Friday, March 07, 2008

More fear/Commander-in-Chief talk from Hillary Clinton:

At the news conference, Clinton cited the explosion of a small bomb in Times Square early Thursday to highlight her claim that she is the candidate most prepared to lead in a crisis.
The small bomb was "not a particularly sophisticated device", left at a military recruiting station at 3:40 AM (!) by one guy on a bicycle. It could have been lethal, but clearly was not the work of a foreign entity. It was detonated as an act of vandalism, not deliberately to injure or kill. Glass was broken, and a door badly damaged, as shown in this picture:


Are these the new left-wing apologist talking points? "Not a particularly sophisticated device"? "Not deliberately to injure or kill"?

I've seen the videotape and the bomber made no effort to ensure that no one would be in front of the door when it went off. If someone had happened to be walking by at that moment, they would have been killed. The fucking thing twisted a supposedly bomb-resistant door in half.

What would it take for this sort of domestic terrorist attack to rise to the level of "sophistication" for you and your apologist like to feel a few pangs of concern?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/07/2008 6:32 PM  

Follow the link before flaming out for goodness sake. City police commissioner Ray Kelly was quoted. I doubt if he was pontificating on "left wing apologist talking points", but I am fairly sure you are an ass.

As Atrios says, "the stupid it burns."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/08/2008 12:26 AM  

Of course Kelly wasn't pontificating on "left wing apologist talking points" That wasn't what I said. Quiddity twisted Kelly's statement to fabricate a "left wing apologist talking point." The actual quote was:

The bomb was "not a particularly sophisticated device" but was certainly capable of causing injury or death, [city commissioner] Kelly said.

The second part was inconvenient, so it was omitted, taking the quote out of context and creating the left-wing apologist talking point.

Why not denounce the terrorist attack instead of trying to reframe it as "an act of vandalism." If the bomber had smashed the window, that would be an act of vandalism.

Setting an unattended bomb on a public sidewalk is not an act of vandalism. It's an act of terrorism. The only reason that people are not dead is that no one happened to be walking by when the bomb went off.

So I'll ask you directly. Do you consider it terrorism to plant delayed-detonation bombs on public sidewalks in front of recruiting stations? Would it be "vandalism" to plant a nail bomb in the middle of a code pink rally in front of a recruiting station? Or would the blood and flesh smeared on the door of the recruiting station be another example of "vandalism"?

The moral bankruptcy of the left is on full display here.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/08/2008 8:18 AM  

Let me cite "the explosion of a small bomb in Times Square early Thursday to highlight" my "claim that" Obama "is the candidate most prepared to lead in a crisis."

Do I want an unpricipled political hack or a cool headed and intelligent person answering the crisis phone in the middle of the night? There really is no choice.

By Anonymous Rockie the Dog, at 3/08/2008 2:31 PM  

Setting an unattended bomb on a public sidewalk is not an act of vandalism.

At 3:40 a.m., yes, it is, particularly since the office was vacant, and the bomb was set to detonate less than a minute later, after the bomber had a chance to get far enough away and avoid injury himself.

Now, if it had been done at 3:40 p.m., when there would have actually been people in the office, then yes, it clearly would have been terrorism.

And speaking of talking points...

The moral bankruptcy of the left is on full display here

They don't come any staler than that one.

By Anonymous Screamin' Demon, at 3/08/2008 3:09 PM  

So the operative definition of terrorism here appears to include some element of "no harm no foul."

If there had been someone standing there making sure that no one wandered into the blast zone when the bomb went off, then you could possibly make a strained claim of vandalism.

But that didn't happen. The bomber dropped off the bomb and scurried off, leaving a death trap behind.

Look at the video:

3:39:44 three pedestrians walk through the kill zone as the bomber sets the bomb.

3:39:46 a car drives through the kill zone.

3:39:54 with the bomb set and the bomber having fled, a car drives through the kill zone.

3:40:40 A pedestrian passes through the kill zone on the other side of the street.

3:40:52 the bomb detonates. Fortunately the square is empty.

3:41:02 a car drives through the kill zone

3:41:04 two more cars drive through the kill zone

3:41:06 a truck drives through the kill zone

3:41:12 a car drives through the kill zone

In the approximately 90 seconds represented in the bombing footage, four pedestrians and seven cars drive through the blast zone. It is nothing but pure luck that none of those at least 11 people happened to be driving or walking by when the explosion happened.

But say, hypothetically that all seven cars had been stopped at a light, and the three pedestrians had happened to be walking by, and they were all killed. Would the bombing still be vandalism because the not particularly sophisticated device had not been deliberately intended to injure or kill?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/09/2008 10:02 AM  

Of course it is an act of insane lefty terorism, as it is intended to put fear in the folks that work there. Wether they really wanted to kill anyone or not is beside the point.

Just the same as insane lefty buning car lots in the name of the environment. Or whacked out righties in Oklahoma City with a rental truck, or or at multiple abortion clinics across the country.

At least insane lefty terrorists have a lower kill rate, but left or right, they are both criminal asses, like you.

You happy now?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/09/2008 11:20 AM  

What makes you think I would support McVaigh and his cohorts, or abortion clinic bombers? They're just as much scum as liberal terrorists.

By the way, when you accuse me offhand of being a criminal, what the hell are you talking about?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/10/2008 7:04 AM  

I do not think I implicated your support of any type of terrorism. I was trying to say any terrorism is wrong, no matter the motive.

You started off talking about lefty apologists for lefty terrorism and I found that absurd. The post was about Clinton claiming she should be President so she can stop this sort of thing. Obviously no President can stop random terror.

I apologize for the poor wording linking you to support of righty terror, and also for calling you names. I would not have been unhinged if your comment was on topic, instead of making accusations against left wingers that had nothing to do with the post.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/10/2008 8:48 AM  

Post a Comment