April 21, 2005

Peacenik threatens violence

John Ray has been threatened by a "peacenik". Why is it that these types advocate understanding for tyrants and murderers but threaten violence against people whom they merely disagree with? Maybe they just feel kinship with their own kind?

UPDATE: John's assailant threatened him by quoting another source. That source has now responded. Most of his post amounts to no more than semantic games, with a liberal sprinkling of vulgar name-calling. But this, I think, is the closest thing the post has to content:

So, with a title like "Dissecting Leftism" he must really wield logic like a scalpel. Well, maybe more like an X-acto knife, or a dull steak knife. Well, not even that, but I hear safety scissors can be a formidable weapon.

Ah, let's just fisk the f****ing idiot.

AN AGGRESSIVE PEACENIK

You just know there's going to be trouble when someone can't get past writing their title without setting up a strawman. Who's a "peacenik"? A peacenik could oppose a particular war, but generally speaking it's shorthand for pacifism. You see how clever he's being? An aggressive pacifist. Haw, you usually have to pay for irony that thick. Unfortunately, opposition to the war in Iraq, which is an illegal, immoral war predicated on lies and misinformation that has cost the lives of thousands of people for no discernible reason doesn't make one a "peacenik". The more accurate term is "sane" or, for those who like a little variety in your synonyms, "not a wingnut".

Got that? Strip away the empty rhetoric and you get this: "Unfortunately, opposition to the war in Iraq, which is an illegal, immoral war predicated on lies and misinformation that has cost the lives of thousands of people for no discernible reason doesn't make one a 'peacenik'." Now, there are definitely pros and cons to the war (and I, for one, think the pros far outweigh the cons) but it seems that the author of this statement doesn't want to grapple with them. A simple declaration of "illegal", "immoral", "lies", "misinformation", and "cost the lives of thousands of people for no discernible reason" should suffice. Illegal? I suppose, because the UN said so (well, actually, it didn't, but so what). Immoral? I don't suppose that fact that most Iraqis support the war against Saddam counts as moral justification - obviously Iraqis are moral zeros. Lies and misinformation? How is it that I (not to mention much of the blogosphere) was perfectly well aware of what was going on before the war with all these lies and misinformation? Cost the lives of thousands of people for no discernible reason? I suppose that the terrorist threat to kill millions is not a reason - oh, no, those good people would never use nuclear weapons or anything! The connection between Iraq and the war on terror is that Saddam supported terror. Yes, Iran and North Korea are bigger threats, but the best military tactic is not to start with the biggest threat, but with the weakest. Perhaps the tactic was wrong (I don't think so) but it certainly wasn't for "no reason".

Posted by David Boxenhorn at April 21, 2005 10:05 AM
Comments & Trackbacks

Can Leftoids fisk? In doing so, are they not agreeing that Fisk is an idiot? So much for a unified front.

Posted by: George at April 23, 2005 05:18 PM Permalink

Saddam was going to kill so many people?? Oh! Thanks God we got rid of him! Well... in fact he DID kill thousands of Kurds, for instance, during more than 20 years, with USA's support. But of course, pal, me and you are not Kurds, so what the heck?

It is incredible how Saddam and Osama have changed!, they were the good guys, especially Osama when he fought the Soviets... remember Rambo IV? He and the Taliban boys were so brave in the movie! Of course... then they became bad. George Bush told us so.

People like you don't like to think. Tomorrow Georgie Bush will say that Saudi Arabia is a menace and must be destroyed (they refused to lower barrel's price!): you will immediately agree and post here and everywhere: "Saudi Arabia is the enemy!! They are bad!! Terrorists!!".

Now, if you want to know something about nuclear weapons used against innocent civilians, think about the first (and only) country that used them that way: USA.

But of course, again: you don't give a **** as long as the bombs don't fall onto your head. The Arabs must learn a lesson, they die, you are happy.

You know, I've always been against Anti-Semitism, but many Jews are really hard to discern from Nazis.

Posted by: Ernest at May 12, 2005 02:44 AM Permalink

× Network: