to fight back. See the connections? Strip them of their weapons, take away their rights as combatants and, while we can try to kill their leaders, well, holy fucking shit, how dare those uncivilized savages try to do the same to ours?! I mean, the fucking nerve of them, having the unmitigated gall to try to resist! Where did they get those kinds of crazy ideas, eh?

Yes. Where did they get those crazy ideas after all?

(To be concluded in Part 2.)

BY THE WAY, even if I don't actually do anything about it, is it all right to just think about it?