BOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

You might think that saying "another 9/11 would help America" is a sign that you are an agent of the "anti-freedom" hordes but in this case, the writer, Mr. Stu Bykofsky, clearly figures himself a patriot, wishing for the harmony of the different segments of our society that followed the first 9/11. Of course, that came at the cost of 3,000 people and a couple major landmarks. Oh well, I can only imagine what sort of things my grandmother would say if she could crank up an intarwebz machine and start a blog on the tubes. SWEET RAPTOR JESUS, hold the presses (literally), this guy is a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News?


Now, listen, I think we can all get on board for some righteous American harmony centered around the idea of kicking foreign brown ass but why have it come at the expense of something that is really valuable to us? Can't we just agree to express our desires to make the Middle East a glass parking lot based solely on our annoyance at their refusal of our great gift of Democracy? OPEC is probably fucking us too, I mean, gas is really expensive and if terrorist juice (my own nickname, HAHAHAHA) profits have to go to them anyway, we should make make their cut as low as possible. Also, Stu makes a critical error. America was not united, focused on the real enemy: large swathes of the fifth column, primarily coddled university students, wacko university professors and the "urban" poor were still dancing their favorite dance move, doing the "Blame America First!" jig. Like when America tries to promote freedom, democracy and safety for the people living in Israel, they are begging for direct flight service to the 95th floor of the World Trade Center.



UPDATE
Looks like he has cut and run even while I was drafting my bitchin take down of his lily-livered column. Here, in his own words, the man snivels:

I led my column saying, "I was thinking another 9/11 would help America." I was speculating on the effect of an attack, not calling for it. Later I said I had no doubt terrorists are planning to attack us again. "If it is to be, then let it be." I am resigned to an attack, not calling for it.

Resigned to an attack, he is just saying it will come and that it will be good for America so we can "focus on the real enemies." Now, some might say that if "the real enemies" left us the fuck alone henceforth and did not attack, we would have no reason to focus on them at all and could go back to the culture of unpleasantness that passes for American life. Those people are pinko, coward dhimmicrats. Do not be tricked by the easy lie that the Global War on Terror disappears when we are no longer attacked. We go to war with terrorism for more than just that, we go to war because it is the right thing to do. Besides, if America does not bomb countries that might conceivably one day threaten us, who will?