Last Tuesday, while I was speaking at NYU, Leftist students created a diversion and threw pies at me and the other speaker, Elan Journo (they missed me, but got Journo on the shoulder).
In brief:
1. This is assault.
2. This shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the Left. They can't answer arguments, so they try to shut down the speakers instead.
3. This shows the Left's thuggery and lack of commitment to free speech and free inquiry.
4. The choice of pies as weapons is intended to ridicule the victims, even if the pies were filled with noxious and/or poisonous substances, thus accomplishing not only the disruption of the event but the portrayal of the victim as a clown, not worth taking seriously (which of course is one of the Alinsky rules).
Here are two accounts of the event (thanks to James):
"NYC: Racist Warmonger Gets Pied," from Infoshop News, November 21:
NYU students disrupted a university event this evening featuring Robert Spencer from "Jihad Watch" and Elan Journo from the "Ayn Rand Institute for Individual Freedom." Students called out the panelists for their Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric, shouting and launching pies at the speakers. One student was detained, and several were escorted out of the building.
Ironically enough, the "Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric" that prompted the little Stalinist to stand up and start shouting was my quoting Maulana Maududi, the internationally influential Pakistani jihad theorist.
The event, entitled "The Jihad Still Threatens America," encouraged viscous Islamophobia and promoted aggressive military intervention in majority Muslim nations.
"Viscous" Islamophobia, as opposed to the usual clear and thin Islamophobia.
Speaker Elan Journo actively promotes devastating attacks on Iran, claiming that "victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan.... Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran's totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile." Fear-mongering comments such as these promote the expansion of US imperialism, and contribute to the wave of anti-Muslim hate that is sweeping our nation....
Where? What anti-Muslim hate? And note that Muslim hate and terror appears to be just fine with these guys.
While it is disturbing to see hate being expressed on such institutional levels on our campuses, the students' refusal to be silent is an inspiration to us all.
Yes, violence in the name of suppressing free speech sure is an inspiration.
Here is the other, apparently mocking the self-contradictory stance of the "tolerancemongers":
"NYU Tolerancemongers Attack Intolerance With Pie," by Hamilton Nolan for Gawker, November 19:
Last week, Forbes columnist and NYU professor Tunku Varadarajan won our Outrage-off for his column about crazy Muslim murderers lurking amongst us. NYU radicals have struck back with a revolutionary pie-ing of Varadarajan's Islamaphobic allies!A member of the NYU revolutionary vanguard alerted us to the pie-ing, and her note is reprinted in full below. The victims were Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Robert Spencer from "Jihad Watch," both of whom were there to talk about how there is apparently a Jihad, threatening America? Did you know about this?
Anyhow the kids were not about to let this intolerance of opposing viewpoints stand, so they interrupted the guys with a pie assault. Spencer himself writes about his close brush with whipped cream here. One eyewitness account says the two speakers "ended up largely unscathed." Our tipster tells us that the revolutionary cameraperson assigned to film the pie-ing for propaganda purposes "was tackled by security at the very beginning and didn't get any footage."
How are we supposed to repel the Jihadists if our military-age youth can't even stage a proper pie attack? Very troubling indeed....
Interesting that almost all of the Gawker commenters (so far) are calling the protesters infantile.
Seems many New Yorkers understand we're still threatened.
Or we're a town of Islamaphobes. (Which is made so clear by the lines at the sidewalk halal carts.)
Liberalism...the defender of Jihad in the west. In the name of their politically correct multiculturalism diversity creed, their glorious stupidity is weakening this nation to the point where Jihadists don't have to sneak around anymore.
They can even join our military.
From the article - "Students called out the panelists for their Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric, shouting and launching pies at the speakers.
I don't want to start another vast left wing conspiracy rumour, but isn't "called out" a phrase that President Obama uses?
My devil's definition of "called out" is - "We don't like what you are saying and we can not rationally discuss it so we're going to stop you from saying it."
Keep at it, Robert!
Typical of leftists to not be content with telling those who disagree with them that they are merely wrong. Leftists often must also assert their moral superiority and convey to those who differ with them that they are bad human beings, that they have abused freedom and therefore do not have the right to speak. Pure totalitarian stuff. Substitute religion stuff too (the modern left is the best example around of a substitute, secular religion).
In today's world the two major proponents of totalitarian suppression of speech are the Western left and the Islamic world. Of course, the latter would destroy the former if given the chance but the former has, in a foolish move of the first degree, decided to ally itself with the latter, thus proving to all people of sense that modern liberalism is riddled with useful idiots, particualrly in academia and the media.
Robert,
I'm very pleased to hear that your viscosity hasn't suffered since you began Jihad Watch. You must be doing something right.
I forget who said: "The first man who raises a fist (or a pie) is the man who has run out of ideas."
It's a crying shame that such immaturity (and poor spelling)
exists in America's colleges. Unable to express their ideas in a literate manner has to be frustrating to these peaceful little scholars. Thank God for Mrs. Smith.
Robert, why give speeches at America's colleges and universities? The numbers of people who show up to actually hear you speak are pitifully few (if you leave out those who come to hoot, yell and throw pies). The only Americans that stand between us and annihilation are some aging Vietnam Vets on Harleys.
We're so obviously right, and you're so obviously wrong, that there's no need for rational debate. Now be still so I can put this pie in your face. My beer bong is waiting.
/leftist college student who's Got It All Figured Out
Students called out the panelists for their Islamophobic, warmongering hate-rhetoric, shouting and launching pies at the speakers.
Isn't hate-rhetoric a hate crime, and ain't that a felony? Where is the criminal charge against Spencer for his putative crime?
*** 92:8 ***
They musta been drama students, or drama queens at least. Not the real hardcore prestigious Columbia Men. No self-respecting Ivy League Man would pull such a public stunt without first having checked the facts of the matter.
But, then again, do Pedigree Diploma Mill people even have self-respect any more?
*** Bukhari Vol 2 Bk 24 Nbr 555 ***
Prez Osama attended Columbia. I wonder how he feels about this incident.
Don't forget, poetcomic1, the fine young men and women at our military academies and in the Armed Forces of the United States. They're ready to defend us all and I can convey here from personal experience, having spoken to many of them, that most of them don't buy the BS they're getting thrown their way about Islam. Also, respecting their Commander-in-Chief, a very large proportion of them are prepared to salute only the office, not the man.
WELLINGTON: "Leftists often must also assert their moral superiority and convey to those who differ with them that they are bad human beings..."
Salient point, amigo.
In fact, the entire edifice of the Liberal/Left world-view is built upon their so-called "moral superiority". As has been pointed out so often by David Horowitz, liberalism (in its modern form) is essentially a secular religion. It is bereft of empiricism and rationalism, is predicated first and foremost upon emotionalism and sentimentality, and as you suggest, the haughty and juvenile smugness of moral superiority.
Tragically, the very people liberalism is designed to help, it robs of human initiative and renders an entire class - the poor - unproductive, veritable wards of the state. Doing so does two important things beneficial to the Left: 1) It creates an ever-growing, natural constituency for them, and 2) It undermines the productive capacities and desires of the next strata of society - wage-laborers doing menial jobs (which is why we are dependent upon illegal labor to do work that poor Americans could do, but choose not to)...subverting the rule-of-law and the health of the entire free-enterprise system.
There are many reasons, though with the prerequisite that said campuses provide meaningful security.
Illiberal liberals are generally the loudest and most obnoxious group on campuses: The inmates have taken over the asylum, and they're taking on all of the "fascist" characteristics that they like to accuse others of. However:
1.) There are more people than one may think who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid, not only among students, but faculty and staff. They deserve the same right to be able to bring in speakers on topics of their choice.
2.) There are many skeptics of the politically correct dogma who, especially if they are younger, may be wondering if they are the only ones out there. And there are others who have only ever heard the party line. These events are a chance to demonstrate that "it ain't necessarily so."
3.) We might as well test the new academic establishment on their insistence that campuses are places to hear opposing and often controversial ideas. If that is really the case, everyone will have a fair hearing. If not, they show themselves to be spineless intellectual jellyfish at best, and neo-fascists at worst.
Over the years I've had sort of debates that I did not at first promote with people in the leftwing camp and for some reason the result of the debate is always the same. It ends up with name calling and the usual phrase that caps the debate most often " I'm not going to discuss it with you because you don't know what you are talking about". This of course occurs when they are unable to refute anything or simply cannot mount a defense for their position.
In most cases within the theater of Islam most leftwingers' simply don't have a clue of what Islam reflects and yet they amazingly purport to have all the correct answers. They run on the fuel of subjective thought rather than knowledgeable and objective thought in discussions. I in fact had a guy yell at me for making what he perceived as insult to Islam, so I asked him: have you ever reading some of the surahs or some of hadiths? He did humbly admit that he was not familiar with those words--I then said: "well I rest my case then".
Can you imagine one of these dhimmis' actually sitting down to debate Robert Spencer who has studied Islam for over 30 years?
THE PIE IN THE FACE IS THEIR KNOWLEDGEABLE AND INTELLECTUAL ANSWER!
One thing I didn't notice before is that Elan Journo represents the Ayn Rand Institute for Individual Rights. That's good company, for these people have very sharp minds usually focused on the economy.
I'm very glad they understand the threat of Jihad, too, and are paying attention.
It's a sliding scale, first there is pie often laced with vomit or other noxious materials,then it ends with bullets.
I would be mindful of the extreme left they are as radical and violent as any extremist group when you challenge there dogma's.
Those liberals who were already predisposed to not receive the message, did't, and their actions did and will continue to substantiate the message to those willing to listen to the truth.
The freedom to use the tactics that the left currently enjoys with impunity, in their attempt to quell the freedom to say things that they don't like, is alarming however.
When debate goes beyond words and into actions, the eventual escalation will only result in outright war. That's where this is headed.
In the German speaking world, it was said, for much of the 20th Century that in Berlin that a situation could be seen as “serious but not desperate;” but in Vienna, rather, the same situation was seen as “desperate but not serious.” I think our pie throwing students would probably fit into the second category, don’tcha think?
"Those liberals who were already predisposed to not receive the message, did't, and their actions did and will continue to substantiate the message to those willing to listen to the truth."
Excellent point, Awake! These cretins didn't come to listen to a lecture. They came for the express purpose of disrupting the experience for everyone else, and trashing the speakers. Note: No one went out for a can of Redi-Whip, and a pie plate, when the lecture was half over. They came prepared to create a scene.
A new generation has forgotten (or never learned) the history of the older generations. Pick your sides carefully.
Remember what happened in Argentina in the 70's?
The leftist students began their campaign to bring back Peron, who had promised to govern their idealist socialist state that they so desperately wanted. When Peron did return, of course things didn't work out as the students had wished (go figure!). Then, an all out war was silently declared on the leftists, who "disappeared" by the thousands. All the "disappeared" didn't help Argentina one iota, their fruitless efforts were unrewarded.
If the students at NYU think for one moment that the muslims would treat them any differently than the militia in Argentina treated their students, they are deluded. In fact, I think the consequences would be openly the same.
Idealism looks good on paper, and sounds good over coffee. Putting it into play is another thing.
Countering violence on a small scale is vastly preferable to countering it on a large one. Great that Robert and his friends are out there where events like this happen. It's time to be in the field, in the lecture halls as well as in the streets, to counter the anti-democratic forces.
gymgal,
the best example is the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who made good use of the Socialist utopians who brought him to power. As soon as he was in charge he had them summarily executed.
The left is a danger to themselves and to all of us.
The only viscous stuff here is the lemon meringue.
In agreement with you again, Cornelius, particularly your point concerning how liberalism actually harms the very people it attempts to help because it makes them helpless human beings. I forget who said the bigger the government the smaller the people, but it's a very accurate assessment. Thomas Jefferson had it as correct as anyone, to wit, ordinarily government is best which governs least. Hope you are well and enjoying football and beer this weekend. I sure am.
"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." H.G. Wells
Very, very low and disrespectful. But I can't say that I'm surprised. I remember once that some left-wing nutter threw red paint on our former prime-minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen when he had decided to enter the Iraq war;
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/03/18/15849311.php
This is typical for the extreme left, a total lack of rational arguments and a strong emotional motivation that leads to such acts.
You know Robert, I haven't said this before, but I have great respect for you and the work you are doing. I think you are very well articulated and almost always have excellent points. I also like that you and your colleagues here on Jihadwatch constantly keep this site updated. Thank you and please continue the good work of rasing attention about this highly important subject.
Wellington:
I agree but they are THE GOVERNMENT'S army, Obama is their Commander in Chief. Diversity is their religion and #1 priority is eventually pushing women into combat (between pregnancies). How long before our American soldiers are fighting under United Nations or other flags? Frankly, Wellington, it is SO over.
I notice in the report that "One student was detained"
I am in the UK, but for those in the US with some journalistic instincts, I think this could be be followed up and some ID and affiliation be uncovered.
Glad that the NYU tolerancemongers find the JihadWatch type of Islamophobia viscous and sticky - may they keep on showing their immense intellectual prowess with more well-aimed acts of revolutionary defiance.
That girl is so beautiful.... I'm particularly impressed though, because I'm not a shallow sexist, that she also has the intellectual depth to know how to cook, e.g. to bake a pie. The small matter of her being viscous is something better left till I find her and get that date.
Have you ever been travelling in some Third World dump where you meet a broken down loser bragging that he went to Yale? Probably not, because most would have no occasion. However, those braggart losers often do have degrees from prestigious universities. Why not? Every university graduates its bottom one percent of degree-holders too. Those would be your pie-throwers of yesteryear.
Re: "liberals" and the problem of Islam
I agree that Leftists (a better term than the imprecise "liberals") are pernicious. However, Leftists are a minority throughout the West. What enables PC MC to enjoy the mainstream dominance it does in fact enjoy is not explained by Leftists controlling the West -- either by numbers or by virtue of exerting power through some sinister cabal. The mainstream dominance of PC MC is explained by the fact that sufficient numbers of Centrists and Conservatives -- along with that usually overlooked but statistically significant subpopulation of Westerners, the pleasantly apolitical parasites -- have converted to PC MC: their hearts and minds sincerely believe in PC MC, at least with regard to Islam. The primary problem -- our problem -- then, is not Leftists nor "liberals". It is in fact all the non-Leftists out there who believe in PC MC: for, without them, PC MC, which as "Leftism Lite" represents the victory of Leftism throughout the West, a Leftism with enough dilution of cream and sugar to make it palatable to enough of a majority of people, both "Elites" and ordinary folks alike -- without all those non-Leftist believers in PC MC, PC MC would not be sociopolitically significant enough to be a problem, at least with regard to the issue of Islam and Muslims.
Instead of going after those scapegoats, the "liberals" along with their dastardly cabal of Elites who are really conspiracy-theoretically pulling the strings, I advise Jihad Watchers to redirect their attention onto the majority of ordinary people including Centrists, Conservatives, and that significant demographic the pleasantly apolitical bourgeoisie: it is they in fact who are enabling our problem of Islam.
Your pessimism, poetcomic1, is understandable but I ultimately don't agree with it. Being a student and teacher of history for some thirty years now, I tend to take the long term point of view. And for me, such a view must take into account how imperturbable and stubborn freedom is and the inability of liberty-crushing ideologies to prevail against it once light is shined upon them.
Islam has slid under the metaphorical radar for too many centuries now and is only in the modern era coming into full view for what it is---------a spiritual version of totalitarianism which has zero chance of prevailing in the long run. I repeat what I have maintained many times before here at JW and that is that Islam is headed for the trash heap of history. It will take about a century for this to occur and untold numbers of crimes and tragedies will ensue, courtesy of Islam, before this becomes the case, but it will occur. Of this, I'm certain.
No way anything as freedom crushing a phenomenon as Islam will prevail (its stupidity will also do it in). As each decade of this century passes by, Islam will become detested more and more by the bulk of mankind (such detestation is already in its initial stages). I should think it will become the single most detested ideological creation of man of all time, even eclipsing antipathy to Marxism and fascism.
As for Obama, he's a blip on the historical stage and nothing else. Already with each passing month he is seen by more and more folks as an error of the democratic process, a process, of course, which can produce aberrations from time to time----like the Anointed One. Will he do some harm? You betcha'. But the harm he does is correctable.
Stay steady and focused. Freedom and democracy will triumph and not the antithesis of freedom and that despicable doctrine which is Islam. Bet my life on it.
Looking at the girl in the picture, just think, through all the ages, through all the changes in womens attire, from the 7th century on, women in areas conquered and subjugated by Islam have been covered up in the same old disgusting black sheets. What a disgrace Islam is. What a human rights disaster. So many lives destroyed, so many hopes dashed. And what are the fools in the modern liberal West doing? Welcoming it with open arms.
As an NYC college student, i'm quite ashamed at this. How can intellectual learning centers be so.. stupid?
"As an NYC college student, i'm quite ashamed at this. How can intellectual learning centers be so.. stupid?"
It's called institutionalized liberalism, not to be confused with stupidity at all. It's all quite calculated.
If ye be truthful, you're already a step ahead and will probably be free from the mental shackles of liberal indoctrinization in the near future, if you're not there already.
Wellington wrote:
"Islam has slid under the metaphorical radar for too many centuries now and is only in the modern era coming into full view for what it is---------a spiritual version of totalitarianism which has zero chance of prevailing in the long run."
I concur, Wellington. The "Youtube", internet age has breached the obstacle of propoganda versus reality to some degree. With this particular problem however....Islam.... it is so pernicious, the human self-preservational mind is so reluctant to accept this absolute truth at all.
I would refer you to Dennis Prager, specifically his comment that the two phenomena over the past half century or so that have most contributed to the dumbing down of America and all the West are college education and television. Right on target I would say.
And now with recent technology making material life easier, we're in even more danger of mankind entering a new dark age. Troubled (and stupid) times to be sure. We've had an Age of Faith, an Age of Discovery, an Age of Reason. Well, welcome to the Age of Nonsense. For me, the cellphone is the poster boy of false enlightenment (really, at lest 99% of all that is spoken on cellphones does not advance the human condition in any way). As technology and too much leisure time (quite contributory to PC and MC idiocies I would contend) make life far removed from earlier times, moral intelligence and common sense have declined. Not enough folks grasp this. I hope many more soon do.
No, I'm not a Luddite, just a skeptic of the first order and one who wants man's great moral capacities not to be lessened by man's modern innovations or an anachronistic system of thought like Islam which preys upon that portion of mankind which now en masse has lost its ability to realize that freedom isn't free and that neither should a free world tolerate any ideology that would exterminate freedom were it given the chance.
Of all the misuses of tax money in our society I think I resent the money spent on colleges and university the most. My son survived the experience but I have way too many bad examples to change my mind.
Mr. Spencer, I'm only going to say this once:
ROBERT, YOU BLOOMIN' IDJIT, SUE DA BUMS!SUE NYU!
Wellington,
I thought that I was alone in not possessing a cell phone.
Could it be possible that there are others out there as well?
Mr. Spencer - please press charges. To not do so will only encourage further violence against divergent (correct) viewpoints.
dsh:
Thanks!
POETCOMIC1: "Frankly Wellington, it is SO over."
Wellington may be far more the optimist than I am, but being pessimistic and conceding the fight are two very different things.
To quote Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till it's over."
As long as one human being embraces the concept of freedom, it's not over.
The choice of pies as weapons is intended to ridicule the victims, even if the pies were filled with noxious and/or poisonous substances, thus accomplishing not only the disruption of the event but the portrayal of the victim as a clown, not worth taking seriously (which of course is one of the Alinsky rules).
...............................
Exactly. Here is Alinsky, in the section "Tactics":
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
Of course, I think it makes the *perpetrators* look like idiots.
Poetcomic wrote:
Robert, why give speeches at America's colleges and universities?
...............................
Well, as an undergraduate, I would have been the perfect audience. I imagine there are many others—who may or may not react at the time, but will go home and mull over his words, and consider the crude actions of their fellow students.
I attended the University of California at Berkeley, and naively assumed at first that such events would be high-minded expressions of well-reasoned argument and counter-argument.
Instead, most of them were the same incidents of stupid radical theatre that we saw here—the chanting of mindless slogans, attempts to disrupt the proceedings, and attempts to simply drown out the speakers.
I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. I came from a very atypical background for college—I grew up on welfare and came from a chaotic, violent, and dysfunctional home. My view of higher education was very idealistic—a life of the mind, and an escape from poverty and—more importantly—the brutal, dispiriting dehumanization that so often accompanies it.
To find so much of what I had wanted to escape—the belief that abusing someone dehumanizes *them*, rather than the perpetrator; the belief that chaos is an intellectual answer to anything; the belief that raw violence somehow settles a philosophical debate—was present at an institution I had so respected appalled me.
I tried to consider each speaker by their own merits, and not by the reaction they drew from the most radical disruptors. I doubt very much I was the only one.
I imagine there are a large number of students who will hear the arguments of men like Robert Spencer and Elan Journo, and will quietly consider their arguments—and compare them to the actions of the pie throwers, and draw their own conclusions.
I have no real substance to add to this article.
However, I do have something to tell you inorder to make you feel better. I met William Federer last night at his seminar on Islamic history. During our brief conversation I struck up a conversation with him over Muhammad being supposedly "kicked out" of Mecca. I dropped your name and M.A. Khans name during this private conversation. He had never heard of Khan, but he had heard of you. The verdict, he highly respects your intelligence and knowledge on Islam Mr. Spencer. Thus, not everyone hates you.
I was however bombard by old loons from the john birch society. One of them actually brought up something interesting about Ayman al-Zawahiri & Juma Namangoniy.
He claimed former KGB officer and writer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy supported Litvinenko in his claim that Litvinenko "was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahiri's arrival in Russia, who was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-1997. An that Litvinenko had told him that his former FSB colleagues had trained another famous Al-Qaeda terrorist Juma Namangoniy during the 1980s and 1990s.
So I went home and looked into the matter.
Of course, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy appears to be a credible source, but at Wikipedia the author, neglects to tell anyone that Preobrazhenskiy gives only one source for his information. For now, I remain skeptical due to the fact there is nothing more than hearsay evidence to go on.
I wouldn't put it passed the sneaky Russians though.
Anyway, I ended the conversation with him by explaining to him portions of The Al-Qaeda Reader. Then I told him to go buy it. He was interested I think I converted him to our side away from his Globalist Communist Plot Theory.
I have no real substance to add to this article.
However, I do have something to tell you inorder to make you feel better. I met William Federer last night at his seminar on Islamic history. During our brief met I struck up a conversation with him over Muhammad being supposedly being "kicked out" of Mecca. I dropped your name and M.A. Khans name during this private conversation. He had never heard of Khan, but he had heard of you. The verdict, he highly respects your intelligence and knowledge on Islam Mr. Spencer. Thus, not everyone hates you.
I was however bombard by old loons from the john birch society. One of them actually brought up something interesting about Ayman al-Zawahiri & Juma Namangoniy.
He claimed former KGB officer and writer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy supported Litvinenko in his claim that Litvinenko "was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahiri's arrival in Russia, who was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-1997. An that Litvinenko had told him that his former FSB colleagues had trained another famous Al-Qaeda terrorist Juma Namangoniy during the 1980s and 1990s.
So I went home and looked into the matter.
Of course, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy appears to be a credible source, but at Wikipedia the author, neglects to tell anyone that Preobrazhenskiy gives only one source for his information. For now, I remain skeptical due to the fact there is nothing more than hearsay evidence to go on.
I wouldn't put it passed the sneaky Russians though.
Anyway, I ended the conversation with him by explaining to him portions of The Al-Qaeda Reader. Then I told him to go buy it. He was interested I think I converted him to our side away from his Globalist Communist Plot Theory.
NO!!! You are not alone. I have no mobile phone.
Never have had. I can't stand the things.
I can't understand why people who have lived for 20-30 years without one now seem to think their lives depend on having one.
At least the pies were not Apple. An item that takes a little time, effort and skill to make.
The Left can only throw the Pie they learned from their Mothers when they offered their children some quality time in the kitchen. You know, the whole Five minutes it takes to put instant pudding in a preformed crust with a Cool Whip topping
Now you know why they learned to throw them.
Cell Phones are nothing more than a personal tracking devise.
Ummmmm, Honey, what are you doing on the 3rd floor of the Holiday Inn???
Leftists include a lot of Jews, right? So why would they be for Muslim immigration to their havens in the West? Maybe it's just an education problem. Maybe when they hear the word Muslim they think it's Mushroom and want to smoke some :)
Leftists and rights all need to study up on Islam's hairy history and then agree they finally have a common cause:
http:///go.to/islamhistory
Just fyi - Mushrooms aren't smoked. :)
The pie assaults are reprehensible.
However, Elan Journo is a contemptible individual who defends mass murder and terror as a legitimate tactic in war. "Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan." You'd never guess from reading Journo that the terror component of Allied strategic bombing campaigns was not just deeply immoral but unsuccessful.
E.g., from the official report of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey:
In my opinion, the folks at the Ayn Rand Institute are terror-mongering nut-jobs who disgracefully distort Ayn Rand's ideas.
bonze's quote from the "U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey" --
4.The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is significant. Under ruthless Nazi control they showed surprising resistance to the terror and hardships of repeated air attack, to the destruction of their homes and belongings, and to the conditions under which they were reduced to live. Their morale, their belief in ultimate victory or satisfactory compromise, and their confidence in their leaders declined, but they continued to work efficiently as long as the physical means of production remained. The power of a police state over its people cannot be underestimated
-- rather than supporting his view that the Allies should not have engaged in all-out warfare to destroy those remarkably fanatical supremacist expansionists, the Axis Powers of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Pathologically Imperial Japan, actually undermines it: for this phenomenon of mass fanaticism -- evident in Nazi Germany and even more evident among the Japanese -- was precisely why extreme measures, such as fire-bombing and atom-bombing, were required to break them. As Muslims are even more fanatical than the Japanese were, the folks at the Ayn Rand Institute have a grimly astute point.
Also see:
Facts about the Dresden bombings
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 14-15 FEBRUARY 1945
BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN
Prepared by:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University
http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/facts-about-dresden-bombings.html
Fine retort, Hesperado. As Churchill fully understood, there come occasions, tragic though they are, when civilization must engage in measures which are drastic but necessary to save civilization from the barbarians. And, or course, critics of this sad reality, like bonze, never offer REALISTIC alternatives to the paths pursued by those faced with exigent circumstances in struggles to the death. Monday-morning quarterbacking par excellence.
Basil Liddell-Hart wrote in early 1942 that "It will be ironical if the defenders of civilization depend for victory upon the most barbaric, and unskilled, way of winning a war that the modern world has seen… We are now counting for victory on success in a way of degrading it to a new level - as represented by indiscriminate bombing."
The emphasis on unskilled is mine...
Journo's false premise is that "Victory... required flattening cities, firebombing... homes". True victory requires a triumph of a culture's ideals. Tragically, the conduct of the Allies in WWII undercut the argument that western democracies were morally superior. Bomb Peenemunde? Excellent! Devastate the Japanese economy through unrestricted submarine warfare? I have no problem with that. Intentionally create firestorms in major cities? MORAL EQUIVALENCE ALERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAIL!
Test