What he says!

What he says!
: Heiko Hebig has a great post telling terrorists to get weblogs. Just read:

Obviously, you have issues. Obviously, you feel your freedom is at stake. Obviously, you are not happy with the way things are and you want to change them. And obviously, you are very, very desperate. Desperate because you feel that you are not being heard and that there is no way for you to express yourself.

Well, I got news for you, Mr. Terrorist. Every obnoxious script kiddy figured out how to use the Internet to get global attention. The idiot spammers of this world managed to turn penis enlargement pills into common household items. And you are telling me that bombs are your only choice?

Set up a damn weblog and start blogging, stupid.

7 responses to “What he says!”

  1. MattS Avatar

    Weblogtopia’s going a bit far.

  2. Andrea Harris Avatar

    That’s cute. But blogging won’t get terrorists the power they crave. Which is what they really want — not an airing of their “grievances.” Their so-called issues are merely an excuse. Please destroy the “terrorists have legitimate gripes” meme now.

  3. Robert McClelland Avatar

    > Please destroy the “terrorists have legitimate gripes” meme now.
    The thing you fail to realize is that there are many people who have the same gripes but do not resort to using terrorist tactics. Are you going to ignore their legitimate gripes too?

  4. Andrea Harris Avatar

    If they are like you, yes.

  5. Andrea Harris Avatar

    Not to mention, the point of my comment was to ignore terrorists, not everybody. Not that your lack of reading comprehension comes as a surprise. Or are you saying you’re a terrorist? Quick! Someone send Heiko Mr. McClelland’s url, so he can see what a blog by a terrorist is like. (A waste of bytes, IMO, but it’s a free internet.)

  6. Peg C. Avatar

    I was shocked at how much Hebig’s first paragraph seems directed at the angry Left. The fact that both groups have the same gripe, but only 1 resorts to targeting civilians with mayhem, doesn’t mean their common desire to destroy Western democracy and install oppressive statism or theocracy (same difference in my book) is legitimate. Furthermore, the very act of using terrorism to change the world negates any right to anything but a swift and pitiless death.

  7. JorgXMcKie Avatar
    JorgXMcKie

    Peg C. Don’t you think the “angry Left” wants to at least “install oppressive statism?” If not, I suggest you read Indymedia or democraticunderground for a few days. I am surrounded at work (state university) by people of the leftist persuasion, and at least a couple of them admit to wanting to install a vaguely Stalinist regime, if people like them get to run it. (I can make them crazy by asking if they would like the Cuban governing system in the US if it were run by W? Cruel, but then I enjoy that kind of cruelty. Plus, it’s fun to watch them turn beet-red.)
    As for destroying Western democracy, even if that is not a stated goal of the “angry Left” its hard for me (a teacher of government) to see any other outcome, given their stated preferences for policy making and governing. What they want might even work, but I’m unwilling to try it if not forced.
    So far, none of my colleagues has openly advocated home-grown terrorist activity against our own government (they think that only Rightwingers do that), but they _do_ excuse others who do so. What would you call this? Aid and comfort? Political support?
    Fortunately, there are still quite a few rational beings left of center in the US who aren’t like this, but if they’re not careful, they’ll get lumped in with the nutso “angry Left” or taken over by them. After all, I know quite a few “angry” Democrats (at Bush et al) who aren’t “angry Left” but sooner or later they’ll have to make a choice, I think. What will it be?