Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

HuffPost: Patriotic Terrorists!

Ogami

Ogami

New member
Interesting blog over at the Huffington Post, discuss!

Even more interesting are the responses this blogger got, I loved the one who asserted "You seem to think that anyone who wishes to see America on its knees must be a terrorist." LOL of course

New Trend On The Rise: The Patriotic Terrorist
Blogger: Greg Gutfeld
01.25.2007

Whenever I visit this lovely blog, I usually run into someone - a "leftist," if you will - who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities - the left and terrorists - seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.

But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, "dissent is patriotic," and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.

That's why calling them terrorists would be intolerant and pretty shameful.

But what about "patriotic terrorists?"

That's kinda neat.

What is a patriotic terrorist?

It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy's success against said country. It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism, while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow up innocent people.

Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. But it's actually the most powerful form of "tough love" known to man, woman and Rosie O'Donnell. Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention - and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention. In fact, to keep a mammoth, arrogant superpower like America in check, terrorism is the only thing we've got. Noam Chomsky knew this from the start, making him a patriotic terrorist of the highest order.

This is why he gets the chicks.

Hey, I bet you've probably wondered why Al Qaeda hasn't struck in the US since 9/11. They don't have to. It has its own offshoot franchise here at work already. Patriotic Terrorists.

Think about how much both groups have in common!

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures. It does not matter to either group that the withdrawal from Iraq will make post-Vietnam look like an afternoon at Ikea shopping for a Hoggbo innerspring mattress.

-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off is music to their ears. It proves that you can't offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you've got terrorists standing in your way. And that's great news for everyone who believes in checks and balances between the haves and the have nots! (Note: "haves" means the US. "Have nots" means those who hate the US)

-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it's power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals - and that makes being a patriotic terrorist loads of fun!

Are you a patriotic terrorist?

If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women's rights, porn - then you're a patriotic terrorist.

If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you're a patriotic terrorist.

The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who've taken the extra step - choosing to actually die for their beliefs - rather than simply talking about them at Spago. If Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and their ilk had real cojones, they'd all be wearing cute black vests - but stuffed with more than dog-eared copies of Deterring Democracy.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/new-trend-on-the-rise-t_b_39594.html
 
So doesn't that make all of those who are blindly supportive of Bush's disastrous policies "patriotic terrorists" too? After all, folks like Ogami must be championing the Bush Administration's blunders because they love the failure that results from them, right?
 
Seems silly, but it closely describes me. The two party system needs to be obliterated and replaced.

But I refuse to take joy in good people being hurt to advance that cause.

Maybe a better summation would be: Washington needs to be cleaned out with a good nuke. But so does Al Queda and all the countries that harbor them: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
 
The Question said:
So doesn't that make all of those who are blindly supportive of Bush's disastrous policies "patriotic terrorists" too? After all, folks like Ogami must be championing the Bush Administration's blunders because they love the failure that results from them, right?
Click to expand...

When have I blindly supported Bush's policies? His Farm Aid bill, against it. His "No Child Left Behind" Education spending, against it. His refusal to balance the budget in a time of war by cutting government spending bugged me, too.

As for the "Bush Administration's blunders", I've been playing armchair quarterback the whole time, just like you. For instance, I would not have fired the entire Iraqi Army but hired them on immediately after our ground invasion of Iraq. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback, Question. It's easy, and is a bit harder than actually doing the real job.

-Ogami
 
Jack wrote:

Seems silly, but it closely describes me. The two party system needs to be obliterated and replaced.

There has always been smaller parties, third parties. Once the "Rosie O'Donnell" antiwar left realizes the Democrats they just voted into power won't do squat for them, we'll see a crack up just in time for 2008. Hillary and her buddies were only interested in their own power, and could not give a crap about the suckers (their view) that put them in charge.

But I refuse to take joy in good people being hurt to advance that cause.

Well that's a relief. Some of those HuffPost posters actually celebrate when contractors or soldiers get blown up. We haven't this sort of attitude since Vietnam protesters waved NVA flags to support "their" side.

Maybe a better summation would be: Washington needs to be cleaned out with a good nuke. But so does Al Queda and all the countries that harbor them: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.

Read Harry Turtledove's "World War" book series. He interrupts World War II with an alien invasion, complete with a nuking of Washington DC and Berlin.

-Ogami
 
Turtledove is one of my favorites.

I'm damn near positive Hillary will be the next president. The "conservatives" (read=imposters) can't seem to find anyone with enough real conservatism to put up a viable candidate.

Both sides will play the rhetoric cards and play upon the fears of the electorate to stay with the 2-party system.
 
Question wrote:

Don't forget Tel Aviv. Israel was founded on terrorism.

Of course. The British had all those wanted posters of the Israeli founding fathers that the PLO liked to wave about. In a battle of wills, the armed soldiers of Israel wanted a nation more than the armed soldiers of Palestine. They wanted it more.

If the Palestinian refugees would spend a little less time blowing their children up at crowded cafes or bus stops, maybe they'd actually forge a final peace agreement with the Israelis and live together like the quarter of a million arabs already living in Israel and who never left. But hey, that would be too sane for their Culture of Death, wouldn't it? Keep on blowing up your teenagers, morons.

-Ogami
 
Conservatism died with Reagan. Americans will not be prepared to vote for smaller government until after there is another Great Depression. Until then, it's spend like there's no tomorrow...
 
Probably correct. Too many Americans are caught up in the bullshit football mentality to politics: there can only be two teams on the field.

The Libertarian and Constitution parties are good alternatives that are being largely ignored.

Most can't shake the fear that a vote for a third party "is a vote for the other side." It's a trap and the politicians know it.
 
The Republicans' only chance is to nominate DMX as their nominee. He's blacker than Obama will ever be, and he has better aim than Dick Cheney.
 
Ogami said:
When have I blindly supported Bush's policies?
Click to expand...

Ogami said:
Anyone can be an armchair quarterback, Question.
Click to expand...

Close enough. The man has gotten us into another Vietnam, on false pretenses, and at disastrous cost to this country in money, morale and human life.

But you're right, pointing out the fact that HE SUCKS is just unpatriotic. :roll:
 
The Question wrote:

Close enough. The man has gotten us into another Vietnam, on false pretenses, and at disastrous cost to this country in money, morale and human life. But you're right, pointing out the fact that HE SUCKS is just unpatriotic.

Unless I read it incorrectly, the blog's focus was on those who seem to be orgasmically cheering setbacks, difficulties, or terrorist victories in Iraq. My only comment on that person's blog was "interesting". I didn't say The Question was unpatriotic. I didn't say anything other than "interesting", and "discuss". Just to be clear. :)

Now back to what you said, I would tend to agree now that we are facing another Vietnam in Iraq. The reason I am changing my mind on this is the common theme that is now emerging between the two conflicts: Like Vietnam, Iraq is a war that our military is not being permitted to win, because of political considerations.

When I see a Poll where a majority of Americans disapprove of the conduct of our war in Iraq, I know that includes Americans who disapprove because our President and our government should be allowing our military to do more to win the war with finality. That's why that poll number is so high, yet I think posters like yourself ignore that subtle distinction. We want Bush to do more in Iraq, not less. And if more is politically unacceptable, then why are we there?

That's the similarity with Vietnam, where our soldiers patrolled a non-existent border as the enemy used Laos and Cambodia to run their soldiers and equipment around phony UN borders and wage their guerilla campaign. Rather than invade the North and roll over Hanoi with tanks, our soldiers were asked to die for nothing than a political convenience. While I don't know if Iraq is quite that bad yet, I would prefer we get some consensus out of Bush and the NEW leaders of congress to get Iraq settled once and for all.

It is the lack of that clear consensus from our combined government that is leading to an ongoing loss of "money, morale and human life" as you put it.

-Ogami
 
The alternative is to simply get the fuck out. We never had a good reason for getting into that shithole in the first place. Either time.
 
So should we have simply assassinated Saddam and his evil sons? Would have been cheaper, that's for certain.
 
Assassination could have worked. Entering and wrecking his war machine was a plus.

But I've said for a long, long time - back before it was cool for even liberals to say so, that we made a huge mistake trying to bring democracy to a people who cannot embrace it.

Islam is a political religion. Politics is an inherent part of it, unlike western religions. You cannot separate the political from Islam. Democracy, no matter how well-intentioned, can only be viewed by muslims as an attempt to supplant Islam.

It cannot ever work.

We need to exit Iraq as soon as possible, without any kind of "face-saving" delay. The longer we stay, the worse it will get.
 
Ogami said:
So should we have simply assassinated Saddam and his evil sons? Would have been cheaper, that's for certain.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would have. This "nation-building" business is bullshit; let them build themselves if it's to be done, otherwise fuck 'em.
 
Even American muslims have acknowledged that their goal is to replace the constitution with sharia law.

Democracy and Islam do not mix.
 
Sadly, I'm in agreement with both of you. Nation-building can only work in countries where they don't stone women to death for having sex drives. Asking them to drop that aspect of their culture is like asking them not to machine gun their neighbors. In Iraq, we obviously know what their choice is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top