Point me to the outrage

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Were those the people trying to kick the British out of Ireland? I'd be glad to, the British starved and murdered millions of Irish. Are you justifying that?

No, they'd the be the talking heads for the bastards that set bombs in London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere that blew up shoppers and people in pubs.

Do try to keep up.

Of course, you could try to justify the IRA bombing campaign with the potatoe famine. You and a couple of other fanatics.

[Berzerker]

No, they'd the be the talking heads for the bastards that set bombs in London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere that blew up shoppers and people in pubs.

Why?

Do try to keep up.

I'm way ahead of you, but I have to lead you thru the process of "critical thinking" and you're taking longer than most people.

Of course, you could try to justify the IRA bombing campaign with the potatoe famine. You and a couple of other fanatics.

I haven't even justified McVeigh's bombing in Okla City. But why let facts get in your way?

[notyoueither]

What are you on about then?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Because Tim McVeigh blew that building up because of injustices he saw...injustices millions saw or learned about. He wasn't a loon, he was mad as hell at the government.

WTF is this? This sounds an awefully lot like 'he was right' to me.

[notyoueither]

Why don't we cut to the chase, Berz?

Do you approve of what McVeigh did in Oklahoma City?

Do you approve of the IRA bombing campaign in England?

Do you approve of suicide bombers in Israel?

Do you approve of AQ launching civilian airliners as missiles at New York?

When you justify it, you can be interpreted as approving of it. Of course there are reasons that each action happened. The point is/was is it right to take the fight to unarmed civies?

Do you want to understand the animals that take unjustifiable steps to fight an enemy by targeting civilians? How much better and worthy of understanding are they than the Son of Sam?

[Berzerker]

WTF is this? This sounds an awefully lot like 'he was right' to me.

It's called "motive", the reason someone has for acting a particular way. If I was justifying what he did, I would have said he was right to blow that building up. I merely explained why he did it because you can't fathom that Reagan's militarisation of law enforcement had negative consequences.

Why don't we cut to the chase, Berz?

You keep ducking my request for a quote to back up your slander.

Do you approve of what McVeigh did in Oklahoma City?

No, do you approve of what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Do you approve of the IRA bombing campaign in England?

No, do you approve of what the British have done to the Irish for centuries?

Do you approve of suicide bombers in Israel?

No, do you approve of Israelis murdering Arabs?

Do you approve of AQ launching civilian airliners as missiles at New York?

No, do you approve of US complicity in the slaughter of more than a million Muslims?

When you justify it, you can be interpreted as approving of it.

Where did I justify any of this? Use an actual quote and not something I said that "sounds like" I did.

Of course there are reasons that each action happened. The point is/was is it right to take the fight to unarmed civies?

Ah, so when you identify these links in the chain of cause and effect, you're not justifying murder. But when I do I am justifying murder?

Do you want to understand the animals that take unjustifiable steps to fight an enemy by targeting civilians?

If I need to learn more, I sure as hell won't ask you.

How much better and worthy of understanding are they than the Son of Sam?

Do you see why?

[Dinner]

There was a thread about this at Counter Glow.

[Last Conformist]

What, pray tell, is the argument for not trying to understand people like the Son of Sam?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Kneeing jerks

Jerking period.

[GePap]

Interesting threadjack- not even tangential.

Oh, Sprayber:


WAKE UP!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why don't they face down FBI officers in the streets, or attack army barracks? 'Cause they would get their cowardly butts kicked?

You want to fight? Fight people who are armed and can defend themselves. You want to be cowards? Bomb buildings with civies and kids in them.

Did the Minute Men seek out British civies and shot them, or did they seek out the British Army and engage them?

There weren't all that many British civvies around, actually. And there were... repercussions... for being a loyalist

[mindseye]

I was also outraged, and mentioned it in a post. I didn't start a thread, as I could hardly believe there wasn't already one.

Sorry sign of the times that 'Polys take such a story in stride. But then again, these are not normal times.

And all going down with taxpayer money. As many have already asked, can you imagine the uproar if this had happened during the Clinton admin?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Were those the people trying to kick the British out of Ireland? I'd be glad to, the British starved and murdered millions of Irish. Are you justifying that?

I don't think Timothy McVeigh gave a flip about Ireland, or the John Doe #2 that was in the truck with him.

[mindseye]

GePap, you can relax now.

I just learned that FCC master gumshoe Micheal Powell has just launched an investigation.

While Armstrong's payola scandal is doubtless a far less serious outrage than exposing the nation's terrified viewers to a glimpse of woman's teat (think of the indignation babies are subjected to daily!), at least it's reassuring that one of the nation's moral titans is on the case.

I read a blogger somewhere who undertook a campaign to email every prominent conservative journalist to directly ask them if they received funding from the White House. He was publishing a list of those who refused to reply. Would be nice to play that out in the national media, where real pressure to declare could be focused. Interesting to see if any other talking moles can be smoked out.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


To your last question, yes to both. Brit sympathisers were often executed. But get off your ******* high horse long enough to quote me.

Non-military Brit sympathizers were generally tar and feathered, a punishment which was embarassing and irritating, but seldom fatal, unless they decided to heat the tar first.