Conservatives who want Al Qaeda to kill americans

[DeadCanDance]

Ward Churchill's comments are outrageous, as are these:

Noted Philadelphia neoconservative columnist wants another 9/11 attack:

“To save America, we need another 9/11“

By Stu Bykofsky
August 9, 2007

ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater. What would sew us back together? Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. [...]
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/col...___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html

Bill O’Reilly Invites Al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco

BILL O’REILLY: “Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/11/MNGFMFMNV41.DTL

Falwell and Pat Roberson blame Americans for the 9/11 attacks

-JERRY FALWELL: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’ “

-PAT ROBERTSON: “Well, I totally concur”

 

[Alpha1]

Cypress...I've been scanning your posts on here as well as on JPP....
Your mental problems have progressed to alarming state and seems to have reached new levels that might at this point require medication....
Compared to you, even desh, IB and Lorax are making more sense and could be described as more normal by comparison...for your own good, get some help...

 

[dilloduck]

Ward Churchill's comments are outrageous, as are these:

They're not encouraging nor hoping for another attack, dumb ass. It's a commentary on how much denial some Americans are in regarding terror attacks. Listen to your buddy.

 

[Edward]

They're not encouraging nor hoping for another attack, dumb ass. It's a commentary on how much denial some Americans are in regarding terror attacks. Listen to your buddy.

Their statements are clear! They are basically inviting al-Qaeda and other terrorists to attack the United States. They even provide a list of possible targets including the Golden Gate Bridge, Mount Rushmore, Chicago's Wrigley Field, Philadelphia subway system and Coit Tower. But the most disgusting comment was by Bill O'Reilly when he said "We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." I am sure the people of San Francisco are glad to know that so long as they agree with the likes of Billy they are safe and will be off-limits but as soon they disagree with Billy and the Billyites they are officially on their own and can be targeted by al-Qaeda.

 

[eots]

Alex Jones "oOOoh Your With Al-Qaeda!" radio clip
All time views: 1,396 »




Haduken Jeckt
8 min 9 sec - 25-Aug-06
www.youtube.com

 

[Gunny]

Ward Churchill's comments are outrageous, as are these:

Your twisted title on this is every bit as outrageous.

 

[Gunny]

Cypress...I've been scanning your posts on here as well as on JPP....
Your mental problems have progressed to alarming state and seems to have reached new levels that might at this point require medication....
Compared to you, even desh, IB and Lorax are making more sense and could be described as more normal by comparison...for your own good, get some help...

 

[Gem]

The first article by Stu Bykofsky is, at the very least, in poor taste. "If it is to be, then let it be" is very heavy handed - even though his point is clearly that he believes as a nation we have forgotten what we are fighting against and fighting for and that it, in his opinion, will take another attack to get people to sit up and pay attention again. I do not think he needed to specify targets and I think its crude to imply that it might be a good thing to be attacked because something good would come out of it. He may be absolutely right - another attack might bring our nation closer together - but I wouldn't wish for that method in a trillion years, however "wonderful" the outcome.

However, he obviously was not stating that he WISHED for an attack...but only that it might take one to bring the nation together again. In poor taste? Probably. But certainly not as disgusting as claiming that the innocent men and women who died in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmans."

As for O'Reilly...he was not telling/asking Al Qaeda to attack San Francisco...he was, in his usual blowhard manner, stating that if San Francisco hates the US military as much as numerous of their actions seems to imply (refusing to allow military ships to dock there, being consistently hostile to military recruiters, etc) that perhaps they should consider what would happen to them if the US military no longer protected them.

It is a silly point, of course (I mean, its O'Reilly, come on!), because the US military would never abandon a U.S. city just because it continually shits all over them...they have higher standards than that. While O'Reillys argument was weak and typical...it wasn't an invitation or request for terrorist acts.

And the Falwell/Roberston comment(s), while obscene in my opinion, was not an invitation for future attack, but rather an attempt to come up with an explanation for why we were attacked. Just like thousands of Americans decided that we were attacked because we meddled in middle-eastern affairs or because we stole oil, or because Bush and Haliburton planned it all to get rich and scare us into submission, others (like Falwell) believe that we were attacked because the Muslim extremists hate our secularist culture. With that in mind, he looked to what he felt were the most guilty of promoting this lifestyle.

While, in my opinion, it was not only wrong but INCREDIBLY poorly timed commentary so soon after the attacks...he wasn't asking or inviting future attack...but merely speculating on the cause.

It is not asking for the terrorists to attack us simply to talk about terrorist attacks and when, where, or why they may happen. While I find two of these commentaries unappealing and one just plain dumb, I'm not sure any of them measure up to Churchill's more infamous remarks damning the 9/11 victims as complicit, guilty criminals who in a sense, "got what was coming to them."

On a side, but related note....while I just wrote a whole post about the topic...I'm not sure how valid saying - "Gee, that guy on the left said something bad....but look at how bad THESE guys on the right's comments are!!! What do you have to say about that, huh????" is to a debate.

I think that all people have the ability to be assholes...all people have the capacity to say dumb things...unless you are willing to make a direct correlation between the two - for instance, unless you are saying that you believe some sort of action should be taken against these men for their comments - then it just looks like "one-upmanship" to me.

And please don't misunderstand, I fall prey to this game too...I'm just trying to get out of the habit of responding to criticism of one by offering up criticism of someone else, unless there is a direct correlation between the two....which I'm not quite sure I see with the comments you chose, DeadcanDance.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

This is a lie, common dead can dance, you can do better then this, you need to stay off the left wing hate sites, which take anything said by conservatives out of context

Quote:
Bill O’Reilly Invites Al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco

BILL O’REILLY: “Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGFMFMNV41.DTL

Ward Churchill's comments are outrageous, as are these:

 

[Annie]

Hey, one conservative equals conservatives. Red herring anyone?

 

[Larkinn]

The first article by Stu Bykofsky is, at the very least, in poor taste. "If it is to be, then let it be" is very heavy handed - even though his point is clearly that he believes as a nation we have forgotten what we are fighting against and fighting for and that it, in his opinion, will take another attack to get people to sit up and pay attention again. I do not think he needed to specify targets and I think its crude to imply that it might be a good thing to be attacked because something good would come out of it. He may be absolutely right - another attack might bring our nation closer together - but I wouldn't wish for that method in a trillion years, however "wonderful" the outcome.

However, he obviously was not stating that he WISHED for an attack...but only that it might take one to bring the nation together again. In poor taste? Probably. But certainly not as disgusting as claiming that the innocent men and women who died in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmans."

As for O'Reilly...he was not telling/asking Al Qaeda to attack San Francisco...he was, in his usual blowhard manner, stating that if San Francisco hates the US military as much as numerous of their actions seems to imply (refusing to allow military ships to dock there, being consistently hostile to military recruiters, etc) that perhaps they should consider what would happen to them if the US military no longer protected them.

It is a silly point, of course (I mean, its O'Reilly, come on!), because the US military would never abandon a U.S. city just because it continually shits all over them...they have higher standards than that. While O'Reillys argument was weak and typical...it wasn't an invitation or request for terrorist acts.

And the Falwell/Roberston comment(s), while obscene in my opinion, was not an invitation for future attack, but rather an attempt to come up with an explanation for why we were attacked. Just like thousands of Americans decided that we were attacked because we meddled in middle-eastern affairs or because we stole oil, or because Bush and Haliburton planned it all to get rich and scare us into submission, others (like Falwell) believe that we were attacked because the Muslim extremists hate our secularist culture. With that in mind, he looked to what he felt were the most guilty of promoting this lifestyle.

While, in my opinion, it was not only wrong but INCREDIBLY poorly timed commentary so soon after the attacks...he wasn't asking or inviting future attack...but merely speculating on the cause.

It is not asking for the terrorists to attack us simply to talk about terrorist attacks and when, where, or why they may happen. While I find two of these commentaries unappealing and one just plain dumb, I'm not sure any of them measure up to Churchill's more infamous remarks damning the 9/11 victims as complicit, guilty criminals who in a sense, "got what was coming to them."

On a side, but related note....while I just wrote a whole post about the topic...I'm not sure how valid saying - "Gee, that guy on the left said something bad....but look at how bad THESE guys on the right's comments are!!! What do you have to say about that, huh????" is to a debate.

I think that all people have the ability to be assholes...all people have the capacity to say dumb things...unless you are willing to make a direct correlation between the two - for instance, unless you are saying that you believe some sort of action should be taken against these men for their comments - then it just looks like "one-upmanship" to me.

And please don't misunderstand, I fall prey to this game too...I'm just trying to get out of the habit of responding to criticism of one by offering up criticism of someone else, unless there is a direct correlation between the two....which I'm not quite sure I see with the comments you chose, DeadcanDance.

I disagree. I think you are justifying the comments made by the right while villianizing those made by the left. Churchills comments were not meant to say that they got what was coming to them. If you read the entire article his real point was that they were viable targets, not random innocents. That does NOT mean they deserve to die and "got what was coming to them". Rather the little Eichmann comment meant that they were all just helping the trains run on time and the logistics of the entire capitalistic system. I do not defend his comments, but I do NOT think he was saying they deserved to die. Nor do I think the administrative action against him was justifiable in any way. If there is any part of this country where free speech needs to be utterly inviolable, it needs to be in our Universities.

I also disagree about your characterization of O'reilly's comments. I do not think he actually meant that he wanted Al Qaeda to attack SF, but saying basically "go for it" is extremely disturbing to me, and in my view much worse than saying "its justifiable as a tactic for them to do X" because imo O'reilly is in a sense encouraging them to attack SF.

 

[Larkinn]

Hey, one conservative equals conservatives. Red herring anyone?

1+1+1=3. And the plural of conservative is...wait for it...conservatives.

 

[Avatar4321]

They're not encouraging nor hoping for another attack, dumb ass. It's a commentary on how much denial some Americans are in regarding terror attacks. Listen to your buddy.

Thing is there are alot of these people that even faced with total Annihilation would still be in denial and refuse to do whats necessary.

And I fear we will see this displayed within the following generation.