DailyKos Nutjob: “9/11 Attacks Were More About Optics Than Actual Harm”

6 Comments / Assorted idiots, Leftist moonbats, Politics, Terrorism / By sfcmac

Hat Tip to News Busters.

While the Ground Zero Mosque controversy strikes the media as an opportunity for “healing” that’s being denied by stubborn conservatives, the leftists at the Daily Kos see it as an opportunity for Holocaust Denial. The blogger known as “Something the Dog Said” dropped this jaw-dropping paragraph Thursday morning about fear of Muslims:

“Given that they are such a small minority in this nation, it is odd that so many of our fellow citizens see them as such a threat. Yes, the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm. The economy was already taking a hit before the Twin Towers fell. The reaction of the nation to seeing two major buildings in New York fall on T.V. has boosted the attack out of proportion. While the loss of even a single life is to be condemned and the devastation these deaths caused the families of those killed, more than this number of teens are killed every year in car crashes. These are also tragic losses but we do not make the kind of high profile issue of it that the 9/11 attacks are.”

This blogger obviously can’t tell the difference in political meaning between a collection of teen car accidents and an intentional, ideological mass murder. This is the same blogger who just wrote on July 30 that Republicans are much scarier than jihadists.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/12/daily-kos-holocaust-denial-9-11-attacks-were-more-about-optics-actual-ha

This Kos assclown scrapes the bottom of the intellectual barrel, to trivialize the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. It was just a photo op to generate support for the war. We allowed our feelings over the heinous, visual slaughter of 3000 people to blow the whole calculated, bloody, vicious attack by muslim jihadists all “out of proportion”.

It was just a Bush photo op to generate support for the war.

It’s all Bush’s fault.

And hey, car crashes kill more people, right?

Everytime I read the splooge that comes from dickbags like , “Something the Dog Said” I wish to god we could trade them for the innocents who were killed on 9/11.

Remember, if you’re against the incursion of radical muslim influence in this country, you’re just a “racist, bigoted, Islamophobe”.

There are lefwing media political pundits who share the same viewpoint as the turd who contributes to DailyKos.
This is an excerpt from Brian Sewell’s regurgitation:

……Shall we make 11 September an annual orgasm of remembered grief ? Or should we, having held, in the absence of so many solitary funerals, one obsequy for all, lay the memory to rest?

……But – and dare one express a but in such a hysterical context? – some might see the events of that day in New York as an assault on the twin monuments of Mammon by an ascetic religious force emanating, yet again, from the deserts of the East to scourge the daily manipulators of greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake.

……But 2,801 men and women died in the twin towers, not one of them an enemy of Islam. Two thousand eight hundred and one? What sort of number is that over which to make a fuss? How many more, in recent years, have died in Nicaragua and Rwanda, the Congo and Biafra, Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia, all now virtually forgotten?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-1251770-its-time-to-forget-911.do

The only thing he left out of his diatribe was the “car crashes” comparison.
Even worse, are the leftie nutbags and Dhimmi apologists who claim we “provoked” 9/11.
Those assholes are a dime a dozen.

6 thoughts on “DailyKos Nutjob: “9/11 Attacks Were More About Optics Than Actual Harm””

john
25/08/2010 at 16:56

i was former Soldier, intelligence analyst too. ASA 98c. i’m not impressed.

well then, i don’t feel bad about losing 5000 troops in the war. i wouldn’t feel bad about losing 10,000, or 20,000 troops in that war, if necessary. so you’re a supporter of the UN, huh? they gave us permission to wage war. that’s pretty sovereign of us. who cares about the constitution.

he was a threat? to who? our country, or the one’s who rule our country? because i don’t believe iraq didn’t have any bomber or warships that would make over here.

wow, your only person on earth who believes that WMD lie. maybe you should have delivered your news to Rumsfeld, who said: “it appears that they’re were not weapon of mass destruction there.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9-3GkoWjUg

it’s so nice of us to kill the iraqis, not matter what religion they believed in, because it good for them.

i’m sure that jesus would approve.

Reply
1. sfcmac
  30/08/2010 at 08:27
  
  John,
  
  ASA?? It’s been awhile hasn’t it?
  
  I’m not a U.N. supporter. I support U.S. interests. The U.N. resolution simply verified the reasons for the invasion. Obviously, this post is the only one you’ve read. I don’t have any great love for the U.N.:
  http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/the-un-strikes-another-blow-for-dhimmitude/
  http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/u-n-s-marxist-president-descoto-wants-global-governance/
  http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/obama-to-u-n-america-is-just-awful-isnt-it/
  
  If you wouldn’t feel bad about losing up to 20,000 troops in the war, then I wouldn’t feel bad trading at least 3000 assholes like you for the innocents who died on 9/11. Our sovereignty was attacked that day. We should have leveled every ME country responsible. It’s like this: pick one.
  
  If you’re so dedicted to the Constitution, you ought to be pretty angry now that there’s a Dem autocracy in power that shreds the Constitution every chance they get.
  
  No one, not even George Bush said that Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. He did however posess WMD and connections to al Qaeda, among other terrorist groups. He was a threat to the armed forces already in the theater of operations. We invaded Afganistan first, remember?
  
  Iraq constantly fired missiles at U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, made assassination attempts on former-president George HW Bush no less than three times, and rolled out it’s troops to the Kuwait border to rattle sabers in a replay of the Kuwait invasion – each resulting in an expensive redeployment of US troops to the region.
  
  But he wasn’t a threat. Uh huh.
  
  Wow. You belong to the “No WMD” bunch. Why does that not surprise me.
  It appears that the tons of material discovered after the invasion was ignored. It appears that there were documents and audio recordings of Saddam himself confirming that he not only had WMD (which is defined as bio/chem/nuke material able to inflict mass destruction and loss of life) but that he also intended to continue his efforts. My guess is that the Bush administration was embarrassed that it took so long to find it.
  READ: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/
  
  We killed Germans, Italians, and Japanese in WWII, regardless of their religion.
  
  Come to think of it, muslims attacked this country primarily because of their religion.
  
  By the way, I’m agnostic. I couldn’t care less what “jesus” would or would not approve of. I’m more concerned with protecting and defending this country against all enemies—foreign and domestic—regardless of their religion. That includes the zealots who follow Mohammad.
  
  SFC MAC
  
  Reply
john
21/08/2010 at 23:14

like the rest of the world i identify the bathists regime as secular. i guess you are too “educated” for that. i guess the world is ignorant too. i guess saddam had seen the “the light of islam” after his defeat in the iraq/iran war. or he a political animal who will use anything to remain in power. “…in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime” comes to mind. if the exact opposite of his application of sharia law would have strengthened support for his regime he would have done that.

i guess you thing mubarek in egypt in a non-secular dictator too.

i guess saddam was confused about his discrimination policies. his Deputy Prime Minister, Teriq
Aziz , was a Chaldean Catholic.

i was wondering why you had the anti-secular mentality going on here. is it because you hatred of the islamic religion is so powerful that you’ll rewrite history to get you way? or is it because you want to turn saddams regime into a regime bad enough to for the excuse of the invasion of the US?

also, in your tract on beheading, i noticed this phrase “…but were targeted for political reasons”. in your tract on rape i noticed this phrase “…to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists”. in your tract on torture i noticed this phase “…routinely tortures and kills female dissidents”. this only happened to opponents of the bathist regime.

“During Saddam’s regime if you were not political you could lead a normal life, but for the majority of us who opposed the dictatorship, it was hell,” Mahmoud said. “You were either for the Ba’ath party under Saddam or you were subjected to torture, persecution and abuse.

Women could walk freely throughout the streets of the capital, wearing whatever they pleased. A high percentage of women had full-time jobs, women in government were given a year of maternity leave and public day care centers were set up. The country had one of the best education systems in the Arab world and women were well represented in most faculties.

While one would hardly go so far as to describe those times as ‘the good ole’ days’, for many women Iraq under Saddam Hussein had its perks.

Today the situation is quite different. While the fall of Saddam Hussein has led to many overall improvements in personal freedoms and civil rights, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and subsequent courtship of socially conservative Islamic political groups has created quite a different picture for women.

http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-iraqs-women-miss-saddam.html

so, once again i will say, way to go our foreign policy experts.

you say terror, i say war.

Reply
1. sfcmac
  24/08/2010 at 10:18
  
  John,
  
  Earth to planet “t-shirt doctor”:
  
  Unlike you, I am a former Soldier, intelligence analyst, and Iraq war vet (twice over). I had boots on the ground experience of seeing the results of that so-called “secular” despot. I spoke with families who had the disemboweled remains of loved ones strewn on their doorstep as a message from that “secular” swine. “Secular” is relative, considering Saddam enforced his own brand of “secularism” through mandatory Sharia doctrine. Women miss Saddam Hussein? Only if they’re into the S&M of torture, imprisonment, and rape. Houzan Mahmoud admitted as much:
  
  Women in Iraq endured untold hardships and difficulties during the past three decades of the Ba’ath regime. Although some basic rights for women, such as the right to education, employment, divorce in civil courts and custody over kids, were endorsed in the Personal Status Code, some of these legal rights were routinely violated.
  The Ba’ath regime’s “faithfulness campaign”, an act of terrorism against women that included the summary beheading of scores of those accused of prostitution, is just one example of its brutality against women.
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/08/iraq.gender
  
  What exactly about the “humanitarian” Baathist regime did they miss? Hussein used both religious and political reasons for the atrocities he committed.
  
  Islam, at its very core, is a brutal, violent theocracy. Its practicioners are misogynist, anti-Simetic, anti-Christian, anti-‘infidel”, miscreants who incorporate terrorist doctrine as part of their “religion”. Read the Koran; they’re simply following the precepts set down by a 7th century zealot.
  You’re goddamned right I hate it.
  
  Are you such a Dhimmi that you’re willing to overlook all that? Talk about revisionism.
  
  The “excuse” for the invasion? He was a threat; a terrorist-supporting, WMD-weilding megalomanic, who thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions and resolutions for 12 years, while he continued his efforts to produce those weapons. In spite of the Left’s assertions, it wasn’t “all about the oil”.
  READ: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/
  
  U.N. Resolution 1441 in conjunction with Congressional approval, gave us the authority to use military force.
  
  Tell you what sweetpea, I’d have leveled 3/4ths of the Middle East on 12 September 2001. Islamic terrorists are funded, trained, bred, and supported throughout the region. I’d have made William Tecumseh Sherman look like a boy scout. That’s how you fight a jihad, but I’m a former Soldier, not a politician.
  
  I call it terror and war both in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, a war on Islamofascism.
  
  SFC MAC
  
  Reply
john
21/08/2010 at 00:38

You mean the leftie nutbags and Dhimmi apologists who claim we “provoked” 9/11 at the CIA? Because they came up with the idea of “blowback”.

The mentality of anyone who refuses to accept blowback as the cause of 9/11 is that of an indignant child who refuses to believe that their government’s actions could ever be wrong and that the consequences could ever incite (no, not justify) violent reprisals. It’s like the same child poking a rattle snake with a stick. The rattlesnake responds by doing the only thing it knows how to do. As vile as they are, to expect terrorists not to react in the most violent way imaginable when the United States is in their backyard is pure lunacy.

But I have good news for you. You’ll be glad to know that our military has done a good job over there in Iraq. You see, they took a secular nation and turned into a Islamofascist nation. With sharia laws. Those women didn’t really need rights. And the Christians over there don’t mind leaving their country ahead of the death squads. Way to go our foreign policy experts.

Reply
1. sfcmac
  21/08/2010 at 16:51
  
  John,
  
  I mean leftie nutbags who make asinine statements equating “blowback” with “provoking” 9/11, and “9/11 was more about optics than harm”.
  Your attempt to insult my intelligence over “blowback” and “poking a rattlesnake” is sophomoric, hackneyed, and quite frankly, belongs on one of those “troofer” sites.
  Since you want to draw a correlation between the “America asked for it” implication (i.e. “blowback”) and 9/11:
  
  The mistake we made in Afghanistan was walking away after we helped kick out the Soviets. Power loves a vacuum, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda stepped in to fill it. Calling Bin Laden our “creation” is too simplistic, given that his zealotry had plenty of time to ferment. He was emboldened by Clinton’s Somalia debacle. His words:
  
  “But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your Soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the ‘heart’ of every Muslim and a remedy to the ‘chests’ of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.”
  
  And he was also angered that the “infidel” arrived in his “sacred homeland” of Saudi Arabia in 1990 to use as a staging area to attack Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.
  
  Saddam’s Baathist regime was “secular”?? You have GOT to be kidding. What is the area code of that cave you live in? The ONLY religion that went without fear of discrimination was Sunni. Three guesses as to what religion Hussein was and the first two don’t count.
  
  After the first Gulf War, Saddam ordered “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) added to the Iraqi flag, he launched “The Faith Campaign” which included the establishment of Sharia Law, he forbid the public consumption of alcohol and enforced the study of the Koran at all educational levels, including Baath Party branches. The mass graves he produced were a testament to his “secular” mentality.
  
  Yeah, he “respected” women so much he dedicated entire government departments to rape and torture of Iraqi females:
  
  Iraqi Women Under Saddam’s Regime: A Population Silenced
  
  Situation for Women in Saddam’s Iraq
  In 1979, immediately upon coming to power, Saddam Hussein silenced all political opposition in Iraq and converted his one-party state into a cult of personality. Since then, his regime has systematically executed, tortured, imprisoned, raped, terrorized, and repressed the Iraqi people. Iraq is a nation rich in culture, with a long history of intellectual and scientific achievement, especially among its women. However, Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime has silenced the voices of Iraq’s women, along with its men, through violence and intimidation.
  
  In Iraq under Saddam, if you are a woman, you could face:
  
  Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of “Fedayeen Saddam,” the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam’s eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families’ doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim’s head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women’s League in Damascus, Syria)
  
  Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official “activity” as the “violation of women’s honor.” (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
  
  Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam’s jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)
  
  Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family’s honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called “honor killings” since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)
  http://www.nieworld.com/special/iraqwar/people2.htm
  
  That “secular” despot also had plenty of ties to Islamic extremism, including terrorism.
  
  Good news: Ignorance can be cured. Educate yourself before you come on here spouting bullshit.
  
  SFC MAC
  
  Reply

6 thoughts on “DailyKos Nutjob: “9/11 Attacks Were More About Optics Than Actual Harm””

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply