Squeaky Johnson has a long history of "decrying" threats of death and other violence posted by his hand-picked "lizard minions" and then letting them stand. The recent kerfuffle per Sadly No! is but the latest.
If you were a Johnson-approved dead-ender, you could search for the following on LGF:
#278 Iron Fist 3/21/2005 07:37PM PST
Yeah, the PRC has some nutcase laws on knives. Blade has to be less than 2" long, but it can be a switch. Go figure.
That actually makes it more dangerous, not less. If I have a big fighter, I'll try and cut off some fingers or something. Hell, they can generally sew 'em back on. A little blade means femorals, kidneys, brachials, and carotids. I have to go for the kill-shot because the blade can't perform the disabling strike.
Not to mention the fact that most people are going to wilt if I pull out an 8" fighter.
A 2" blade doesn't look lethal. Go in just above the pubic bone 1" to the left of the naval, yank it 1" to the right of it. 100% dead. No chance of survival.
The target is the aorta just before it bifurcates into the femoral arteries. If you miss and just get a femoral, oh well.
Personally, I hope they stay home."
The "they" in Iron Fist's posts refers to "moonbats" living in Berkely, which Fist and friends graced with a visit.
UPDATE:
anonymous said...
Um, that description of why the government's regulation of knife size is silly was posted 2.5 years ago. Is that the best "death threat" you can come up with? Is there something newer? Is ther something that's really a death threat?
If "anonymous" had clicked on the link we helpfully supplied, he/she would have seen this:
#53 Iron Fist 5/31/2007 6:22:16 pm PDT
Are you willing to bet YOUR life that they won’t? I’d be willing to kill you if they do.
Pistol to the forehead OK with you? Beheaddings are so messy.*
My response:
So…you have a pistol and you’re not afraid to use it (on) me?
The response:
#102 Iron Fist 5/31/2007 6:50:09 pm PDT
#94 ChenZhen,
Actually, I’d prefer the blade, as there is a certian circularity to it.
I can arrange the pistol.
We posted the Fist Hippy-slashing fantasy from years ago to make the point that Johnson obviously allows "regulars" like Fist to do their thing -- for years.
16 comments:
If this isn't advocating violence, terrorism and genocide, then I really don't know what:
#60 ciaospirit
"re: #27 JammieWearingFool
the Second World War is inexorably slipping from memory.'
From the AP:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 bomber Enola Gay that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, died Thursday. He was 92 and insisted almost to his dying day that he had no regrets about the mission and slept just fine at night.
Paul Tibbets, a great American. I honor your service and thank you for never apologizing for doing what needed to be done."
Paul Tibbets, the man who "generally expressed no regret regarding the decision to drop the bomb. In a 1975 interview he said: 'I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did... I sleep clearly every night.'. In March 2005, he stated “If you give me the same circumstances, hell yeah, I'd do it again.' " (<--Wikipedia)
So we have now a psychotic lizard cheering on a just as psychotic bomber pilot, and thanking him for not apologizing about what.. over 200'000 dead Japanese civilians and complete destruction? It gets better:
#113 Ayatollah Ghilmeini
"re: #60 ciaospirit
He save the lives of millions:
Millions of Americans
Millions of Japanese
Millions of people all over the world who would otherwise have died had the world not seen firsthand the danger of nuclear weapons and that they never be used again in war"
So let me get this straight.. This guy saved millions of Americans by proudly killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese? He save millions of JAPANESE by killing hundreds of thousands of them??? And it was great for him to show the war how dangerous nuclear weapons are and that one should never ever use them in war by actually USING them and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians??!!! All that on LGF, the place that has seen enough calls to nuke out the Middle East?!
I always thought these people are tragically and completely insane, but this time, seriously.. WHAT THE F&*$!!!
Um, that description of why the government's regulation of knife size is silly was posted 2.5 years ago. Is that the best "death threat" you can come up with? Is there something newer? Is ther something that's really a death threat?
I remember another instance when Iron Fist fantasised about having "knifal relations" with the "diggbats". Mr. Fist apparently has a knife fetish.
The real howler in all this is when Charles challenges someone to "prove it". Now, with an account, it can be done (for this example, just search the comments for the word "knifal" and you're bound to find it). Of course, once Charles reads my post and starts checking his logs for anyone who searches for the word "knifal", they're as good as banned. That, or he'll search for it and delete the comment preemptively. And, if you don't have an account, well, good luck "proving it". It's pretty easy to challenge somebody to do something that's virtually impossible.
Re: The Sphinx,
first, the president who too the decision of the attack is a democrat, and there are a lot of arguments pro and con- the bomb, many pro-the attack claim that this attack saved the life of many people and many japanese, in fact recently a japanese minister said the exact same thing. the ending of the war saved more japanese lives and saved japan from being invaded by USSR.
No it is not genocide to use the A-Bomb, it is genocide if you target civilians to annihilate them . Not that I m supporting what had happened, and I don't support another use. but sometimes there are bad things inevitable. so you call the pilot psychotic is mere ridiculous and idiocy. and remember another thing, that the imperial japan started the war, why messing with US? same thing goes against Islamists, they keep messing with US.
really that messing around is not partisan, if democrats come to the government and islamists continue their attacks, Dems will be not those who talking in the campaigns.
"first, the president who too the decision of the attack is a democrat"
I don't care who gave out the order. The fact that two atomic bombs have been dropped on inhabited cities is the only thing that matters, and Truman being Democrat (a fact I can't confirm or refute) doesn't make it an inch less despicable.
"many pro-the attack claim that this attack saved the life of many people and many japanese, in fact recently a japanese minister said the exact same thing. the ending of the war saved more japanese lives and saved japan from being invaded by USSR."
The war was already in its last stages, Germany was already in rubble, the Nazi regime was
And think about it, the only reason why the US ever built atomic bombs was because they were afraid that Germany was already in the process of building one. Turned out that this was entirely fictitious, and the US had done this effort for practically nothing.
"No it is not genocide to use the A-Bomb, it is genocide if you target civilians to annihilate them ."
I can't imagine that the people who decided to drop an atomic bomb on two cities didn't put into consideration that civilians are going to die in the process.
In both bombings together, around 155'000 people died on the spot. Call it what you like, it's still genocide for me.
"so you call the pilot psychotic is mere ridiculous and idiocy."
Is it really? After all, the guy said it was a "damn big insult" when he was invited to the 50th anniversary of the Enola Gay, because it put the bomber into context with the very real suffering of the Japanese civilians at the time.
I know that he didn't take the decision, but that he shows absolutely no remorse or sympathy for the thousands of innocent people that died for nothing is heartlessness at best, mental illness at worst.
"and remember another thing, that the imperial japan started the war, why messing with US?"
It isn't my intention to justify whatever Japan did against America, however it was _completely_ unnecessary to drop an atomic bomb on one city, then drop ANOTHER one while Japan was already about to surrender and the world war being on the brink of ending.. So why? If it was so important to hit back at Japan in order to end the whole conflict, why with atomic weapons? There is no justification, ever.
The Sphinx:
This is where I will have to disagree with you. Paul Tibbets was not a psycopath or a terrorist, to suggest that is insulting to the memory of the man and his family.
The attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are horrific reminders of how war can decimate large numbers of people.
But I ask you this, what would've been more disgusting, two atomic attacks that stopped the war in it's tracks or the continued fire bombing of Japanese cities which was killing huge numbers and would've cost more innocent human life than the a-bombs ever could?
Truman's political affiliation means nothing in the regards of the decision to drop the bombs so I don't understand why it was brought up.
Finally genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed to stop a war not decimate a race or religion. Genocide is the wrong term. Was the entire allied bombing campaings in both Europe and Asia genocides?
"This is where I will have to disagree with you. Paul Tibbets was not a psycopath or a terrorist, to suggest that is insulting to the memory of the man and his family."
Well, his indifference towards those who lost their lives for nothing is a bit insulting to their memories if you ask me.
"The attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are horrific reminders of how war can decimate large numbers of people."
And there lies exactly the reason why I quoted those two fellows from LGF. They think it was a great idea to use an atomic bomb against people
Sure, one learns and has to learn from mistakes, but does one _really_ have to do the mistake in order to learn from it?
After all, I don't start doing drugs in order to stop doing them and regretting it later.
My point being that the bombing of both cities was completely unnecessary and avoidable.
"But I ask you this, what would've been more disgusting, two atomic attacks that stopped the war in it's tracks or the continued fire bombing of Japanese cities which was killing huge numbers and would've cost more innocent human life than the a-bombs ever could?"
There are many questions that one could ask that are in the same league. Hitler or Stalin? Plague or Cholera? ..
Right, the answer is always neither. Not using atomic bombs did not mean an inevitable need to eternally firebomb Japanese cities and kill more people. I doubt that there would've been a more bloody outcome of the war if America had not thrown an A-bomb (let alone TWO A-bombs) over Japan. As I said, the war was already leaning towards its end anyway.
And finally to the term "genocide", would you prefer I call it "massacre"? Maybe it'd be more appropriate here. But however you want to call it, it still means that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed, much more than those who died on 9/11.
The notorious sentence: "War has tragic outcomes" doesn't justify any of it at all. I'd rather live in a world where armies are superfluous.
Hope I was able to clarify my point..
MJ:
That was a great reply to The Sphinx. Thanks for saving me the time it would have taken me to type what I'm sure would not have been half so succinct and cogent a response as yours.
I only wish you would show the same sincerity, measured tone, courtesy, and appeal to reason in your criticisms of CJ. It would make your arguments so much more persuasive.
I'm glad MJ finally understands why we need to nuke Baghdad and Kabul. Over time, Islamic terrorists will no doubt kill more people than the population of Baghdad and Kabul in a long and protracted war. What's more disgusting: two atomic attacks that stop the war on terror in its tracks, or a long and protracted occupation that kills tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis? Come on over to LGF, MJ. Registration is open for you.
And Paul Tibbets is certainly not a psychopath, Sphinx. What an outrageous claim. Why anyone should be expected to show any sort of humanity, reflection or remorse after killing 150,000 people in one fell swoop is beyond me.
"And Paul Tibbets is certainly not a psychopath, Sphinx. What an outrageous claim. Why anyone should be expected to show any sort of humanity, reflection or remorse after killing 150,000 people in one fell swoop is beyond me."
I really hope that you're just pulling my leg. Otherwise I'll just pass you off as a very sick, very twisted individual.
And what kind of inane assumption is that: Two nuclear weapons would stop terrorism in its tracks.. If you ask me, you'd create more terrorists by that move than you can cope with.
Also not to forget that the two atomic bombs on Japan are a joke in comparison to today's nuclear bombs. One of those would kill millions at once, and will probably fuel international terrorism more than anything. So good job Einstein, your suggestions are only destroying your already dwindling credibility.
Well done Nuclear Cop. You've just done what all the 'lizards' want, you've equated WW2 with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to you my support for the end of WW2 through atomic weapons rather than a protracted campaign of firebombing and a horrific land invasion that would've cost hundreds of thousands of lives is equivelent to the 'nuke Mecca' crowd at LGF. Well done. That's some achievement.
The Sphinx:
Nuclear Cop is trying sarcasm and failing miserably
MJ you have created a false dilemma within your utilitarian morality: either we firebomb and kill thousands over a long period of time, or we drop two bombs and end it all (funny how you gloss over the over 200,000 killed as a result of those two little bombs). Obviously there was no other option, was there? One or the other.
Bearing in mind, this is against a country that was already suing for peace, but wouldn't accept the humiliation of unconditional surrender -- and ended up not having to anyway, with the maintenance of the Imperium, etc. Also a country which found itself faced with a second front against the opportunist Soviets who saw Japan was about to fall and wanted a share of the spoils there too.
But yes, the options were to either firebomb eternally or use the blessed bomb!
Using your logic, why you didn't support the invasion of Iraq? At least 500,000 Iraqi children had been killed by economic sanctions over 10 years (not counting other people killed by Saddam himself), so surely it was better to invade and kill considerably less people to depose Saddam and remove the sanctions? Or would it have been better just to nuke Baghdad to force Saddam out of power and prevent 500,000 more Iraqi children being killed in the next 10 years?
PS, why aren't you in the "nuke Iran" crowd? If the neo-cons are determined to invade and bomb Iran, surely it would be better to force them to capitulate quickly by using nuclear weapons? Think of the lives that could be saved!
P.S. For any other utilitarians who want to do the maths to work out whether firebombing or nuclear bombing is more moral (I happen to think that doing either is immoral, but hey, when you're faced with a false dilemma, you gotta take your choices, I guess) check out Twentieth Century Atlas: death tolls.
Official estimates of civilian deaths as a result of conventional bombing (which included firebombing between April-August 1945) of Japan (over 3 years, 1942-1945):
=260,000 - 299,484.
Official estimates of civilian deaths as a result of atomic bombing (2 separate days):
103,000 - 175,000 outright +
100,000 - 140,000 later (radiation sickness, etc.)
=203,000 - 315,000.
You can judge for yourself whether "the continued fire bombing of Japanese cities [...] would've cost more innocent human life than the a-bombs ever could"
"MJ you have created a false dilemma within your utilitarian morality"
That's rather ironic considering you were suggesting that because I disagree with you then I should register at LGF.
You've had your say and you continue to peddle the idea that WW2 is somehow comparable to the current situations in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. You're a 'lizards' dream.
Splendid, suddenly the nuclear bomb has become the magic and completely acceptable way to end a war, that should GUARANTEE that the war will end , there will be no more conflicts anywhere, and everyone will be dandy, especially the nuked country, because, oh, a few hundred thousands got killed, and not well, maybe a few more, maybe even less?
Hell, lets ALL have nukes then! If this is really the perfect ending ensemble to any war, lets just all stock up on them and fling them at each other just for fun! After all, when has a nuclear bomb ever killed more people than all the other alternative situations??
Oh why oh why didn't we nuke Washington while we were at it before they launched the Iraq war.. A small nuke will probably kill what.. 500 thousands? Certainly less than those who died due to the invasion. So it's PERFECT!!
(Nuclear cop, if by now you're shaking your head in disbelief and calling me ridiculous, think about what I was thinking of you earlier.)
Post a Comment