This is a diary about a post on Michelle Malkins HotAir Blog, please do not read it if you dislike analysis of comments sections from Right Wing Blogs, or if this isnt conisdered news for you.
Currently at the top of Malkins HotAir blog is a video entry by her called "Keeping an eye on Radio Hatemongers.."
Michelle is very worried about the rabid racism expressed by radio talk show hosts like glenn beck, micheal savage and Sean Hannity...oh wait, no...i mean Al SHarpton and Jesse jackson.
Since Michelle is currently holding her self up as standard barer of the anti hate anti racism crowd, i thought it would be interesting to see how her bloggers where feeling about the same sort of topics...10 minutes on HotAir and you notice that maybe Michelle isnt really about anti bigotry, and her readers...well her reader are just lovely. How Lovely you ask? After the jump....
The topic for discussion on HotAir?
Feds wonder: If jihadis nuke us, who do we nuke in return?
The body of the post made by Michelles employee and fellow blogger, AllahPundit, debates the questions of who/where would be a viable response target if America was attacked with a nuke. It is actually a pretty standard post from AllahPundit, whom you have to understand is not nearly as rabid as some of miuchelles bloggers (see christianist Bryan, or unfunny See-Dubya). AllahPundit usually abhores racism in the comments threads of his posts, for which i admire him, infact it often puts him at odds with his readers and im guessing his boss, so for this alone AllahPundit gets props from me. HOwever in this particular case i think he invited what follows, and he himself seems to have realised what he started.
The comments section, in which the blogger replies to some of his commentors to start with, begins thusly:
If we get hit with a jihadi nuke, I know exactly what out first target should be, but if I say it, I’ll get banned. But if we do get hit with a jihadi nuke, I’m pretty sure that place I’m not allow to mention, will be no more.
Maxx on May 8, 2007 at 10:19 PM
sensible you think, this commentor has decided not to indulge in genocidal fantasies for want of getting banned, AllahPundit replies:
No, I won’t ban you for it in this thread. But give me a reason, at least. How would nuking Mecca do more good than harm?
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Fair enough, AllahPundit has realised what his commentaor was subtely saying, and has decided that these comments will be fine if backed up by valid reasoning as to why Nuking Mecca would seem smart. Fair enough, i thought, its a debate...AllahPundit underestimated the genocidal leanings of his readers though. He does decide to reply to a few more comments though, after the nuttiness starts:
A couple of good tomahawk strikes and that Mecca shrine is turned to ruins using just conventional ammo and little if no loss of life.
That should be our deterrent. Warn the Islamonazis that their favorite holi site will no long exist in its current form.
That shrine and Medina are the only things they treasure. Their loss would be devistating to them. And not one nuke need be used.
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Oh yeah. Mecca,Medina get vaped. No ifs ands or buts.
ANd we should make it our clear policy. Put the fear of the moongod into the Saudis to get their heads on straight. What’s the point of having power if you’re afraid to use it. And why aren’t these assholes bending over with tubs of K-Y trying to appease US? So what if the ground glows, the oil will be OK.
I’d also blow (non-nuke so the Jews can build their temple on it) up the Golden Dome and seize Haiga Sophia and give it to the Pope.
And to really hurt Chavez, just sink his oil wells. Heck we paid for most of them anyway.
We’ve been talking waaaay too softly, and we need to break out the aluminum sticks, cause they ain’t respectin’ the Louisville slugger.
Iblis on May 8, 2007 at 10:27 PM
AllahPundit replies to this insanity:
How would it end the jihadist threat? It would be a de facto declaration of war on Islam. You’d turn a billion people into jihadis instantly. I can’t imagine anything that would make the jihadist threat worse.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I deffinitley get the feeling AllahPundit working for the wrong people...
it continues:
Teheran, Damascus, Gaza (carpet bombing in here), Caracas, Pyongyang, El Cairo, Sanaa, Mogadishu, Khartoum, ...and Paris.
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:29 PM
We start with Mecca and work our way out. Every stinkin muslem country gets its capital (at the very least) made into a parking lot and after they are all ready to be striped we will have time to sort out just who else needs to be leveled!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on May 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM
IMO there’s a point at which a little savagery, while it doesn’t make friends, convinces people not to screw with the US. I realize many jihadis are suicidal, but that doesn’t mean they want to see family members incinerated. Call it the Hiroshima effect. The Japanese only quit once they thought we were nuts.
BillLalor on May 8, 2007 at 10:37 PM
So we nuke Mecca and Medina (and Jeruselam?) as a detterent...
Allahpundit replies once more, again proving the dissonance between him and his genocidal readers and possibly boss,
Yes, but why does that require attacking Mecca? I agree with you that a nuclear response would be warranted; so do/would 90+% of Americans, I’d bet. The key is to find a target whose destruction would do more good than harm. Hitting Mecca is quite literally the worst possible choice.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Good point, im sure the readers will agree...
one does!
To Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Amen to that!
phew! sanity breaking out!
...
Allah - the enemy being jihadists without a political body to take out, Mecca is I the only option. It’s the heart of Jihdaism, and of the culture that has declared war on us, just like the capital city of an enemy state. BillLalor on May 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM
While I agree that Mecca might not be the best choice, it probably isn’t the worst. We could give them notice and let them remove the moon rock before we hit.
I don’t know the details, but I think Muslims believe that Mecca will rise up from the ashes if it were ever attacked. Assuming that that resurrection would not happen, perhaps the destruction of Mecca would disillusion enough of them that they would question their beliefs.
IrishEi on May 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Allahpundit doesnt disagree with a nuclear response, but does disagree on Nuking Mecca, and so he flexes his muscle to prove he isnt a secret "libtard kossak":
You want the U.S. Air Force flying tens of thousands of sorties carpet-bombing the city into dust day after day after day to do the job one nuclear weapon would do?
Really, please knock it off with your wilting flower "oh, the humanity" routine.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:55 PM
at this point he does seem to give up, and so the deluge of genocidal hate begins anew:
Demoralize the enemy by destroying the most recognized symbol of their Nazi-like belief system. This would be taking off the gloves, no more trying to reason with them, no more "sensitivity" for the Islamic community. And this would let them know we were serious about our new plan, which would be to engage them and kill them.
They ALREADY hate us and want to kill us, so the situation would not be any worse, and I really think the act of nuking Mecca might just strike a little fear into the most devoted Islamic heart.
Mecca.
Since the jihad comes from Mecca.
And only threatening to erase the source will give pause to the militant marching maniacs.
profitsbeard on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
I say we nuke Iran, North Korea, Pakistan (especially the border area) and Riydah
Defector01 on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
ooh another sudden sanity outbreak:
I want to make this 100% clear: No matter how many innocent lives are killed?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:14 PM
one of my favourites next:
The war on terror has been going on since the Carter years. If it is allowed to bleed out another 30 years, we will lose because of demographic shifts and the left wing/terrorist alliance.
Surely, Allah will protect the most holy site of Islam.Wake up people! These camel humpers believe they are going to hell if they get within a few feet of a piece of pork. It mandates a pilgrinage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime. This is not a religion but a false ideology akin to emporer worship immersed in a cult of death.
Valiant on May 8, 2007 at 11:30 PM
and showing a startling lack of knowledge of the Duties of Muslims, that he wants so dead:
The total, complete, and eternal destruction of their "holiest" sites would END Islam, once and for all. Islam is a system of "works". The fanatic element responible for the violence is trying to perform "works" (on Allah’s behalf) that will secure a guarantee of eternal reward (in paradise). One of their required works is that "at least once in their life" they must make a pilgrimage to their holy sites. If they can not make their pilgrimage, they can not complete the "works" required to secure their "salvation". By their own stupid rules, outlined their "holy" books, if Mecca and Medina were unapproachable, then ALL muslims all doomed to eternal damnation.
So what effect would this have? Simple. It would completely destroy all incentive...to do ANYTHING. There would no longer be ANY point in being a Muslim, because there would be no possibility of ever being able to do the "works" required by Allah to secure eternal reward. Within a generation, Islam would disappear from the face of the earth.
Game over. (Game, set, match, actually).
CyberCipher on May 8, 2007 at 11:48 PM
fun!
in Christianity the body is the temple of the Spirit. A trip to the Vatican is not required for salvation. A trip to Mecca is for a muslim.
I agree, they would have to temporarily rewrite the rules until they were able to rebuild afer several half-lives of radioactive decay.
Valiant on May 8, 2007 at 11:55 PM
love all the theological discussin' all to justify genocide...
and some light humour:
Not only that, but if all the sand were turned into glass, it’d be a lot easier to see where we should drill for oil,
right?
CyberCipher on May 9, 2007 at 12:15 AM
oh another all time hit:
I would first declare that Islam is the enemy and if you don’t covert you are considered an armed combatant per Surahs 2 and 9.
I’d then nuke: Mecca, Medina, Tehran and pretty much everything else there in that region. Literally turn it into a toxic cess pool.
I’d then drop a JDAM on the Dome of the Rock and tell Israel, they better move the Palestinians the hell out, because I don’t want them ever complaining about suicide bombers.
I’d then start a bombing campaign against mosques. I would invade Saudi Arabia and and require everyone to convert to one of the following: Christianity, Atheism, Buddism, Hinduism or what ever else they want to convert to.
I would openly explain to the population that if they attack US soldiers city will be destroyed. Oppressed Jews and Christians in the region would then be given the oil fields and the remaining habitable land would go to them to create a Republic much like ours, but Muslims (even converted ones) would be excluded.
Harsh? Yes. Impossible? No, we basically did it with the American Indians and those who did it are now American Heroes.
It also has a very long history throughout the world. Hell, it is only practicing what Muslims have done for their conquered lands: Oppress, Convert, Destroy.
Would Civilization be harmed? Absolutely not. Was Civilization harmed by the utter destruction of Nazism? Then why complain if it is done to its philosophical brother?
Tim Burton on May 9, 2007 at 12:29 AM
oh course these vile statments caused an uproar amoung the commentors all demading for him to be banned...
Tim Burton,
You forget one thing. The propaganda video.
This is where the U.S. President addresses the entire world via satellite link-up. The essential, crux sentences in the speech:
"Allah is dead.
We, the people of the United States, have killed him."
CyberCipher on May 9, 2007 at 12:35 AM
:) happy happy joy joy!
Arguments about whether it is right or wrong to kill 1.4 BILLION Muslims (who ultimately threaten the existence of 1 BILLION Westerners) in exchange for the lives of 300 MILLION Americans who hold the key to Islamic extinction in their hands, are silly once you realize that self preservation is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE thing worth killing for in American attitudes. We 300 MILLION will kill every single other person in the world if it means we won’t be killed instead. Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 1:03 AM
makes me feel like singing America the brave...
Nuke Mecca. Make it radioactive for the next 500 years. Do it now, why wait.
doufree on May 9, 2007 at 8:16 AM
I should not have stopped. In fact, I’d hope Ms. Pelosi would volunteer to ride the nuke in, a la Slim Pickins. Maybe she could do an environmental impact study. No more Mecca, no more pilgrams (I guess they could still go if they want to).
doufree on May 9, 2007 at 8:21 AM
this one is a little scary, worry not its by a canadian thoug...
No-one knew exactly what the US response would be after 9/11. After a nuke, as Subsunk points out, nuclear retaliation is pretty much guaranteed. If the governments of France, Great Britain and others want to wait and see if their Muslim populations are fine with that, let them.
I don’t think they’ll have the chance to take a wait and see approach. I think the citizens of those countries will rise up and take care of the Muslim population if the government doesn’t take immediate steps to ‘detain them for their own safety.’
Canadian Infidel on May 9, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I dont think West Bank and Gaza are such a good idea as Israel would obviously cop a lot of radioactive fallout from such strikes. Substitute Tehran and Damascus instead.
Aylios on May 9, 2007 at 11:21 AM
anyway it goes on like this for ages...
Two things to reflect upon, first, AllahPundit is a good man imo, he does seem to care about hate being spewed on his site, although he doesnt mind legitimating the hate by setting up stupid arguments such as this one. there were also dissenting voices on the thread, but not many, the proponderance of thought was in favour of genocide.
secondly, last time i made a diary such as this abouyt LGF, i was accused of cherry picking comments, and people kept saying that yhou could do the same thing on kos if you cherry piccked comments, well heres the challenge, search this site and see if you can find anything that compares remotley to this level of hate.
you wont find it, because we are not them.
I have started a collection of screen caps from LGF and Malkins sites, recording the genocide talk and the shoot all muslims talk, main ly im keeping them for prosperity, and maybe im keeping them because if i do end up in a camp like these people desire, then maybe in 50 years someone will look up my screen caps and be able to track how this hate was spread.
Is MAlkin outraged about this, like she is outraged by that renowned racist bigot...AL Sharpton?
doubt it.