Top Menu

Open Thread Sunday: JihadWatch Zombie Eric Allen Bell Curious About the “Pros” and “Cons” of Nukin’ Mecca

"Can I haz cheeeezeburger?"

Every now and then an anti-Muslim Islamophobe wonders about the exigency of nuking Mecca and or Medina when he really means to want to destroy the sacred cities. To destroy Mecca and Medina has been an ardent desire of Islamophobes for centuries, harking back to at least the Crusades, if not earlier.

In a recent manifestation of such desire we have Jihadwatch zombie Eric Allen Bell (aka Eric Edborg) masking a call to nuke Mecca in a “question.” Who actually wonders about the “pros” and “cons” of “nuking Mecca” except someone who actually wants to do it?

Notice the lovely responses from those in Bell’s little echo chamber of hate. Bell didn’t repudiate any of these gung-ho nuke Mecca advocates. Most people responded by either saying such a move would not be practical or in fact coming to realize that Bell had gone “too far this time.” Many of these comments were deleted by Bell.

A significant chunk of comments actually looked something like the following however:

It seems clear to me that Bell has always had some sort of deep seated hatred and antipathy towards the “other.” One doesn’t wake up suddenly and ponder the merits of nuking the holy city of one of the oldest and largest religions in the world unless there is something deeply wrong with you.

, , , , , , , , , ,

    • Garibaldi

      This “open thread” has degenerated.

    • Just Stopping By

      @Garibaldi: I understand that BA can be grating, but I think that the suggestion that he is bullying, and certainly to the degree that he might be banned, is a bit much.

      While I recognize that BA can be annoyingly persistent and likes to think that once he presents his/her view, that view should be treated as if it has been proven to be the correct one, I think that those flaws pale beside what else we see here. And by here, I mean that I believe that you have noted much more strident bullying in this very thread, snipped someone in another thread today, and I believe that I saw a comment apparently endorsing genocide posted and then deleted a few hours ago on yet another thread. Compared to that, saying that someone is misrepresenting facts seems quite mild.

      I found a poster who addressed me recently but who I thought was rude, ignorant, and biased. So, I ignored the person. That seemed to work quite well. I suggest that that is a much better response than arguing about bullying.

    • Garibaldi

      With the above said, I don’t hope I came off as too harsh or anything.

      I generally appreciate BA, he has given us valuable tips in the past, and though I disagree with some of his positions and the way he puts them forward, I do hope we can be agreeably disagreeable, though this hasn’t been the case always or at least recently it seems.

    • Garibaldi

      @JSB, I actually edited my comment before viewing yours, but I will point out that I never indicated that BA is the only one who has done this. All of us likely stand accused of such a thing at one point or another. Also as I wrote in the last comment I believe that none of us come from some completely objective view, but the difference is that some actually admit to this while others don’t.

      Lastly, Ilisha, from what I can read here doesn’t have any qualms with truly debating BA except that it seems to be a fruitless endeavor, mostly to do with nitpicking little details that are then described as “mischaracterizations” with other loaded language accompanying such claims. I can sympathize with that, she doesn’t want to waste her time.

  • Just Stopping By

    @Ilisha, BA, Garibaldi: Is this a private dispute, or can anyone join in?

Powered by Loon Watchers