October 16, 2003
IS IT TIME TO ASSASSINATE THE EDITOR OF THE GUARDIAN?
Question of the day, from The Guardian’s online daycare centre for friendless British children: Is it time to assasinate George Dubya Bush?
He is perhaps the most dangerous man currently to inhabit the earth. A hypocritical lunatic, his family have been sponsoring terrorism around the globe for decades - first he was cosy with Saddam and then he was'nt, then he was cosy with Bin Laden and then he changed his mind. His motivations are greed and he cares little for the sanctity of human life, and will support any state, no matter how brutal their administration, as long as they are compliant with US companies.
That’s some great writing, kid. As LGF notes: “The Guardian is right there in the rubber room with Nazimedia.”
Posted by Tim Blair at October 16, 2003 01:56 PM
Is it 'time'? What is this, some kind of weird reference to the upcoming fortieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination?
Or just plain sedition?
I thought the left was opposed to regime change by violence.
I guess that's only for the respectable, well-mannered paragons of human rights like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, but when it comes to those who are conduct waaaaarrrs for oooiiiiiilllll, they can make an exception.
These people seriously need to cut down on the crack-smoking. It's starting to show.
20-1 SimonF(uckhead) is one of these "peace lovers" who proudly stomps around protest rallies and throws manure on cops.
Since when was George 2 "cosy with Bin Laden" and "cosy with Saddam"? When he was governor of Texas or when he ran that baseball team? Or maybe it was in Dubya's wild, partying days when he was in college.
I think this Simon fellow quit taking his meds because he "felt fine, the voices in my head are agreeing with me now!"
What exactly would a "hypocrital lunaic" be? I mean, when they try to do something crazy, it's sane? Or just not in the proper lunar sequence?
Ok, would someone show RichardF the next in blot please.
The Guardian is beyond hope.
That is really sick. It's this kind of bullshit that makes me begin to question my advocacy of free speech.
Does SimonF work for the Guardian?
It's just hosted by the Guardian, and any fruit loop can suggest a topic.
Some of you right-wingers sound as hysterical as the feminazis.
It's eerily similar to another online daycare centre where suggestions are made that ABC reporters should be killed for mundane reports about someone's health.
Although I would hardly think it is the fault of the guy in control, or that he should also be assassinated for allowing such comments to appear.
... But it's okay for us right-wingers to march in and bring death to people we don't like, such as little innocent angels like Uday and Qusay Hussein. As "right-wing death beasts", it is our duty.
Not the point, Marty. Not the point at all.
Pod, I'm aware it wasn't the point. I was just being an ass, as I normally am.
Can you blame me for wondering? Perhaps my sarcasm filter wants updating.
Apparently, on the innaweb, nobody knows you're a dog.
It's just hit me. Some people really, actually believe that Dubya is just as bad as, if not worse than, Saddam or Osama. I always assumed that it was just rhetoric to make a point through comic exaggeration. But no. Some people genuinely believe this.
Excuse me while I wander around glaze-eyed and slack-jawed in stunned realisation.
Take it easy, Pod, I wasn't trying to start anything. :)
I note that Simon F, the originator, says it was just a "damn good joke". However, people who post stuff linking the US President's name to the word "assassinate" tend to fall foul of the FBI's monitoring of just such juxtapositions. Simon may not be laughing when he gets a little visit from MI5.
Damn, is it time for lunch yet? I'm starving.
Aww, they deleted the message! Evil American Censorship at work!
Hey Geoff -
I know the post you are referring to and that isn't what it said. I did repost to explain, but you may not have seen it - look it up if you still don't understand I'll be happy to explain. Seriously, no cheap shot response, I will explain. It does make reference to a better understanding of Arafat and his enablers.
Andrew, you can join me in the slack-jawed department. I personally know people who really believe that stuff. I'm starting to get a little scared that this sizable a percentage of the voting-age population can go this far off the deep end.
To be fair, as someone else noted above, this was not posted by any member of the Guardian's staff. Anybody can register to use the topic area, and any nutcase in the world can post an issue of their interest. Why on Earth a professional journalism outlet would expose themselves to the dangers of doing such a thing, I can't understand. At any rate, the thread's been removed.
You expressed a desire for two ABC reporters to be "caught in a crossfire somewhere" and a hope that they will have spots reserved for them in hell for being "enablers" of Arafat.
All this from a routine report about the power struggles in Palestine amid rumours of Arafat's health.
I read your explanations and rejected them. If the ABC report cited is all it takes to be judged by you as an "enabler" worthy of death and punishment in hell then rational discourse with you seems to be limited.
Your post was no different in substance from the Guardian message board post that originated this thread, and is equally worthy of condemnation.
Hmph... I suggest that all (American) Democrats be hanged from telephone poles, and nobody links to MY site...