From the WSJ’s “Best of the Web”

The Scotsman has an explanation for the murder in Iraq of journalist Steven Vincent. See if you can finish this sentence:

An American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who . . .

. . . had been worn down by grinding poverty?

. . . were angry over Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs?

. . . resented the presence in their country of foreign troops?

. . . sought to avenge the abuses at Abu Ghraib?

If you said any of the above, you’re wrong. Here’s the full sentence:

"An American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who knew he was intending to marry his Muslim interpreter, it has emerged."

That’s right, Steven Vincent was killed to prevent him from intermarrying. Those Westerners who side with the “Iraqi resistance” against America and its allies are defending the equivalent of the murder of Emmett Till.

So, the next time some granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested leftie tells you that the reason the Arabs “hate us” is because of [insert grave insult of the day], feel free to kick him in the nuts.

First of all, yes, the extremists who killed him are thoroughly sick.

Secondly, kicking somebody in the nuts for expressing an opinion, even if it is incorrect, is rarely the most effective way of proving them wrong, unless you want to make yourself out to be incapable of discussing without resorting to violence.

Thirdly, the way you are reasoning seems to indicate that it is more correct that the Middle-Eastern religious fanatics who attacked WTC, did so because they thought everybody inside were marrying Arab interpreters, and not because they were ticked off about American foreign policy and cultural influence.

Sorry if that sounds flippant, but your logic here really escapes me. There is no defense for such heinous acts and warped thinking as displayed by these Shiites (if the alleged reasons are true), but do you really think what you seem to imply, that most ARABS agree that it is ok to kill people for marrying the wrong person?

Also, note the phrasing of the sentence: "...it has emerged...", sufficiently vague - is this alleged reason confirmed or just a rumour?

Who cares why he was killed? He was killed that's all we need to know. They killed him, so, what possible reason, other than self-defence which I doubt, could justitfy their actions?

So, the next time some granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested leftie tells you that the reason the Arabs “hate us” is because of [insert grave insult of the day], feel free to kick him in the nuts. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm amazed that you admit that granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested lefties have balls.

So, the next time some granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested leftie tells you that the reason the Arabs “hate us” is because of [insert grave insult of the day], feel free to kick him in the nuts. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm amazed that you admit that granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested lefties have balls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nuts not balls. To Boon Mee there might be a difference.

Coconuts.

Coconuts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts......

First of all, yes, the extremists who killed him are thoroughly sick.

Secondly, kicking somebody in the nuts for expressing an opinion, even if it is incorrect, is rarely the most effective way of proving them wrong, unless you want to make yourself out to be incapable of discussing without resorting to violence.

Also, note the phrasing of the sentence:  "...it has emerged...", sufficiently vague - is this alleged reason confirmed or just a rumour?

Metaphorically speaking here, Meadish. Using a touch of 'Poetic License' as it were. I do not advocate going around 'kicking folks in the nuts' for speaking their opinion.

As far as if it's just of rumour or not we know darn well why Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl was slaughtered, and it didn't have anything to do with his interpreter. In the above case, Steven Vincent 'apppeared' to have formed a romantic attachment with an Arab and he was killed for it.

First of all, yes, the extremists who killed him are thoroughly sick.

Secondly, kicking somebody in the nuts for expressing an opinion, even if it is incorrect, is rarely the most effective way of proving them wrong, unless you want to make yourself out to be incapable of discussing without resorting to violence.

Also, note the phrasing of the sentence:  "...it has emerged...", sufficiently vague - is this alleged reason confirmed or just a rumour?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Metaphorically speaking here, Meadish. Using a touch of 'Poetic License' as it were. I do not advocate going around 'kicking folks in the nuts' for speaking their opinion.

As far as if it's just of rumour or not we know darn well why Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl was slaughtered, and it didn't have anything to do with his interpreter. In the above case, Steven Vincent 'apppeared' to have formed a romantic attachment with an Arab and he was killed for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All metaphors and poetry aside, what were you trying to say about 'granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested lefties' then?

First of all, yes, the extremists who killed him are thoroughly sick.

Secondly, kicking somebody in the nuts for expressing an opinion, even if it is incorrect, is rarely the most effective way of proving them wrong, unless you want to make yourself out to be incapable of discussing without resorting to violence.

Also, note the phrasing of the sentence:  "...it has emerged...", sufficiently vague - is this alleged reason confirmed or just a rumour?

Metaphorically speaking here, Meadish. Using a touch of 'Poetic License' as it were. I do not advocate going around 'kicking folks in the nuts' for speaking their opinion.

As far as if it's just of rumour or not we know darn well why Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl was slaughtered, and it didn't have anything to do with his interpreter. In the above case, Steven Vincent 'apppeared' to have formed a romantic attachment with an Arab and he was killed for it.

All metaphors and poetry aside, what were you trying to say about 'granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, gnat-infested lefties' then?

Are we talking about these folks?

All that's missing is the 'Doob'!