Why should we tolerate these Islamofascists who hate us all?

This is rather pithy example of Burchill: Of course, it is all very well to spend your days lecturing others to “celebrate diversity” when you go home each night to Hampstead. But surely the faces of the people who were killed last week told their own story — if this is such an unwelcoming, racist … Continue reading “Why should we tolerate these Islamofascists who hate us all?”

This is rather pithy example of Burchill:

Of course, it is all very well to spend your days lecturing others to “celebrate diversity” when you go home each night to Hampstead. But surely the faces of the people who were killed last week told their own story — if this is such an unwelcoming, racist place to live, why do all races continue to flock here, as they do to evil, imperialist America?

Why indeed are the US and the UK the top immigrant destinations in the world? It’s not like anybody moves to places like China and Syria, you know.

15 thoughts on “Why should we tolerate these Islamofascists who hate us all?”

  4. Calling the US a “nuclear terrorist” (or any kind of terrorist) is ridiculous. There were reasons to bomb and there were reasons not to bomb, and neither set of reasons was obvious or easy.

  5. Good point. Nations can’t be terrorists.
    At least by the commonly accepted definition of the term.

    Just a second…I’ll check my dictionary.
    Let’s see…terror: 3) “Violence committed esp. by a group for political purposes.”

    Well, that should probably exclude nations, I suspect.

    Okay, now here’s the word terrorism (only one definition given): “The politcal use of violence or intimidation.” Hmmm, the waters get a little muddy now. That could apply to a nation, it seems.

    I’ll agree with you there were reasons to bomb and there were reasons not to bomb, and neither set of reasons was obvious or easy.

    I wonder if the same effects–a quick Japanese surrender & intimidating the Soviets–could have been achieved if the citizens of Hiroshima & Nagasaki had been fully & accurately warned, & given time to prepare/evacuate, etc. Simply on humanitarian grounds, you know. Or if there had been some way to demonstrate to both the Japanese & the Soviets (without killing thousands of men, women, & children) the awesome power of the bomb, & the danger they face through continued or future conflict with us?

  8. He saved a lot of American lives, and I think that was the simple point. At the expense of Japanese lives, indeed it was. War is hell.

  9. Did you read the essay?
    The point of the essay was (in great part) that “saving American lives” was NOT the simple point. Scaring the hell out of the Soviets was.

  11. It may be so, but I wouldn’t take Counterpunch’s word for it.

    As Truman has been dead for rather a long time, it’s an academic point, isn’t it?

  13. BTW, who coined the word “Islamofascists”?
    The only place, other than your post, I’ve come across it is on “The Savage Nation”. Is it in common use?

  14. Christopher Hitchens coined it, as far as I know. He’s a leftist who used to write for The Nation. Do a Google and you’ll see it’s become a common term.

Comments are closed.