General Discussion

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)

16. Isn't the sentence above the by-line a defacto surrender?

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:41 PM

Apr 2013

Submit, lest it happen again?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Were the Tsarnaevs nuts or revolutionaries? [View all] DonViejo Apr 2013 OP

yes hedgehog Apr 2013 #1

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter Renew Deal Apr 2013 #2

Exactly! It's all relative to ones frame of reference. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #26

They are evil! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #3

Amateur brats that slapped the hand that gave them refuge when they fled a genocide NightWatcher Apr 2013 #4

Amateur how? An amateur terrorist makes a bomb that doesn't explode. lapislzi Apr 2013 #6

They couldn't get away because their car was in the shop NightWatcher Apr 2013 #19

Great point. They killed some people, hurt more people Warpy Apr 2013 #30

Again, does anyone conduct this analysis for rightwing terrorist like Eric Rudolph and geek tragedy Apr 2013 #5

This liberal says that first we have to recognize that they are politically motivated Hekate Apr 2013 #21

But, we don't know that they kill because of politics, or whether the politics is something geek tragedy Apr 2013 #22

The article in Salon actually presents the case pretty well Hekate Apr 2013 #24

I read it. Found it rather lacking. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #25

we don't know what their motivation was. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #38

They each TOLD us. Using words in the English language. Hekate Apr 2013 #43

Except McVeigh wasnt Christian... onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #28

He stated Science, Agnosticism, and Roman Catholicism as his religion at different parts of his life LanternWaste Apr 2013 #33

Apparently the dad was nuts, the older brother was a decent guy, the younger brother was a weenie Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #7

A crown for king! n/t backscatter712 Apr 2013 #10

*** Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #11

Why can't they be both? Capt. Obvious Apr 2013 #8

Mostly because if they were part of the bigger terrorist world, a threat would still exist HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #13

I have little empathy with those who blow up children. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #9

Yes, certainly because we must comfort ourselves and assuage fear HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #12

Yeah, we stupid sheep who deny think that intentionally killing and maiming geek tragedy Apr 2013 #14

Actually I said nothing to suggest all of this isn't mainstream and au courante HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #36

No, you just labeled the idea that people who intentionally blow little children to pieces geek tragedy Apr 2013 #37

Well I respect your right to be of any opinion you choose HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #39

Neither. HappyMe Apr 2013 #15

Isn't the sentence above the by-line a defacto surrender? cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #16

Why do they have to be affiilated with a terrorist GROUP? Myrina Apr 2013 #17

Not group. Motivation. Hekate Apr 2013 #23

I read it. Don't bother. I'll sum up the stupid. DevonRex Apr 2013 #18

That is a truly excellent article Hekate Apr 2013 #20

Since religion seems to have been a factor, how about nuts. FarCenter Apr 2013 #27

This article is dangerously stupid...These kids didn't have an "ideology" BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #29

Well said. HappyMe Apr 2013 #34

+10.000 smirkymonkey Apr 2013 #42

Maybe terrorists? Puzzledtraveller Apr 2013 #31

It does seem to beg the question... LanternWaste Apr 2013 #32

I think they were disaffected losers CJCRANE Apr 2013 #35

i think they were like that Ohio shooter who wore the shirt with Killer on it in Court JI7 Apr 2013 #40

Neither. They're just assholes. MrSlayer Apr 2013 #41