Burnt Orange Report

How many disclaimers did you want the guy to list?

I do not support the scenario that follows...I'm trying to nip that impulse in the bud in me and in others...We need to work with in the system, not try to start a second revolution...Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode

As opposed to the completely unapologetic desire of Ted Rall (a syndicated columnist, not some obscure blogger) to help kill American soldiers in Iraq.

...Because we destroyed our weapons of mass destruction, we were unable to defend ourselves against the American invasion. This was their plan all along. Now our only option is guerilla warfare: we must kill as many Americans as possible at a minimum risk to ourselves...

You can utter all the disclaimers you want, but when you say this, "Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode, but it has a following in the darker parts of my mind", that pretty much trumps anything else you've said. The upshot is that the disclaimer sounds like standard legalese the writer can use to cover his ass, while the true sentiments are revealed is the fact that this scenario "has a following".

And as far as the Ted Rall column goes, are you really so simpleminded or are you just being deliberately deceptive? Are you really one of those types who doesn't believe people can represent a differing viewpoint without actually believing it? This column is very simply demonstrating the likely talking points of the Iraqi insurgence. Rall's strips have demonstrated without a doubt that he is deeply concerned about the servicemen and women who are being sacrificed in Bush's little war game, so it's clear that you are choosing to misinterpret the intent of his column in the most negative way in order to score cheap political points.

Rall's strip lays out the mindset of the people who are killing our soldiers off on a daily basis in Iraq. There is no advocacy of this position, and a review of his material shows that he is deeply sympathetic to the ground troops who are targets of these Iraqi insurgents. The columnist you choose to defend, on the other hand, fantasizes about assassinating elected officials who happen to hold differing viewpoints and, even though covering his ass with a few lame "disclaimers", proceeds to contemplate whether that would even be immoral or a crime.

If you can't see the difference I really honestly fear for the future of this country.

You can utter all the disclaimers you want, but when you say this, "Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode, but it has a following in the darker parts of my mind", that pretty much trumps anything else you've said. The upshot is that the disclaimer sounds like standard legalese the writer can use to cover his ass, while the true sentiments are revealed is the fact that this scenario "has a following".

And as far as the Ted Rall column goes, are you really so simpleminded or are you just being deliberately deceptive? Are you really one of those types who doesn't believe people can represent a differing viewpoint without actually believing it? This column is very simply demonstrating the likely talking points of the Iraqi insurgence. Rall's strips have demonstrated without a doubt that he is deeply concerned about the servicemen and women who are being sacrificed in Bush's little war game, so it's clear that you are choosing to misinterpret the intent of his column in the most negative way in order to score cheap political points.

Rall's strip lays out the mindset of the people who are killing our soldiers off on a daily basis in Iraq. There is no advocacy of this position, and a review of his material shows that he is deeply sympathetic to the ground troops who are targets of these Iraqi insurgents. The columnist you choose to defend, on the other hand, fantasizes about assassinating elected officials who happen to hold differing viewpoints and, even though covering his ass with a few lame "disclaimers", proceeds to contemplate whether that would even be immoral or a crime.

If you can't see the difference I really honestly fear for the future of this country.

If this guy is making threats against elected officials, don't you feel obligated to report him?
https://tips.fbi.gov/

Prior to JFK's last trip to Dallas, leaflets were circulated around town by a fringe right wing group. They featured a photo of Kennedy with the caption in large print, "Wanted for Treason". Then as now, treason is the only crime for which the constitution demands the death penalty.

There's a fine line between free speech and incitement to criminal behavior. The individual who posted the piece in question is undisputedly a right wing Christian fundamentalist. Many of those folks believe that what THEY see as the will of God is more important than any laws made by mere humans. The last time I checked, murder and terrorism were still against the law.

At a January, 1981 press conference, President Reagan told Sam Donaldson:
"...they, at the same time, have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, and that is moral, not immoral, and we operate on a different set of standards."
Reagan was correctly describing the mindset of hardcore Communists. I think the same sort of mindset is shared by religious fundamentalists of all stripes.

When Osama bin Laden declares he wishes to kill Americans, we take that seriously. It's too bad we didn't take him more seriously in the period before September 11, 2001.

More on Rall: it will be easy for right-wingers to stick to their deceptived misinterpretation of Rall's column, so let me offer another quote directly from a previous Rall column, which pretty much explicitly states his position:

"Most Americans who didn't actively protest the war at least sat on their hands during Vietnam. We should do the same during Bush's coming unjust war of aggression. Members of our armed forces don't deserve insults, but their role in this war doesn't merit support. Cheering them as they leave and holding parades when they return would certainly be misinterpreted by citizens of other countries as popular support for an inglorious enterprise—and it would make it easier for Bush to send them off again, to Iran or Libya or wherever. Let's keep our flags under wraps.

I want our troops to return home safely. I want them to live. Like a good German watching my countrymen march into Poland and Belgium and Luxembourg and France, I don't want them to win and I don't want them to lose."

Ummm, this "fantasy" is just plain stupid. I despise the democratic party and the activist big government controlling your life philosophy that is advocates, but everyone ought to be able to see that it is much better to fight out our disagreements with the ballot box than with a civil war every time enough people don't like current policy.

Sherk

More on Rall: it will be easy for right-wingers to stick to their deceptived misinterpretation of Rall's column

The comments section at Pandagon offers a number of refreshing left-wing denunciations of Rall's sickening column. Good for them.

Mark, that just proves that right-wingers aren't the only ones who can misinterpret what others write. Since I've shown your particular misrepresentation of the column to be false, how is pointing out other people who make the same mistake supposed to change anything?

And while we're on the subject, can you point me to where you denounce Bush for his unapologetic desire to see American soldiers killed when daring Iraqi insurgents to "Bring it on"?

Christian Liberation Front?

Aw, the poor persecuted Christians, whose freedoms are being suppressed by the evil socialist Democrats--I feel so sorry for them.

Never mind that probably every one of the "fictional" CLF's "hypothetical" assassination targets is Christian too. So much for compassion.

I would like to suggest that people henceforth refrain from using the word fundamentalist to describe such people and replace it with literalist or, even better, fanatical. Someone who would write such a column clearly misses the whole point of the religion to which he supposedly subscribes. To call these people fundamentalists gives credence to the idea that they emphasize the fundamental tenets of their religion, when they clearly do not even believe in those tenets.

Has anyone reported this to the FBI yet? I am serious. This goes beyond political rhetoric. This guy is a nut waiting to crack, or crack others.

that just proves that right-wingers aren't the only ones who can misinterpret what others write. Since I've shown your particular misrepresentation of the column to be false, how is pointing out other people who make the same mistake supposed to change anything?

So, you are right and everyone else, from all ends of the political spectrum, is wrong. Somehow, it's easy for me to imagine that to be a not uncommon occurrence in SMurph World.

Regardless of how Rall's spew is spun, its very publication puts the lie to the ridiculous hyperventilating about an alleged suppression of dissent in America. If Bush's Brownshirts allow this noxious tripe to be published - not in some obscure alternative rag, but nationally syndicated through Universal Press Syndicate - then they are, indeed, doing a pisspoor job. We'll never get the Gulags filled at that rate.

Funniest comment on that dork's blog:

"My son, I don't want anything to do with people like you. You need to read and re-read and re-read what I said and think about it. A LOT. Then consider again whether I would really approve of you or people like you doing this in My name.

I would also appreciate it if you would please stop claiming to be one of my followers. You're giving me a bad name.

Posted by: Jesus Christ at November 14, 2003 01:41 PM"

Ad hominem: literally means "argument directed at the man", e.g. "it's easy for me to imagine that to be a not uncommon occurrence in SMurph World".

You still refuse to actually confront the point that Rall has consistently expressed sympathy for our troops, challenging only the legitimacy of their mission and the morality and criminal status of those who sent them there. I offered what I consider to be a clear case for that interpretation. Why won't you discuss the point instead of distracting and diverting?

Red herring: introduction of irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, e.g. "the ridiculous hyperventilating about an alleged suppression of dissent in America blah blah blah"

I believe the topic of discussion is the intent of Rall's column and your defense of a blogger who fantasizes about murdering scores of elected representatives and supreme court justices and bystanders, and questions whether or not that's even a bad thing. I don't believe I've seen anything about "suppression of dissent" in this comment thread. Try to stay on topic.

Tell you what, I'll denounce your misinterpretation of Rall's column if you'll denounce the clear, stated substance of Mark Byron's...

Ad hominem: literally means "argument directed at the man"...Red herring: introduction of irrelevant material to the issue being discussed

pedantic
pe·dan·tic ( P ) adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

I believe that appropriate actions constitute of contacting the FBI, and having that agency and other appropriate agencies monitor the guy

Please remember you said that the next time you repeat the tiresome lefty canard about PATRIOT Act supposedly shredding the Constitution...you're advocating the same activity here. I could as easily say that each American Muslim who attends a mosque where the usual "death to infidels" sermon is preached should be subjected to the same scrutiny you are recommending.

pedantic
pe·dan·tic ( P ) adj.

Repeat, red herring.

And he STILL avoids the issue, choosing instead to distract and divert...

Should I just conclude that you have no actual rebuttal?

And btw, just to counter your gross generalization, I certainly support monitoring ANYONE who actively advocates murder. I haven't followed the specifics enough to verify or deny their occurence, but I'd certainly like to see some proof of these commonplace (or in your words, "usual") sermons preaching murder at US mosques.