Hard questions for Kat

Over at Cathouse Chat, Kat — who posts a daily Bible verse on her blog — has come up with a Christian solution to terrorism: she wants to nuke anyone she doesn’t like:

Truly a chilling necessity – but it may be a chilling necessity similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: it may be that we must ruthlessly kill thousands, so that we may forever eradicate the murderous Islamo-fascist terrorists – and so that millions may finally live in peace and in freedom from oppression, tyranny and terror… After we have exterminated these vermin forever, after we have wiped out these vicious thugs that have forced us to do what we hate, after their bodies and their ideology have been reduced to their atomic particles – after all this, we can bind up our wounds, and in triumphant sorrow return home to mourn our methods.

That’s right, folks. Mass murder is just fine with Kat — so long as we take the precaution of feeling a little “triumphant sorrow” afterwards. And you gotta love the assumption that the nuclear incineration of God know how many people will ensure that “millions may finally live in peace and in freedom from oppression, tyranny and terror”. After all, it worked the last time we tried it, right?

I posted a few questions for Kat in her comments:

1. Which targets, specifically, do you want the US to attack with atomic or thermonuclear weapons?
2. What casualties do you estimate from such an action?
3. What rate of post-bombing cancers and birth defects do you anticipate among the survivors?
4. What do you estimate that the environmental consequences of these attacks may be?
5. What diplomatic consequences do you anticipate, should the US carry out such nuclear attacks?
6. Do you actually believe, as you imply in your post, that such nuclear attacks would be a manifestation of love?

It will be educational to see how Kat answers — if she dares to answer these questions at all.

UPDATE 08/13/08 08:59 AM: This is beyond hilarious. Kat answers my questions by refusing to answer, and then has the nerve to lie about what it is she wants:

You also have no reading comprehension skills. I said “similar to,” and did not call for a glass parking lot in the Middle East. At least, not in this post.

Let’s see… Kat wants to see some folks’ “bodies and their ideology… reduced to their atomic particles”, but that’s not a call for a nuclear attack, is it? Oh, no, mercy me, of course not. How do we reduce people to atomic particles, Kat? Were you not aware that conventional weapons don’t do that?

This is amazingly typical of the radical right fringe of the American blogosphere. They’ll make the most outrageous statements and accusations, but call them on it, ask them serious questions about their arguments, and they scuttle back under the fridge like cockroaches when the kitchen light is turned on.

UPDATE 08/13/08 05:20 PM: Well, here we go again. Like her fellow fringies, Kat has a little problem with the facts… as in, she’ll censor them if they get mentioned on her blog by a commenter.

In the course of answering a comment Kat made about Muslim death threats, I pointed out that her fellow winger Kender had posted a death threat here on my own blog, some months ago. Here’s my original comment, posted at her site earlier today:

Those on your side of the debate, such as Kender, do this too. Should he have the freedom to try to silence his critics with death threats?

And here is how that comment appears as of this writing:

Those on your side of the debate, such as Kender, do this too. Should he have the freedom to try to (No. You do NOT get to drive traffic to yourself on MY blog. No hyperlinks to your blog, meatbrain, and no trackbacks, either—Kat)?

What Kat really means, of course, is “no facts allowed”. If someone posts a link to evidence of a death threat issued by one of Kat’s buddies, this nice Christian lady simply deletes it. Clearly, she doesn’t want her readers confused by pesky facts.

And just as clearly, she cannot be bothered to follow through and do what she says she will do. Earlier today, she wrote (mirror):

I tell you what. If… IF you can state, for the record, that you agree with me that the actions of the terrorists are the acts of murderous barbarians, and that – per their stated goal – they want to kill us all (but most especially Israel), then I’ll start addressing your questions.

I answered Kat (mirror). What does she say now (mirror)?

I’m not going to answer your follow up questions…

Note that, despite her claim to the contrary, Kat has not answered a single one of my initial questions. Apparently, any time anyone who disagrees with Kat asks her a question, her delicate little sensibilities scream out I’M BEING INTERROGATED! OH SWEET JESUS STOP THE TORMENT!, and she deals with the horror of disagreement by simply running away.

So: Ask Kat some simple questions, and she runs away. Point out that the tactics she abhors are used by those on her side of a debate, and she censors your words and runs away.

Pretty much par for the course for those of Kat’s mindset. No surprises here at all.