Replies to post #76528 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[ieddyi]

So, in response to an article outlining violence against Bush supporters you go into a rant against Bush, justifying the behavior of the thugs. Very enlightened of you. I guess Bush has made this world so dangerous that the niceities like the first amendment don't have to be observed any more.
Why not just advocate assasination like your liberal friends in the Guardian did yesterday. WOuldn't that be justified using your logic?
Weren't the terrorists that flew the planes into the WTC justified as well due to the past imperilalstic actions of the US?

" O we are one very sick country."

When you look in the mirror, you'll find the source material that makes that statement true. Just take a minute to think about the implications of your statement

[wstera2]

Guardian Backs Off on Assassination

As we have noted, yesterday the Guardian published a column by Charlie Brooker that called for the assassination of President Bush. The column concluded:

<<<On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?>>>


The Guardian has now pulled the Brooker column; in its place is this notice:

<<<The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.
"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind.">>>

The entire Brooker column can still be read here. You can judge for yourself whether there is anything "humorous" about it. http://piratescove.typepad.com/piratescove/2004/10/the_guardian.html

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008292.php