Kit Jarrell, net bigot extraordinaire, says we should commit mass murder to “win” the war on terror. She suggests that we should murder everyone in Iran:
Bush needs to call the President of Iran and say very calmly:“Currently there are aircraft on their way to you. They are fully loaded. They will be over your city, over your palace/home/cave/goat pen in approximately 24 hours. You have until they get there to make a statement agreeing to end your research.
If you do make this statement of intent, there will be a team of people from the countries you’ve pissed off that will come there and dismantle your research plants. If you give them any problems, you will learn what real problems are.
If you have not made a statement of intent to end all nuclear research by the time my aircraft get there, then I will unleash a rain of hell on your country like you have never seen. I will wipe out you, your family, your people, your buildings, and your research plants. In fact, when I’m done, your little piece of shit country will not even be inhabitable by humans. There will not be two of you left to breed. And just in case you think I’m kidding, take a look at your map. See that town right there? That one? Yeah. Well, in the time it took me to tell you this, that town ceased to exist. Oh, and by the way. Every single Iranian prisoner in our custody is now dead. We’ll drop off their bodies (from 30,000 feet) on our way through.”
Let’s be perfectly precise about what Kit proposes: Everyone — every man, woman, and child — in Iran should be killed unless Iran halts its nuclear development program. Kit wants the US to commit an act of mass murder.
The prospect of a nuclear Iran is undoubtedly frightening. It may, indeed, be necessary at some point to take military action — targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear devlopment facilities, for instance. But Kit’s “solution” isn’t motivated merely by the desire to keep nukes out of Iran’s hands. It’s motivated by Kit’s deep, irrational hatred of all Muslims, a hatred that leads her (in violation of all Christian principles) to advocate mass murder.
Religious bigotry has no place in a discussion of national security. Voices like Kit’s must be opposed, and opposed loudly, in the debate over what to do about Iran. The problem of a nuclear Iran is a serious one, and the debate over what to do about it is not advanced by hatemongering. Indiscriminate murder is not a legitimate form of self-defense, ever. We cannot demonstrate the ideals of freedom and democracy by unleashing a nuclear holocaust.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 13th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Pingback from ThinkingMeat » Kit's not "answering" anybody
January 25th, 2006 at 9:20 am
mynewsbot
Iran again threatened on Wednesday to start full-scale uranium enrichment if reported to the UN Security Council,
Here we go again
January 29th, 2006 at 11:07 am
MM
It’s not religious bigotry, it’s self defense. Maybe not every German was a Nazi, but the entire populace paid for the government’s actions.
If it gets down to having to kill millions of Iranians or us, well it’s just too effing bad for them. There’s a reason we have the arsenal we have and if these nutjobs want to ignore that, they do so at their own peril.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
meatbrain
That’s true, and the Iranian people will pay a price for the actions of their government. The question is: What price? Kit proposes that every Iranian pay with their life. Was it ever proposed, during WWII, that the entire German populace should be executed for the actions of the Third Reich?
By what logic have you concluded that we have to kill millions of Iranians to prevent their government from resuming uranium enrichment and eventually developing a nuclear weapon? I’m just wondering what argument you would make against lesser measures.
January 29th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
albeej
I like your Blog and I like what you have to say, meatbrain.
You conduct your arguments with a civil tongue. Heidi, more than Kit is the worst of the two. She puts on a show that is expected of her…and Kit…by the regulars that frequent their blog.
And don’t let those two foul-mouthed women fool you into believing that they don’t come here…they are in here more than you know.
When I have something to say, to put it in Arnold’s words, “I’ll be back.”
January 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
MM
Thanks for the most civil reply mb.
My point about millions of Iranians dying was made as a worst case scenerio. Let’s say Iran is allowed to go nuclear. Now they’ve got missiles and warheads. And they use them. On Israel. On Saudi oilfields. On out troops in Iraq. On European capitals or arsenals. I don’t know, but let’s say they use them. Doing exactly what they’ve said they would do. Is there any doubt in your mind that we shouldn’t take out any potential remaining nukes? And that is going to kill a lot of Iranians?
I think trying to prevent the wackos in Iran from proceeding by threatning sanctions is futile. Even presupposing that we’re not going to get everything and will probably turn some of the population against us, military strikes seem to be the only card on the table. I say strikes will kick the can down the road several years. Maybe our government could start a Radio Free Iran and plant some seeds. It sure worked in eastern Europe. I’ve read of a number of things we should have been doing in Iran but haven’t. Strikes will buy us some time.
Am I even hoping the mullahs would just say eff it? That’d be nice but I think they will do every thing they can to cause us non-nuclear grief.
I’m loaded up on energy stocks,
January 31st, 2006 at 8:30 pm
meatbrain
Do they? The Iranians are building a reactor, true… but what would it produce once in operation?
Does building a nuclear reactor automatically mean that a state is intent on building a nuclear weapon? Does building a nuclear reactor even grant the automatic capability to build nuclear weapons?
Whoa, cowboy. When did Iran express an intent to attack every one of the targets you named?
We aren’t discussing simply killing “a lot of Iranians”. Kit Jarrell wants the US to kill every Iranian—including all Iranian prisoners currently in US custody, many of whom have never been charged with anything.
Why is the threat of sanctions futile? You state this as though it were a given. Can you provide a factual basis for this claim?
Strikes will also ensure that the US is again seen purely as an aggressor state. Strikes will ensure fresh new crops of terrorist recruits for decades to come.
And as for ‘Radio Free Iran’... the idea is to kill all the Iranians, remember? Who will be the audience for ‘Radio Free Iran’ in that case?
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 pm
albeej
Right-wing groups generally support free enterprise. In the United States, the right wing generally argues for a strong national defense program and opposes federal involvement in promoting social welfare.
Kit Jarrell is a right-wing radical. where she differs from the above wing is that “at a drop of a hat” she wants to use all-out military force to resolve an issue rather than diplomacy.
She speaks before she thinks. Which is a dangerous practice.
She is a bigot from the word “go”. You can read her opinions concerning the muslims.
And her radical views make good fodder for the normal intelligentsia who may be inclined to debate her.
Personally, I found it a waste of my time.