Sunday, November 22, 2009

Muslim Terrorists make better car bombs than Christian Terrorists do

Now the Christian [TM] terrorists from one sect in Northern Ireland are trying to blow up other Christians again... but their car bombs are fizzling. Link here. The Muslim and narco-trafficking terrorist cowards in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan don't seem to be having the same 'lack of effective detonation' problems as the Northern Ireland cowards.

Yeah, takes a 'real man' to build a bomb, and try to kill unsuspecting victims with it. All that secret planning, gathering of explosives, soldering, training from poor quality DVDs and extremist websites, and then sneaking around to plant & deliver it. Real manly. Real upstanding. Real noble. Really justified to kill unsuspecting by-standers, or government workers, or sleeping / off-duty soldiers, or children... and probably kill yourself as well. Too bad we can't have the Christian [TM] and Muslim bomb fixated cowards blow each other up, out in the middle of no where, and let the vultures clean up afterward.


  1. By that rationale the same goes for push-button mass murderers in planes and on guided missile destroyers who drop high explosives on civilian populations...collateral damage or otherwise.

    Fucktardery is rampant in this world. Some fucktards take oaths to the constitution, others to Allah. That's not moral-equivalence in my book...the degree of idiocy doesn't matter to me.

  2. I do not concur.
    A trained soldier does what he has sworn an oath to do, by his commanding officers. He targets militarily significant targets, during war, and does his best to destroy them. He is NOT intentionally targeting innocent civilians, and if he does, there's a code of military justice that he will have to answer to.

    The tards who build car bombs, and suicide bombers, are not trying to target PURELY military targets. They want to wreck mayhem upon unknowing and innocent civilian populations. They are despicable. They are trying to attain a martyrdom with promised virgins or promised financial payments to their families or booth. They try to justify their despicable, cowardly, tiny penised little tactic of slaughtering innocents as justified by allah, their credo, their family's persecution. BS. They are lower than dog crap in my priority list )and granted, I am on my 6th beer as da Bears hang onto a 3 point lead this evening, so I am inordinately honest).

    An enlisted soldier, who has been trained by his government to protect the constitution, is on MUCH HIGHER moral ground than a N.Ireland bomber, Iraqii insurgent, Al Queda member, or other tard, who REFUSES to participate in their country's DEMOCRATIC process, refuses to take a non-violent path, refuses to be pacifistic, and instead engages in non-state-sponsored terrorism, to inflict as much damage as possible to advance some cause that I DO NOT give 2 cents about.

    Ever since I saw "The Fisher King" decades ago, I think about these kinds of tards, trying to kill me or those I love, when we have not maligned them. I have no tolerance for non-stat sponsored acts of violence. I do not LIKE state sponsored.. but I understand it better.

  3. I think the beer is blurring the lines Joe...kind of like the flu medicine is doing for me :)

    Sure, soldiers swear to uphold a constitution. Or swear allegiance to a king, dictator, or other sovereign. And to an extent, they're just following orders. But we still hung plenty of Nazis for obeying orders and failing to question them. And the notion of a militarily significant target is open to a lot of interpretation. Think about it: should we have tried Curtis LeMay for firebombing Japanese cities during WWII? Actually, I think we should have. But we didn't...instead, we canonized him as a hero. The generals in charge of firebombing Dresden as well...

    My point is this: the line is's hard to assign a relative level of cowardice to belligerents, absent a clear moral imperative. That's especially true in today's two wars. In an immoral war, there are no good guys. Sure, it's easy to call the leaders who got us into these wars cowards...just as it's easy to call people who set off car bombs in crowded plazas cowards. And for me, it's not worth differentiating between the two.

    Suffice it to say that I think anyone who resorts to violence for profit, political gain, or before alternatives have been exhausted is the biggest coward of all. And that includes the enablers, many of whom have a duty in my book to question their orders when they're clearly wrong.

  4. you are very much to my left JoeM. I like the fact that I have a well armed military protecting me. I nearly joined them in ROTC in college, before I got pregnant.

    I do not like misguided, illegal, and unjustified wars. But things like WWII, the Revolutionary War, the initial war in Afghanistan to get Al Queda before Tommy Franks and Rummy let 2000 Al Queda air-lift out of Afghanistan and into Peshawar at the request of the Pakistani ISI... those kinds of military actions are justified. Police actions, like Somalia (initially), Somalia pirate sinkings(recently) Bosnia, East Timor, save lives when done well. Failed military intervention opportunities like Rwanda, Darfur, Iraqi slaughter of Kurds and Shiites in 1992... are despicable blots on the conscience of the free world.

    I have never, and shall never, see the cowardice of martyrdom as justifiable when it involved killing people who have done the attackers no harm. Sorry, no amount of rationalizations will ease my position on that.

    Bush and Cheney and Rummy launched unjustified and illegal wars. Far too many enlisted men and officers misconstrued and confounded the origins of 9-11's attacks, but I think the vast majority now understand that what they were fed is BS. Having the entire army and marines mutiny, to refuse deploying to Iraq in 2003, is not realistic and would not have been viable.

    I've been to Dresden, and seen the blackened buildings. It was fire bombed on planted Russian intelligence, that the massive gathering of 200K people there (per the Soviets) were troop movements, and not drunken mardi-gras partyers. The Soviets were less than a 100 miles from Dresden and heading inexorably West by the time it was fire bombed.

    In the Pacific, I used to have elderly uncles who fought there, and have read a great deal about the morality and immorality on both sides. The Japanese confounded their pathetic emperor as "divine" - again, religion screwing things up.

    Perhaps we can agree: those pathetic tiny phallus-ed, no self esteemed, hopeless tards who blow themselves up in the name of their religion, are universally despicable, as a Hard Line. No gray there. You want to go meet your 'creator', then go meet him, just leave the rest of us alone. Those who are trying to protect their families, their country, their non-religious ideals... they are more justified, and there is a grayer line there - be they nazis, allies, khmer rogue, kashmiries, sandanistas, FARC, etc.

    Which brings us back to the main point I was first making. IN N. Ireland, it is one CINO cult fighting another CINO cult. yes, there's apartheid and discrimination between cults, and that sucks... but it is STILL not justified to try and blow up non-combatants.

    And it's my blog.. so I will write what I want to =P


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.