(and I missed it until just a moment ago)

“Shaun Mullen Says:
May 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Holly:
Well, I can’t be so sure.
. . . .
[about it being a terror attack]
. . .
We shall see.”

EXCUSE ME?!

If shaun “isn’t sure” and agrees that “We shall see,” and that is essentially what all the bloggers whose throats he is attempting to jump down say, how in the world can he fault them? He’s just using this as a really feeble excuse to throw some mud, just ‘caus he wants to, I guess.

SHEEESH! Talk about making a mountain out of a gopher hole!

Thanks

But this article here is about Malkin, and she has no reason to be back-peddling. If the others are doing what Shaun falsely accused Malkin of doing, then why didn’t he write about them? You can’t prove a concept from something that contradicts it. Bottom line, Shaun probably wanted to slander Malkin because she’s a bigger target, and discrediting her gets more points than the smaller fish. The trouble is, he failed. And if the others are (I haven’t read them yet) then using them to slander her is a cheap way of attacking her.

Now, let’s look at SisterToldja
“I hope that the incident in Vegas is isolated and not part of a coordinated plan for future attacks of this nature.” – (quoted in Holly’s article, below)

Hmm, nothin to back off on there.

What about Captain Ed?
“UPDATE III: As I noted earlier, it was not likely a terrorist attack, despite one blogger [Rudi? Shaun?] who apparently couldn’t read that far into the post.

Nope, no smoking gun there, either.

Ya got nuthin, Rudi. I see your B.S., and I call.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/13274813/detail.html?dl=mainclick

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out… Malkin et al might just have a story after all.

Shaun: Look, they’re from NJ. What a shocker, eh?

I simply can’t understand the need for all the snark about those who speculated about an obvious possibility (unless of course, one’s agenda is to ridicule the right wingers).

That was supposed to be

“That article was found here
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000729.html
. . . along with plenty more . . . “

(I hope this isn’t too “right wing” for you)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html

“Saudi Arabia’s public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other “unbelievers.” But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis — that was all supposed to change.
. . .
A year ago, an [Saudi] embassy spokesman declared: “We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths.” The embassy is also distributing a 74-page review on curriculum reform to show that the textbooks have been moderated.

The problem is: These claims are not true.
. . .
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to “spread the faith.”
. . .
“As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus”.”
etc.,

That article was found here

. . . along with plenty more that show the kind of savagery we face. It isn’t just a matter of treating them niclely. Mutual respect despite fundamental religious differences is not a concept they honor.

I can’t see what you are talking about if you don’t leave specific references. How much trouble is it to copy and paste a link into your post? (hint – a lot less than for others to go searching for what you might be referring to)

Thank you.

“‘Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies”

Based on what? The “musings” of a far Left hater of America like Chomsky?

If they hate America for our Mid East policies, how do you explain their hatred for nearly everyone else?

“India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan . . . and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia . . . and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates . . . and Tanzania and Germany and Australia . . . and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and…”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

No, they are the same nearly everywhere, with few exceptions.

They have a saying that was in place long before the US came into existance, and that is “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people” (‘. . . and then everyone else’ which is implicit in that declaration of hate).
http://www.davekopel.com/Corner/Corner-Archive-2005.htm#First_the_Saturday_people,_then_the_Sunday_people.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007975.php

We have to look at their behavior, and the words they say to themselves. If we just look at what they tell us, we will be at a severe disadvantage, because they have developed deception to a fine art and have been developing an extensive network through which to channel their disinformation.

It’s hard to take accusations like this seriously from people who think that America went to war in Iraq to steal Iraqi oil Now, that is paranoid.

But what about Malkin? Is she really just irrationaly saying this is the work of al Qaeda? Let’s look at what she says.

“This incident may or may not have anything to do with al Qaeda terrorism.” — Malkin

“may or may not” means she is hardly breathless at the possiblity that this is a terror incident (unlike M.V. which is breathless at the thought that she is).

“anything to do with” means that she is asking “could this be connected?”, not was it an actual incident. (explosives sometimes go off accidentally).

“Others dutifully picked up Malkin’s musings, which of course were made without a shred of corroboration.” — M.V.

“musings” are just speculations. They require no “corroboration” though they should be based on some reality, and they were.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/30/national/main633064.shtml

You guys should be the first to recognize real uncorroborated musings, as this piece on her is, since you do it all the time. At least Malkin has al Qaeda surveillance tapes of that very Las Vegas hotel to rely on. But still she does not come out and accuse them, as you more than imply. She is merely asking if there is some connection, and saying it bears watching to see if it turns out there is. That is not at all unreasonable, as any real moderate would know.

This is why I know that this website is not “moderate,” because if it were the writers wouldn’t be so quick to accuse others for what they do so much themselves, and so much more often.

Just sayin.

We’re still fighting them over there, so how could they possibly attack us over here?

In a similar vein: My name is Harvey Mudd. Everything I say is a lie.

Now listen: I am lying.

Mommy my head hurts.

This was just a test. All brave members of the 101st Fightin’ Keyboarders may now cease circling while flapping the wings on their headless bodies.

I believe that’s also now known as the chickenhawk strut.

It’s amazing to me that those who live their lives in constant terror of the possibility of an attack, are the first to claim my beliefs give aid and comfort to the enemy.