But I’m still not making a supposition without evidence. The only assumption I’m making is that malicious people don’t need a motive to be malicious. The pain they cause is its own reward, as far as their concerned. I’m surprised that that’s a controversial assumption.

If someone’s motive is pure malice, then they don’t care about who their victim is. I would bet that these callers would be just as happy to torment a leftist, if they could only think of such an easy surefire way to cause him such pain.

Let me put it this way: suppose a liquor store in a bad neighborhood gets robbed, repeatedly. If it was just one robbery, then it might not have anything to do with the bad neighborhood; it could have been a random stranger. But when it starts happening repeatedly, it stops being a random occurrence and becomes much more likely to be one or more punks from the bad neighborhood being the culprit.

If this kind of incident was isolated, then yeah it might be some random anarchist behind it (however, let me note that anarchist-types, when they do vote, almost always vote Democrat or some lefty-based third party). Frequency however points to those with a motive, namely leftists, who have the obvious motive of wanting to destroy military morale. It’s not notarized proof, but if cops were investigating this, good ones would start checking the leftists first.

You can keep playing verbal games if you want, but the rest of us aren’t willing to excuse likely leftist behavior for this kind of crap.

OBTW you are correct about one thing…..you are a pompous new guy and your time will be short I do suspect!

You also write, “this tactic is used by the extreme anti-war groups”. Do you have any specific evidence of that? Not evidence that malicious callers have used this lie (as happened to your brother-in-laws family), but evidence that they were politically motivated to do so?

Of course I am just the pompous new guy.-but cheer up-I could be worse you know…I could be BrooksRob and spend 10 paragraphs lecturing you, instead of writing one sentence noting that I have seen many many many “coherent, logically defensible” arguments here.

BTW, your pompous “coherent, logically defensible argument to be made” comment is quite contradictory. But heh, you’re not the arbiter of logic. So hows your first day going?

So you actually do not have any logic to your argument at all.

Look , I don’t want to come here and be the logic police, but I have read Redstate long enough to expect coherent, logically defensible arguments to be made. Just don’t see it here.

Posting a diary with without such proof, and then being proved wrong clearly undercuts the credibility of the diarist.

“My suggestion to those merry pranksters on the left; as you sit at St. Arbucks sipping your lattes, scratching your too cool wannabe goatees, and pecking at your Mac Books to compose you Hate Bush thesis, cut down on the caffeine before some stupid idea like the above occurs to you and you end up the one who’s family gets a phone call…

…from the Coroner.”