audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Mr. "back to content" posting pictures and jokes. What a worthless little hypocrite.

And your complete dismissal of the takeover of Europe by Islam, in the face of such things as England recognizing Sharia Law in parts of the country, allowing Green Lane Mosque and other mosques to continue their activities despite having been outed on national television for fomenting Jihad, the bevy of threats against people like Geert Wilders and the artists who depicted Mohammed in the Jyllands-Posten, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the attacks on schoolchildren traveling to and from Jewish schools, the rising anti-semitism throughout, and on and on...

You're either incredibly ignorant, or you really want to see this happen.

audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Good dhimmi. Attack the blasphemers.

The terrorists sought to justify their attack, and the extremists generally seek to justify their strategies, and seek further to advance their cause, by engineering a totalizing clash of civilizations: all of them against all of us. That is why they believe that civilians are fair game. That is how they seek to justify their attacks on fellow Muslims. That is how collectivists always work. That as much as anything else is what they have in common with Nazis, Stalinists, the Imperial Way Japanese, and even the kind of people the founders of the US of A and waves of immigrants since have fled.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Wow. Bush really was a collectivist terroristguy who thought just like the terrorists, and Nazis, and Stalin, and all the other bad guys in history, wasn't he?

I guess we lost the war 9 years ago, huh? I guess our best bet was simply to build a mosque the day after, two blocks from the site. That would have brought Al Qaeda to its knees.

While I would be interested in continuing the debate, it really doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I’ve made my points the best I can make them. Retyping them in slightly different diction again and again isn’t going to magically make anyone change their mind.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way on this subject.

Heralder on June 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM

You aren't.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM

I've never threatened you. I've also never addressed or treated you in any manner that you have not reciprocated, or initially used. I've also never called you a terrorist, but that's something you cannot claim in kind.

Some time ago, when we were debating, you scoffed at my suggestion that you be less condescending towards the community where you post your articles, claiming that mixing it up is part of the invective here. Now you seem uncomfortable with it, and you hide behind terms and conditions that have long been ignored or stretched on this site. You post articles where you are(bolded items apply):

(b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws;

...towards the very people who visit the site on which you post your articles. At best, your citation of the TOS is hypocritical. At worst, it's cowardly, and an excuse to delete comments you don't like, which, as you've indicated, seem to fall in the majority.

I have a question for you: if you have so little respect for the community here, why post articles such that said community can argue them? As you say in your article, you believe it's nobody else's business. In keeping with your outlook, I would expect you to try to close comments unless people can prove they're from New York.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Don't worry. We'll be keeping abreast of your progress. Might as well let you dig your own hole.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:48 PM



You're citing the off-topic clause. On Hot Air.

Sweet evil Krishna. It's the event horizon.

OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM

...much less terms that aren't routinely violated...including by CK himself.

I agree. That was an unwise choice of words on my part, since fisking requires snark. I was actually hoping you’d use MacLeod’s confusion as an object lesson on how not to achieve worthwhile ends (defeating shariah, advancing conservatism, de-fanging the Left, protecting American principles).

OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:00 PM

That would simply be a veiled insult, though...which is precisely the tactic that CK employs that I despise. If you're going to insult someone, be upfront and uncompromising about it. Don't try to trick people that you believe to be dumber than you by cloaking it in an article.

Your intolerance of other views, particularly those you can not successfully respond to, is gaining on Islam’s intolerance of other views. You have become a self-parody.

Tav on June 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM

He did that in the the first paragraph, no less.

Left unstated is why it’s anybody else’s business, in the land of the free.

Apparently, the only people that applies to are people who build mosques near sites where Jihad was carried out, not to the people who voice their opposition to such a thing.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Yeah, you know, strangely enough, Allah and Ed never delete based on whatever arbitrary standard you've just adopted, and believe me, they've taken far more abuse for their writings.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Way to represent, pal. Show those people who's boss, right?

I notice you cleaned out a lot more than you quoted. If it helps alleviate your problems, go to it.

Getting caught up with merely personal issues, or seeking personal offense, or trying to score points in made-up little message board games, is in this context pathetic, in addition to being, as I said, uninteresting to me.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Strange, then, that you would specialize in something you find so uninteresting.

OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I don't want to use my privilege to blog in the Green Room to pursue a personal vendetta with another GR blogger. I think doing such a thing is childish. I did try engaging him in debate over Palin boosting McCain a while ago, and saw the signs of his exceptional narcissism from the beginning. I try to save GR articles for something worthwhile, and let me tell you, this leering, sneering jackanapes isn't. If you try to pursue debate, he'll first personally attack you(simultaneously claiming his insult is merely an argument), cry if you attack him back, then attack you again. I seriously wonder if he's unable to see his own actions...if, perhaps, he's really that self-absorbed. It goes nowhere.

However you choose to respond, I’m guessing it will be just about as relevant to the argument and content of my post as the rest of the comments have been.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Considering that your post was frosted with your usual condescension and contempt, they were quite relevant. Once again, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I’m not interested in your juvenile taunts, OhioCoastie. Further off-topic comments will be subject to deletion.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM

That's right. Flex. Show the only muscle you have.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Ah. Another moral relativist. No such thing as an objective insult or objective insensitivity. Marvelous.

I’m leaving open the possibility of ignorance, illogic, and stupidity, but I’ll gladly admit that I think bigotry is in the mix as well.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Subject: Mosque being built in a place and opened on a date that is incredibly insensitive to the significance of each.

Argument: It's an insult to what happened, those who died, and actually symbolizes what Islam has been about for centuries, that being the subjugation of all other religions and cultures, and Islamic religion and culture replacing them.

Counter-argument: You're either a bigot, or ignorant, or illogical, or stupid. Shut up, it's none of your business.

Just awesome.

object all you care to and can, but kindly excuse those who say that you’re wrong and shortsighted and would sell us all short if you had your way

So you're pissed about us having an opinion, while we're pissed about them having a monument. Guess which will have a greater impact, and hence which is far less justifiable to scream at others about.

and the mosque was blocked for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Does this need to be branded on your forehead.

Build a mosque wherever and open it whenever you like. Just don't open one there and open it then. How hard is this to get through your thick skulls?

I’m wondering where CK gets off criticizing anyone for anything...

OhioCoastie on June 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I think it's the only way he can get off.

Oh, and I truly do marvel at your skill in cloaking your appalling statements in doublespeak:

In the meantime, if some group wants, deep down or right out front, to turn America “slowly into a Shariah society” – by organizing, by advocating, by building impressive or maybe-not-really-so-impressive cultural centers in some proximity to symbolically important places – or for that matter if they hope to re-create and extend the medieval Caliphate by peaceful, free, and democratic means, what in the American tradition, in the values to be represented in the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, could deny them the right to give such an unlikely project the ol’ madrassa try?

Besides being one of the most broken and clunky sentences I've ever read, it's remarkable in its ability to make the reader forget what you said at the beginning. If you don't mind, and I'm sure you do, let me cut the fat out:

In the meantime, if some group wants, deep down or right out front, to turn America “slowly into a Shariah society”...

...what in the American tradition could deny them the right to give such an unlikely project the ol’ madrassa try?

You know, between the admiration of an old caliphate, and the defense of attempts to establish a new one, I can only say that it's perverse for you to compare anyone, especially myself, a terrorist.

Left unstated is why it’s anybody else’s business, in the land of the free.

Precisely because it IS the land of the free, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Your attempts to tell people to shut up, on the other hand, are as reprehensible as they are hypocritical:

The 1st is like my favoritest amendment, and the general and very basic moral commitment to freedom of conscience and expression and equal creation and protection is very cool.

You seem only content with the expression of the Muslims building this mosque, but have no patience for the expression of those who see it for the abomination that it is.

I notice you couldn't summon up the balls in your sneering admonition to once again defend Cordoba as a "leading center of trade and culture", entirely disregarding the fact that it was a caliphate, where non-Muslims were treated as second-class citizens forced to pay for their beliefs.

Finally, I'm disappointed. You were so content to call me a terrorist, and everyone else bigots, in the comments of my article, but seem to suddenly think that unnecessary discourse while penning your own diatribe. Come on, CK. You claim to say exactly what you think. I don't see anywhere near the amount of snide, arrogant contempt that you showed in the last discussion.