Conservative columnist Stu Bykofsky says we need another 9/11.

Remember back when all the Conservatives were yelling at us Liberals saying that we wouldn’t be happy until we weakened America’s defenses enough that we had another 9/11 or worse happen? You know, slyly suggesting that we were on the terrorist’s side and wanted nothing more than to see America get blown up repeatedly?

How odd it is then to see a Conservative columnist calling for a 9/11 repeat:

ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I’m thinking another 9/11 would help America.

What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically – thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq – that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

America’s fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago’s Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America’s righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won’t last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that.

OK, so let’s review here. Stu thinks another 9/11 would unite us once more in righteous anger at the people who did it, but he doesn’t think such unity will last very long. So that means he thinks an event resulting in catastrophic loss of life and property for a short term increase in unity would be a “good thing” for this country. That’s some thinkin’ there, Stu.

I say the next time a Conservative tries to claim us Liberals are “emboldening the enemy” by being critical of the war we should slap them across the face with a copy of Stu’s column advocating another 9/11 attack.

26 thoughts on “Conservative columnist Stu Bykofsky says we need another 9/11.

  1. It all hangs out right where he says it wouldn’t last long.

    Wars don’t start and die like righteous rage. It just leaves citizens of several countries with the burdens of war.

  2. I wonder how strong conservatism would be (generally) if the holocaust never happened, because that was one of the strongest and earliest of modern hate-uniters

    Given time and maybe the passing of a generation, the anger will go (we are much more tolerant of germans…), it would take constant, regular ‘events’ to possibly maintain permanent hate, but then maybe people’ll just accept it as a normal, unfortunate thing.

    Why do people like to hate? It seems too much like hard work… I prefer to be at peace, so that is what I choose

  3. Nah. Hate’s pretty easy. Little bit of fear added to almost anything and you can stir up some hate.

    That’s why I laugh so much at conservatives when they’re overcompensating their hawkishness. It’s so… homophobe cocksucker I guess. Why is someone a conservative? Because they’re afraid of change. Why does someone want to hurt someone else most of the time? Because they’re afraid of what the other guy will do to them.

    That’s not to say that fear and paranoia aren’t healthy in moderation, just that the dosages that most Republicans seem to engage in reflect a serious lack of balls. It’s not particularly brave to send young men to die in the desert for us, given how extreme our war machine is.

    Brave would be laughing at something like 9/11, and explaining to the Middle East that we’re still going to kill their way of life in the end with McDonald’s and soft core porn and there’s nothing anyone can do about it with guns. We’re going to kill them all by making them more like us with every happy meal, and shooting them is only the pissed-pants panic maneuver of folks who can’t figure out that the “terrorists” basically told us “you guys are winning” when they started doing crazy things like blowing up civilian soft-targets and using their kids to do it.

    Republicans aren’t hawks. They’re pussies, and this guy calling for more terrorism? He’s saying “you guys on the progressive side? You’re winning the culture war, and that scares a little bit of poop out of my mouth.”

  4. Some fear is difficult to stir though in some people, it’s irreversably lost if someone completely figures out that a normal member of said stereotypical group is not more probable to go on a random rampage/stealing spree. Of course, as you suggested, there are nethertheless plenty of blank slates who don’t know any better, and so fear.

    Whilst it may be easy to spread fear, what I mean is it’s not easy to live in

    Why is someone a conservative? Because they’re afraid of change

    True, + they attempt to mind-control the vulnerable. Conservatism, and prejudices, are like viruses to society. – and you’re only immune once you’ve significantly thought on it at least once.

    That’s not to say that fear and paranoia aren’t healthy in moderation

    Fear is a motivator I suppose, but it’s not comfortable (to me) to live with, it applies all the time of the infection, not only at the useful times. Though it can be useful to business+church, I consider it unfairly exploitative to put someone in fear for personal gain

    And correct on the spread of culture, because it’s has the attraction of a more pleasant lifestyle I suppose. Tourism complains about culture spread because it makes their destination less unique (amazon natives wearing trainers, masai wearing rolex watches), but as before, business has no right in my eyes to limit other people’s lifestyles for their own personal gain

  5. I can’t wait to see the likes of Ann Coulter accuse Bykofsky of being unpatriotic, and…wait a minute, I’ve got that wrong. Peace is unpatriotic. My bad.

  6. Nail on the goddamned head, MisterMook! 

    I realize that it takes dedication and some balls to be a soldier, but being a chickenhawk is the penthouse of pussyville.  I have never understood the fascination not only with fighting, but the seemingly greater fascination with starting and/or watching a fight.  For a modern American republican, being on the winning side ( and constantly bragging about it)is the only thing that counts.  The last eight years of dickless, freedom-hating mass-murdering republican rule has been like an EXTREME(say it in a Macho Man Randy Savage voice for full effect-“EXTREME!!!) version of the third grade.
    Pathetic, lying, fearful bullies(right-wing politicians) with their name-calling toadies(Coulter, O’Reilly, etc.) to back them up, have managed to get the semi-retarded football coach(who has never actually won a game without cheating) elected Dean of Students.  Sucks to be a reasonable, mature person in a place where knowledge is laughed at and reason is called treason!

    Sooner or later, as life goes on, the modern conservative movement will collapse to some degree.  Unfortunately, such collapse rarely manifests as a revolution or true change of thinking for the masses-they just get tired of the stress, bored with the wars, and stop thinking about it altogether.  This gives moderates, liberals, and old-school conservatives time to recoup their political losses and maybe reverse some  
    of the damage done by the profiteers, but very little really changes, and after a few years the red-baiting, the terror-talk (or whatever blood-soaked boogeyman the perverted republican imagination can come up with) come back into vogue, with a whole new generation of the world’s most spoiled, ignorant, useless wankers to support them.

  7. We do need another mass attack. I say the statue of liberty or Dallas this time.

    3 or 4 people could easily attack a packed airport on a holiday. One person at each of the busiest ticket counter/check-ins and one in the middle of the pre-security screening line could easily take out 1000-2000+ people. Since it’s before the security check-point, they could all carry duffel bags full of explosives.

  8. I suppose it all depends on how you define “unity”.  Apparently it means, “in agreement with the warmongers” with no sense of perspective.

    Brave would be laughing at something like 9/11, and explaining to the Middle East that we’re still going to kill their way of life in the end with McDonald’s and soft core porn and there’s nothing anyone can do about it with guns.

    Right on.  Those old commies knew what they were doing banning blue jeans and Beatles records.  As did the Mullahs banning anything Western, because Western culture is poison to that fanatical crap.

  9. Hmmm, usually this kind of attitude is directed against the Europeans, and usually with the idea they’ll be punished for being whimpy girly men who won’t treat Muslims like shit like they’re supposed to.

  10. Right, because looking at history it’s absolutely clear that Europe has ever been a hotbed of pacifism and good behavior of a sort that’s unable to adequately respond to threats from the Middle East. One can see by France’s insistence on maintaining a nuclear arsenal, or the various mandatory service requirements in parts of Europe, that those blokes in the EU can’t take of themselves.

    Yeah, that talk is pretty stupid too.

    Western culture is poison to that fanatical crap.

    No, it’s not poison to fanaticism. I don’t think you can erase that urge in people with culture, and anyone who’s ever seen a Star Trek convention can observe pretty clearly that even the harmless can be…excessively dedicated. One thing it does do, is create options though by increasing wealth. A huge portion of our “culture” is enrichment of even the poorest of people by handing out ideas and fiction and the like as if they’re going out of style.

    Options? Different and opposing ideas? Those are poison to fanaticism. Still, you only have to look at conservatives to see that our culture hasn’t discarded the notion of the willfully ignorant.

    The Western conservative movement is culturally bankrupt though, and always has been. It’s always been holding us back rather than proposing new ways of moving forward, and it’s always really been a fringe movement emboldened by playing on people’s fear of change. I can’t think of a single constructive thing the conservative position has ever done, only things that were radical and progressive that conservatives have co-opted and claimed as their own. But that’s almost the definition of a conservative- a day late and jumping at the shadows because of its own inability to deal with the world as it happens.

  11. But that’s almost the definition of a conservative- a day late and jumping at the shadows because of its own inability to deal with the world as it happens.

    True conservatives only change their underwear because their mommies make them.

  12. True conservatives only change their underwear because their mommies make them.

    Elwed –  grin  LOL

    If “conservatives” put half the effort into meeting new problems that they do in denying them, we’d be living on the Moon and driving anti-gravity cars.

    I like this quote:

    Human potential is everywhere the same. What varies from one society or culture to the next are the ways in which it is repressed.
    – Paul Sunstone

  13. But that’s almost the definition of a conservative- a day late and jumping at the shadows because of its own inability to deal with the world as it happens.

    It explains many conservatives I can think of, including Ted Stevens and his “Internets

  14. But that’s almost the definition of a conservative- a day late and jumping at the shadows because of its own inability to deal with the world as it happens.

    Along with an almost infantile reliance on an irrational, visceral emotionality that simple logic and reason can prove erroneous or, at the very least, problematic.

  15. If “conservatives” put half the effort into meeting new problems that they do in denying them, we’d be living on the Moon and driving anti-gravity cars.

    The inherent assumption in your statement is that liberals are.  Given that, I can only conclude that you believe conservatives are far more talented than the liberals DOF.  I must agree.

    Sadie:

    Nice to see you back. grin

  16. The inherent assumption in your statement is that liberals are. Given that, I can only conclude that you believe conservatives are far more talented than the liberals DOF. I must agree.

    Ahh, the ancient art of Reagan-Jitsu!!!

  17. I don’t think the large majority of contemporary ‘conservatives’ are that conservative.  By the same token, contemporary liberals are only ‘liberal’ insofar as they want ‘new’ solutions to certain problems.  But ‘new’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘better.’

    I’m not even sure that we should care whether people and politicians are broken into the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ camps.  I think we should concentrate on truth in advertising, and re-group all participants into two different groups.  The ‘I can’t be arsed to give a shit about how badly you’re getting fucked group’ and the ‘I’d gladly help you out as long as your not asking me to cut off my own cock’ group.

    But I’m a dreamer that way.  And the alcohol might have something to do with it.

    ***************

    side note.  Mail Kuhoolen some shite!  Beginning orc warriors need goodies!

  18. By the same token, contemporary liberals are only ‘liberal’ insofar as they want ‘new’ solutions to certain problems.  But ‘new’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘better.’

    Being a progressive is certainly different than being a liberal. I don’t think that liberalism is, as is generally advanced, exactly anti-conservative, it’s just that the cultural advancements that liberals are following are generally progressive.That doesn’t mean they have to be: Sometimes liberalism can be as stodgily anti-progressive as any conservative movement when they get the notion that some advancement or change is somehow….I dunno, not huggy and popsicles enough.

    In that case, liberalism occasionally should chill out and have a breather; and I’m sure someone will eventually point out various missteps and neo-luddite mantras about progress for the sake of progress being bad too. I’m sure that it can be, has been, and will be again since we’re really just slapping descriptions on things as a matter of simplification and classification shorthand.

    I think we should concentrate on truth in advertising, and re-group all participants into two different groups.

    I think that people already do that with varying degrees of success. If it were easy to determine which was which though… anyways, it’s not.

    I think a better solution would be to heap more and more politicians into Congress and the White House at more or less a similar level of power as the others, until you finally hit some level where an individual politician’s power was minuscule, and the effort of lobbying them would exhaust almost any financing.

  19. I think a better solution would be to heap more and more politicians into Congress and the White House at more or less a similar level of power as the others, until you finally hit some level where an individual politician’s power was minuscule, and the effort of lobbying them would exhaust almost any financing.

    A notion I’ve always thought was both tremendously wise and wholely impractical – national independence through personal independence.

    Somehow, the idea of diluting the power pool isn’t appealing. Was that how we got here? Did we just mess up somewhere unrelated and I’m oblivious?

  20. All policy could be decided by reforendum!
    (I wonder what would happen, it need not be much more expensive than a permanent civic building, could even be online/ through ATM…)

  21. The problem with deciding a policy by referendum is that public opinion can be manipulated on an issue-by-issue basis.  In some ways, it’s cheaper to lobby the public than it is to lobby 535 congressmen.

    We hope to elect leaders of a certain very realistic frame of mind, who will study the issues and represent us.  We give them money for a research staff and analysts.  The system can get screwed up but if you depended on the average person to somehow decide on everything from highway funding to global strategy, you take a chance of handing the issues to whoever has the most TV stations and the most astroturf in their pockets. 

    Of course, when I consider the people who actually get elected, it’s depressing…

  22. There would almost need to be a law against media reporting on the referendum issues of the time in order to stop the likes of murdoch practically dictating policy. Maybe referendums where you can vote on the area you have a degree in, no degree, no (referendum) vote…

  23. now saying another 9/11 is going a little to far (this coming from the guy who thinks we should bomb all the middle east) but i do think this country needs to unite again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.