Waiting with bated breath

Little Thom is all excited about how “RW bloggers” are “aflame” over the bombing in the Luxor’s parking garage. In a post subtlety titled Ecstasy of Terror, Little Thom writes:

It’s nothing new to notice how this particular type of observer seems to be waiting with bated breath to see a bunch of Americans killed in some kind of attack, hoping, it can only seem, to fuel and to justify their fantasies of further violence on our part. But it’s worth noticing again.

Oh but forget that – the kids got sick of their shiny red ball and found a new toy to play with.

They’ll get sick of that one soon enough, and find another. And another…

The “new toy” was the Fort Dix arrests.

Little Thom was kind enough to link to Murdoc, though looking back at my post on the subject I’m not sure where I was “hoping” to “see a bunch of Americans killed”. I’m thinking that Little Thom doesn’t really know what Little Thom is talking about.

I’m not sure that I’ve ever written that any Americans were waiting with “bated breath” hoping to “see a bunch of Americans killed”, not even about those Americans that are defeatist, anti-patriotic, and sometimes near-treasonous. Little Thom thinks that describing Murdoc as waiting with “bated breath” for such things makes sense.

Murdoc doesn’t know Little Thom, and that’s fine with Murdoc.

UPDATE: And talk about not quite getting it

Comments

  1. Thanks for the link and response, Murdoc. You are of course right to say that one couldn’t find an outright wish to see Americans die. I sincerely doubt you do (though I’ve gotta say the ‘near-treasonous’ comment makes one wonder just a bit). My point was, and I think it was made clear, that noticing how many bloggers of the RW set quickly link to and write about any story like this ‘seem to be waiting with bated breath…’ Why so quicly link to any story like this? What is a person viewing from the outside supposed to think? I think you’d admit that you do want us to do more violence – no? And if one of these stories turned out to be an actual act of ‘Islamo-Jihadist terror’ then it could serve that goal, right?. So is linking to stories like that not somehow connected to that goal, at least in a little way? And you did drop the backpack story like a hot potato and jump on the Fort Dix one. That’s not me being unfair – it’s simply noticing it. And could you say a little more about exactly I was ‘not quite getting’ about Dick Morris’ comments? Kinda vague. Thanks again for the link.

  2. I guess I don’t quite understand either the ‘drop the backpack story like a hot potato and jump on the Fort Dix one’ comment. I noted a breaking and developing story, and then noted another breaking and developing story. Should I have waited until every detail and all the investigations in Vegas are complete before noting anything else? I guess since all the Virginia Tech info isn’t out yet, I should be doing nothing but writing about VT? I don’t get it. As a site that covers some military/security issues, I guess it made sense to me to point the Vegas incident out, as it was obviously a potential security issue. Same for Fort Dix. Glad you ‘noticed’. So what’s unusual about that? Regarding Morris, are you saying that Morris was saying we’re at war in Iraq ‘for the convenience of the terrorists’? I took it to mean that terrorists would find it more convenient to fight Americans in their back yard rather than come to America, which is not only what seems to be happening but is also something quite different than what you seem to say it is. Terrorists attacking our troops because it is convenient is a terrorist reaction to our deployment. Troops in Iraq ‘for the convenience of the terrorists’ is an American action to make things easier for terrorists. Now, I’m no Morris fan, but do you really think that he was saying we’re doing it so the terrorists have an easier time of it? I want us to ‘do more violence’? Well, we’re at war. That’s one of the things you do in a war. As for ‘near-treasonous’, I just call ’em as I see ’em. Not sure what that has to do with hoping for Americans to die. As for your position on seeming ‘to wait with bated breath’, wouldn’t it be just as fair to say that 99% of the US media seems to be celebrating every dead US soldier with headlines, sensationalized coverage, and running casualty tickers? Oh, but they’re not celebrating. They’re just seeming to celebrate…

  3. Last point first: You don’t see the deaths of Americans in Iraq as newsworthy? You of course have to answer yes that you do. It is something exceedingly relevant to us as Americans. Calling that ‘celebrating’ would be like calling the reporting of an earthquake in Atlanta ‘celebrating.’ It’s silly. As for the hot potato: You have a point. But are you saying, now that we know it’s been reported that it’s not terrorist-related, that you plan on following up? If not, why not? And you only link to those stories because they’re ‘security issues’? Where’s your story about Tyler Froatz in D.C.? Or the abortion clinic bombing attempt? Surely those are ‘security issues.’ A quick look at your past posts (admittedly quick) show that the ‘security issue’ stories you link to, like Malkin and others, are predominantly ‘Muslim related.’ Why? And I don’t see how you can take Morris’ – and others’ – words any differently. You even say: I took it to mean that terrorists would find it more convenient to fight Americans in their back yard rather than come to America, which is not only what seems to be happening but is also something quite different than what you seem to say it is. Please untwist that one for me, honestly. Terrorists, you concede, do ‘find it more convenient’ to fight Americans in their backyard’ – which is ‘not only what seems to be happening’ but it’s different than what I say? The difference is the wording? The actuality of it is irrelevant? Honestly. That is completely beyond my comprehension. As for ‘near treasonous,’ the throwing around of that word at people who simply have a position different than yours is so deeply UnAmerican that it’s offensive to even respond to. And my point is that treason, as you must know, is punishable by death. And those would be Americans you’re talking about.

  4. I think that it is convenient to fight Americans in their back yard rather than come to America, They have good supply lines from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. They are used to the weather there, they have friends and family there and they can even get in on some of the money rolling in from not only America, but other countries. Kidnapping is also a good part time job for the terrorists and don’t forget that they are used to the food there. So, whats so hard to understand or surprising about all that? I left him a list of the ‘other’ reasons we have American troops over there, in a comment I left on his blog a few minutes ago. Now he knows our secrets, but I cautioned him to not tell anyone else. Papa Ray West Texas USA

  5. I don’t want to speak for Murdoc, but in response to ‘A quick look at your past posts (admittedly quick) show that the ‘security issue’ stories you link to, like Malkin and others, are predominantly ‘Muslim related.’ Why?’ Maybe that could be because we are at war with militant muslims. In response to your beef with Morris’ words, I believe the assumption is we would rather be fighting them there than here. If it is more convenient for the militant muslims to fight in Iraq, fewer will cross the pond to fight in America. That is a Good Thing in my book. I love to make it convenient for militant muslims to run to their deaths at the end of our troops’ guns in their own backyard. Personally, I hope we do more violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope we do violence until either our enemies are tired of getting killed or there is no enemy. Last time I checked that is how you win a war. Oh, and I have all the justification I need- these stories are sometimes nice reminders of why we are fighting though.

  6. Thom: A) I didn’t say that anyone was ‘celebrating’ the deaths of US troops. I only said it seemed like it. Which was my entire point. C’mon. You started the whole seemed thing. B) I may follow up on the Vegas thing. I may not. I may not even if it IS terrorist-related, depending on whether or not I feel like I have anything to say. I haven’t followed up on Dix yet, either. So what? C) Related to point B, you ask why I haven’t posted on xyz story. For a lot of reasons. There are about 50 stories a day I’d post on if I could. I don’t for all sorts of different reasons. Not sure why that matters to you. I post about the Stryker. There are about a hundred Stryker-related things a day I could post on if I wanted to. Are you expecting me to justify to you why I don’t? D) As for Morris’ comment, you seem to be confusing cause and effect. And, yes, the wording is important because, well, the wording is what he said. US troops aren’t there for the convenience of terrorists, they’re there to fight terrorists (among other things). However, that fact means it’s more convenient for terrorists to attack them than it is for terrorists to attack the US mainland, and I believe that’s what Morris was saying. E) I’ve always called it ‘Fly Paper’, not ‘Flytrap’, and I’m quite skeptical that it was/is our PLAN. There’s no doubt that it’s happening, which is what Morris seems to be saying, but I’ve never really subscribed to the idea that we went there with that as a major objective. In any event, the descriptions of the theory that you have posted are not terribly accurate, as (once again) you represent it as US troops sent there as ‘sitting ducks’ waiting to ‘be picked off’, ‘sacrificial lambs’ that are ‘totally expendable’. E1) Anyone who thinks US troops in Iraq are sitting ducks just waiting to be picked off has obviously not been paying attention. Really. Whether or not you subscribe to the Fly Paper strategy, that description of what’s happening simply doesn’t have any resemblance to the reality on the ground. E2) Again, your description (or, rather, the descriptions you quote) of Fly Paper appears to be based on the idea that we’re doing it simply for the convenience of those who would attack us. That’s a grossly unfair and slanted representation of the theory. Instead, if we were using the Fly Paper strategy (which I’ve already said I don’t think we are directly) we’d be there because that’s where our enemies are. We can’t go crawling into every cave and basement in every city and village in every nation, so Fly Paper says: — 1. We go in somewhere, kill, and destroy — 2. Wait for the counterattack — 3. Kill and destroy again — 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as necessary So while it’s more convenient for terrorists to attack US troops in Iraq than it is for terrorists to attack US citizens in Iowa, we aren’t there ‘for the convenience of the terrorists’. Even if Fly Paper was our strategy, it would be an offensive into enemy territory, not a ‘sitting duck’ ‘sacrificial lamb’ offering for the convenience of the enemy. F) You bet I think some Americans are ‘near-treasonous’. They’re proud of it. (You appear to assume that I call people near-treasonous simply because they don’t agree with me, but that just shows how little you know.) So I guess, technically, I’m calling for the near-death of the near-treasonous. If any are actually legally treasonous (rather than just morally and ethically treasonous) then I am all for killing them if convicted. If you meant I was hoping for the death of any convicted traitors, then you’re right. I thought you meant deaths of citizens in attacks, since that’s what you were writing about when you said it.

  7. A) you only said it ‘seemed’ like it. Okay. The difference is that they’re reporters doing their jobs. They get paid to report news. Somebody who is doing their job doesn’t seem to be celebrating, they seem to be doing their job. A blogger or a wide array of bloggers who jump on every story that just-might lead to a TERROR INCIDENT – well, it doesn’t seem like someone doing their job, you’ve gotta admit that. It seems like something else. What do you think it is?. B) The what in ‘so what’ is still the point I made. You didn’t refute it – you just said you may or may not follow up. C) It matters to me because it’s an example of the point I’m making. You say it’s a coincidence that you post about ‘security issues’ that are only Muslim related. I’m saying that it seems less than coincidental. You don’t have to justify it to me. You can try to explain it if you like. Specifically – you noticed the Tyler Froatz story, right? What made you decide that that wasn’t a ‘security issue’ worth writing about? D & E) I simply think you’re wrong about what Morris meant. He wasn’t – and it’s clear in that interview – describing something that simply happened. He was describing policy and its ‘advantages.’ The fact that it’s a policy that has been widely discussed and supported by many on the Right is of course not unknown to Morris. And your word games, if you didn’t get me last time, are – a bit sickening. We’re not talking about abstracts here. And we’re not talking about a policy from here on out. We’re talking about a war that has been going on for more than four years – with more than 3,400 Americans killed and thousands more severely wounded. They are the ones that Morris – and you, and Sullivan – are so callously and with ’cause and effect’ word games brushing aside.

    One of the things though I think the anti-war crowd does not consider is that if we’re putting the Americans right within their arms reach, they don’t have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans.

    Are you still going to support that statement? ‘Putting Americans within arms reach’? Even that aside – what kind of an asinine theory is that? Someone shoots a bullet through your front window so you send the kids out into the street, willing to sacrifice a few of them to attract more rock throwers? It is beyond asinine. A plan is needed – but that is not it. And more accurately: Someone tshoots a bullet through your front window from a passing car, so you send the kids to the house of a neighbor who had nothing to do with it to shoot at them, thereby creating out of thin air more people who want to shoots a bullet through your front window. Unbelievable. E) And holy shit, Murdoc – sitting ducks is exactly what you’d call a bunch of guys sent by these arrogantly incompetent imbeciles to an unnecessary war in insufficient numbers in improperly-armored Humvees driving over IEDs all while unleashing a civil war that they can’t take sides in. What else would you call that? How can someone so into things military even begin to defend any part of this equation? Everybody knows they’re fighting and trying and doing what they can against great odds – but they were still fucked by this admin. from the getgo. That’s enough. usa

  8. Are you still going to support that statement? ‘Putting Americans within arms reach’?’ Wow. He’s still confusing fact and circumstance with strategy. You’d think in all the time at takes to type a post that long, that would occur to him. Thom, you DO understand that adding lots of words, cursing, and faux righteousness in your position still doesn’t result in a sensible post? ‘How can someone so into things military even begin to defend any part of this equation?’ Well, assuming you’re referring to the actual situation the world currently faces, not the one you keep writing about above, it seems clear that it’s *BECAUSE* he understands ‘things military’ that he disagrees with you so much. Oh, one last comment on something obvious to everyone else but you…*YOU* started playing games with words with this quote: ‘seems to be waiting with bated breath to see a bunch of Americans killed’ It was viscious, uncalled for, sickening, and merely paints a picture of some imaginary RW foe that you must then attack in your infinite patriotism. Please.

  9. Thom, you’re killing me here. Really. But okay. A) I didn’t realize you were the one that got to decide who can seem and who can’t seem. If you’re saying you’re the one who decides, then I guess you’re right and I’m wrong. Otherwise, you’re the one who said RW bloggers were seeming to be waiting with bated breath. Did I miss something? Are you somehow the media and at the same time I somehow am not? Please make up your mind. B) I wasn’t trying to refute anything. My point was that I wasn’t trying to refute anything. I may or may not follow up. Again, I didn’t realize you were the one who decided whether I had to. I’ve looked and looked, but I don’t see your name anywhere on my editorial board. If I’m wrong, please let me know. Maybe it has something to do with you being the one who decides who can seem and who cannot? Otherwise, Just Like Every Other Post I Write, I’ll post something if I think I have something to say or if it seems interesting. I’m not really sure what you’re expecting here, but I’ve explained it as much as I can. C) I said nothing about posting about ‘security’ issues that were only Muslim related. Nowhere did I say that. I will say, however, that if something looks potentially terrorist-related, I will be more likely to post on it if I happen to see a BREAKING NEWS banner on MSNBC.com. It seemed like it might be an interesting story (and I was right) so I posted. (Now that I Google ‘Tyler Froatz’ and see who he is and why he’s so newsworthy, I’m not sure why you’d expect me to post about him anyway. Exploding backpack (as it was thought to be at the time) could potentially be war-related. Tyler Froatz doesn’t appear to be in way, shape, or form war-related.) D) Okay. We disagree about what Morris meant. Fair enough. I’ll bet we disagree about a lot more than that. It’s clear that your perception of ‘advantages’ and cause and effect are far, far different than mine. Your understanding of Fly Paper is far, far different than mine. Your take on military strategy is far, far different than mine. These differences are so great that I can see there’s probably not a lot of point trying to persuade you to see it my way. From what I can see of your way, I’ll tell you right now that I think you’re very badly mistaken about a great many things and that I doubt you’ll make much headway against me, either. E) I know some of the guys in Iraq. I know what they’re doing. I know how the fights go. I know who’s dying in droves. That’s why I know our guys aren’t ‘sitting ducks’ or ‘sacrificial lambs’. Sure, it’s tough going in places. Because, well, it’s a war. Ask them if they’re winning or losing the war and you’ll get a far different answer than if you ask the media who apparently have a free pass to tell us what they want things to seem like rather than what things ARE like.

  10. Hey, I’m killing ya – and I’m here all week. Pa-doom. I think you should extend the basic disagreement to the ‘seem’ thing, which I’m really getting sick of seeing in bold, to the seem thing. (Oh damnit, there I go again…) I am not the Lord of Seem, we just disagree about what is someone’s job and what is someone’s obsession. S’alright. I’m going to skip point B because it would just go in the same circle. C – Dude, I didn’t say you said anything about only Muslim issues. It was my observation. That just ain’t straight to say that. D – Ehhhh, now you’re moving the goalposts. You said ‘security issues,’ not ‘war-related.’ Security is security. Domestic terrorism kills Americans too, and Ty Froatz was a lot better armed than the doofuses in Jersey. But, now that I know, I’ll just expect you to deal with ‘war-realted security issues.’ E – I’m glad the guys you know feel confident and good about what they’re doing. I wouldn’t hope for any different. It doesn’t have a shit to do with whether their C-I-C is sane or not, does it? They’re in the moment. And my little brother may be one of them sooner than I’d personally like. We could go back and forth with military people who support the war and those who don’t – so it’s meaningless. Let’s not bother. I appreciate how you’ve done this conversation, Murdoc. You’re of course right to say attempts to convert are futile, but you’ve been reasonably civil. Thanks. I would have thought you just were a dick – but you’re obviously not. You’re just deluded. Pa-doom. And you’ve got to get a better cheering section. Klatu narictu is just kinda whack. usa usa

  11. Now you don’t like bolded ‘seem’? Why is it when you do something first it’s okay but when I do it there’s something wrong with it? Whatever. You say it’s a coincidence that you post about ‘security issues’ that are only Muslim related. followed by Dude, I didn’t say you said anything about only Muslim issues. It was my observation. Okay…I guess I thought you meant ‘you say’ when you said ‘you say’. Unless you meant that you observed I only write about Muslim-related? At least then I understand what you meant. And that you’re mostly wrong. RE: moving the goalposts on ‘security’. Okay, it’s a fair cop in the context of this one thread and I didn’t mean to move anything. I also didn’t want to have to explain my entire web site for the purposes of one little conversation, but I’ll just say that as a military-themed political site that covers primarily military tech, military issues, and war news, the ‘security’ I cover 99% of the time is ‘war-related’ and when I say ‘security’ I usually mean ‘war-related security’ or ‘national security’ or ‘homeland security’ or some very similar form of security. Some punk Freeper beating on some punk Commie doesn’t qualify as a particularly ‘security’-related story, in my mind. But to each his own. You can call me deluded all you’d like, but that doesn’t change the fact that you really don’t seem to understand how Fly Paper is working, and even if it was our Big Plan (which I don’t think it is) it’s certainly no ‘sacrifice’ of troops. That would make your opinion of what Morris said based on a misunderstanding, and since what you think Fly Paper is would probably lead one to believe that troops are basically nothing more than convenient sitting ducks, I think that’s the case here.

  12. These jerk off liberals manipulate the news to gloss over or even deliberately obscure the facts with regard to terrorist acts committed by Muslim extremists, then go after non-flamers for not trusting the news. These are the same idiots who believe Bush led a conspiracy to blow up the twin towers on 9/11. I saw a poll where 35% of Democrats believe that bs. I mean sure, half the population is going to be below average in intelligence, but 35% are abject morons? Who knew the curve dropped that steeply on the back side or that so many were Democrats?

  13. Pat Buchanon has some interesting observations of the recent ‘contributions’ of foreigners to our nation. —————— Since the 1960s, we have become alienated from one another even as millions of strangers arrive every year. And as Americans no longer share the old ties of history, heritage, faith, language, tradition, culture, music, myth or morality, how can immigrants share those ties? Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here. The 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center and the killers of 9-11 were all immigrants or illegals. Colin Ferguson, the Jamaican who massacred six and wounded 19 in an anti-white shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad, was an illegal. John Lee Malvo, the Beltway Sniper, was flotsam from the Caribbean. Angel Resendez, the border-jumping rapist who killed at least nine women, was an illegal alien. Julio Gonzalez, who burned down the Happy Land social club in New York, killing 87, arrived in the Mariel boatlift. Ali Hassan Abu Kama, who wounded seven, killing one, in a rampage on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, was a Palestinian. As was Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy. The rifleman who murdered two CIA employees at the McLean, Va., headquarters was a Pakistani. When Chai Vang, a Hmong, was told by a party of Wisconsin hunters to vacate their deer stand, he shot six to death. Peter Odighizuwa, the gunman who killed the dean, a teacher and a student at the Appalachian School of Law, was a Nigerian. Hesham Hadayet, who shot up the El Al counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four, was an Egyptian immigrant. Gamil al-Batouti, the copilot who yelled, ‘I put my faith in Allah’s hands,’ as he crashed his plane into the Atlantic after departing JFK Airport, killing 217, was an Egyptian. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the UNC graduate who ran his SUV over nine people on Chapel Hill campus and said he was ‘thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah,’ was an Iranian. Juan Corona, who murdered 25 people in California to be ranked with the likes of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, was a Mexican. Where does one find such facts? On VDARE.com, a Website that covers the dark side of diversity covered up by a politically correct media, which seem to believe it is socially unhealthy for us Americans to see any correlation at all between mass migrations and mass murder. ——————– Now I do believe that diversity is the strength of our nation, but only to a reasonable degree. Diversity is a strength if we are all pulling the same way. Diversity is a strength if we are all trying to win the war on terror, for instance. If we have those among us who are waging that war against us, or aiding those who do, this is not a strength. It is a weakness that we no longer prosecute traitors. It is a weakness that we allow people to come to our shores who work to do our country harm or at best are neutral with regard to our traditions and institutions.