Wait, so you dont think it matters that the anti-Muslim links are still prominently displayed on that page.

OK. If that is how you want to play it.

As I pointed out in my initial post, there were others (mostly speaking on Fox) that used the event to suggest that if Norway had been more involved in the US "war on terrorism", they would have been better prepared to respond.

Rush Limbaugh told us that evil Muslims were subverting ‘hollow’ ground in NYC with a mosque. You mean it might not be true? You mean wacko extremists again lied to moderates? Gasp! Maybe Saddam did not have WMDs? So why did we massacre 4,500 American soldiers for mythical reasons? Gasp! Could many blindly believe what Fox News reports? Gasp! No wonder so many in a New Orleans convention center were not threatened by five days of no food and water. That also must have been fear mongering.

Or maybe its not so much about fear. Maybe its about routine lies justified by an extremist political agenda? Fear is simply another tool. Create strawmen (ie Saddam). Define them as evil. Then rally the troops. Evil Muslims are building in mosque in lower Manhattan! Gasp! Muslims must be shooting Norwegians because we all know Muslims are evil. Gasp!

The best evil is invented by the most evil.

If Malkin had removed the previous entries you would currently be lambasting her for whitewashing. And rightfully so. The stuff she posted and left up there is simply examples of Islamists threatening Norway. Hey, in case it turns out to be Islamist, here are the Islamists who threatened Norway.

She merely posted facts. Facts you do not dispute.

Was it wrong to suspect Islamists? No, everybody did, including Islamists and especially those Islamists who took credit. As my Arab friend said, and I posted to this thread:

Back on point, my question was: The answer to my question: "No, I do not".

So what you're left with, at the end of all this, is some unnamed people saying things you think they said, on a channel you don't watch.

:lol2:

You have a hard on for me don't you? You get a stiffy everytime I post?

Ohhoooooo..... the liberal Fox Bogey Man! The most popular news channel on cable for like 6 years running....:D

So where is the problem when we have the likes of Soros, Huffington, and the talking heads from MSNBC?

And the most popular beer is Bud Light, which is also garbage.

LOL.

Nice twist. Much like you did with other interactions we've had. Very Classic of you.

But what I am left with is the fact that the thrust of Malkin's post was anti-Muslim rhetoric, even after knowing the facts.

And others on the right with lame attempts to divert the discussion away from the perpetrator to Norway's "lack of commitment" to the bogeymen "war on terrorism"

Maybe if Norway had been more involved they would have been more ready, however, you could counter that question simply by asking how ready anyone can be for a random attack.

Nobody expected busses to be blown up in London, but they were pretty heavily involved with the war on terror. No one expected a bar to be blown up in Bali which was crammed full of people from countries involved in the war on terror.

It's just bullshit reporting. It happens every day. See the Murdoch thread.

The ultimate goal of most terrorist acts, whether by Muslim extremists or White, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim nationalists, is not simply to attack innocent victims, but to provoke a disproportionate reaction, either in support of, or opposition to, the self-proclaimed martyr's act.

IMO, posts like Malkin's (even if it is only hers alone, but it is not) only feed that frenzy among those who might, at some level, support such horrific acts.

Where I guess we disagree is that I think those type posts should be called out for what they are. At the very least, they are not helpful.

I.e., no defense.

Precisely the opposite. You offered various twists, and instead of grasping at them, I focused directly on your statement.

You avoided your statement, focusing on other things, attacking me, and then finally restating your statement with new detail and without the half that was clearly wrong.






one more thing.





Michelle Malkin is a fucking cunt. I say that as a male feminist. I can't stand her. It's personal with me. Her sneer, her smug self-satisfaction. And I think she's said some really hateful things and I think she needs a dose of humility somehow.

I guess its in the eye of the beholder.

You demand that I admit I was wrong about Malkin, because she updated her post to include a statement about the perpetrator.

I think the fact that the bulk of her post said nothing about the perpetrator and was all about what she cited as a Muslim threat to Norway (which had absolutely nothing to do with this horrific act) did nothing to change my opinion about her post and, in fact, supported my position.

I've seen that trick before from you. Only taking or twisting the facts that suit your demand.

But we do agree on Malkin. :)

Well their product obviously appeals to the masses.... Anyone but Obama in 2012!

Why can't you understand why deleting her original post would be the height of dishonesty? She jumped to the same conclusion that most of the world did, then updated it with the correct information when it became available. That's how it should be done, not removing the original post.

Because it's Malkin and she writes trash! (for trash)