Thursday, 14 July 2005

More misunderstood killers

So who wants to defend this atrocity -- was the suicide bomber and those who encouraged and resourced him just 'misunderstood'?
BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber killed 27 and wounded 67 people, mostly children, when he blew himself up beside a US patrol in east Baghdad ... Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has made clear in internet statements - though their authenticity cannot be verified -- that he sees Shia Iraqis as apostates who deserve to be killed just as much as American soldiers.
Oh, so I suppose that's alright then. Anyone want to defend this sick fuck?


  1. Ask someone on the left - that's their speciality...

  2. Well some fool made a half-arse attempt over at NZPundit and received a prompt (and I though very restrained under the circumstances) bitch slap.

  3. I saw that one on the news last night. You're right, that is truly sick, utterly contemptible and psychotic. You'll hear no defence for him from me.

    But have you actually had commenters around here *defending* the London bombers either? I haven't read all the comments on every post, but I haven't seen it on here yet. (Or are you talking about people on other forums defending the London bombers?)

  4. On a post-bombing TV doco this evening, I saw a disturbing array of young British Muslim men all justifying the London massacres (of unarmed and innocent civilians, including Muslims) because of Western involvement in various Muslim countries. They may as well have been reading straight from some of the Al Qaeda media statements floating around the Internet.

    Its disturbing that:
    1) They'd think that, and
    2) They think they can say it openly on Brit TV and get away with it.

  5. AL,
    I agree with you that it's very disturbing that they'd think that. But on 2), isn't the very fact that they *have the freedom* to say such things openly one of things that sets Western society apart, and one of the things we want to protect at all costs? The key, to me, is not to prevent them from saying things like that, but to get the logical and rational contradictions to what they say out there, louder and more often.

    (God, I'm starting to sound like a Libertarian! Must have been hanging round here too much) :-)

  6. That 'documentary' was nothing of the sort. It was a propaganda exercise - plugging the 'Bush and Blair are to blame' line they hold so dear. While they deny supporting the terrorists - they certainly ain't on our side...

  7. BB: My point is not that they fear censorship from an authority like the Government (but that is the direction things will inevitably move), but that they apparently don't fear any social repurcussions from saying such things.

  8. AL,
    Ah, I see. Well then in that case, we agree. It's the missing social and intellectual repercussions, especially from their fellow Muslims that needs to be worked on, rather than cracking down on free speech. Right?


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(Spam will be removed, unless it's been asked for.)