The Spinning Pinwheel Flame War

by Luke Jackson

Table of Contents
Part 1 appeared
in issue 224.
Part 3, Part 4 appear
in this issue.
part 2

A motley group of participants in an Internet forum take widely differing positions on various social issues, including a war in the Middle East. Note the date: 2024.


From: Cynic
To: Fat Toe
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2024 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: The Greatness of Iron Man

*sigh* Where to begin? This article is so bad it would have to improve to be wrong. Still it does inadvertently answer the question as to why people hate Iron Man and his supporters: the answer is articles like this.

We have a difference in opinion. I can’t say I understand yours at all. Your reasoning makes no sense to me, but that does not mean you are wrong. Your reasons, mysterious as they are, must exist and most likely they are justified.

Now there are many ways to debate the issues, but I am not going to simply assume that because I don’t understand your reasons that they can only stem from a personal failing.

I see we disagree on that last paragraph as well.

According to you, I couldn’t possibly be right and my persistence in disagreeing with you must stem from a fundamental flaw such as being unpatriotic, a coward, or an easily misled fool. Now at long last the truth reveals me for what I am, a “hick racist.”

Bravo (sorry, too French), Yee-Haw! You done there won the debate! And without arguing a single issue too!

I don’t mean to single you out Fat Toe, although you are the one reprinting every lame article “exposing” the liberal character flaw du jour (more French!). This has been the conservative’s standard operating procedure for the past four years. Iron Man is right — that’s a given. Even if in some weird alternate reality he was wrong, he’d still be right and in any event what kind of message would it send to change tactics now that we’re committed? To argue against The Infallible One is so absurd there is no need to debate, just fire away with the character assassinations. It doesn’t matter how unreasonable, illogical and unfounded they are as long as they’re described in simple terms.

And so we reach the real reason for the hatred for Iron Man and those who support him. We’ve tried to be civil. We’ve tried to reason with you. We’ve tried pointing to verifiable facts. We’ve tried to understand you. We’ve tried to appeal to your supposed morality. We’ve even tried to agree to disagree. In response there has been nothing but blind hatred and rage. As much as I’d like to believe there is a valid reason for the conservative’s position, you have erased the possibility from my mind.

You’ve chased me up Everest, Fat Toe, there is no more high road to take. I am forced to conclude that Iron Man and those who support him are every bit as hateful and stupid as this article.

[NSA Note to File]
Date: September 27, 2026 12:47 PM
Agent: James Hawkins

Tag prior correspondence for future prosecution.

--- Fat Toe wrote:

This article regards the Left’s knee-jerk hatred of Iron Man and those who support him. It’s an intelligent and powerful piece. When I read it, I came to understand the deep hatred and insults that are so common in the emails of Liberal, One Man and others that are directed towards those of us who are conservative, Christian, or Republican.

Iron Man’s Greatness
From the September 13, 2024 issue: There’s a good reason he infuriates the reactionary left.

=== message truncated ===

=====

“Why, of course the people don’t want a war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the Same in any country.” — Hermann Goering

Cynic,

Those quotes from leading Dems speak pretty strongly for themselves, regardless of context. And we saw how ineffective the missile strikes were — particularly the ones we lobbed into the sand in Afghanistan after al-Qaeda hit our embassies in Africa. Those strikes emboldened the enemy by showing them that America did not have the resolve to retaliate in any meaningful, effective way and that America would pull out at the first sign of difficulty or casualties.

In the latter half of the 90’s, after WTC I, Somalia, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, and the African embassy bombs, the enemy concluded that they could strike with virtual impunity. They knew that the rhetoric from those leading Dems was just that: empty, hollow, rhetoric. So The Sultan kept defying weapons inspectors, turned the U.N. Food for Oil program into his (and the French and Russian’s) private windfall, and kept violating no-fly zones. Osama kept recruiting, fundraising, training and planning for 9/11.

Haven’t you read the news today? Paris Hilton, beloved national icon and our “First Lady” of pop culture, was killed by these jihadist pigs at her Riviera estate. By her beheaded corpse, they found footage of her being restrained and slowly beheaded by a masked bastard with a slow blade, screaming and crying in agony, interspersed with clips from her old Carl’s Jr. commercial. It was the most sickening thing I’ve ever seen, and I’m not ashamed to admit that tears came to my eyes as well as bile to my throat. But I’m sure liberals like you just snicker at this.

At least now our enemies know that when Iron Man says he’s going to strike back, America strikes back. Hard.

--- Cynic wrote:

I just haven’t gotten to my inbox yet.

The quotes are all taken out of context. No one has ever suggested that The Sultan should get to develop and keep WMDs, or that he was a nice guy to have around. I’ve had about my fill of prime-time “documentaries” comparing him to Hitler and depicting the graphic ultraviolence of his despotic regime.

Many of these quotes by liberals surround prior missile strikes and U.N. resolutions. All that these serve to show is that the danger posed by The Sultan was known and was being dealt with appropriately without a war.

A lot of Sun Tzu quotes are being thrown around, so here’s one for the pro-war crowd: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

--- Fat Toe wrote:

Mudpuppy,

Note the eerie silence from our Lefty friends in response to the emailed quotes below from Clinton, Albright, Gore, Straw Man, Kennedy, and others in the Democratic “establishment” showing how they wanted The Sultan removed, mainly because of the threat of WMDs.

One could hear a pin drop in cyberspace.....

Fat Toe

--- Mudpuppy wrote:

How can the left reconcile their statements of the last few years with the rhetoric of more recent vintage? They must think the American people are a bunch of dolts.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” Ecclesiastes 10:2

--- Original Message ---
From: Fat Toe
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2024 11:17 AM

Subject: RE: Who You Callin’ “Neocon”?

=== message truncated ===

--- Mudpuppy wrote:

“A man at 20 who is not a socialist has no heart. A man at 40 who is still a socialist has no brain”

“Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions” — G. K. Chesterson

--- Original Message ---
From: Liberal
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2024 2:29 PM

Subject: Re: Who You Callin’ “Neocon”?

That article is either extremely stupid, or a deliberate attempt to capitalize on people’s misunderstanding of the word “neoconservative.”

The word has been around for quite some time, dating at least back into the 1980s. You should do a little digging about the background of the word. It basically means “new conservatives,” and usually is used to describe people who were liberal in the 60s and/or 70s but became conservative in the following decades, particularly the Reagan era.

A good example is David Horowitz, who went from an extreme left Communist to an extreme right reactionary. Thus they are “new conservatives,” as opposed to “paleoconservatives” (old conservatives) like Buchanan, whose conservatism is based more on protecting WASP culture and dominance here at home and throughout the world.

It’s hard to believe that you’re serious with claptrap like this. Aren’t Jews being rounded up and deported to Israel as we speak? And you’re concerned that a word used by liberals is a “slur” against them, not by their forced relocation? It would be bewildering, if the political agenda were not so transparent...

Liberal

Fat Toe wrote:

On the origin of the word “Neocon” and how it has come to be seen as a slur against Jewish conservatives

Fat Toe, You ignorant slut. Don’t you read that fat book you supposedly worship? How daughters are sold into sex slavery, God decides to set off genocides of firstborn infants, etc.? (I’d send you a link if those sites hadn’t been disappearing off the web lately.)

Now leaders in your “proud Christian tradition” are engaged in the forced “renationalization” of the Jewish people. Not to get into the other horrors of history (the Arab solution, slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, etc.)

A better question might be whether there is something inherent in the Christian faith or Bible that makes its followers susceptible to the kind of insanity we see in the Western world.

Liberal

[NSA Note to File] Date: September 29, 2026 12:47 PM Agent: [Confidential]

“Liberal” has worked well to exacerbate the internet discussion situation and to obtain incriminating responses. Remember to reward accordingly.

Dr. Bob,

I find your comments very interesting, especially those related to the possible involvement of the moderate Muslims in the current war on terror. I am guilty of not knowing enough about the enemy, but was under the impression that the suicidal jihadists were limited to a fairly small percentage of the overall Muslim religion.

Is there something inherent in the Muslim faith or Quran that makes it followers susceptible to the kind of insanity that we are seeing among the jihadists? Do you think this insane jihadism is really faith based or are the jihadists in essence hijacking Islam to justify their barbarous lust for power?

If Islam really mandates jihad against non-believers, the specter of moderate Muslims becoming involved is truly frightening given their large numbers and worldwide presence. All of which leads me to think that this war on terror represents perhaps the gravest threat to western civilization ever. Any thoughts?

- - - - - - - - - -
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

--- Original Message ---
From: Dr. Bob
Sent: Sun Sep 26 15:48:25 2024
Subject: Re: From Dr Bob

Of course you are correct about McNamara being responsible for Vietnam, but don’t you think it is wise to learn from someone who has lived long enough to gain wisdom from past mistakes?

I feel it is essential to know your enemy. I was just talking to a friend of mine that said “You can’t get into the mind of the terrorists to understand what they are thinking.” However, we must do exactly that. If we don’t we may feed into their hands.

As I said I don’t have any answers. I just wish our president made it a top priority to understand what we are dealing with before acting. This “war on terror” may be more complicated than any of us realize. If we are lucky we may be able to kill all those that think like the terrorists. That is what it will probably take to “win.”

If we are unlucky more and more moderate Muslims may join the cause to kill the infidels (us). I have many Muslim students in my engineering classes. Many come from Kuwait. Their thinking is in general not unlike that of the terrorists. They like our freedom but they also think freedom leads to debauchery.

The religious students (those that wear the religious garb) believe that holy living is more important than freedom. I had one student say to me right after 9-11 if you kill Osama bin Laden 1000 more will replace him.

Dr Bob

--- Original Message ---
From: The Evangelical Man
To: Dr. Bob
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2024 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: From Dr Bob

Dr. Bob,

Your first mistake is quoting McNamara. He is the principal reason that Vietnam was a failure. This wiz kid made it a limited political war. This caused it to drag on, and got us “bogged on” in the first place. If you are going to fight a war, fight it to win, or don’t fight it at all.

The Evangelical Man


Proceed to part 3...

Copyright © 2006 by Luke Jackson

Home Page