Support Terrorism–Buy the Los Angeles Times

While the Washington Post is firmly entrenched as the ugly kid sister of the Jayson Blair Times, the Los Angeles Times has decided that it is now qualified to be the retarded family cousin that nobody talks about.

Once content to be a badly written paper that was simply less awful than its East Coast counterparts, the LA Times has now officially declared itself an enemy combatant. Take the editors to Guantanamo Bay, there is no turning back. This is not about free speech, or even disgusting speech. This is about expressing support for terrorists.

The LA Times wants American Taliban John Walker Lindh to be set free.

The headline “Free Our Talib,” is eye popping. Talib is short for Taliban, which I guess would be fine if the LA Times were communicating to their childhood friends on MySpace or FaceBook. He is also not “our” anything. He is not “my” anything. Perhaps they can redo the headline so it reads properly: “San Francisco Liberal Killer Defended By Los Angeles Liberal Rag.”

This might be the first time in history a Southern California entity has so fiercely defended someone from Northern California. Perhaps if John Walker Lindh was accused of cheating in baseball, there would be more outrage from their editorial staff.

The first paragraph reads like only something an imbecile suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome could write.

“The president’s power to grant clemency — in the form of either a pardon or a commutation — is much maligned and occasionally abused, as was the case when President Bush used it to keep his colleague, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, from facing even a day in prison for lying and obstructing justice. But the power has its appropriate uses as well, and the case of John Walker Lindh calls out for it.”

The obligatory left wing cheap shot at the President is laughable. However, unless the LA Times was not paying attention, which based on the quality of everything they say and do is easily within the realm of possibility, Scooter Libby did not kill anybody.

“John Walker Lindh broke the law. He pleaded guilty to the one crime of which he was guilty — aiding the Taliban — and to carrying a gun and hand grenades in the service of that regime’s war against the Northern Alliance. For that, he deserved to go to prison…”

No, he did not deserve to go to prison. He deserved to have two bullets put right in his heart, and it should have been broadcast on live television, and not pay per view either.

“Lindh, who converted to Islam as a teenager, joined the Taliban before Sept. 11, not after; he did so to fight the Northern Alliance, not the United States. Lindh never took up arms against this country. He never engaged in terrorism; indeed, his commitment to Islam leads him to oppose the targeting of civilians.”

Belief in Islam prevents targeting of civilians? Who on Allah’s green Earth is beheading people? Has it occurred to these LA Times terrorist supporters that just because somebody says they are a Muslim, that maybe they do not obey all the rules of their own religion? Some Jews eat pork. Some Catholic Priests molest young boys. Some Islamists murder people for sport. 

The other claim that San Francisco Johnny should get the equivalent of a get out of jail free card is the ludicrous notion that he did not directly attack the United States.

Let’s see. Al Queda attacked the United States. The Taliban protected Al Queda. San Fran John fought for the Taliban. These dots are only possible to connect if one keeps their eyes and minds open and functioning, which apparently disqualifies those who are severely mentally retarded, and those who write for the LA Times.

When “The Onion” wrote, “ACLU defends Nazi’s right to burnd down ACLU headquarters,” it was satire. The LA Times seriously wants to free a man who supported enemies of the United States.

It is one thing to argue wrongly for the release of enemy combatants at Gitmo becasue there is some mistaken belief that they might be innocent (until they are freed and go back to terrorism), but the LA Times is advocating freeing a man that pled guilty!

Do LA Times editors have to have their own children kidnapped and beheaded before they realize that the enemies are the kidnappers and beheaders, not George W. Bush? Is their hatred of President Bush and the Iraq War that much that they need to free people who want everything American dead out on the streets?

I have said on more than one occasion, that until San Francisco gets bombed, they will not get it. If I did not live in Los Angeles, I would absolutely add LA to the list. This is not hypocrisy because I am one of the Californians who was not raised here, and am willing to loudly condemn those who want to blow my city to kingdom come. I am not willing to send them home to the wonderful parents who raised this monster.

http://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/06/until-san-francisco-gets-bombed-they-will-not-understand-anything/

Maybe this is what Hillary Clinton means when she uses the term “Modern Progressive.” It is her way of distancing herself from San Francisco Liberals. No, I am not blaming them for what John Walker Lindh did. However, can anybody doubt that an environment of absolute hatred for President Bush can lead to violence when carried one step further?

After 9/11/2001, President Bush stated that people were either with us or against us. If you harbored a terrorist, you were a terrorist. The Taliban was against us, and John Walker Lindh was with them. He was against us.

The problem with the LA Times is that it only recognizes terrorism when the person committing it is right of center. Animal rights activists who break into testing labs and free the animals are seen as rescuers, not terrorists. Environmentalists that commit violence at trade summits and burn down buildings because they dislike construction are not just tree huggers…they are ecoterrorists. Leftist rebels that try to overthrow right wing governments, or take over schools with children inside…yes, they are actually terrorists. The men that defeat them, be it Vladimir Putin, Ariel Sharon or Alberto Fujimori, are not the terrorists.

Some will say that being raised in Northern California had nothing to do with John Walker Lindh’s descent into evil. Yes, real evil, not the kind of evil described about people who merely want to cut taxes and give businesses incentives to make profits. Well perhaps his conversion to Radical Islam had something to do with it.

The bottom line is it is not the fault entirely of his parents, Radical Islam, or even Radical San Francisco. The fault is with him. A young man chose to fight along side America’s enemies. The fact that he did this is less tragic than the fact that he was taken alive, an act of mercy he not only did not deserve, but would not have shown an American soldier.

John Walker Lindh should spend the rest of his life in jail. He is entitled to his Koran, and his Los Angeles Times. While it would be a civil right violation to ban him from reading his Islamic Holy Book, nobody is entitled to read a fourth rate newspaper with horridly written editorials by equally contemptible human beings.

Somebody give this kid a Wall Street Journal or a New York Post so that he can be reprogrammed. Unfortunately, he will be reintroduced to society again, where by the standards of Nancy Pelosi’s district, he will be considered normal. Perhaps if he gets reprogrammed in jail he will be less disgusting than his defenders upon his eventual release.

As for the LA Times, I simply wish Angelenos would stop buying it. It will not go out of business, since I am sure there are plenty of people in terrorist sponsoring nations that would be happy to import it while enjoying their morning Jihad and Java.

eric

  
 
 

  

11 Responses to “Support Terrorism–Buy the Los Angeles Times”

  1. gregdn says:

    I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that I can read the Times and just disagree with them?

  2. micky2 says:

    As in the case with John walker and the L.A. times , there comes a time when you just have to say ” never again ” and kill them both. Each one is inexcusable.
    Enough is enough.

  3. Manny_Calavera says:

    I still do not understand how he was not executed for treason.

    Speaking sedition = JV
    Passing or revealing secrets = anywhere from Varsity to Pro
    Picking up an AK-47 against American troops = Championship round

  4. SomeGuy says:

    Eric, this comment is regarding your comment on Malkin’s blog regarding the Lancet study and Kane paper. http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/25/document-drop-a-new-critique-of-the-2004-lancet-iraq-death-toll-study/#comment-109164

    You seem to be missing the argument entirely. The discussion is not regarding the validity of including a Falluja cluster. The 100K number from the 2004 Lancet does NOT include the Falluja data. The discussion is that Kane has tried to argue that by NOT including the falluja data, the variance was underestimated, and if you allow for the much larger varience of the data when you include the Falluja data, you can calculate a 95% CI for the RR that includes a region <=1. If you dont understand that so far, I can slow down and go over it for you.

    From here, Kane argues that if one includes Falluja, then one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the mortality rate stayed the same or decreased. The glaring flaw in this argument is that the presence of Falluja outliers could ONLY EVER skew the numbers higher, not lower. This is because the mortality rate in Falluja is so much higher than the distribution in the rest of the clusters, which compared to falluja are relatively close to 0 deaths per 1000. There is no possibility of the existence of a cluster with -200 to -100 deaths per 1000, because there is no such thing as a negative death. Furthermore, death rates below 2.2 per 1000 are essentially impossible in a nation. However, Kane argues that the existence of the falluja outlier increases the probability of these two cases, which we no a prior are impossible.

    Did that make sense or should we go back over it in more detail?

    -SomeGuy

  5. […] (short for Taliban) in reference to the odious John Lindh, the American Taliban (pictured). As Eric here points out, he’s not our Taliban. As a matter of fact he’s not ‘our’ […]

  6. Gayle says:

    The LA Times is nothing more than a Communist rag, Eric. Nothing they publish surprises me anymore. What does surprise me is when liberal newspapers actually publish the truth.

  7. Craig says:

    “I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that I can read the Times and just disagree with them?”

    I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that you suffer from cognitive dysentery? What does your question have to do with the price of tea in China?

    This was Eric’s opinion, at no time did he suggest he had captured your feelings and whether or not you ‘just disagreed’ with the LA Times.

  8. David M says:

    Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 07/31/2007
    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  9. the Grit says:

    Hi Eric,

    I continue to think that it might be best if the rest of the country succeeded from the Union and left California holding the bag.

    I would also really, really like to have time to figure out what Some Guy is talking about 🙂

    the Grit

  10. micky2 says:

    Thank you grit, I dont fell so all alone now.
    I guess in order to figure out what he’s talking about, you have to figure out what he’s talking about.

  11. SomeGuy says:

    Grit,

    Did you click the link? Read his comment, and the paper at malkins site. There is a lot of discussion at deltoid and crookedtimber.org, but the bottem line is I’m trying to figure out where Eric got so confused when he made the comment.

    -SomeGuy

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.