walk me through your point again?

that the reporter was biased?

this could be rewritten thusly:

Baghdad Security Plan public relations hack calls insurgents' techniques "desperate," others see these tactics as terrifyingly innovative.

is that better?

"innovative" generally reflects positive appreciation by the user of the word.

Do you think anyone should be "positively appreciative" of Al Qaeda or it's methods?

Initial use of the term, "innovative," sure suggests that it was at least possible that the writer selecting that word to describe what happened, was hopeful that perhaps more innovative murders would be forthcoming.

so you're actually suggesting that the reporter was applauding and hoping for more terrorist attacks? you really, really believe that? I mean beyond all the msm bias talk etc. and the talking points that we're all supposed to mindlessly parrot, these are your actual beliefs?

From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry:
Pronunciation:
\ˌi-nə-ˈvā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

Somewhere, a bridge has a "VACANCY" sign hung out.

It would appear that someone may own a dictionary....even if he doesn't know how to use it.

"so you're actually suggesting that the reporter was applauding and hoping for more terrorist attacks? you really, really believe that?"

Heck, I'll say it without the slightest hint of suggestion. Not only was this reporter applauding it, but this is the norm in the media today. Liberals are pro-terrorist, and the main stream media leans hard left.

How about starting with some of those liberal assholes in the House who are doing the trial lawyers bidding, as well as that of the terrorists, by stalling on passage of the Senate bipartisan-passed surveillance legislation bill?

"...show me all the people out there who are for socialized medicine, vote democratic, are anti-war, pro gay rights, and publicly state they hope the terrorists win."

If this one reporter was an isolated incident, then you might have a point. But it's common and systematic.

If you're honestly asking (and I sort of doubt you are), check out the website Democratic Underground. It's extremely popular with liberals. Pretty much definitive of what 'liberal' means. Reading their views is like reading a demon resume, and they claim that 40% of the population are liberals. Not lean liberal. Are liberals. 70 years ago, 'liberal' might have meant something different, but in 2008 it means rejoicing when servicemen are beheaded or mocking the wounded at Walter Reid with what liberals call a "die-in".

You said "I'm not talking about fringe types like Amiri Baraka and that ilk".

Well, in that case you're not talking about liberals. Michael Moore and Rachel Corrie really aren't all that fringe. They're central to liberal views.

but if the terrorists win, wouldn't that mean that a number of liberals' other desires (gay rights, women's rights, religious freedom) be effectively screwed?

Please watch the profanity folks. It is not welcome here.

Yes, liberals often openly contradict themselves. Sometimes in the same sentence. To answer your question, yes absolutely, if al-queida were to set up a worldwide caliphate, it would openly contradict some other values that liberals claim to hold.

I have no idea how liberals deal with the cognitive dissonance. It simply makes no sense, but they sure are persistent. If you want a detailed explanation, you'd have to ask some liberals.

Other brain teasers is how they can simultaneously be for Communism and Anarchy.

Or how they can simultaneously be for instituting the draft, and disbanding the military.

I think my personal favorite one is how they swear that Saddam has used nerve/blister agents over 10 times, and that he also never had them.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic. The post was about how the enemy murdered police officers. If US troops murdered some folks, the article would have read "US Troops Murder Some Folks", and rightly so. In this instance, they swoon over how innovative they are. I don't know if you remember Al-Queida's laughable "Special Forces Cody" incident. The news referred to that as "ingenious", when it was actually impotent and silly. Those loaded words are common in our media.

Libby over at Newshoggers must be very excited at this innovation. You know how she gets, defeat out of the jaws of victory and all. Has she commented yet?

CY,
why was my comment deleted? no bad language, not being a troll. kind of an odd choice.

"I have no idea how liberals deal with the cognitive dissonance. It simply makes no sense, but they sure are persistent. If you want a detailed explanation, you'd have to ask some liberals."

Without getting argumentative about it, I think the same can be said about small government conservatives that tolerate and/or endorse domestic wiretapping, "enhanced interrogation," and telecom immunity for granting the government access to your phone records etc.

You can say that all of this is to stop future terror attacks and is largely only used against non-citizens, but that's already been disproved given a few recent news reports, and a government, once given the power, seldom knows how to control its agents or the expansion of these prerogatives toward its own citizens

That sure could be said, and accurately too. If your last comment were a stand alone statement, I'd agree 100%.

I think, however, that you're creating a false dilema. Or maybe a "does not follow" argument. I think your arguement on this post is something like this: "Liberals are not pro-terrorist, because Conservatives are not really for small government." The conlusion doesn't flow from the premise.

For example:
P: "A man robbed my store last night!"
S: "That's not true because a woman stole some jewelry a week ago!"

Both statements might be true, but the second statement doesn't invalidate the first.

I don't think I was saying that. Just that the extension, "liberals are pro-terrorist because they are against torture or anti-war," has essentially the same problem as "conservatives are totalitarians because they are pro-domestic wiretap, pro-telecom immunity, and generally support the ongoing war."

I don't think either statement is true.

Oh heavens no. Liberals are pro-terrorist because they are pro-terrorist. They openly state that Hezbolah are "their troops", that Al-Queida are "minutemen", and wish for "million mogadishus".

where is that again? so all the liberal New Yorkers who lost any number of friends and family in the WTC were openly rooting for Al Qaeda huh? Have you ever actually spoken to a liberal?

Again, I think you might be mistaking the vast majority of liberals for people like Moore, Baraka, and 9/11 Truth squad types that just get the most press with a lot of rhetoric. It would be like me confusing the vast majority of conservatives with the Coulters, Savages, Robertsons and Falwells of the world. At least I know that those people do not represent the majority of conservative thought in the US or the conservatives that I know, (I hope).

I don't know how much access you have to real breathing liberals where you live, but next time you see one, ask them what they think about terrorism, the prospect of them or their loved ones dying so that a caliphate can be established in the US and an openly bigoted society where women are second class citizens and gays are oppressed as a matter of law and religious thought is mandated. You may be surprised to find out that they really don't think like you think they do.

Rapid,

From your spirited defense of liberals I think you may have missed the recent FOX poll which indicated that THE MAJORITY of democrats in the US did not think that the world would be worse off if the US lost in Iraq.

One must therefore conclude that those people are at best not too concerned about the murdering thugs of Al-Qaida dominating the people of Iraq and getting hold of a base of operation in the heart of the middle east. This may not prove that the majority of liberals SUPPORT terrorists but it does come close (it at least indicates a shocking level of ambivalence).

link? now that we're there, I think we need to see it through, but mainly for the sake of that country. too irresponsible otherwise. I subscribe to the Powell "you break it you bought it" philosophy, but don't think we should have been there in the first place. but reasonable minds can disagree.

I see what you're saying Rapid.

"Again, I think you might be mistaking the vast majority of liberals for people like Moore, Baraka, and 9/11 Truth squad types that just get the most press with a lot of rhetoric."

There's no mistake made on my end. You requested information from me. You asked me to show you a liberal, but then you just say that those particular "bad" liberals don't count.

Your first request from me is self denying. You're demaning something like "Show me a single liberal that's pro-terrorist! Oh, and by the way, anyone you list doesn't count."

Moore doesn't count as a liberal? Sheehan doesn't count? Corrie?

Let me ask you this. How comfortable would you feel vouching for the people at DU or the DailyKOS or MoveOn? Would you give your word that they are not anti-military and pro-terrorist? Cause that's what we're talking about.