Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Brit Bomb Bust
British media are reporting the discovery of a car bomb near Piccadilly Circus. It was meant, M15 sources are speculating, as a Welcome Wagon greeting to incoming P.M. Gordon Brown:
The bomb was in the Haymarket, near the popular Regent Street shopping area, and security sources say it could have been timed to coincide with Gordon Brown's first day as Prime Minister.
An eyewitness said a man had crashed the vehicle into bins near Tiger Tiger and then ran off, before the alarm was raised.
The timing coincided with hundreds of revellers leaving nightspots, but police said there was no intelligence to suggest such an attack.
The Evening Standard reports a suspected Al-Qaeda connection, though the failed bomber’s Frank Drebin-like parking job is surely raising doubts amongst counter-terrorism experts.
|6.29.07 @ 11:07AM|#
What exactly is an "Al Qaeda connection" anyway? Any third rate Islamist group can call themselves "Al Qaeda in X Country" even if they have no other links to the central command structure.
|6.29.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Actually, Cesar, the bin Laden crowd is pretty protective of their brand name. It took months of negotiations before they'd let Zarqawi call his group "Al Qaeda in Iraq." It was bin Laden's circle who made him stop producing those beheading videos if he wanted to use the name.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 11:18AM|#
More frightening than an Al Qaeda connection is the likelyhood
that this is homegrown Muslim terrorism.
Muslim men in Britain (and across Western Europe), are
underemployed, poor and extremely sexually frustrated.
Note the target of the bombing was a a discoteque, described by one
Fox News reporterette Amy Kellog this morning as a "notorious meat
market."
It's going to be real interesting to see how the libertarian
community reacts to this.
Now Muslim terrorists are explicitly targetting social
libertines.
Do we libertarians rise up and fight back against these 11th
Century nutjobs, or just cower in fear (the Ron Paul approach), and
pretend they will just go away?
|6.29.07 @ 11:19AM|#
"What exactly is an "Al Qaeda connection" anyway?"
To paraphrase Shakespear:
Shit, by any other name still smells like shit.
|6.29.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Do we libertarians rise up and fight back against these 11th
Century nutjobs, or just cower in fear (the Ron Paul approach), and
pretend they will just go away?
Kill 'em all. Right, Eric?
dhex|6.29.07 @ 11:21AM|#
[quote]It was bin Laden's circle who made him stop producing
those beheading videos if he wanted to use the name.[/quote]
they have very strict franchising rules.
eric, i'll take "cower in fear" for a $1000 please.
|6.29.07 @ 11:22AM|#
I knew some third-rate neocon would brings the specter of
"Eurabia" into this thread, as predictably as a leftist would
scream about "Peak Oil" every time theres a thread on the
economy.
Next time I'll bet money.
thoreau|6.29.07 @ 11:23AM|#
I'll take any approach that thwarts violent guys but leaves
non-violent people alone, Eric.
What about you?
|6.29.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Now Muslim terrorists are explicitly targetting social libertines.
Eric Dondero - I don't know if you'vee been keeping up with the
news, but "targeting social liberties" ain't exactly a new
development for the rightious, religious, "religion of peace"
jihadists.
|6.29.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Oh, and Eric, one more thing-
Aren't we fighting them over there so they won't fight us here? Why
was there a bomb planted, then? Shouldn't being in Iraq magically
protect us from terror attacks?
|6.29.07 @ 11:29AM|#
I'll take any approach that thwarts violent guys but leaves non-violent people alone, Eric.
thoreau - How about non-violent sympatizers and collaborators? Just
asking?
|6.29.07 @ 11:29AM|#
If your political pitch revolves around the concept that libertarians don't realize that militant Islamists don't like booty, liquor and dancing, you might want to come up with a Plan B.
|6.29.07 @ 11:30AM|#
But, the UK has an army in Iraq. Using the logic of war supporters, that should stop attacks from happening in their country.
thoreau|6.29.07 @ 11:32AM|#
thoreau - How about non-violent sympatizers and
collaborators? Just asking?
Define "collaborators." If they're providing assistance to guys
engaging in violence then they aren't really non-violent.
And define "sympathizers." If they're actively helping somebody
engage in violence then they're basically engaging in violence
themselves. If they're just kind of pissed off then I don't see
what should or even could be done about them.
VM|6.29.07 @ 11:32AM|#
JsubD: quoth - Al Kaida is a fucking clownshoes operation.
Frank drebin is an awesome reference!
Social libertines, eh. That figures.
Right after
this guy was caught doing something very libertine. (SFW, since
it's a newspaper)
but it's very URKOBOLDIAN... indeed.
Grotius|6.29.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Cesar,
The problem may be that they've drawn down their forces there*. Or
something.
*That's correct, right? They have significantly drawn down their
forces in Iraq.
|6.29.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Yes, but in 2005 they hadn't, and there was a much worse attack on them then. And then theres Spain, which was also bombed when it had troops in Iraq.
Grotius|6.29.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Cesar,
Clearly the problem is that they needed to send more troops to Iraq
even after the initial invasion. Heck, maybe they should have
exported a large segment of Britain's civilian population.
BTS|6.29.07 @ 11:39AM|#
"defend the charge vigorously."
- From the sex bike story.
I think I'll just let that last word's irony speak for itself.
Grotius|6.29.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Cesar,
Indeed, imagine the sitcom possibilities associated with having a
British and Iraqi family living side by side. It might be a bit
like Coronation Street meets whatever the Iraqis watch
which is a soap opera equivalent.
|6.29.07 @ 11:40AM|#
If they're providing assistance to guys engaging in violence then they aren't really non-violent.
In my mind, providing food and shelter is collaboration.
And define "sympathizers."
For you thoreau, I'll work on a complete, accurate definition. Rest
assured, it will include those dancing in the streets after
9/11.
|6.29.07 @ 11:42AM|#
If the Brits hadn't spent the last 4 years bombing and killing innocents in Iraq, this plot never would have occured. If you've noticed, there's been no bombings in Spain since they pulled out of Iraq.
thoreau|6.29.07 @ 11:42AM|#
There's a big difference between people that I have no use for
(e.g. those dancing in the streets after a tragedy) and people that
I want to kill.
And providing food and shelter is only collaboration if you know
what your guest is up to.
|6.29.07 @ 11:42AM|#
joe,
Ah, but al Qaeda isn't McDonalds, with busloads of lawyers to
protect their trademark. NPR recently ran a piece on all the groups
using the al Qaeda name without permission. . .so to speak. From
what I heard, it sounded like al Qaeda might actually be okay with
any radical group using its name, because it makes them look bigger
and more important.
I wonder what kind of franchise fee comes with operating an al
Qaeda franchise? Can a franchise owner buy his own weapons, or must
he use only ones provided by al Qaeda? Are there marketing
restrictions? Personally, I'd advise any small terrorismman to
operate his own independent terrorism business, to avoid the
overhead and heartache associated with franchising. The SBA would
surely help with the start-up funding, especially given that most
small terrorismmen are MBEs.
|6.29.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Mercedes is the bomb of choice. Can't get much fertilizer in a mini-Cooper and would arouse suspicion at an avant-garde club at 2 AM. Besides it would be a standard transmission.
|6.29.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Indeed, imagine the sitcom possibilities associated with
having a British and Iraqi family living side by side. It might be
a bit like Coronation Street meets whatever the Iraqis watch which
is a soap opera equivalent.
I was thinking a comedy, maybe like Keeping Up
Appearances meets
|6.29.07 @ 11:47AM|#
There's a big difference between people that I have no use for (e.g. those dancing in the streets after a tragedy) and people that I want to kill.
We differ, Oh well.
And providing food and shelter is only collaboration if you know what your guest is up to.
We agree, Oh well.
Ben|6.29.07 @ 11:49AM|#
For all we know this could be just as fake as the "plot to blow
up JFK".
Yeah another point for us on the war on terror!!
|6.29.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Word on the Arab street is that Al Qaeda will be implenting a new uniform standard amogst their franchises to help strengthen their brand awareness and image.
|6.29.07 @ 11:52AM|#
"Aren't we fighting them over there so they won't fight us here?
Why was there a bomb planted, then? Shouldn't being in Iraq
magically protect us from terror attacks?"
Does Indonesia have troops in Iraq? Is that the reson for the Bali
bombing?
The bottom line is that there are people that want to kill other
people in the name of Islam.
|6.29.07 @ 11:52AM|#
After all, it was invading Iraq that caused 9/11.
No shit. 9/11 didn't have a goddam thing to do with invading Iraq,
and Iraq didn't have a goddam thing to do with 9/11.
|6.29.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Andrea, I did not say the bombings would occur if you had troops in Iraq. I was saying having troops in Iraq doesn't protect you from bombings. Big difference.
|6.29.07 @ 11:52AM|#
If you've noticed, there's been no bombings in Spain since
they pulled out of Iraq.
But Dan, if you give in to the terrorists, they win! (I think they
win a free breakfast at Denny's.)
|6.29.07 @ 11:54AM|#
"I was saying having troops in Iraq doesn't protect you from
bombings. Big difference."
So why was Bali bombed then?
Grotius|6.29.07 @ 11:55AM|#
dhex,
You forget the...
Dunh dunh dunh dah...
(now look a the camera with your eyes wide open)
|6.29.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Pro Lib,
No, they're not McDonald's. They do have a pretty good media
operation, though, and a video of bin Laden renoncing somebody of
some group can calling them "bad Muslims" would pretty effectively
destroy any group's ability to garner the support of al Qaeda fans.
Very libertarian, it its own way.
Based on the Zarqawi story, it seems that groups seeking to be "al
Qaeda in" whatever make sure to go through the trouble of at least
being "al Qaeda certified."
|6.29.07 @ 11:56AM|#
but george bush isn't muslim.
No, he's an evangelical Xian. That's almost as dangerous.
|6.29.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Andrea-
I'm not familiar enough with the bombing to say, but I do know
Indonesia stationing troops in Iraq wouldn't have prevented it. Did
you read what I said?
|6.29.07 @ 11:57AM|#
de stijl,
Exactly why new terrorismpersons should operate independently.
Weird uniforms and large overhead make it unworkable to go the
franchise route.
dhex,
No, but this election has two potential "Manchurian Candidates."
One is McCain, who could be a programmed agent of the Vietnamese.
The other is Obama, who could be a Muslim plant.
|6.29.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Mr. Dondero,
I'm curious, what do you want to do? Do you suggest that we start
slaughtering every Muslim every time you suspect that "al Queda" is
being the attack or foiled attack du jour. Has it occurred
to you that a bomb in a car can pulled off by a single nutjob with
no conspiracy, central planning,or sleeper cell?
thoreau|6.29.07 @ 11:58AM|#
joe, reputation and brand certification are not enough to make
something even vaguely libertarian. Not even in one aspect.
I'm trying to protect our brand here.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:00PM|#
2 things:
1. "London Terror Car" is a great name for a band
2. The car contained a big scary 60 liters of Petrol, or in less
scary parlance, 15 gallons of gas. So... the big scary terror car
had a full tank of gas and some propane cylinders. Sounds like a
guy going to a barbecue.
Finally, the car was crashed near a trendy party spot, late at
night, and the driver ran away after he crashed. Drunk
Driver?
This has "big scary boogabooga stay scared of those muslims"
written all over it.
|6.29.07 @ 12:00PM|#
"It's going to be real interesting to see how the
libertarian community reacts to this."
Thanks to Eric Dunderhead at least we now know what the "neo-con
pretending to be libertarian" response is and it's not interesting
at all.
steveintheknow|6.29.07 @ 12:02PM|#
No one is mentioning Wimbledon! Fucking around with bombs near
the Greatest of Greats is, in fact, HARSHING MY MELLOW.
Continue on.
|6.29.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Randolph Carter,
The report I saw on CNN - the most trusted name in Paris Hilton -
stated that the car was parked with nails.
FWIW.
|6.29.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Harshing your mellow?
steveintheknow, if you don't listen to Steely Dan right now, the
terrorists win.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:05PM|#
aah, slightly more realistic then. you meant packed, not parked, right?
|6.29.07 @ 12:05PM|#
The report I saw on CNN - the most trusted name in Paris
Hilton - stated that the car was parked with nails.
So, a carpenter was driving the car?
Maybe it was Jesus....
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:06PM|#
ooh even better band name:
Jesus Christ and the London Terror Car
|6.29.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Or did I interpret that wrong...
The report I saw on CNN - the most trusted name in Paris Hilton
- stated that the car was parked with nails.
Was the parking break not operational? Did this guy have to resort
to nailing the car down?? WTF.
dhex|6.29.07 @ 12:10PM|#
"No, but this election has two potential "Manchurian
Candidates." One is McCain, who could be a programmed agent of the
Vietnamese. The other is Obama, who could be a Muslim plant."
you forgot romney, a 4th column for invaders from the planet
WHATTHEFUCK.
also guliani is clearly the post-fascist result of secret nazi time
travel experiments when they realized the third reich wasn't going
to cut the mustard. thankfully homeboy can't keep his schnitzel out
of the fraus so their experiment is kaput before it starts.
|6.29.07 @ 12:11PM|#
It appears to this humble observer that what we have is an incompetent loser, probably acting alone, Posibly acting in concert with one or two other incompetent losers. "Incompetent loser" is the critical term here.
|6.29.07 @ 12:13PM|#
you forgot romney, a 4th column for invaders from the planet
WHATTHEFUCK.
Yes, but what is even scarier is the fact Tom Tancredo is a
Vorticon
secretly controlled my Mortimer McMier.
steveintheknow|6.29.07 @ 12:14PM|#
steveintheknow, if you don't listen to Steely Dan right
now....
Always down. Always.
|6.29.07 @ 12:16PM|#
dhex,
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps this is the All-Manchurian Candidate
Election. Except for Ron Paul, who is what he appears to be.
rho|6.29.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Do we libertarians rise up and fight back against these 11th
Century nutjobs, or just cower in fear (the Ron Paul approach), and
pretend they will just go away?
Oh, come on.
If you want to be accurate, the Ron Paul approach is to stop trying
to be the world's nanny. If you want to fight these 11th century
nutjobs, declare war on them. (Of course, there you have a problem.
Declare war on who? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? These are probably the
two most dangerous states, why aren't they in the
crosshairs?)
It's also not reasonable to suggest that being in Iraq is
the cause of all our woes. It certainly is one of them, but it's
not the end-all be-all. I do, however, question the "fight them
there so we don't have to fight them here" strategy. Because it
certainly doesn't look like that's the case. Seems to me that we'll
have to fight them there and fight them here--if not now, then
eventually--which makes me wonder what exactly are we getting out
of our blood and treasure in Iraq?
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Actually, I must congratulate Reason.com. I have scanned
virtually all the top libertarian websites this morning
(LewRockwell.com, Liberty Papers, Free Liberal, FMM, ect...).
Reason is the ONLY ONE to even have mentioned the story, besides my
own www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com, of course.
Shows Reason doesn't have their head in the sand, (or up their
asses), like the non-interventionist nutjobs at
Rockwell/Raimdondo/Ron Paul Inc.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:21PM|#
uh, Lew Rockwell's blog mentioned it. Reading comprehension much, Eric?
|6.29.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Reason is the ONLY ONE to even have mentioned the
story
And note also the frightened responses of the commenters. Running
scared, they are.
BOO!
|6.29.07 @ 12:23PM|#
--which makes me wonder what exactly are we getting out of our blood and treasure in Iraq?
Nothing. To use a poker analogy, we're just throwing good money
after bad.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Isn't it funny how political labels change over the years?
Being pro-Abolish the IRS, Pro-Massive Spending Cuts,
Pro-Privatization, Pro-Property Rights, Pro-Choice, Pro-Drug
Legalization, Pro-Free Speech, Pro-Sexual Liberties, used to mean
"libertarian."
Now it has morphed to mean "NeoCon" to some.
dhex|6.29.07 @ 12:24PM|#
dammit, mp you scared me again and i dropped my latte. i was
going to use it as a helmet if the scary muslims come.
wait a minute. i was going to get falafel at lunch...OH GOD THEY'RE
IN MY HEAD!
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 12:27PM|#
It's pretty damned sickening that some of you here would make
light of this terror plot, even joking about it.
There are some things that can and should be joked about. Terrorism
is not one of them.
You all are an absolute embarrassment to the libertarian
movement.
Go join Michael Moore's brigade, and leave us real libertarians
lone, PLEASE!
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Eric,
You left out "pro-foreign adventures" and "pro-pee-pee-pants levels
of terror at the thought of terrorism"
which make you a neocon.
Foreign Policy! It puts the neo in neocon.
|6.29.07 @ 12:30PM|#
and leave us real libertarians lone, PLEASE!
If you get me drunk before the stock market closes, I'm gonna get
fired.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Again, would someone please address the issue at hand: The fact
that these Radical Muslims have apparently targetted a Discoteque
with by some accounts 1,700 patrons, mostly young one would
presume.
The natural libertarian reaction would be "hey, these Muslim fucks
are targetting us! We libertarians are the ones who support Sex,
Booze and Rock 'n Roll, after all."
Yet, you all seem to be casting the traditional libertarian agenda
of Sexual liberties, and Good Times aside, in the name of strident
non-interventionism.
How about a little empathy for the 1,700 party goers at Tiger Tiger
please. You'd expect nothing less from supposedly "socially
tolerant" libertarians.
|6.29.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Go join Michael Moore's brigade, and leave us real
libertarians lone, PLEASE!
If we did that, Eric, you'd be all alone on these threads. You
wouldn't want that, would you??
shecky|6.29.07 @ 12:34PM|#
There are some things that can and should be joked about.
Terrorism is not one of them.
And get off my lawn!
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Oh, I get it Randolph Carter.
So let me get this straight: Economic issues and Social issues
don't matter any more, 'eh?
One is defined solely by their stance on Foreign Policy.
Golly gee, imagine that, Pro-Life Christian Conservatives like Pat
Robertson, Bill Bennett and the like are in the same ideological
camp as libertine libertarians.
Who'd have thunk it?
Oh, and all those Pro-Defense libertarians from years gone by like
Dr. John Hospers, Barry Goldwater, Dana Rohrabacher, Ayn Rand,
Milton Friedman, and our very own Bob Poole, along with more recent
Pro-Defense libertarians like Neal Boortz, Dennis Miller, PJ
O'Rourke, and Larry Elder, are/were not "real libertarians" but
rather "NeoCons."
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Also, libertarianism isn't all about "sexual liberties and good
times," it's about those other liberties that are equally
important.
Liberties that are threatened by open-ended wars on various
concepts and ideologies.
Not to say that Islamic terrorism is no big deal, they obviously
can do some pretty horrible things. But so can governments trying
feebly to protect you from those threats, especially when their
attempts involve incomprehensible wars.
|6.29.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Dunderhead-
Secret trials, wiretapping without a warrant, holding people
without trial and without being charged with a crime, the "PATRIOT"
act, Presidential signing statements, increased executive power, a
massive military budget, the warfare-welfare state--I guess you are
in favor of all those right? Very "libertarian" of you.
dhex|6.29.07 @ 12:37PM|#
"It's pretty damned sickening that some of you here would make
light of this terror plot, even joking about it."
dude, you support rudy guliani. don't lecture us on morality.
(sophistry, however, is a go. lesson 1: every third word is
"9/11")
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:38PM|#
No, Eric, the exact opposite. I'm just saying that if your idea of libertarianism revolves around being a libertine, it's rather self-serving and ideologically shallow.
|6.29.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Eric,
Neo-Con refers to those Republicans who have taken up the military
expansionist policies advocated by Democrat/Socialist Hawks like
Jean Kirkpatrick who switched parties without switching
ideologies.
NoStar
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 12:42PM|#
to wit:
I think that the workers should control the means of production,
and that things should be run by the dictum "from each according to
his ability, to each according to his need." But the people who run
the Party should be allowed to hold private property and live
outside the bounds of my ideology.
See how that person would no longer be a communist?
|6.29.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Does Indonesia have troops in Iraq? Is that the reson for
the Bali bombing?
Bin
Laden explained his reasons for the bombing:
"Australia was warned about its participation in Afghanistan, and its ignoble contribution to the separation of East Timor," the tape says.
The bottom line is that there are people that want to kill
other people in the name of Islam.
No, it's more complicated than that, but if you're just looking for
an excuse for endless war, I guess that explanation will do.
|6.29.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Giuliani's track record in New York--both as a government
attorney and as mayor--makes me wonder how anyone in their right
mind could label him as a libertarian. He may have some positions
that are libertarianesque, but those positions don't make
him a libertarian. Hell, Bush and Bill Clinton had some
libertarian moments.
Paul's the only choice for libertarians. The effort against al
Qaeda will continue regardless of who is in the White House,
political realities being what they are, but it isn't wacko to
think that we've got better things to do than to get more bogged
down in the Middle East. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan,
the situation being what it was, but there's no rational,
nonreligious reason for us to continue to be as involved as we are.
We get only a small percentage of our oil from the region, anyway.
Let Europe and China meddle if they must, and I'm sure Israel can
keep on keeping on without our direct assistance.
|6.29.07 @ 12:49PM|#
The fact that these Radical Muslims have
apparently targetted a Discoteque
It's not a fact yet, jackass:
Two officials in Washington briefed on the investigation said British authorities had so far found no terrorist link in the early hours of the investigation.
|6.29.07 @ 12:49PM|#
I'm with MP. Eric, your use of hilarious and drink inducing
catch phrases are going to get me fired.
No more "real libertarians for 9-11!!!!" until 6:30 est, k?
Doug|6.29.07 @ 12:52PM|#
It was found in the "HAYMARKET" near "PICCADILLY CIRCUS"... what the hell is wrong with London?
|6.29.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Eric,
Instead of attacking you political enemies, how about answering a
few questions? How do you personally think that we should react in
the case of a single person or small conspiracy (4 or 5
people)trying to perpetrate a terrorist act? Doe your answer change
based on the religion of the perpetrators?
As a Libertarian Republican, do you think that the U.S. should
intervene in every terrorist act regardless of location or is this
instance as British problem? How should they or "we" handle
it?
I doubt you'll get much argument that the UK should try to find the
individuals involved, and if the were supported by a larger
organization, to take action that organization.
ed|6.29.07 @ 12:56PM|#
It's going to be real interesting to see how the libertarian
community reacts to this
It might have been, had it not been for the cat fight above. Put
your claws away, ladies.
|6.29.07 @ 12:57PM|#
More details will no doubt be forthcoming. But using gasoline
and propane cylinders in combination (and yes, we're talking about
gasoline OTHER than stored in the car's tank) sounds like a
poor-man's attempt at a fuel-air explosive device. Propane to go
whoosh first and disperse the gasoline in fine droplets, which then
ignites with devastating force.
And as to the poor parking job: since they reported smoke or fumes
coming out of the car, it sounds like something went awry. Not
unreasonable to speculate something like: a propane valve get
jarred, clouds of cold gas start filling the back seat, driver goes
"Oh shit", crashes the car into some dumpsters and then runs like
hell.
|6.29.07 @ 1:05PM|#
The natural libertarian reaction would be "hey, these Muslim
fucks are targetting us! We libertarians are the ones who support
Sex, Booze and Rock 'n Roll, after all."
And the natural response of someone who writes a blog with
"Republican" in the name would be, "Phew, those Muslim fucks aren't
targetting us. We right wing conservatives are the ones who oppose
Sex, Booze and Rock and Roll."
That's why none of the actual libertarians take you seriously,
Eric.
|6.29.07 @ 1:06PM|#
"I'm curious, what do you want to do?"
I'd fire bomb Gaza just like Dresden. It's big stick time.
|6.29.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Eric,
The fact that you think someone must support your Massive
Government Program to Protect Social Libertinism in order to be a
libertarian is why you are not a libertarian.
Even I get that, and I'm just here for the nachos.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:09PM|#
and when real criticism comes around Eric Dondero (ED? Electile disfunction?) runs away to safer shores.
rho|6.29.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Eric:
The natural libertarian reaction would be "hey, these Muslim fucks are targetting us! We libertarians are the ones who support Sex, Booze and Rock 'n Roll, after all."
Actually, the "natural libertarian" reaction would be "this
guy was targeting folks". It takes quite a leap to rope in
all Muslims on that murder conspiracy.
That said, I think David asked a pertinent question: what are we to
do as Americans when a lunatic with a grudge tries to blow up a
disco in the U.K.? Who do you point the gun at? I'm not opposed to
pointing the gun at people who seek to actively destroy us, but
let's not just point the gun willy-nilly.
At the same time, let's consider that, perhaps, the actions of our
own government precipitate some degree of international animosity.
Surely you, a doubter of the abilities of big-government, would
also agree that big-government doesn't magically gain hitherto
unknown skills when it works its will abroad?
Put another way, if our federal government can't fix poverty in the
U.S., why on Earth would you assume they can fix the problem of
international terrorism?
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 1:13PM|#
As a "Libertarian Republican" what's my foreign policy
views?
Simple!
Talk softly, carry a big stick.
In other words: "Someone fucka with you, you fucka with them 10
times harder."
The Radical Muslim fucks started it. It's time we kick their asses,
bigtime!!!
|6.29.07 @ 1:15PM|#
I'm disappointed. No one has yet pointed out that we are all
guilty of having an "Al-Qaida" connection.
Six Degrees of Osama Bin Laden, people!
So, what? The investigation and interrogations stop if you're more
than two degrees?... three?
The Owl asks: How many degrees does it take to get to the center of
an Al-Qaeda conspiracy?
|6.29.07 @ 1:15PM|#
In other words: "Someone fucka with you, you fucka with them 10
times harder."
Sure, because the arena of international relations is just like a
game of Grand Theft Auto.
Asshat.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 1:15PM|#
NeoStarr, that's your definition of "NeoCon."
My definition of NeoCon means Religious Right Conservative, i.e.
Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Pat
Robertson, James Dobson, et.al.
In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCon.
If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but.
Dave W.|6.29.07 @ 1:15PM|#
More frightening than an Al Qaeda connection is the
likelyhood that this is homegrown Muslim terrorism.
Even more frightening than that is the possibility that this is a
false flag attack by someone in England who dislikes Muslims, and
is willing to commit terrorism to get others to dislike Muslims,
too.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Indeed, it is very much in the spirit of Classical Libertarianism to say "that guy stole my pencil, I'm gonna burn down his fucking house and kill his dog! Hoo-ah!"
|6.29.07 @ 1:17PM|#
""Australia was warned about its participation in Afghanistan,
and its ignoble contribution to the separation of East Timor," the
tape says."
That's a reason to bomb Australia, not Indonesia. Somebody buy that
bitch bin lauden a map.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Again, Eric, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 1:18PM|#
ProLiberate, funny you ask that question "how anyone in their
right mind could label Giuliani a libertarian."
Just this morning, Yahoo News has a big piece from a self-described
"libertarian" columnist named Russ Kiminsky (sp?), talking about
how he supports Giuliani over Fred Thompson.
|6.29.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Right, Eric. Key phrase there is, "in their right mind".... see
how that works?
I could call myself a Chinese Pentacostal voodoo priestess, but
that doesn't mean I qualify as such.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:20PM|#
I'm a Flat-earther. I'm writing a column on how Eric Dondero is
a flat-earther too!
See how it doesn't work?
|6.29.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Eric, do you support-
1) Secret trials
2) The idea of someone being held without trial and without being
charged of a crime indefinitley if the President labels him an
"enemy combatant"
3) Increased executive power, such as "Presidential signing
statements" which basically allows the President to ignore laws
that the Congress passes
4) Warrantless Wiretapping and domestic spying
5) The Patriot Act.
Please, answer "yes" or "no" to the above questions.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Randolph,
As a matter of fact, my idea of "libertarianism" DOES INDEED
revolve around social libertinism (and keeping the money that I
earn rather than giving it to the IRS, as well).
Call that shallow if you want.
But I was recruited into the Libertarian Party of Florida, in
Jacksonville, in 1985, straight out of the US Navy by two LP
stalwarts (Nick Dunbar and Dianne Pilcher) who told me that
"Libertarians were Conservatives who were Pro-Choice, hated Jerry
Falwell and who liked to smoke pot."
It was only a year later that I discovered much to my dismay, that
there was such a thing as a Non-interventionist Libertarian.
Back in the 1980s Libertarian Party there were plenty of
Pro-Defense Libertarians, INCLUDING BOB POOLE AND THE LIBERTARIAN
DEFENSE CAUCUS!!!
The Party, and the movement were far, far less obsessed with
foreign policy issues back then. It was all about defeating the
Religious Right, and protesting the IRS.
So, don't you dare fucking tell me that I ain't no "real
libertarian."
I've been around in this movement since 19-fuckin'-85
Asshole!!
You're the Newbie.
Eric Dondero|6.29.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Cesar,
Yes, I do support all of the above for illegal aliens (like 3 of
the Fort Dix Six) who are Muslim who enter the United States from
Canada and Mexico.
I also support immediate deportation for all of them.
dhex|6.29.07 @ 1:28PM|#
"The Radical Muslim fucks started it. It's time we kick their
asses, bigtime!!!"
no more movies for you, bucko.
i think they're making you too excitable.
|6.29.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Well, you know, the Constitution gives rights to "persons" not
citizens but lets gloss over that for now.
Do you also support domestic spying against U.S. citizens without
warrants? The Patriot Act (after all that applies to citizens and
non-citizens alike).
Do you think a citizen should be able to be held without trial
indefinitely if the President (in his infinite wisdom) declares him
an "enemy combatant"?
What about Presidential signing statements which allows the
President to ignore laws that Congress passes?
Finally, if Hillary Clinton is our president in 2009, would you
trust her with all those powers?
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:30PM|#
OK homeboy, I was 1 year old in 1985, so you win the longevity
argument. But there is a difference between pro-defense and
pro-aggression that you seem unable to grasp.
You seem to like the fruits and outgrowths of a philosophy that
consistently respects individual rights, but you have little
respect for the philosophy itself.
And if you can't grasp the fact that Rudy Giuliani, a man who ran
New York like it was his personal fiefdom, can not in good
conscience be described as a libertarian, then I'm not surprised
that you haven't waded into Locke, Hume, and Nozick.
|6.29.07 @ 1:30PM|#
My definition of NeoCon means Religious Right Conservative,
i.e. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes,
Pat Robertson, James Dobson, et.al.
Charles Krauthammer - actually is pretty neoconish, but is also a
big Reublicanist.
Bill Bennett - Republicanist nanny-stater
Bill Kristol - neocon
Fred Barnes - definition of Republicanism
Pat Robertson / James Dobson - Fundamentalist theocrats
You got 1.5 right.
It's really not that hard to look-up and research neoconveratism so
you don't look like an utter idiot.
|6.29.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Guys, the only thing you need to know about Eric is this:
He thinks that that a soldier in the employ of the U.S. government
can morally kill an Iraqi child who is innocent of any wrongdoing,
since a bunch of Saudi and Egyptian men killed a bunch of U.S.
children.
His justification, and I quote, was "You fucka with my country and
I fucka with your country"
In otherwords, he favors collactive punishment of people depending
on what group they belong to regardless of whether they have
actually commited any crime.
How anyone who believes on collectivism can self-identify as a
libertarian is baffling to most people, but not to Eric. After all,
he is proud of the fact that he got busted down to Seaman from
Petty Officer 2nd Class for fighting, and is impatient about
"boring philosophical stuff".
In other words, he is a moron. Arguing about what constitutes
libertarianism with him is about as useful as discussing General
Relativity with a Yanamono shaman.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Tarran,
Don't insult Yanamono shamans like that!
I just like arguing, even if it is with a brick wall.
|6.29.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Eric, My God! You really are a Dunderhead.
"In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCo.
If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but."
The Neo-Con movement within the Republican party has always been
centered around militaristic and interventionist (i.e. a non purely
defensive) foreign policy. (You know, the very thing that causes
Blow Back.) You are the first person I have ever heard say that
abortion is the defining issue.
But, please stick around. You make the rest of us libertarian
nutjobs look sane.
|6.29.07 @ 1:38PM|#
tarran... I was trying to say that, but I must have been too oblique. You said it much better. Bravo!
|6.29.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Since every time I see his name the music plays in my head, I
figure I might as well share.
When thinking about Dondero's "posse" (the "Libertarian Defense
Caucus"), imagine them riding in on horses. The Bonanza theme*
should soon start up:
DUN-duh-duh-DUN-duh-duh-DUN-duh-duh-DUN Don-DER-OOOOOOO!
In fact, I think that's the way his name should be spelled
henceforth. Don-DER-OOOOOOO!
* Lyrics available here.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:39PM|#
it's so much fun when Eric comes through.
You almost never get a chance to argue with a real life,
flesh-and-blood strawman.
|6.29.07 @ 1:40PM|#
"But I was recruited into the Libertarian Party of Florida, in
Jacksonville, in 1985, straight out of the US Navy by two LP
stalwarts (Nick Dunbar and Dianne Pilcher) who told me that
"Libertarians were Conservatives who were Pro-Choice, hated Jerry
Falwell and who liked to smoke pot.""
Wow.
That right there provides a solid basis for development of coherent
policy on almost any issue.
Democrats are pro-choice, hate Jerry Falwell and like to smoke pot.
. . are they 3/4ths libertarian?
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Also, never before have I met a libertarian who likes being called a republican who smokes pot.
|6.29.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Tarran,
Don't insult Yanamono shamans like that!
You're right Randolph, that was unjust of me. I'm sure a shaman is
just likely as anybody to enjoy and understand a non-mathematical
explanation of General Relativity of the sort that that George
Gamow or Nigel Calder would give.
|6.29.07 @ 1:42PM|#
In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCon.
If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but.
I'm going to attempt to describe how stupid that statement is,
Eric.
{thinks intently)
Nope, words fail me.
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 1:43PM|#
haha, I meant you were insulting them by including them an any sort of analogue for Eric Dondero. I feel that general relativity has been cheapened by its involvement in a Dondero analogy as well.
|6.29.07 @ 1:45PM|#
But using gasoline and propane cylinders in combination (and
yes, we're talking about gasoline OTHER than stored in the car's
tank) sounds like a poor-man's attempt at a fuel-air explosive
device. Propane to go whoosh first and disperse the gasoline in
fine droplets, which then ignites with devastating
force.
Or a stupid man's collection of things that are flammable
(inflammable?) - WHICH ONE IS IT? FUCK!
Screw it, stuff that burns.
|6.29.07 @ 1:47PM|#
In essence, if you're a Pro-Lifer, you're a NeoCon.
If you're Pro-Choice, as I am, you are anything but.
No we know why he thinks Rudy is a libertarian!
|6.29.07 @ 1:51PM|#
I'm sure a shaman is just likely as anybody to enjoy and understand a non-mathematical explanation of General Relativity of the sort that that George Gamow or Nigel Calder would give.
Not necessarily - the shaman may neither understand nor enjoy the
explanation, but at least he's far less likely to bawl, "Back in
1985, a couple of guys explained that the world sits on four
elephants standing on the back of a turtle!* So, don't you dare
fucking tell me that I ain't no 'real physicist!' I've been
thinkin' about how stuff works since 19-fuckin'-85, asshole!"
* Yeah, I don't really have any idea what the creation myth of a
Yanamono shaman might be like.
|6.29.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Randolph, again you are
right. I humbly apologize. In my defense, coming up with the
proper analogy that describes the futility of debating anything
with Eric is really, really hard.
I'll do better next time.
|6.29.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Here's one for you, tarran:
"Arguing with Don-DER-OOOOOOO! is as futile as trying to come up
with an analogy for the futility of arguing with
Don-DER-OOOOOOO!."
No, wait a minute. I don't think that works the way I want it
to.
|6.29.07 @ 2:03PM|#
The music that comes to my head when reading Dondero is from The
Happy Wanderer. Of course, I change the words to the Harpy
Blatherer:
Donderiiii, Dondereeee,
Donderoohohohoho
|6.29.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Dave W. | June 29, 2007, 1:15pm | #
Even more frightening than that is the possibility that this is a
false flag attack by someone in England who dislikes Muslims, and
is willing to commit terrorism to get others to dislike Muslims,
too.
Dave, that is very insightful and spot-on speculation. Too bad most
people aren't willing to even acknowledge the possibility of
something similar to that happening on 9/11. Muslims have become
scapegoats for our own bigotry and hate.
|6.29.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Look, I don't think ED (ask your doctor if "Propeciagra" is
right for you) is particularly concerned with individual rights or
any other particuarly libertarian positions on things, but you CAN
be a libertarian and believe that the right to self-defense can
extend to national defense/foriegn policy issues without being a
neo-con or a Republican. I consider myself to be a libertarian
minarchist but my position on some of the things that Cesar would
try to keep me out of the clubhouse over...
1) Secret trials
- Don't support secret trials, do believe military tribunals.are
appropriate in certain circumstances.
2) The idea of someone being held without trial and without being
charged of a crime indefinitley if the President labels him an
"enemy combatant"
- For POWs and other enemy combatants, this is the way it works,
yep.
3) Increased executive power, such as "Presidential signing
statements" which basically allows the President to ignore laws
that the Congress passes
- Nope. No support for this.
4) Warrantless Wiretapping and domestic spying
- Nope. No support for this.
5) The Patriot Act. Do you also support domestic spying against
U.S. citizens without warrants? The Patriot Act (after all that
applies to citizens and non-citizens alike).
- I'm conflicted on this, I'll admit... I think PATRIOT contains a
lot of tomfoolery, but I realize it's not nearly as bad as some of
the other war-time measures the U.S. has taken, historically
speaking. I also expect it, like those other war-time measures, to
fade away with time.
Do you think a citizen should be able to be held without trial
indefinitely if the President (in his infinite wisdom) declares him
an "enemy combatant"?
- Nope.
What about Presidential signing statements which allows the
President to ignore laws that Congress passes?
- Nope.
Finally, if Hillary Clinton is our president in 2009, would you
trust her with all those powers?
- Nope, not comfortable with ANYONE having that kind of
power.
Considering my positions on foreign policy and national defense,
would I qualify for entry into the Playboy Mansion that is being
officially considered libertarian? I think so... I don't see any
contradiction in the positions I hold. But then maybe others here
would see it differently.
In other words, some people here tend to think their version of
libertarianism is the only one that counts - kind of like it's a
religion - and try to exclude other people from the clubhouse.
Others aren't so dogmatic. How does that shake out around these
parts?
Matt|6.29.07 @ 2:36PM|#
When I think of Dondero's posse I try to find the perfect
combination of warmongering hysteria and general
ridiculousness...the PARTY POSSE!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mb3dxw-Ta4Y
"Your love's more deadly than Saddam...
That's why it's time to drop da bomb!"
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Rob,
You're more or less in the club! I'll get the monogrammed smoking
jacket made up for you by Monday.
I think the questions with your positions have to do with who has
the discretion to declare someone an enemy combatant and under what
circumstances they are so called.
|6.29.07 @ 2:44PM|#
rob-
I don't think any of your responses to the above makes you a
neo-con. I made the above list because Dondero's boy (Giuliani)
supports everything I just listed, whether applied to U.S. citizens
or otherwise. And I think its pretty clear--and not rigid and
uncompromising--to think that if you hold a lot of those positions
you aren't very libertarian.
Your responses were completely reasonable IMO, certainly not neocon
chest thumping about "doubling Guantanamo" and whatnot.
Its a very scary day when the Republican party gives a standing
ovation to a presidential candidate who promises to continue
warantless wiretapping.
|6.29.07 @ 2:49PM|#
RC - Cool! I've always wanted a monogrammed smoking
jacket!
As for who has the discretion... I'm definitely not an "imperial
presidency" supporter.
(I REALLY should have read that question a bit more carefully,
obviously!) As the C-in-C, the president does set certain rules of
engagement for U.S. forces. However, the idea that being elected to
head the Executive gives you the power to declare someone an enemy
combatant outside of the internationally accepted rules of the Law
of Armed Combat gives me the 1984-style heebie-jeebies.
The whole idea of being captured on the battlefield while fighting
in a war largely came about as an incentive to surrender (and make
war a tiny bit less horrific) - because you're far better off being
indefinitely held as a POW than if there was no quarter given and
no opportunity to surrender.
Do I think the president should get to make that decision any old
time he finds it convenient? Definitely not.
|6.29.07 @ 2:51PM|#
What I don't understand is, why do they have smoking jackets,
but not shitting jackets? Sure, you don't want the smell of smoke
to get on your clothes, but how much more does that apply to
aerosolized feces?
Maybe this is an entrepreneurial opportunity...
|6.29.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Cesar - No worries. I guess I tend to flinch when the club bouncer starts surveying who gets past the velvet rope because joe keeps calling me a Republican. He does it because he knows I consider it an insult... But still...
Jennifer|6.29.07 @ 3:19PM|#
You almost never get a chance to argue with a real life,
flesh-and-blood strawman.
Don't be insulting, Randolph. The difference between Dondero and a
real strawman is that the Scarecrow admitted he
didn't have a brain.
|6.29.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Good one Jennifer, but now I've got the Neo-con chant
"Nine-one-one, tigers and bears. Oh my!"
running through my head.
|6.29.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Neocon: Inside the beltway term for Jewish Republican using U.S.
foreign policy to protect Israel (Not my definition!)
Libertarian: One who thinks the government is not always the best
solution for fucking everything.
Dondero Libertarian: A Republican who wants to smoke pot and get
abortions, and need a way justify it to their friends.
|6.29.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Again, would someone please address the issue at hand: The fact that these Radical Muslims have apparently targetted a Discoteque with by some accounts 1,700 patrons, mostly young one would presume.
...
Yet, you all seem to be casting the traditional libertarian agenda of Sexual liberties, and Good Times aside, in the name of strident non-interventionism.
Firstly, while there were reports that people saw a man run from
the car after he crashed it, there are no reports of who this man
is or what he looked like. I hate dragging up old history here but
terrorism != "radical muslim" as evidenced by Oklahoma City.
Granted, these days the odds are good, but not 100%.
Secondly, even if the guy is a)radical muslim and b)maybe a member
of a terrorist cell(as opposed to a LoneWacko) what do you propose
we do, invade Britain? Would that be non-interventionist enough for
you?
Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Nostar,
I believe the chant is "nine-one-one, muslims, face hair, oh
my!
|6.29.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Of course I screwed up that last sentence. It should have
read:
"Would that be interventionist enough for you?"
lunchstealer|6.29.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I hereby volunteer to invade this one pub I know of. Somebody
else can handle the rest of the country.
Mmm, Shepherd Naeme.
edna|6.30.07 @ 8:03AM|#
"Granted, these days the odds are good, but not 100%."
ok, 99.9%.
it could, after all, be deranged anglicans. remember, some anglican
guy did something violent 20 years ago.
|6.30.07 @ 12:03PM|#
In other words, some people here tend to think their version of libertarianism is the only one that counts - kind of like it's a religion - and try to exclude other people from the clubhouse. Others aren't so dogmatic. How does that shake out around these parts?
Rob - Damned well put. If there is no room for diagreement and
reasoned discussion in the libertarian party/movement we might as
well call ourselves pentecostals.
|7.1.07 @ 10:53PM|#
So, don't you dare fucking tell me that I ain't no "real
libertarian."
I've been around in this movement since 19-fuckin'-85
Asshole!!
You're the Newbie.
Doesn't mean you're good at it. Just means you're old.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245