Pakistan, 2011, seriously


Confessed murderer given a garland of roses by barristers, and a platform to incite the mob by police – the “law” apparently being represented in Islamabad by people so filled with religious extremism that they think homicide is something to celebrate.

If Pakistan doesn’t want to be regarded as a miserable, dangerous backwater filled with nutcases, the sane parts of the country had better stage a counter-protest damned quickly:

More than 20,000 people rallied in Pakistan’s southern city of Karachi on Sunday, police said, to protest against proposed amendments to blasphemy laws…

The blasphemy law allows the death penalty for defamation of the Prophet Mohammed and was used recently to sentence a Christian woman to death.

Banners at the event included some supporting Mr Taseer’s presumed killer, police commando Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, who has been praised by religious conservatives for shooting his boss outside an Islamabad coffee shop.

“Mumtaz Qadri is not a murderer, he is a hero,” said one banner in the national Urdu language.

What goes on in a person’s head that they could think someone should be executed for blasphemy? And there were 20,000 such people at that rally? What year do these fanatics think it is?

UPDATE: Perhaps it’s fortunate that, if they’re going to sentence someone to death for blasphemy, they’ve picked a victim who’ll inspire sympathy in parts of the rest of the world that wouldn’t have cared otherwise: a young Christian woman. Does anyone seriously think the same pressure would be being brought to bear by the West if she was an atheist?

ELSEWHERE: In the other nutcase-shooting-politician story, Fox News works hard to protect Sarah Palin from any criticism arising from the fact she called for the attacked politician to be “put in the crosshairs” before she was shot.

On Boing Boing – Why the [shootings] Mean That We Must Support My Politics.

ELSEWHERE #2: In moderate religious people standing up against the extremists news – Muslims in Egypt act as a human shield to protect Christians from the bombs of the fanatics.

BACK ON PAKISTAN: They’ve been unable to find a lawyer to prosecute the murder of Taseer. With the police openly supporting the murderer, I’m not surprised few are lining up to be put in the quite literal firing line – but isn’t it the state’s job to prosecute murder? How is “not prosecuting it” even an option? Why don’t they have a state prosecutor whose job it is to enforce the law? What kind of legal tradition do they have in that country, anyway?

Advertisements

111 responses to “Pakistan, 2011, seriously

  1. Splatterbottom

    The striking thing about the Gifford killing was the rush of the ignorati to blame Palin. There claims are evidence only of their derangement.

    I can’t even begin to understand the terminal stupidity and malicious animus behind those claims. Surely respect for truth or accuracy would require that people wait until we had some understanding of the killer’s motives before spouting their sick political bile. If the shrill and ignorant want to know why politics is so bitter and divisive, they need to look long and hard at the shit-eating grin reflected back at them from their own mirrors.

    Hysterical accusations based on precisely no evidence at all are what we have become accustomed to from the coprophagic left. They are of a kind with the neanderthal wankers who blame entertainers for inspiring mass-murderer – completely stupid and deeply in love with their own vapid self-righteousness.

    Once upon a time progressives fought ignorance with truth, facts and science. Now that they have become a dominant ideology among the intellectual elite they are mired in the type of superstitious ignorance they once reviled.

    Apparently the time to apportion blame, even on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is immediately after the tragedy has occurred. The RSPCA should warn people to put chastity belts on their puppies until this plague of rabid bestial perverts is put down.

  2. If a Mafia Don muses out loud that life would be better if a troublesome police inspector, judge, or politician was no longer around, did he order the hit when one of his henchmen take matters into their own hands? Sane people say “YES!”.

    Palin, Beck, etc have blood on their hands today and they damn well know it. They didn’t aim the gun or pull the trigger, but they did name the target and suggest that life would be better without the target.

    Let the furious up-is-downism and false equivalences in this thread from right-wing apologists commence …

  3. Splatterbottom

    uniquerhys: “Palin, Beck, etc have blood on their hands today”

    You, like the other deluded moonbats putting this about, have no evidence at all to back up your claim. Even the little evidence we have is that the killer was a leftist I am not going to call you for having blood on your hands so much as shit on your brain.

  4. SB, he also read Ayn Rand and Hitler so I think we can call his political philosophy… complex. The other thing we can say is that he was a crazy moonbat of the highest order, in whichever direction.

    WRT whether the violent rhetoric qualifies as incitement, well… the investigation will shake out in whatever fashion it does.

  5. Splatterbottom

    Redravens: “the investigation will shake out in whatever fashion it does.”

    My point exactly. It is only the divisive haters who are jumping all over this and exhibiting their Palin Derangement Syndrome for all the world to see.

  6. jordanrastrick

    “The little evidence we have” seem to indicate that the perpetrator was likely suffering from psychotic delusions. That would mean he is capable of adhering simultaneously to all sorts of political stances from Left, Right, and off the axis completely, take it from me. His “new currency” ranting seems to indicate a close adherence to the views of Ron Paul more than any other current American politican; but Paul, whatever you might think of his views, is pretty reasonable and civil in most of his public rhetoric, and so can’t really be held culpable in anyway just because all most bizzaro Ayn Randian nutbags – sorry, “Objectivists” – worship the ground he walks on.

    The American political system has certainly failed as a whole when major party candidates are openly advocating “Second Amendment Remedies.” Notwithstanding for a moment whether the Jeffersonian principle of periodic armed revolution is a sensible one, the idea that America is *right now* in such crisis that people should be thinking about gunning down members of the government – and like it or not SB, there are Tea Party elements who have clearly advocated as much – indicates a dramatic problem. Because either a revolution is really needed, or its not but a sizeable number of people believe it is, which is almost as bad. The fact that the insane are the first to act out on such a belief shouldn’t really be of any surprise. And while yes, crazy people might try to gun down politicians any time for all sorts of crazy reasons, its implausible to say the probability of it doesn’t go up in the kind of political climate we currently see.

    Who’s to blame? Ideologues on both sides – I think the right are perhaps more so, but there’s no question the students who burned effigies of George W Bush or the academics who made comparisons between Republicans and Nazis have helped sow the seeds that led to where things stand. And then of course there’s the media….

    Actually, 10% unemployment is bad, but not the end of the world. America has been and is still a pretty decent place to live for most of its citizens – under administrations of both stripes in the modern era. None of the recent presidents have been “the worst in history.” The policy differences for most issues between the majority of people on both sides aren’t as big as everyone wants to make out. And there’s not really any need for people to start shooting one another. Honestly.

  7. I am incredibly uncomfortable in leaping to any conclusions in this kind of case, and I hate it when people use the deaths of others as political footballs. It’s crass. Nor does saying things like “he was a leftist, he was a rightist” prove anything (And most of us don’t fit that neatly in a box), or do any good. The main point is he was a nutter with a gun, and will be subject to a criminal investigation, in which, hopefully, we get some answers. But sometimes bad people do bad things for very little reason.

    There may be a place, at some stage, for a look into whether the escalation of rhetoric based on violent language contributed in some way at some later stage when we have more than specualtion, but this early in the piece it’s akin to saying “He read Alice in Wonderland, so clearly that’s to blame” It’s just twisting things to suit the facts.

    I am deeply uncomfortable with using words of violence or panic in political campaigns (Or shows like Glenn Becks, which the gunman apparently quoted) because I believe they are seized on far too easily by the disaffected or unstable, but it’s drawing an incredibly long bow to suggest that the “reason” someone does something is X this early in the piece. Correlation does not equal Causation.

  8. Also, I notice the Herald Sun is trying to draw a link between the shooter reading Mein Kampf and Gifford being Jewish.

  9. After the Fort Hood shooting, when a Muslim doctor shot up the place while shooting “Allahu Akbar!”, everyone in the media was very keen to make sure no one jumped to conclusions.

    No such reticence seems to appear in this case, nor any self-reflection on the Left about their own inflammatory rhetoric (Krugman, Kos, Olbermann, et al). The Democrats even did a similar “target” map a few years ago.

    It reminds me of how after a deranged communist sympathiser shot JFK, everyone rushed to blame a Goldwater supporter and the “climate of hate”. Didn’t turn out to be thus, which is why there is still such confusion over the Kennedy assassination.

    Was Reagan shot as a result of the vicious anti-Reagan rhetoric of the early 1980s?

    Just saying is all.

  10. Splatterbottom

    Funnily enough I don’t recall much outrage from the left at this rash of hatespeech.

  11. SB, Palin uses highly emotive language, as do your Becks, Hannitys and Limbaughs. Being the US, a lot of that is couched in primal, violent terms, often with gun imagery thrown in. Note, SB, that I’m not talking necessarily about the US people being somehow inherently primitive or violent (although I’m sure there’ s subcultures around the place who can be described that way), just the differing way in which the political dialogue and political history are framed.

    You or I would laugh off a lot of the stuff, partially because we’re Australian and therefore have a cultural resistance to rhetoric, partially because… you know… we’re sane. Not everyone meets that basic standard.

  12. Welll let me react right here and now, that a lot of the signs there cross the boundaries of taste and reasonableness and then go dancing off to outright offensive. Whether they cross into incitements to violence is another thing, but I’m certainly not legally qualified to adjudge that. You can find a plentiful supply of idiots at any rally for any movement, and they’re in full display there (though there’s nothing wrong with the wanted posters, for example).

    However, there is a difference between a sign at a rally and a speech by the leader(s) of a movement.

  13. Splatterbottom

    Redravens: “Palin uses highly emotive language, as do your Becks, Hannitys and Limbaughs”

    You seem to be obsessed with only half of the picture. You must have missed these and the many more like them. Or even this from the leg-thrilling Chris Matthews:

    You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch.

  14. The little evidence we have is that the killer was disturbed or mentally ill.

    There is nothing to suggest they were directly motivated by Palin.

    This doesn’t change the fact that Palin and co the right in the US are playing a very dangerous with their incitement. And it is incitement.

    But they have no monopoly on the language of violence. Obama made a joke about taking out the Jonas brthers with a predator drone.

    Very funny – then you look at the chaos now formenting (not a typo) in Pakistan.

    Maybe not.

  15. Right, let’s look at the examples cited, shall we?

    Nina Totenberg – a fifteen year-old quote for which she has repeatedly apologised. Reaching, much? And Totenberg has repeatedly apologised for the statement.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/26/130838719/totenberg-on-helms-remark-stupidest-thing-she-s-said-on-tv

    Julianne Malveaux – Yes, sixteen years ago she incited death by CHOLESTEROL POISONING! What is it with the left and fatty foods…

    Richard Cohen – Yep. Classless, although I put it more in a bracket with the PJ O’Rourke quote about “All the Kennedys were shot, but not, as some hoped, after due process of law”. I’d add I can’t find the original 1999 piece on the web, just conservative blog reposts and (interestingly) there’s a reprinted version which does not contain the quote in question. I’ve emailed the author to enquire as to its veracity.

    Craig Kilborn – Yup. A monumentally dumb throwaway gag. Nothing more to say apart from that it’s hard to view that as a call to action.

    St Petersberg Democractic Club – fundamentally wrong, and immediately jumped on by pretty much everyone. The author said that they didn’t intend it to be taken literally. Idiot.

    Alec Baldwin – FFS, it was a comedy skit in which an out-of-control Baldwin eventually gets a respirator slapped on his face by the host. Incitement to violence FAIL!

    Chris Rock – Comic riffs on violence including a tap-dancer in his “posse” to “whup” Ken Starr. News. Apparently.

    And so on and so forth…

    And sorry… where, exactly, was I being “obsessive” with only one side? Create your straw men with a little more care, SB, they may last longer.

  16. You seem to be obsessed with only half of the picture.

    Coming from someone whose entire presence here is a complete study in obsession with half the picture, that’s a bit rich.

    Funnily enough I don’t recall much outrage from the left at this rash of hatespeech.

    Funnily enough, I don’t recall much outrage from the right over this either:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

    But I guess, ironically, you’re only concerned with the left’s supposed hypocrisy, and not the right’s. Would that be fair to say?

  17. Splatterbottom

    Buns, as an unaligned moderate I take a dim view of hypocrisy from all sides. Perhaps the problem is that here there are numerous raving lefty moonbats like your good self, so my attempts to add balance often involve pointing to arguments from the other side. As far as this current Palin controversy is concerned it is the deranged rush-to-judgement haters that are unbalanced.

  18. Splatterbottom

    Redravens, my argument is that the people rushing to blame Palin have no evidence at all to back their claims. None. Even if that evidence does later appear, it will still not justify their actions. Their actions betray their malice and stupidity. They are in fact exemplars of the hateful divisive politics that they complain about.

  19. The only place you are an unaligned moderate is in your self-delusions.

  20. Hmmm… wordpress ate my blogpost. To precis: SB, can you provide evidence of your posts on a right-wing blog site demonstrating the even-handedness and hatred of hypocrisy that you claim?

    Also: There is evidence that Palin used a lot of gun-based political metaphors and that she used these metaphors to literally target her opponents. The direct causal link is, of course, difficult to prove. Then again Henry the Second doesn’t have a lot of defenders for his “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” bit…

  21. The missing link between the Taseer and Gifford story:

    Westboro Baptist Church To Picket Funerals Of Arizona Shooting Victims

    Westboro Baptist Church, the Topeka church known for its inflammatory anti-gay protests, plans to picket the funerals of the six people gunned down in Arizona on Saturday.

    In a flier posted on its web site, the controversial church writes, “THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER — 6 DEAD!” The message continues:

    God appointed this rod for your sins! God sent the shooter! This hateful nation unleashed violent veterans on the servants of God at WBC–hoping to silence our kind warning to obey God and flee the wrath to come.

    The flier claims that the shooting of both a House member and a federal judge — the latter of whom was killed — is god’s punishment for judicial and Congressional action against the WBC. “God sent the shooter to shoot you! And He’s sitting in Heaven laughing at you!” the announcement reads. […]

  22. Splatterbottom

    Redravens, I rarely comment on other blogs. This place is fun. It allows free-wheeling discussion and the people are knowledgeable and nice. This is my last comment (and only comment within the last year or so) at Bolt’s blog:

    How could Brown, within hours of the event, have used the Bali bombings (2002) to denounce the war in Iraq (2003)?
    SB (Reply)
    Wed 22 Dec 10 (08:50am)

    Sam replied to SB
    Wed 22 Dec 10 (12:42pm)
    ahahahaha, no responses there SB. They don’t like it when you show such an obvious mistake in their arguments.

    Also people seem to forge that I often agree with views expressed here.

    Also, to repeat there is no evidence at all that the mentally unstable person who shot Giffords knew anything about the map, much less that that in any caused him to act. None.

  23. Why then SB did Palin or her team take down the cross hair map immediately after the shooting became known? Even she realised that having a website literally aiming at Gifford sends the wrong signal.

  24. Not saying that you didn’t, but when you agree with us, you’re preaching to the converted, which is also what you appear to be doing over at the Bolta’s place, if in a different direction. 😉

    And I concur about this blog. Despite yours and others baiting and shit-stirring, there’s lots of civilised, principled discussions.

  25. Splatterbottom

    Juan: “Why then SB did Palin or her team take down the cross hair map immediately after the shooting became known?”

    Here is the impugned image on Palin’s facebook page. The real question is why you are parroting discredited Democrat talking points.

  26. What’s your answer to his question though?

  27. It allows free-wheeling discussion

    It definitely allows you to indulge your Tourettes and your love of abuse, if that’s what you mean by “free-wheeling discussion”. Pick any random right wing blog and abuse right wingers there the way you’ve abused left wingers in this thread (and other threads here) and see how far you get.

  28. Splatterbottom

    Buns, the answer to Juan’s question is that it is based on a false premise. Palin hasn’t removed the page. It is still there on her Facebook page – see the link in my previous post.

  29. Splatterbottom

    Buns, it is true, this blog is way less likely to censor discussion. This is good because differences can be put into stark relief, the better to get to the truth of the matter. Echo chamber blogs are much more likely to boot dissidents, as their main purpose is to build a community of mindless morons. Daily Kos is a case in point. On the other hand, this is a blog where people can freely put their views, even if they are dissenting views, and engage in healthy debate. I have been booted from a few blogs in my time, both left and right, but here the company is good and the conversation interesting.

  30. That said, SB, I do occasionally – when sorely provoked – boot commenters who insist on making smarmy personal attacks (don’t see why I should publish defamation – particularly when I’m the target), or complaining about moderation decisions, or just being dickheads.

    But I’m more than happy to publish the views of people disagreeing with arguments I’ve put.

  31. Palin hasn’t removed the page.

    SB, for future reference, it pays to do some research before making absolute statements like that. Click and follow the link and you’ll find out that she has removed her page http://www.takebackthe20.com, the site centred around her campaign slogan and prominently featuring the map, including her motto “Do not retreat! Instead – reload.”

    Now, why would she have removed that page SB? And this time when answering see if you can do so without wrapping it in dull platitudes. They do get boring.

  32. Splatterbottom

    Juan it looks like the whole “Take back the 20” site is down – quite likely because it has served its purpose now the election is over. If, as you seem to want to imply, Palin wanted to get rid of the map, why would she leave it on her own Facebook page in plain sight? Seems to me if anyone took the “Take back the 20” page down to get rid of the map, it wasn’t Palin.

    Personally, I think the whole ‘Palin has blood on her hands’ thing is beat-up. The only thing it has revealed is the stinking hypocrisy of the deranged Palin bashers, rounding on their prey like a pack of rabid dogs without even one shred of evidence of a connection between the map and the shooting. I suppose it gives these pissant point-scoring poltroons some feeling of relevance no matter how vile and stupid it makes them look. Why on earth not wait until the evidence is in? And whatever happened to the idea of not using the moment of a tragedy as an occasion to score political points?

  33. This is all very hard to take in. Can you blame rhetoric with a gun theme when it was really just an attempt to rally the inner stupid gun loving americans? I don’t honestly know. I do know that America badly needs a few more strong political parties to avoid this Dems vs. Republican black and white good and evil style of hate politics.

  34. One of those two parties is “good”? 😉

  35. “Personally, I think the whole ‘Palin has blood on her hands’ thing is beat-up.”

    It is mighty convenient that people who inflame the political situation with violent rhetoric always claim to be innocent whenever someone takes them at their word and acts out the fantasy. Cause and effect. Look it up.

  36. >>Redravens, my argument is that the people rushing to blame Palin have no evidence at all to back their claims. None. Even if that evidence does later appear, it will still not justify their actions. Their actions betray their malice and stupidity. They are in fact exemplars of the hateful divisive politics that they complain about.<<

    I've spent most of the day arguing something similar.

    As of yet no proof.

    That doesn't change the fact that Palin's rhetoric in the context of the tea bagging rallies is effectively trolling for this shit to happen.

    WE all expected something like this, and the only thing that lets Palin and co (all the rest, not just Palin) off the hook is that cos the universe is a perverse place sometimes, as of yet there's a chance the tea party has nothing to do with this.

    Which doesn't let them off the hook at all, becasue even if this wasn't due to the tea party the next one probably will be.

  37. The takebackthe20 site was removed hours after the Arizona shooting, interpret that as you want.

    why would she leave it on her own Facebook page in plain sight?

    Who knows, maybe that’s the next page she’ll delete. I don’t have a facebook account, so I don’t know if it actually is possible to remove entries with some 19’ooo comments to it.

    The only thing it has revealed is the …stinking ….deranged … pack of rabid dogs … pissant point-scoring poltroons s … vile and stupid it makes them look.

    That went through to the keeper.

    And whatever happened to the idea of not using the moment of a tragedy as an occasion to score political points?

    Aren’t you yourself using this tragedy to land some cheap shots (see your drivel above)?

  38. Acting true to form the right bloggers have once again jumped to the defence of their red neck associates and taken their customary whack at the left in the process. After all, the red neck right have wisdom cornered don’t they?

    Anyone who has been to the US recently will know of the proliferation of pseudo journalists of the extreme right who appear regularly on radio and television. Their modus operandi is to inflame and incite. Is it any wonder when you preach hate and act as a channel for the vile elements in the Tea Party you run the risk of someone who is unstable acting on that hatred?

    How sad it is that so few journalists and publishers now give a tinkers cuss about the accurate presentation of news and the fair presentation of views

    I’m with the Professor of Linguistics from the University of California (George Lakoff) who recently wrote in Politico.com:

    “The Republicans who benefited from violent political confrontations and cross-hair language, who did not speak out and use their influence forcefully against it, bear full responsibility. Whatever John Boehner now says, he bears responsibility.

    The tea party leaders gave explicit instructions on how to angrily disrupt public political meetings. Tea party rallies not only displayed violent signs, but rally leaders did not discourage them, and hence tacitly approved them.

    As conservatives like to say, you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

    This was tea party murder.

    We should not shrink from calling it that.”

  39. Splatterbottom

    Uniquerhys: “It is mighty convenient that people who inflame the political situation with violent rhetoric always claim to be innocent whenever someone takes them at their word and acts out the fantasy. Cause and effect. Look it up.”

    Your attribution of cause and effect has no basis in this case. All the evidence we have is that this is the work of a psychologically disturbed person. Unfortunately, unlike the gunman, you are not a lone nutter. The one lesson of this whole episode is that there is an abundance of mendacious moonbats drooling for blood so they can make their petty political points.

    Jules: “Which doesn’t let them off the hook at all, becasue even if this wasn’t due to the tea party the next one probably will be”.

    Sorry to see you are among the sick fucks exploiting this tragedy for political gain. Not surprised that you can only recognise violent rhetoric on one side.

    Juan: “Aren’t you yourself using this tragedy to land some cheap shots (see your drivel above)?”

    No. I am merely calling out those ethically challenged imbeciles who do.

    Autonomy 1:“As conservatives like to say, you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

    This was tea party murder.”

    There is not one shred of evidence to support this. None whatsoever. However, it is true that people who make such statements have no concept of logic or decency.

  40. Splatterbottom

    The sanest comment on this thread:

    I am incredibly uncomfortable in leaping to any conclusions in this kind of case, and I hate it when people use the deaths of others as political footballs. It’s crass. Nor does saying things like “he was a leftist, he was a rightist” prove anything (And most of us don’t fit that neatly in a box), or do any good. The main point is he was a nutter with a gun, and will be subject to a criminal investigation, in which, hopefully, we get some answers. But sometimes bad people do bad things for very little reason.

  41. I suppose it gives these pissant point-scoring poltroons some feeling of relevance no matter how vile and stupid it makes them look.

    Far more than just a ‘feeling’ SB. The US mainstream news was juxtaposing images of the shooting with Palin’s famous “Don’t retreat, reload” speech only hours after the tragedy had occurred.

    You can despise those who have linked the two all you like (and we all know how well you do ‘despising’), but the fact is that this has already hurt Palin’s political position enormously. The great centrist mass, who you occasionally claim to embrace, now have their proof: Palin is a nut whose violent rhetoric endangers civil American society.

    I’m quite a fan of Palin, inasmuch as she appears to honestly represent a real segment of American voters, but I do think that she has brought this damage upon herself. If you want to use violent gun-based rhetoric to promote your politics and spit in the face of ‘liberals’ then it’s a bit pathetic to whine about it when those words come back to haunt you (in exactly the way it was predicted they would).

  42. Splatterbottom

    Shorter Mondo – “I gloat about the triumph of lies and distortion over logic and decency”.

  43. “This doesn’t change the fact that Palin and co the right in the US are playing a very dangerous with their incitement. And it is incitement.

    But they have no monopoly on the language of violence. Obama made a joke about taking out the Jonas brthers with a predator drone.

    Very funny – then you look at the chaos now formenting (not a typo) in Pakistan.”

    – me way upthread

    “Jules: “Which doesn’t let them off the hook at all, becasue even if this wasn’t due to the tea party the next one probably will be”.

    Sorry to see you are among the sick fucks exploiting this tragedy for political gain. Not surprised that you can only recognise violent rhetoric on one side.”

    -You SB, just before.

    How about you pull your head out of your bum.

    Then you can use your eyes to read what I actually wrote.

  44. I actually do enjoy watching Palin and her supporters reaping what they have sown.

    But I’m a bit disappointed that this will probably end Palin’s presidential chances. I really wanted to see that catastrophe unfold.

  45. Mondo, I don’t like Palin’s policies any more than you do, but saying there is “proof” of anything at this stage just isn’t true. I know this is going to be etched on my tombstone, but seriously: Correlation does not equal causation.

    Palin saying using violent language is her campaigns and then someone doing something violent doesn’t equal cause and effect. It’s not enough that she loves guns and said things using gun language and this guy used a gun.

    It’s like the supposed link between people viewing porn and committing sex crimes. People who commit sex crimes are more likely to view porn, but that doesn’t mean that porn CAUSES them to become a sex offender. It means that one of the proclivities of sex offenders is the use of porn. Porn use is a feature, not a cause.

    In the same way, after a statistically significant study (NOT after one isolated incident before we even have evidence) you may be able to say that right-wingers are more likely to own a gun. Does being a right-winger CAUSE them to own a gun? No. It’s a feature, not a cause.

    See the difference?

  46. I know this is going to be etched on my tombstone, but seriously: Correlation does not equal causation.

    What… just because you’re buried, lying down and decomposing doesn’t mean you’re dead? 😉

  47. Splatterbottom

    Jules, what you actually wrote was: “Which doesn’t let them off the hook at all, becasue even if this wasn’t due to the tea party the next one probably will be”

    This is an incredibly stupid statement. It is biased – why the Tea Party rather than, say, Obama urging his supporters to “bring a gun”? It is also at best an uneducated guess. If the next one is anything like this case, it will be the actions of a demented fool obsessed by a crazed theory about conscience dreaming.

  48. “What… just because you’re buried, lying down and decomposing doesn’t mean you’re dead?”

    Hahahaha! Well, the presence of a tombstone doesn’t prove demise. People whos bodies are never recovered frequently have tombstones.

    (Yes, I know. Smart-arse. But still)

  49. Mondo, I don’t like Palin’s policies any more than you do, but saying there is “proof” of anything at this stage just isn’t true.

    You’ve misunderstood my comment Keri – I don’t believe that the gunman was influenced by Palin and haven’t claimed any such thing.

    What I said was that, with the media’s (appropriate in my view) juxtaposition of Palin’s language with the incident itself, the American perople have all the proof they need (I probably should have used scare quotes around “proof” to make my meaning clearer). She’s been irrevocably linked to the shooting – something she has invited upon herself in my opinion – and that’s all that really matters.

    From a political perspective the issue of whether the gunman really was influenced by Palin is now irrelevant.

    And yes – SB is right – it’s very gratifying to see the Palinites and Fox news crowd pouting and whining about how unfair this all is given their reckless use of militaristic propoganda and their unbelievably dishonest manipulation of the media for the last several years.

  50. It’s an interesting question as to whether the actions of single people can be attributed to hate speech. For groups, I think it’s a bit clearer cut. Someone like Ali Bakar Bashir fairly clearly influences groups to commit crimes. You can also make the argument that the nuttier fundies in the US clearly influence gay-bashings, etc.

    One poster on another blog went through all the presidential (and congressional) assailants, ticking each off as “Lone nutter”, whcih is true enough. However, the wrong meme in the wrong neuron at the wrong time can set people off on pretty destructive paths, though.

    Think Charlie Manson and the Beatles White Album. Palin’s rhetoric uses more violent metaphors than the Beatles, it has to be said, but the principle is the same.

  51. Splatterbottom

    Sounds like you are trying your own hand at (self) gratification, Mondo.

    Your celebration of political point-scoring over reasoned argument is a telling example of the moral and mental debasement that flows from the adoption of the pack mentality of a political tribe.

  52. Or, to bring an antipodean slant to the above, Alan Jones and Cronulla.

  53. @Mondo

    reckless use of militaristic propoganda

    Not all of their gun porn is militaristic.

    Cheers.

  54. Let’s not just become fixated on Palin. I think she’ll end up as merely as a footnote in American history – if that. It’s the whole hateful red neck rightwing media that spews hatred almost 24/7 that has a case to answer.

    Noone is suggesting there aren’t other significant issues at play here. However, to suggest unbalanced people aren’t affected in any way by this day-in day-out vitriol is naïve. It’s time for the extreme right of the conservative movement to rethink the dangerous rhetoric.

  55. Roger Ailes, the cretin that heads up Fox News has, in the wake of the political assassination in Tuscon, told his commentators on Fox to “shut up, tone it down” and “make your argument intellectually”

    I wonder why he would be prompted to make such a statement?
    Still, I reckon Fox Infotainment personalities will be able to manage to comply with only two of those directives.

    Cheers

  56. LOL – which convenient ‘tribe’ do I belong to now SB?

    Palin’s gun-totin’ go-get-em rhetoric against Democratic politicians has now been very publicly held up against an assassination attempt on a Democrat by a gun-totin’ go-get-em lunatic. Only a complete moron would have failed to see this coming (a descriptor that, unfortunately for her, appears to fit Palin quite well).

    By this point the question of whether there is an actual link is completely irrelevant. Even if there is a direct link Palin would still be entitled to say what she’s said (it is, after all, contitutionally protected speech).

    What is relevant is the political ramifications of this shooting. And as much as your heroes at Fox spin, squirm and squeal about it, Sarah Palin’s Presidential run, and public credibility, have just taken a huge hit.

    As I have already pointed out this is nothing more than her chickens coming home to roost. But you feel free to keep on howling at that moon.

  57. Sorry to bother. How do I cancel getting comments on this thread sent to my email? There are LOTS and I read them but don’t need them on my phone, too. Thanks!

  58. Mondo, the tribe of “not-we”, which is SB’s default definition of posters to this blog.

  59. Great photo of Beck, Marek.

    I love the comment underneath: “Glenn Beck, proof that eating paint chips causes brain damage.”

    It’s difficult to express how little regard I have for that man and his boosters.

  60. LOL – which convenient ‘tribe’ do I belong to now SB?

    You disagreed with an unaligned moderate. What other explanation can there be for that? Obviously, if you weren’t a member of one of the tribes, then you would agree with SB on literally everything.

  61. Kranki – I think you must’ve selected something like “email me replies to my comment”. Is there a link at the bottom of the emails to unsubscribe?

  62. I think it’s sorted. Sorry to interrupt the angry and civil debating. GAME ON!

  63. In other news, the Pakistan part of the post.

  64. Yup. As I said earlier, Pakistan is a pretty sad place not just for Atheists, Christians, Hindus, Feminists, Homosexuals, Shi’ite Muslims, Moderate Muslims and women, but also for lawyers with a skerrick of professionalism and a desire to see the law enforeced and justice done.

  65. Or, indeed, as I’d meant to say…

  66. Pakistan in 2011 = bunch of utter lunatics with no respect for the principles of liberty, justice or freedom.

    What more is there to say really? Unless Shabs wants to throw in one of his strawmen about how surprised he is to see a Lefty criticising Islam.

  67. Bit sweeping there, Mondo. The utterness of the loonies is not in doubt, however. Bloody Jinnah.

  68. It was a bit sweeping red – fair call.

    It’s just that, from what I’ve read anyway, I can’t see how it can climb out of this hole.

  69. Just been reading “Lost in Transmission” by Jonathan Harley, it’s his memoir of his time as the ABC’s correspondent for South Asia, including Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. He’s equally pessimistic about Pakistan, just the scale of the corruption, poverty and Islamic radicalism. He notes, however, that the madrassas are there in lieu of any public education, and the Pakistani government has long had a nod-and-wink relationship with the Islamists (used against Russians = good, used against the US = bad). Add to this the large areas of tribal Pakistan which have only nominally been a part of the Islamic state and the immensely stupid resources Pakistan pours into Kashmir, as well as a contstant state of near-war with India and you’ve got a state that’s almost set up to fail.

  70. Just read through this post. SB, I’ve seen you take up some pretty preposterous positions over the years and defend them to the death, but this one takes the cake. Possibly the only thing that can be said in your favour is that you haven’t commented for five hours. Perhaps you do have some shame after all.

  71. Splatterbottom

    One problem is that many people believe that Islam is not only a personal matter for them, but is also a political solution to the world’s problems, and that sharia law is the only law society needs.

    The problem for the rest of us is to convince them that the imposition of sharia law, either in whole or in part is itself an abuse of the rights of others. The situation is not helped by the UN Human Rights Council which will not, in the interests of comity, hear submissions about breaches of human rights occurring under sharia law.

    Clearly in Pakistan there are a substantial number of people who believe that the blasphemy law should be abolished, but sadly they run significant personal risks by even speaking out. The power of fanatics to intimidate others from even debating the issues is a significant hindrance to reform.

    Supporters of human rights need to speak out loudly about these issues to show support for those suffering under the yoke of these inhumane laws.

  72. Yeah, fair enough Mondo.

    SB – why are you so one-eyed? In your own country the religious nutters want their belief system imposed on the rest of us. It’s just that if they’re Christians you don’t seem to mind.

  73. Splatterbottom

    Don’t be like that, bloods. The general thrust of my argument is sound, namely that the attempts to pin the blame on Palin are ignorant and indecent. This is a classic case of using a tragedy to score a few political points. Even Mondo seems to recognise this.

  74. This is nothing of the kind, SB. As Giffords herself said months ago, this kind of vicious rhetoric has consequences. I’d love to see you at her bedside, arguing the case you are putting here. These people need to be brought to account, and Palin has been responsible for a hefty proprtion of this ugly turn in American politics.

    Clearly you have no shame.

  75. Splatter, I can cope with your blinkered comments by your condescending attitude toward other posters is starting to piss me off.

  76. It’s hard not to condescend when you’re SB. Give the guy a break.

  77. Yes, get used to it, autonomy1. If you were superior, you’d be talking down to us too.

    This is a classic case of using a tragedy to score a few political points.

    Too hard for a partisan right winger like yourself to stomach the concept that some people might just want the violent rhetoric of US conservatives to end, because it contributes to a charged political environment in which these kinds of tragedies are more likely to occur.

  78. Correction: partisan centrist rationalist Catholic right winger.

  79. Love the irony 05.

    I’m assuming you aren’t indulging in irony 3000. Playing the man and not the ball is pseudo superiority.

    Seems your attempt at getting the thread ‘on topic’ has failed Jeremy. How about a considered piece from you on the Gabrielle Gifford tragedy.

  80. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy: “In your own country the religious nutters want their belief system imposed on the rest of us. It’s just that if they’re Christians you don’t seem to mind.”

    WTF??? I have consistently argued that private belief systems have no place in the public square and that the role of the state is to maximise individual liberty so that people can be free to choose their own lifestyle. This is precisely the reason I support marriage equality for example. I have consistently supported your view that a majority does not have the right to legislate their own morality.

    The fact is that I am neither one-eyed nor condescending. Perhaps I use a little bit of sharp language to get straight to the point rather than hedging around, but merely disagreeing with others is not being condescending.

    The simple fact is that in spite of there being absolutely no evidence of a connection between Palin and the shooting, this tragedy has been seized by partisan droogs for their own political advantage.

    And isn’t it funny that people who can only see fault with conservatives call me one-eyed for pointing out similar grotesqueries on the other.

    Buns: ” some people might just want the violent rhetoric of US conservatives to end, because it contributes to a charged political environment in which these kinds of tragedies are more likely to occur.”

    I can understand that people may want violent rhetoric to end. But to want only the violent rhetoric of conservatives to end is blatant partisan ratbaggery. There is no basis for suggesting that the political environment contributed to the actions of the nutjob killer. The evidence points to an irrational grievance that formed in the mind of the lunatic long before Palin published her map. Your pathetic argument shows that you are no more rational than he is.

    And it was only a couple of weeks ago Bolt was lambasted for trying to attribute blame at the time of a tragic drowning of refugees. Funnily enough I haven’t heard a peep from those critics this time around. Stinking hypocrisy anyone?

  81. “One problem is that many people believe that Islam is not only a personal matter for them, but is also a political solution to the world’s problems, and that sharia law is the only law society needs.”

    The same could be said about ANY fringe lunatic group. As we have very recent proof, a loony is a loony. People blow shit up or shoot people because they’re batshit insane, not because they’re Muslim, or Christian, right wing, left wing, Tea Party…. People find justification for anything they want to do that is mad in any piece of text. People have been doing that since time immemorial.

    And I’d dispute the “many” bit. By the same imprecise logic, “Many” Christians think it’s okay to blow up abortion clinics, or shoot abortion doctors. The loudest and blowy-upiest are not representative of the majority of either Christianity or Islam.

  82. Your pathetic argument shows that you are no more rational than he is. Yes, I’m sure it will surprise no-one when I go on a major killing-spree at my local shopping centre. People will then point to my previous post in this thread as a sure sign that I was on the verge of a murderous rampage.

    Which argument of mine are you referring to? Please be specific. Thanks.

  83. Splatterbottom

    The argument you presented as follows:

    some people might just want the violent rhetoric of US conservatives to end, because it contributes to a charged political environment in which these kinds of tragedies are more likely to occur.

  84. “… some people might just want the violent rhetoric of US conservatives to end, because it contributes to a charged political environment in which these kinds of tragedies are more likely to occur.”

    Looks a very sound argument to me, SB, and a lot more nuanced than your earlier characterisation of it as crudely alleging that Palin was personally responsible for people being killed.

    Somehow you find a connection between this argument and Bolt’s despicable attribution of responsibility for the deaths of refugees. This is ridiculous. Some tragedies are just awful, sad events, like the floods in Qld. No-one to blame, nothing to be done except to clean up after the event, support the victims and survivors as best we can, and learn some lessons for next time. Others are clearly connected with the actions and attitudes of people, like gun crimes in the US, where they are far more prevalent than comparable countries with tighter gun laws.

    This tragedy was a political act. The perpetrator was probably deranged. His political beliefs were incoherent, but not noticeably more so than some of these Tea Party idiots. His main target appears to have been a congresswoman who was reviled by Palin and her supporters. Palin herself identified her as a “target”, which may be unremarkable in itself, except that it was accompanied by some very explicit imagery, and was part of a broader campaign in which such imagery, and a lot worse, was commonplace. Furthermore, Giffords herself made what now seem particularly prophetic remarks about Palin’s rhetoric.

    What we are dealing with here are people who have no respect for their political opponents. They remind me of that favourite dictum of the Office of the Holy Inquisition: “Error has no rights.” They believe that if the force of their arguments does not carry the day, it is reasonable to use physical force. If you don’t believe me, look at these pictures and tell me how else they might be interpreted: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37870_What_Violent_Right_Wing_Rhetoric

    I am genuinely astonished, SB, that you see fit to defend these people and to discount the link between their political metaphors and the behaviour of those who support them, however mixed and demented their motivations may be.

  85. I see. Well, I’m willing to give Palin the benefit of the doubt, because she (and anyone who would work for her) is dumb enough not to consider the wisdom of putting crosshairs on a map to indicate the location of Democrats that need to be defeated, and how that might be construed given her well-known predilection for shootin’ and killin’.

    But, in case you missed it, here is Sharron Angle’s comment:

    “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

    Now, I’m sorry to say only a complete partisan – such as yourself – or someone majorly challenged in the comprehension department could conclude other than that the types of things that took place in Arizona on Saturday are more likely to occur when you have politicians (of either stripe) coming out with these sorts of comments.

  86. Looks like I have to wait to get moderated before I can discuss this with you SB.

  87. Splatterbottom

    I figured you were setting me up for something buns, but as usual took the bait.

  88. Psychiatrist Frank Ochberg, M.D. and Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Dart Center, in a Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma piece entitled Covering Mass Killings, under the heading “Culture matters”, wrote:

    Even psychotic or severely disturbed individuals react to the themes, language and images of popular culture.

  89. Don’t quote Shapiro autonomy1, SB will sniff a lefty.

  90. Splatterbottom

    Autonomy1, this line of argument is as insane as that put forward by the fundies who want to blame heavy metal for mass murder.

    The attack on Palin in this case is merely another example of Rahm Emmanuel’s dictum of ‘never letting a tragedy go to waste. The left are playing partisan games, dancing on the graves of the victims. There is not one skerrick of logic or decency in their claims.

    If they were at all sincere they would recognise that all sides of politics use overblown rhetoric, and that Obama’s “we bring a gun” exhortation is, if anything worse than Palin’s map with targets, or that the democrat maps with target markings were much the same, or even that hatemonger Kos’s statement that giffords was “DEAD to me” (caps in original) was pretty bad.

    In this case there is some good reporting at Mother Jones (sniff a lefty bloods?). It seems that Loughner was schizophrenic. He had apparently developed his animus to Giffords long before Palin came onto the national scene. So, at the moment we should stick with mental illness as the likely cause. We might then look at how the mentally ill are cared for, or whether if he had been held to account for his previous death threats, Loughner would have received better treatment or would have been unable to buy a gun.

    Now if you really believe culture matters, how far are you going limit free speech to get a more suitable culture? Are you going to start burning books and banning records, or censor any shows which glamorise violence or make people angry? Have your vaunted shrinks done a study restricted to the effects of political rhetoric on mass-murderers, or are they just blowing smoke?

    And if people are against angry political rhetoric, why just attack Palin and the Tea Party? That really gives the game away doesn’t it? Turning tragedy into political point-scoring disgusts me.

    As regards political tone in general, John Stewart has a good idea:

    There’s a difference between disagreeing with people, like newscasters on Fox News that I think are incorrect in their analysis of the days events, and people that threaten to kill you for putting a cartoon image of Mohammad in a bear suit [which is what “South Park” did]. And that’s a line that we too often forget. And it’s very easy to dehumanize — and I will say in this room, I would imagine [Glenn] Beck and [Sarah] Palin are easier punching bags — and we think of it as, ‘Oh, my God, I’m so scared if they take over.’ . . . And you know what, we will be fine. . . .

    At least he isn’t just lecturing one part of the political spectrum.

  91. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “only a complete partisan – such as yourself – or someone majorly challenged in the comprehension department could conclude other than that the types of things that took place in Arizona on Saturday are more likely to occur when you have politicians (of either stripe) coming out with these sorts of comments.”

    At least now you are not blaming only one side. But where is the evidence for that, anyway? It may well be that if mentally ill people are influenced by violence in culture, toning down political rhetoric alone will not make much difference, but then again you are probably more familiar with lunatic thoughts than I am. 🙂

  92. I found this article about Arizona quite interesting.

    For the future of G.O.P. governance, look to Arizona

  93. Splatterbottom

    Brilliant Juan! Thank you for linking to that partisan diatribe. It explains nothing, and carefully ignores the facts.

    Arizona has its resources sapped by massive illegal immigration and the concomitant infiltration of criminal gangs and drug-smugglers. This is mainly to stroke the hubris of wanking leftists who live in other wealthier states.

  94. Splatterbottom

    Bad luck Mondo. Most people see through the vile leftist exploitation of this tragedy. It seems that that poll was more broadly based than our ABC poll of its benighted partisan audience.

  95. At least now you are not blaming only one side.

    FFS. I’m not “blaming” any “side”. What is it with the right and its obsession with sides?

    But where is the evidence for that, anyway?

    Honestly. Angle talks about people using “2nd amendment remedies” as being legitimate. She’s saying it may come to a point where people take guns and use violence against their elected representatives. That’s not twisting her words in any way. Any responsible political party would have expelled her immediately. The GOP, on the other hand, tacitly endorses her comment by failing to expel her.

    And her comment comes in the context of loads of other violent anti-Government comment from complete sickos like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And now with the crosshairs map, Jesse Kelly’s “come on down and shoot an M16 – get on target to remove Giffords”, Palin’s “don’t retreat – reload!” slogan, etc etc. If you cannot accept the obvious – that actual violence against politicians is more likely to occur in the context of those things – then truly you are even more partisan than I thought.

    We are talking about the current political environment in the US, to which I’m pretty sure some poor taste gags by a couple of comedians 6 years ago hasn’t contributed a great deal. Again with the false equivalency from conservatives.

  96. Back to Pakistan, one problem is that the public discourse is totally tainted (which sort of brings it back to the Gifford shooting n a roundabout way). The fact that you can actually have scenes where such a blatant murderer (yes, I’m not using the word alleged, as I don’t quite think it’s appropriate) can actually be publically feted in the way that Qadri has been shows that political violence is an acceptable part of public life. For all the disdain and disgust I have for the extremism of Westboro Baptist Church or Catch the Fire, they’re fringe groups with little influence on the public. The same can’t be said for their Pakistani equivalents (of course, their closeness to the nation’s security services doesn’t hurt their ability to preach extremism in public).

  97. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “If you cannot accept the obvious – that actual violence against politicians is more likely to occur in the context of those things – then truly you are even more partisan than I thought.”

    It is far from obvious that such statements had anything to do with Loughner’s killing spree. But that didn’t stop the political vultures dancing on the graves of the dead, exploiting this tragedy to score political points.

    And putting forward arguments like this:

    “some people might just want the violent rhetoric of US conservatives to end, because it contributes to a charged political environment in which these kinds of tragedies are more likely to occur.”

    gives lie to your assertion that you are not blaming any side.

    Redravens, at least the Pakistani case makes plain the religious motivation behind jihad murder. It is a nice study in hypocrisy to contrast the irrational approach of blaming Palin for the acts of a psychopath without even a shred of evidence while beseeching people not to jump to conclusions every time a jihadist commits some murderous act.

  98. SB, I wasn’t actually supporting your point. I’m sorry if you took it that way.

  99. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “We are talking about the current political environment in the US, to which I’m pretty sure some poor taste gags by a couple of comedians 6 years ago hasn’t contributed a great deal. “

    You mean comedians like Obama (“we bring guns”), Kos (“Giffords is DEAD to me”) or Chris Matthews (“we’ll be there to watch”).

  100. Splatterbottom

    Redravens my first point explains why the Pakistani fanatics are not fringe groups – in this case they are acting in accordance with mainstream Islamic teaching when they oppose the abolition of blasphemy laws. I was merely supporting the distinction you made. My second point was just another example of leftist hypocrisy. I didn’t expect you to agree with that even though it is bleedingly obvious.

  101. You continually miss the point Splatter. The point made by the qualified medical specialist was that contrary to the view of one or two here “psychotic or severely disturbed individuals react to the themes, language and images of popular culture.” I wasn’t particularly drawing attention to the Gifford case here, merely pointing to a valid well qualified medical practitioner whose clear view is that language can have an adverse affect on disturbed people.

    It’s easy to pick a comment here and there from someone to support your case. The fact is it is the exception for Obama to speak in vitriolic terms whereas it is the practice of people like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and any number of Fox broadcasters.

    What you failed to mention in your comments by John Stewart was his remark that “You don’t know what a troubled mind will get caught on.” Dangerous rhetoric has the potential to cause harm. Whether it’s a tragedy like that which happened to Gabrielle Gifford or lower level violence that is all too common these days – your blinkered view notwithstanding.

  102. Look, SB, I can’t help you if you can’t tell the difference between this:

    “… some people might just want the violent rhetoric of US conservatives to end, because it contributes to a charged political environment in which these kinds of tragedies are more likely to occur.”

    and “blaming” conservatives for what happened in Arizona.

    And I’ve already said that violent rhetoric from either side ought to end. The reason I mentioned “conservatives” above is that it is conservative politicians currently engaging in it, your lame attempts at equivalency notwithstanding, and we were talking about the current political climate in the US.

  103. Hmmm, don’t know what happened to the coding there. I didn’t have all that in italics.

  104. It explains nothing, and carefully ignores the facts.

    To a GOP fanatic like yourself that might be the case. But unless the authors praises right wing nuttery, you SB will always regurgitate the same lame tired expressions to discredit them. Thats what you do, its your sole purpose of showing up here at Lefty’s. The fact that you are able to write comments means your wheel is spinning but SB I am afraid to tell you, your hamster looks dead.

    For your benefit, from now on I will mention (in brackets) with every link for you SB not to click it as its contents might exceed your mental capacity.

    Like this cartoon (SB, don’t click it, could blow your fuse)

  105. Things aren’t looking good in Pakistan.

    This latest surge of extremism can be traced back to Zia’s reign. He was the one who encouraged young jihadists to go to Afghanistan, and the miliatary have since continued to use jihadist Islam as a tool for support.

    I was just reading something the other day, where an older generation (in his 50’s) lawyer was saying that they just don’t understand this latest generation and their reverence for such things as the blasphemy laws, and he was saying this as someone who considered himsef an Islamist.

  106. Buns, I think you might have broken the blog!

  107. Splatterbottom

    I suspected that Buns is a cyberterrorist all along.

  108. did that work?

  109. Doh! Buns, you vandal…..

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s