Will the anti-war crowd denounce this idiot?

Then you suspect wrong.
I was in Kuwait City and saw the damage done to the embassy.
If it was not attacked,then where did the damage come from?
Why was the US flag lowered?
Where did the Marine embassy detail go after the invasion?

0 Replies

Never let an inconvenient fact get in the way of your beliefs, MM!

0 Replies

You tell us, MM--you got a source for your allegations, other than your personal suppositions? Both the US and the British embassies were damaged in the shelling of the Royal Palace on August 2, although there is no evidence that either were targeted. Both were damaged in the bombing and the Allied shelling when the city was taken back.

What's your point, MM--if you think you know better, it's a simple matter for you to prove it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

When they invaded Kuwait for one.
They attacked,captured,and occupied the US Embassy in Kuwait City.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Then you suspect wrong.
I was in Kuwait City and saw the damage done to the embassy.
If it was not attacked,then where did the damage come from?
Why was the US flag lowered?
Where did the Marine embassy detail go after the invasion?

That's a bit like concluding that, if there's a rock on the ground, then somebody must have dropped it there.

There can be other explanations for damage done to a building in a war zone besides being targeted and attacked. Or are you suggesting, MM, that the only buildings that are damaged in a war are the ones that are specifically targeted?

0 Replies

Whoa nelly! Don't want to go there....

0 Replies

Oooo . . . good one, BF . . . i love it when something like this comes together . . .

You gonna cry "uncle" yet, MM?

0 Replies

source While a Marine Corps reconnaissance unit had secured the U.S. Embassy the day before the ceasefire went into effect, orders came from "on high" that the Marines were to evacuate the Embassy. At 1330 local time, 28 February, U.S. Army Special Forces made a helicopter "assault" into the Embassy. After blowing a huge hole in the chancery, and finding no enemy forces, the liberation of Kuwait was declared complete.

0 Replies

For those who may not understand, I responded to a post of Blue Flame, which he/she (?) was apparently editing to perfect the source link while is was posting.

So, allow me to repeat myself . . . Nice work, BF.

0 Replies

Perhaps he's thinking of our embassy in Somalia? That's the best out you're going to get, MM.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Mills is just doing what all the lefties do when they can't address an issue.

Like the freak that threatened the conservative student.

Hey, DALY QUIT when he knew he'd been busted. Now, cram that lefty BS.

Which issue would that be? I've addressed every post directed at me (except for Set's question regarding my sig, which MM answered accurately), and a few that weren't.

0 Replies

A little more info on the embassy in Kuwait

Quote:

March 1, 1991: -- U.S. Ambassador Edward Gnehm and 20 members of the U.S. Embassy staff arrive in Kuwait, raise the American flag, reopen the U.S. Embassy, which was evacuated December 14, 1990.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992/920304-218167.htm

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Lash wrote:
Mills is just doing what all the lefties do when they can't address an issue.

Like the freak that threatened the conservative student.

Hey, DALY QUIT when he knew he'd been busted. Now, cram that lefty BS.

Which issue would that be? I've addressed every post directed at me (except for Set's question regarding my sig, which MM answered accurately), and a few that weren't.

"Shovel that bs elsewhere" is not a criticism. Neither was the currently unemployed professor's threat to run a conservative group off campus. Nothing wrong with criticism. There's plenty wrong with personal attacks and threats due to intolerance of someone else's opinion.

That's my opinion.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
Lash wrote:
Mills is just doing what all the lefties do when they can't address an issue.

Like the freak that threatened the conservative student.

Hey, DALY QUIT when he knew he'd been busted. Now, cram that lefty BS.

Which issue would that be? I've addressed every post directed at me (except for Set's question regarding my sig, which MM answered accurately), and a few that weren't.

"Shovel that bs elsewhere" is not a criticism. Neither was the currently unemployed professor's threat to run a conservative group off campus. Nothing wrong with criticism. There's plenty wrong with personal attacks and threats due to intolerance of someone else's opinion.

That's my opinion.

Then you will join with me and denounce the physical attacks on Ann Coulter when she speaks at a college campus.

Or,are you going to say that when she is INVITED to speak,its ok to show your displeasure by rushing the stage,throwing things at her,calling her a female Hitler,trying to drown her out so she cant be heard,etc.

Are these actions acceptable to you?

0 Replies

"Physical attacks"!? Could you please get a slight grip on the proper use of language. She had two pumpkin pies tossed at her, one of which caught her shoulder. You'll recall at the time that she described the pumpkin pie throwers as "terrorists" (another wonderful example of precision in language use). I heartily approve of pie tossing at anyone and everyone, including our Canadian Prime Minister (liberal) who got one several years ago. Every politician and pundit ought to get at least one pie a year in the kisser, just for the sake of humility.

Now, shouting down a voice with which you disagree, particularly in a university setting, is not an act with which I agree. But if you think about it, MM, is there ANY individual you've seen on TV in discussion who is more frequently guilty of shouting down anyone else talking with whom she disagrees than Coulter?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Physical attacks"!? Could you please get a slight grip on the proper use of language. She had two pumpkin pies tossed at her, one of which caught her shoulder. You'll recall at the time that she described the pumpkin pie throwers as "terrorists" (another wonderful example of precision in language use). I heartily approve of pie tossing at anyone and everyone, including our Canadian Prime Minister (liberal) who got one several years ago. Every politician and pundit ought to get at least one pie a year in the kisser, just for the sake of humility.

Now, shouting down a voice with which you disagree, particularly in a university setting, is not an act with which I agree. But if you think about it, MM, is there ANY individual you've seen on TV in discussion who is more frequently guilty of shouting down anyone else talking with whom she disagrees than Coulter?

Tell me,
I can hide acid in a pie,if I really wanted to.
There are many things that can be hidden in a pie.
But,that isnt the point.
She was INVITED to speak at the college.
There are many ways to express displeasure with someone without throwing things at them.
If its ok to throw a pie,why not a brick?
After all,its just an expression of displeasure.

I dont approve of any kinds of physical attacks on an invited speaker or a politician.
I often wonder how the left,while claiming to want and respect diversity and freedom of speech,can justify attacks like these on someone they disagree with.
It makes no sense to me.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Physical attacks"!? Could you please get a slight grip on the proper use of language. She had two pumpkin pies tossed at her, one of which caught her shoulder. You'll recall at the time that she described the pumpkin pie throwers as "terrorists" (another wonderful example of precision in language use). I heartily approve of pie tossing at anyone and everyone, including our Canadian Prime Minister (liberal) who got one several years ago. Every politician and pundit ought to get at least one pie a year in the kisser, just for the sake of humility.

Now, shouting down a voice with which you disagree, particularly in a university setting, is not an act with which I agree. But if you think about it, MM, is there ANY individual you've seen on TV in discussion who is more frequently guilty of shouting down anyone else talking with whom she disagrees than Coulter?

As much as my heart wants to agree with blatham about the pies, my brain leads me towards the point made by MM.

Is there any doubt that Ann Coulter has received death threats?

I think that if I were in her position or the position of any other celebrity, I would be very alarmed to find someone rushing at me with a large object in their hand. It's not as if these targets have any time to assess what is about to happen to them and say:

"Oh well, it's only a pie, and this guy looks pretty nice so I'm sure it's not a Broken Glass Merengue."

The only way these idiots can pull off their stunts is to get very close to their target and then rush towards them. I saw a clip of Bill Gates getting hit by a pie and his attacker did not have a wry grin on his face as he rushed forward, his teeth were clenched and bared and his eyes wide open. It was pretty clear that he was pumped with adrenaline.

I would have been very alarmed by him rushing at me.

It is a physical attack, albeit one of no physical harm if the "pie" consists merely of whip or shaving cream. (I suspect that getting hit in the face with an actual pumpkin or apple pie might hurt a bit).

So as much as I enjoy the sight of a celebrity with a whipped cream pie dripping of his or her face, I can't excuse the action as simply some merry prank. I don't know if there was ever a Golden Age when people could trust someone rushing towards them with a pie shaped object, but I know it's not the case now.

I don't think I'd send the pie-throwers to jail, but if one of the celebrities bodyguards coldcocks the guy as he rushes forward, I don't think I'd send him to jail either.

As for pie-throwers as terrorists? No way ---simply attention seeking clowns.

As for shouting down other speakers, I'm afraid you haven't studied your enemy very closely. That is really not Coulter's MO and there are many more pundits who regularly employ the tactic: Eleanor Clift comes to mind.

0 Replies

Acid in a pie is simply silly. Worse, it forwards the paranoid idiocy of terrorism abroad in our cities where everyone is a potential killer and babies are not safe. If someone was going to consider such an act, he'd put the acid in her drinking water or muffin covertly, thus avoiding the inconvenience of being immediately grabbed and put in prison for many years. There's a long and healthy tradition of pies in the face of folks for political protest reasons, with no ill effects to anyone's healthy I've every heard of. Head the other way (fearfulness of the folks you are sitting beside) and then you head towards fear-mongering and shitty lives for all of us.

There ARE penalties for pie throwing. That's fine. Most forms of civic disobedience gain penalties, that is just part of the game.

0 Replies

Tell me Blatham,
Would her security detail be justified in using force to restrain the pie thrower?
Would the use of violence against the pie thrower be ok with you?
After all,they would just be defending themselves?

0 Replies

Sure, so long as the force applied is commensurate with the real threat. In other words, grab him by the collar, hold his arm, turn the pie in his face.

Then, if she says something else of the "they are terrorists!" nature, send in a second wave of pie guys.

0 Replies

Will the anti-war crowd denounce this idiot?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know