Sometime I'll do another Bits of Tid post, but this seems worthy of it's own.
There's a lot of hatred for Musk floating around out there and some of the suggestions are interesting. The notion that it is appropriate to commit violent felonies, and cause significant property damage to Teslas, while right in line with the 2020 Summer of Love riots, is objectively insane.
The trading in of Teslas to by VW, BMW, or Audi electric cars lis literally going from supporting a company owned by a fake NAZI, to supporting companies that literally supported real NAZIs.
What might be the stupidest are the shots at Space X. The notion that Space X shouldn't be paid for sending a rocket up the the ISS to retrieve the astronauts who've been stuck up there for months, or that paying for services rendered is some sort of "subsidy" is stupid enough. That there's a move to stop paying Space X because they've had test rockets explode (some intentionally, some not) as if experimental rocket stuff is never going to malfunction or need to be command detonated, is even stupider.
If people are living in fear because of these idiots burning Cyber trucks (they are really ugly ugly, but that's another issue) and having to put stickers on them for "protection" (like the poor black business owner who painted Black Owned on their plywood and got burned and looted anyway in MPLS), then this is literally terrorism.
What's interesting is that when conservatives got upset with Bud Light a couple of years ago, they simply stopped buying Bud Light and bought different beer. When liberals get upset about something, they loot, burn, vandalize, and destroy. Or they threaten to do those things. "No justice, no peace" is literally a terrorist threat given the 2020 Summer of Love and how they threatened the Chauvin jury.
72 comments:
It truly IS sad when people engage in vandalism on personal property. It's not a smart way to protest, I don't think and would say it's wrong and find a better way to protest a man who is a serious threat to our free Republic.
That it's happened a dozen or two times in the last month is also not good. It might serve to apply some social pressure against a man who is leading efforts to actively destroy our US ideals and Republic, but ultimately, I believe such vandalism to be a bad idea - especially when arson is involved, as an actual person could be harmed.
Of course, that sort of protest is wrong.
Now, having noted how not good it is that these dozen or so acts of vandalism have happened in response to people actively dismantling our free republic, I would just remind you that there are hundreds of acts of actual terrorism, violence and oppression happening every year to our LGBTQ friends and families. Nearly 2,000 each of the last two years. And I believe that's actual acts of violence. Then there are the "lesser oppressions" of vandalism, slander and other attacks on LGBTQ people and their allies... including policies passed that endanger LGBTQ people and their families.
Add to that the hate crimes against people of color, Muslims and immigrants. There were about 12,000 such hate crimes last year, a trend that has been long and on-going.
So, while it's sort of cute that you're concerned about these handfuls of vandalisms against trucks, it would be easier to take it seriously if you also regularly mentioned the much more serious actual terrorism of actual hate crimes against black people, against Muslims, against LGBTQ citizens.
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics
Can you just say it? Just say, "Yes, of course, the terrorism directed against LGBTQ people, black people, women, Muslims is a great atrocity and we MUST denounce these actual acts of actual terrorism in the strongest terms. I will NOT abide hate crimes based on race, gender, religion or LGBTQ status!"
Can you do that much?
Without a doubt this is terrorism. And I don't know if you saw the harpy on one of the lefty cable news stations trying to pretend this is some form of justifiable protest while continuing to regard Jan 6 as terrorism, as if J6 people firebombed the Capitol or something. And is typical of lefty terrorism and violent "protests", they are compelled by lies. These thugs need to be arrested and prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law.
And by the way, did they refuse to "pay" when the Challenger disaster happened, with actual people killed? The left doesn't thing before they speak.
Let's start with this. Terrorism is bad.
It's impressive how Dan softly condemns the terrorist actions, yet also softly argues that they are justified. I'll note that he downgrades these actions to "vandalism", when the goal of these actions is to strike fear into the heart of people who's big crime in buying one of the best electric vehicle options available.
It's also strange that Dan is all worked up about these alleged acts of "terrorism", yet didn't show this much interest when the pro Hamas "protesters" were engaging in acts of violence and antisemitism during the Biden regime.
Dan's tepid criticism/justification mirrors his similar response during the 2020 Summer of Love, and his total silence on the rape rings in the UK, and the massive increases in sexual assault, rape, and violence throughout Europe.
The point was and is that the goal of these terrorists is to spread fear among people who've done nothing wrong, and among those who are employed by Tesla, to push a political agenda.
In the past 25 years or so we've seen precisely one conservative protest that was not peaceful. We've seen multiple conservative protests where the protesters left the site cleaner than when they arrived. Yet during that same time we've seen countless liberal protests that involved BILLIONS of dollars of damage, actual harm to immigrants and POC business owners, a jury threatened with violence, SCOTUS justices threatened with violence, campuses taken over and Jewish students harassed, and the scars of 2020 are still visible today.
But yeah, it's all conservatives.
No, but then again, NASA changed it's mission to DEI instead of space flight at some point.
It's obvious that Space X and other private entities are the future of space exploration, and almost anything satellite related. But the idiots call paying for things provided to the government, subsidies.
Dan validates my comment below, that these types of terrorist "protests" are provoked by a belief in abject lies and falsehoods stoked by liars of the leftist leadership. Dan is proving his membership in the flock of useful idiot sheep, or perhaps asserting himself as a major purveyor of the lies which compel these and other violent acts. The lie here is that Dan asserts that finding and cutting government waste is "leading efforts to actively destroy our US ideals and Republic". That's patently absurd...what Dan would call a wildly false and unsupported claim, but what honest people simply regard as what it is: a lie.
He then goes on to lie about attacks on his favored groups, choosing to cite an agency which is suspect at this point in time, reporting on that which is a most subjective criterion (hate crimes). I didn't see where Dan's link refers to perpetrators, but only that these "hate crimes" have been reported. It's more than likely that the vast majority of perpetrators of those "hate crimes" are of the same flock as is Dan himself.
I will not abide the concept of "hate crimes" invented to promote the elevation of any group of people over the rest as somehow deserving of special protection or consideration.
I will also not abide the perverse exploitation of this already perverse concept of "hate crimes", immediately practiced upon its inception, to regard all truthful, factual and righteous criticisms of any of the favored groups, such as the LGBTQ++++ community, people of color, Muslims and illegal immigrants.
And I will not abide the pretense that acts of terrorism such as those perpetrated against Tesla owners and dealerships is not a common and routine practice of the progressive left to which Dan proudly claims membership.
I don't abide Dan diminishing and/or rationalizing terrorist actions by deflecting to leftist concerns regarding his favored groups while falsely implying their suffering is the result of conservative/Republican/actual Christian/ Trump or Musk actions.
I don't abide criminal acts.
I repeat...
Can you just say it? Just say, "Yes, of course, the terrorism directed against LGBTQ people, black people, women, Muslims is a great atrocity and we MUST denounce these actual acts of actual terrorism in the strongest terms."
You can't rationally accuse me of a tepid response to these vandalisms, including the very bad and dangerous arson attacks on vehicles, when you can't clearly denounce the actual violence against LGBTQ and black people.
Do you agree the hundreds of acts of violence specifically against these groups is a great series of terroristic attacks?
"Terrorism is bad" is an insufficient response. It's a way of downplaying actual violence against these groups of people who've been historically oppressed and terrorized.
Dan
Also, do you consider the Boston Tea Party an example of terrorism?
Dan
Terrorism is bad. Is not this definitive statement enough for you? Do you demand that I parrot your words.
Terrorism is bad.
Terrorism is very, very bad.
How's that?
Given your tepid response/rationalization for this current acts of left wing terror, as well as your tepid response to 10/7, and the 2020 Summer of Love, I can't see how you can criticize my simple, direct, unequivocal statement. This notion that terrorism against your pet sub groups is somehow so much worse that "bad" is inadequate is absurd.
Based on a decent amount of study of the Revolution, I'd say that it is probably not. That the revolutionaries limited their actions to only the tea (essentially property of the crown, and there's no point is bitching about the technicalities the East India company was for all intents and purposes a government entity), were very controlled and limited in their actions, and didn't seem to be intent on terrorizing the sailors.
Again, based on history I'd say no. However, I'd bet you can find a few Brits who's disagree.
I think most people saw it as the beginning of the revolution.
I think I know where you plan to go with this.
""Terrorism is bad" is an insufficient response. It's a way of downplaying actual violence against these groups of people who've been historically oppressed and terrorized."
Bullshit. Demanding we acknowledge your favored groups when the issue is the terrorism perpetrated by your kind is downplaying the actual violence reported by your kind against those doing good.
In the meantime, our pronouncements encompass all people victimized by criminal acts.
But I'll go a step farther than even Craig: Terrorism is very, very, VERY bad! That's 33% more emphatic than Craig with even and exclamation point added. So I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY oppose terrorism!
I think one could justly refer to the Tea Party as a terrorist act. But then again, terms can be stretched to mean anything and the progressives love doing that when it serves them to do so. Look at how they refer to J6 as either terrorism or insurrection.
1. So, you're NOT willing to condemn directly the anti-black, anti-LGBTQ terrorism/violence/oppression that has occurred in our nation forever and risen in recent years? You're NOT willing to condemn that specific terrorism?
One has to wonder why you're not willing to do that?
I directly condemned this vandalism that is taking place because it's important to talk specifics, in my way of thinking. Of course, we should condemn all terrorism, but then, some people deny that black, Muslim, LGBTQ people and women HAVE been oppressed or terrorized. That's why I'm asking for specific confirmation.
2. Because you sounded like you were condemning all destruction of property/vandalism as "terrorism," I asked a clarifying question. It appears that you DO think some vandalism/destruction of property is rational and a valid method of protest in at least some instances. Right?
Good for you. I do, too. It would remain illegal, but it may be a legitimate form of protest in the face of dire circumstances, like oppression or a denial of liberty/human rights.
3. Given that you and I agree that sometimes vandalism may be legitimate protest, what specifically about these handfuls of Tesla vandalisms makes you call that "terrorism..."?
You and I probably can agree that arson at least oftentimes could people at risk, so we disagree with that kind of vandalism as too dangerous. Is that correct?
4. Can you agree with me that there is a difference between the terrorism towards specific GROUPS of people (black people, LGBTQ, etc) that serves to damage a whole class of people and protest vandalism about a person or group where it's BEHAVIOR or POLICIES that are being protested? One is clearly terrorism intended to oppress a class of people. The other is protest against policy, not a people. The former is a hate crime and the latter is a protest (sometimes reasonable, sometimes too dangerous).
Do we agree?
Or where do you draw the line on which protest vandalisms are "terrorism" and which are okay?
Surely it's not merely, "When it's a group of people on my side, it's terrorism..."?
Given your tepid response/rationalization for this current acts of left wing terror,
Given your complete silence on the oppression of black, LGBTQ, Muslim and other people over the decades... and your unwillingness to acknowledge directly that specific realm of terrorism, your personal concerns about these dozen or so acts of vandalism (where no one has been harmed, only property), is rather unimpressive.
Again, I condemn the arson as that's a step too far. And personally, I disagree with the lesser acts of vandalism, questioning their efficacy. But "terrorism..."? Please, child.
Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Again, condemn unequivocally the acts of actual violence against actually people because of hatred for the group they are part of (people of color, Islam, LGBTQ) that actually is terrorism, and we can talk more seriously about the efficacy or morality of property damage incidents. Until then, you simply don't have much credibility.
as well as your tepid response to 10/7
It was wrong. It was terrorism. It was an EVIL response to EVIL actions by Israel. Targeting innocent people is always wrong. There is no doubt where I stand as I'm consistent.
Now, child, will you condemn unequivocally Israel's latest barbarism this week that has resulted in hundreds of dead children and babies and other innocent civilians?
Again, until you remove the log from your eye, you have no moral credibility, child. You need to start moral reasoning as an adult if you want to engage in adult conversations.
I think most people saw it as the beginning of the revolution.
Many people right now, today, are recognizing the need for a revolution, a rising up of the people against an oppressive, dangerous, anti-democratic wannabe tyrant and his oligarchy. Be careful with your analogies if you don't want to be on the side of those opposed to this, the most dangerous US administration in at least 100 years.
What an accusation. That I've said absolutely nothing about the "oppression" of your pet groups for decades, complete insanity. In the last 12 months I've posted about the oppression of the Uighur, Muslims throughout the Middle East, and I've repeatedly condemned countries and societies that execute gays. Nice try.
Are you an idiot? (rhetorical question) When engaging in acts of violence, with the intent to spread fear/terror or to influence public policy through the fear of violence or threats of violence, it's terrorism. But hey, I get it, you want to protect these idiots, because you agree with them.
Since the definition YOU PROVIDED makes my point as well as the quote I used to title this post, thanks. What exactly is this recent spate of burning stuff, the pro Hamas protests, the Summer of Love 2020, the rest of the BLM associated riots, CHAZ/CHOP, threatening SCOTUS judges and the Chauvin jury, etc, other than "unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."?
Again, I've done that you freaking moron. It hilarious when I literally mirror your response to things and you get so mad when I simply do what you do.
I'll note that you've remained silent on the rape rings in the UK, rampant child rape in Pakistan, thousands of dead Muslims in the Middle East and hundreds of dead Christians in Africa, and the rampant sexual assault crisis in Europe, so shut the hell up until you live by the standards you demand of others.
Well done, excellent move of the goal posts.
As long as Hamas continues to hold, rape, abuse, and starve the hostages they illegally took on 10/7, and given the bullshit games they played when exchanging the bodies of the CHILD hostages and torturing two hostages by forcing them to watch the exchange, I think I'll pass on condemning Israel.
For someone with their won log, this double standard bullshit gets old quickly.
Terrorism is bad.
Well, who'd have thought that it'd be Danny the pacifist calling for an armed revolution.
Y'all had your chance to stop this. Y'all trotted out Biden in all of his feeble, senile glory and lied thorough y'alls teeth about how he was amazing and the best y'all had. Then, after he was exposed, y'll trotted out Mrs incoherent word salad without a single primary vote and paired her with a guy who's entire political career is built on lies about his resume. Y'all have been whining about waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal budget for years, hell P-BO appointed Biden to head a proto-DOGE yet accomplished nothing.
If Trump's actions work and he slashes the debt/deficit, makes the federal government more efficient, and gets a peace deal in Ukraine, it'll hopefully give our great grandchildren a chance to not be smothered in interest payments on the federal debt.
If y'all want revolution, man up and take a risk instead of talking tough behind your keyboard. Again, amusing that your bogyman for the past few years has been the elusive white men who want revolution, and now you've joined them.
1. I have. So one doesn't have to wonder why I haven't done something that I've actually done.
2. No, I'm talking about the destruction/arson/looting/robbery/violence and threats of violence that are intended to instill fear/terror into a particular group of people, or to influence policy. No, I do not think that destruction of property is an appropriate form of protest. Before you start, I literally condemned this immediately after the J6 protest.
3. Well, who put you in change of deciding what I think? It's terrorism because it's intended to instill fear/terror into innocent Tesla owners who've done nothing wrong. It's intended to force political change through this fear/terror. Yes, when the Summer of Love 2020 rioters put a shelter for women and children at risk due to their indiscriminate burning and looting of black/POC/immigrant owned businesses it was a bad thing. In this case, maybe you and your violent allies are unaware of the potential environmental hazards from burning EV batteries.
4. No. Terrorism is terrorism. It is ALWAYS targeted toward a specific group.
No. We do not agree. Your infantile attempt to justify leftist terrorism/rioting by pretending like "policies" aren't initiated and changed by PEOPLE is one of the stupider attempts to mitigate the damage y'all have done since 2016.
Peaceful protests by anyone, for any reason are perfectly fine. Once the line is crossed into violence, is where they become something else.
No. When it's terrorism, it's terrorism. When it meets the definition of terrorism, see the title of my post for an example, then it's terrorism.
When people are in such a state of fear that they have to put up signs saying "I owned this before DOGE" or "black owned business" in an attempt to protect themselves and their property, it sounds like fear/terror has been instilled.
If it's an "insufficient response" then Dan's response to all sorts of heinous acts is "insufficient" as his stock response is some sort of namby pamby condemnation of all violence, followed by justification for the violence.
Ok, it's on.
Terrorism is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take that!
I think that the Brits at the time might have done so. Although, the actions of the crown could also be considered terrorism if one really wanted to.
The reality is that the Tea Partiers went out of their way to avoid attacking or destroying anything but the tea, and left quickly and peacefully after they finished.
I'd argue that it was a well planned, measured, limited, response to an oppressive government which was intended to open a dialogue about the acts of the crown. They could just as easily burned every British ship in Boston harbor (NY too with a little coordination), but they chose the limited measured response after the crown rebuffed all attempts at negotiation.
FYI, the 1948, 1967, and 1973 wars were not terrorism either. That was a (per human history) attempt to conquer the land/government of an "enemy". It was a lot of despicable things, but (per history) it wasn't illegitimate, which then legitimizes Israel's possession of land they ended up with after defending themselves from the various attacks.
Anyway, I don't think the Tea Party was terrorism in any meaningful sense.
When native American tribes scalped the dead settlers/soldiers and left to bodies to be found, or tortured their captives (again leaving the mutilated bodies to be found) wouldn't that be considered a form of terrorism?
There are more ways than violent revolutions to have a revolution, of course. If you'd read Jesus a bit more seriously, you would know that. Funny that you hear "revolution" and assume violence. Says something, don't it.
Nonetheless, at this point your revolution is starting off with violence. It's hilarious to hear someone who's been making fun of those on the right who talk about a revolution or civil war for years, all of a sudden go all in on a leftist version of that philosophy.
Good luck with the revolution.
The difference between us is that I condemn the violent arson vandalism against cars and even the Tea Party-like vandalism of spray painting Teslas.
You on the other hand, cannot bring yourself to condemn the actual terrorism of widespread slaughter of innocents, including 200 children, by Israel. You won't specifically condemn the actual terroristic violence against US citizens.
That's the advantage of being consistently in opposition to violence.
You have no moral high ground, son.
Dan
The Tea Party (modern version) did no vandalism, did no damage, and usually left the sites of their events at least a clean as they were before they came.
I'm not sure exactly how you can be so stupid as to conclude that when I say that "Terrorism is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, bad!!!!!!", and of course I condemn all terrorism, that I somehow don't actually mean what I quite literally and specifically say.
Strangely enough, I've provided at least one list of actions that you have not only not specifically condemned but also remained silent on.
The double standard of you getting away with bland, general, vague, namby pamby, crap like "I don't like any violence", while demanding that I jump through your random hoops and parrot your talking points is bullshit. If you don't like it when I mirror your behavior, maybe it's your behavior that's the problem.
Interesting, I guess being consistently opposed to terrorism is somehow completely different.
I'm not claiming to, that's for someone like you who needs to virtue signal.
I understand that when a terrorist group takes, holds, rapes, and kills hostages and refuses to release them that there might eventually be negative consequences. You're literally expressing sympathy to a "country" that is holding fucking children hostage, you abandoned the high ground long ago. If Gazans want to be left alone, they should give back the fucking hostages.
I could be wrong, but when an organization identified as a terrorist group takes hostages (including fucking children), holds them for over a year, uses those hostages to secure the release of a disproportionate number of terrorists/criminals, engages in psychological manipulation and torture, might reasonably expect that the nation whose hostages they took might respond negatively.
No one who holds children hostage has any moral anything. Maybe you should be lecturing them on the morality of kidnapping and holding children hostage.
You know what's cute? It's you referring to people throwing MOLOTOV COCKTAILS at the property and businesses of innocent people as merely vandalism. It's a literal felony. But you're content to pass it off as lust a little vandalism. I know, you personally consider the MOLOTOV COCKTAILS a bit to far outside of your personal moral code but it's just a little vandalism. That it's intended to instill fear/terror into people and intimidate the government isn't your concern.
What's cute that you're outraged about a handful of dangerous and wrong acts of vandalism (which I clearly condemn as dangerous and wrong), but you refuse to condemn the literal slaughter of 200 children. Not cute, so much, as hellish and deviant.
If you can't condemn the slaughter of children as diabolical terrorism, then no one is really going to care if you're upset about the awful burning of cars.
We see.
Dan
"I guess being consistently opposed to terrorism is somehow completely different."
But you're clearly not. If it's Israel terrorizing innocent children and people of Gaza, you're saying you're NOT opposed to that terrorism... you're not even willing to acknowledge it as terrorism.
We see.
Dan
Craig...I humbly bow to your dominance in opposing terrorism. Not even Dan has such a degree of disdain for the practice, and we know how he hates oppressors!
Craig...
"If you don't like it when I mirror your behavior, maybe it's your behavior that's the problem."
Imperfect humans that I am, I would LOVE for you to emulate my position on this point. And from a rational, moral, just and righteous viewpoint, it really should be easy.
Be consistently opposed to deadly, harmful violence, and especially, when it's directed towards innocent people, and especially when it's the widespread deliberate killing of children.
That really shouldn't ne that hard, should it?
Someone is shooting bullets at and lighting cars on fire? It's wrong. Just condemn it as wrong.
Hamas militants raid a concert, kill, rape and kidnap innocent Israelis? It's wrong. Just condemn it as wrong.
Israel targets and bombs Palestinians in response, resulting in thousands of innocents being killed and maimed? It's wrong. Just condemn it as wrong.
An un-elected oligarch starts slashing funds that were approved and enacted by Congress, resulting in some poor people dying and others living in fear and hiding? It's wrong. Just condemn it as wrong.
It's really easy.
On at least this point, Craig, be like Dan.
Dan
"One has to wonder why you're not willing to do that?"
Because insisting, "I oppose terrorism." covers all forms of it. One has to wonder why in a post about a specific wave of terrorism directed at a guy who is doing good for the nation, you feel the need to bring up other groups you believe are somehow more victimized, with the implication they're victimized by center-right actors.
"I directly condemned this vandalism that is taking place because it's important to talk specifics, in my way of thinking."
Your way of thinking is weak and dishonest. What's more, you certainly weren't out front in condemning these attacks on Musk. Rather, you rationalized it with your false way of thinking.
2. I agree with Craig, that property destruction is not justifiable even if the protest is. In the case of these attacks on Musk, as in the attacks on Supreme Court Justices, President Trump and cities across the country every time a thug dies while being detained by police, neither the destruction nor the reason for protest is justified.
3. Again, vandalism is a form of destruction of property and likewise cannot be justified by one's reason for protesting. But then again, if someone wants to spray paint "Dumbass" across the front of your house, I personally wouldn't get too bent out of shape over it. At least it's true and it's on the house of dumbass who thinks that some vandalism is OK.
4. Dishonest rationalization of criminal behavior. Thus, you're complicit in all the destructive acts by people you favor against those you don't. It's terrorism regardless of the target of the terrorist act. And again, the policies of Trump/Musk are not detrimental, but beneficial and those who attack them on the lie that there is some big problem with their policies further indicts the terrorists and those like you who rationalize their behavior and support their "protests".
"Or where do you draw the line on which protest vandalisms are "terrorism" and which are okay?"
We're not "progressives". We oppose vandalism in any form for any reason. Stop painting crap on bridges, buildings and on the side of box cars. Vandalism is criminal behavior and deserving of punishment.
And also where I agree with Craig is in having objected to property destruction at the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. Aside from opposing the behavior alone, such behavior lowers one to the level of "progressives" who believe property destruction as a form of protest is justifiable.
"Again, I condemn the arson as that's a step too far. And personally, I disagree with the lesser acts of vandalism, questioning their efficacy. But "terrorism..."? Please, child."
Worse that Dan simply being Dan...and really, that's quite bad enough...he dares to condescend by referring to you as "child"?? What an unholy asshole!
I, too, have many times expressed my opposition to causing harm to any of Dan's favored groups, including the perverts. Dan again overstates the actions of a nation fighting against those who seek it's total annihilation and the people who support them. The deaths of or injury to the civilians of Gaza are on the Gazans, not Israel. Dan continues his anti-Semitic lies about what's happening in Gaza BECAUSE OF THE GAZANS!
"Many people right now, today, are recognizing the need for a revolution, a rising up of the people against an oppressive, dangerous, anti-democratic wannabe tyrant and his oligarchy. Be careful with your analogies if you don't want to be on the side of those opposed to this, the most dangerous US administration in at least 100 years."
The above can only be the words of a liar or an ignoramus. There's no truth in it whatsoever.
Oh my gosh! Dan is the epitome of falsehood. But then, this is who he's been since the beginning. He's a liar about pretty much everything, most especially his claim of being a Christian.
Dan earlier insinuated our position is dependent upon who is doing what, rather than on opposing criminal actions regardless of which side is perpetrating them. But he clearly has proven himself a proponent of that philosophy for as long as I can remember. Using his favorite hypothetical of baby raping, it's not as bad if his side does it and can be rationalized, but it's the worst violation of innocence if our side does it. We don't rationalize bad behavior, including the false reasons Dan's kind uses to rationalize theirs. Indeed, such lying is bad behavior used as justification for bad behaviors regarded as peaceful protests.
Thank you, I'm pleased that I didn't have to humiliate you any further.
2. I agree that property destruction is never really justifiable, but I would draw a distinction between willful, intentional destruction and collateral damage.
As soon as Amazon delivers his "made in China with slave labor" Che Guevera shirt and hat to go with his US army surplus Castro fatigues, he'll grab his "made in China with slave labor from minerals mined with slave labor" smart phone and go play revolutionary.
Art,
Except all I'm doing is mirroring his "position", every time I've asked him to condemn a specific act, he responds with some vague/bland/non specific "condemnation" of X, then proceed to make excuses for why it's really not that bad when his side does it.
1. I'm not outraged about these acts of terrorism. I'm pointing out that it is terrorism and should be treated appropriately.
Given the amount of people, children, raped and slaughtered around the world that you ignore you trying to gin up support for a nation led by terrorists and supported by the subjects, while they still hold CHILDREN hostage is barbaric on your part.
Hundreds of girls raped in the UK, you stay silent.
Hundreds/thousands of Christians killed in Africa, you stay silent.
Thousands of Muslims, Alawites, and other minorities killed in the Middle East and you stay silent.
Pro Hamas protesters harassing Jewish students on US college campuses, you stay silent.
If performative empathy is what you demand of others, then you need to significantly up your game. Hypocrite.
Well, if you redefine terrorism then sure.
Because holding children hostage for over a year isn't terrorism. It's' just something Dan silently accepts because he's too stupid to understand that actually holding himself to the standards he demands of others might be a good thing.
The self serving, performative, virtue signaling here is impressive. The utter blindness to one's own actions is equally impressive.
To add to the self serving bullshit above, we really need a huge pile of double standards.
I'm choosing to be like Dan on one point, but not this one. I live in a world where evil people deserve to be stopped, and those who kidnap and hold children hostage should not get sympathy.
I'll say this one more time. If Hamas doesn't like being bombed, GIVE THE FUCKING HOSTAGES BACK.
Apparently cause and effect doesn't play in Dan's performative virtue signaling world.
This would be a first. I am seriously considering not posting any comments from Dan in which he supports a country which is holding children hostage. To not have any cease fire contingent of the release of the illegally held hostages is a huge mistake. That Hamas and it's supporters like Dan can live themselves knowing that they are holding children hostage is beyond belief.
Craig:
I am seriously considering not posting any comments from Dan in which he supports a country which is holding children hostage.
See my last post that rebukes you in the name of Jesus, the prince of peace and in the name of all that is good and decent. I SUPPORT INNOCENT PEOPLE. It doesn't matter if we're talking about innocent LGBTQ folks, here, or innocent people in Israel or innocent people in Gaza. I am consistently opposed to harming innocent people and call out such terrorism AS terrorism (unlike you, by your own shit-mouthed confession).
Stop with the shit-for-brains lying and stupidly false claims.
You're not this stupid. Quit acting like it.
Thou shalt not bear false witness. People who slander and gossip and lie have no part in the realm of God.
Craig:
I'll say this one more time. If Hamas doesn't like being bombed, GIVE THE FUCKING HOSTAGES BACK.
I'll say it one more time: THOSE SLAUGHTERED CHILDREN WERE HOLDING ZERO HOSTAGES. STOP SUPPORTING SLAUGHTERING CHILDREN, you graceless, diabolical pissant.
Can you admit THAT much? That, of course, the hundreds of children slaughtered by Israel so far, that not ONE of them was guilty of holding hostages?
Shame on you. Shame, this is just grotesque evil upon grotesque evil, upon stupid lie upon stupid lie.
Repent, in the name of Jesus who you name as Lord. Repent and turn from this overt wickedness.
"BULLSHIT. READ WORDS FOR UNDERSTANDING, son."
That's the problem when you're silent, there are no words to read and understand. You expect us to specifically and repeatedly condemn every little thing you want, but expect that some blanket, namby pamby, equivocal, weak, and vague condemnation from months or years ago should get a pass. Screw you, if you're going to demand something from other do it your self.
"I am consistently opposed to harming innocents. Always, always, always. What Hamas has done in regards to harming innocents and kidnapping people, including children IS TERRORISM."
My point exactly. This is little different from my various condemnation of all terrorism, which you demean as inadequate, yet you still cannot specifically condemn Hamas for CONTINUING to hold children hostage after blackmailing Israel into releasing hundreds of captives.
Assuming I'd give the tactic of taking hostages legitimacy, it would seem that the "just" measure for releasing the hostages would be a 1:1 exchange, would you not agree that justice would be a 1:1 exchange?
"Do you need me to draw pictures for you? You're NOT this vapidly stupid, Craig. Quit acting like it. If it helps you to find a grade school bible verse to explain it for you: Thou shalt not bear false witness NOR should you bear stupidly false witness which has evil results."
I'll ignore this hypocritical tripe.
"Come on. Be a better human than this. If you want to disagree, disagree like an adult, not a bullying infantile, shameless liar with no intelligence."
I'm just treating you like you treat others.
"There is too much harm in the world to waste time with this sort of ass-faced nonsense."
Then stop, specifically criticize Hamas for continuing to hold hostages and call for the release of the hostages for starters. No more of the vague, general, double standard bullshit.
"Apologize and move on."
No thanks.
"And while you're at it, be adult enough to OWN your own position. You are NOT consistently opposed to harming children, to slaughtering and maiming hundreds of children. You can't or won't bring yourself to condemn Israel for these specific acts of terrorism because you do not think it's wrong or terrorism, isn't that correct?"
I do own my position. Hamas still has hostages including FUCKING CHILDREN that they've held for over a year. They exchanged 50 hostages for 150 terrorists and a cease fire. They've refused to release any of the hostages since then. They and their supporters should be smart enough to understand cause and effect by now. I think that defending/trying to recover the Israeli citizens being held hostage is their national responsibility, it's a moral imperative. No, using violence to get the hostages released from a terrorist group that trades in violence is sometimes necessary, if terrorist leaders choose to hide among women and children, that's their choice and anything that happens in on the terrorists.
"If so, just say so. And then slink away with your tail between your legs for owning such an evil, God-awful position."
No thanks. I can't imagine a world where a country would abandon their citizens to be held hostage by terrorists for an unlimited period of time without rescuing them.
"And that's the difference between morally rational adults and you."
This is the problem with subjective/personal/individual morality, you have no basis to assert that your moral position (that Israel do nothing and allow Hamas to keep the hostages or that Hamas is the oppressed and they can do anything they want against the oppressor) is superior.
I'll stick with a simple moral principle, protect the innocents of your tribe.
Given the non existence (as of this comment) of any post where you "rebuke me in the name of Jesus" like it's some kind of magic spell or something, I guess honesty isn't really your cup of tea.
Again with exactly the kind of vague, general, mealy mouthed, bullshit, pablum you bitch about when others do it.
Then stop lying, stop the slander and gossip, stop platforming people who lie/slander/gossip and stop the double standard.
I'll say it one more time HAMAS USES CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY FOR HUMAN SHIELDS, THEY FUCKING HIDE BEHIND CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY because they know that useful idiots like yourself will react exactly this way. How's it feel to be a tool of Hamas.
The very fact that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the reality that Hamas holding innocents hostage is the ultimate cause of Israel's actions, cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that Hamas leaders hiding among the elderly and children are cowards who are perfectly content to use children and the elderly to protect themselves (we know this because they've been quite public about it), and stick to the one sided/simplistic pro Hamas propaganda shows you lack of moral clarity or high ground.
For someone who claims to be so invested in protecting the innocent, the cavalier dismissal of the attacks on Tesla owners and dealers seems strange.
Are not the Tesla owners who bought their cars years ago innocent of whatever outrage y'all want to blame Elon for? Are not the dealers who've been selling these "environmentally friendly" vehicles for years, who've invested large amounts of money in their business and who employ many people innocent?
Attacking the "innocent" is wrong when Israel does it to get their citizens back who've been held hostage, but it's not that big of a deal when it's Tesla owners and dealers.
There's (I think) scientific principle called cause and effect that's been around for a while and is pretty well known. It's a principle that translates surprisingly well to almost all walks of life. Pretty much anything one does (cause) will elicit a response (effect).
If my wife rudely cuts me off in the middle of a sentence (cause), she probably shouldn't be surprised if her choice negatively effects the rest of the conversation.
If you take hostages, you shouldn't be surprised if people try to get them back and use any and all means to do so.
Colloquially we see this referred to as "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" or "FAFO".
I rarely feel much sympathy when someone Fs O, after they FA.
Craig theorized, along with terrorists throughout history...
If you take hostages, you shouldn't be surprised if people try to get them back and use any and all means to do so.
No. That is NOT what rationally moral people do. IF Mr Jackson kidnaps a rational person's family and tortures them, the rational person does NOT kidnap Mr Jackson's family and torture them in response.
That IS what Hamas and Israel are doing, going back and forth and harming the innocent bystanders in their vulgar ongoing assaults against each other. It's wrong on both sides.
Are you saying that YOU would actually consider torturing a child to get your child back? If so, what kind of moral monster are you?
Come on. This is morality 101.
And you're still falsely portraying my position. I'm not CLAIMING to want to protect the innocent, I actually do so and when it's in my power to influence those types of decisions, I DO stand with the innocent.
Right now, if that bastard in the office would trade me for that young expectant father he's kidnapped for the "crime" of free speech, I'd trade places with him. And so would a dozen or more hippies and anabaptist-types. I am consistently opposed to harming innocent people. You, on the other hand, appear to be proudly claiming you are NOT committed to it.
Also, YOU are defending the Tesla burners. If you are an unelected oligarch who slashes funds that go to help the poor, the homeless, veterans, LGBTQ folks, children and the sick, THEN you should not be surprised when some people push back, even with the violence of burning cars.
We can SEE that I stand consistently opposed to violence including burning Teslas. We can also see that you are defending the slaughter of children and your unwillingness to call terrorism, "terrorism," at least when it's someone you consider an ally or someone on your side politically.
I propose consistency (at least in these cases) as the more morally rational and righteous position.
These dead and maimed children are playing NO stupid games. Members of Hamas and the Israeli leadership are, but not those children.
Craig:
cause and effect doesn't play in Dan's performative virtue signaling world.
Also, this is why the useful idiots like you don't see how they are being used and abused by people like Hamas terrorists. YES, there IS a tendency for cause and effect. IF Israel kills hundreds of innocents, THEN the families of those innocents are NOT going to be inclined to be peaceful, they're going to strike back. And the same is true in the other way. IF Hamas kills hundreds of civilians, THEN Israel is going to be inclined to strike back.
The ONLY rational and moral way to stop this is NOT BY TRIPLING DOWN ON KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. That will only serve to provoke more and more violence. You can't slaughter your way to peace.
Don't be a useful idiot for terrorists. REFUSE to take action that causes harm to innocent people, and especially children.
Moral consistency on these points is an essential bit of wisdom.
Indeed, Craig. It's his way. He won't condemn his own without demanding we condemn what he perceives our side is doing. The Israeli/Gaza issue is the perfect example. It's not enough to say the obvious with regard to the Gazans' hatefulness and barbarity. No. We have to pretend Israel is targeting innocents, purposely put in harm's way, without regard to the fact that the IDF puts their own selves at risk to minimize civilian casualties. That in a war they die anyway is to Dan intentional. Dan would prefer the Gazans succeed in the total annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people than to agree the suffering of the Gazans are the result of Gazan action.
In the same way, he'll tolerate any form of destruction and physical harm to people...expressing only token opposition...and rationalize it on the basis of what is in reality bullshit provocations. And in those outrageously rare occasions when center-right protests get out of hand, as with J6, he'll portray that in not only the worst possibly light, but as if it's commonplace.
When has it ever been different with Dan?
Israel isn't terrorizing little Gazan children. Gazans are by their continued attacks on Israel, who, on behalf of their own people, are obliged to respond to put down the savages once and for all...savages who purposely put their own children between them and their righteous consequences. Dan trying to pretend that Israel could do more to minimize civilian casualties of the people happy to see them slaughtered, at the risk of their own lives, and failing to defend themselves without some Gazan civilians (numbers incredibly overinflated by the lying Gazans) is just too typical of the degree of dishonesty emblematic of one Dan Trabue. This asshole dares to condescend!
Dan's just posturing. He doesn't care about the lives of children. He supports their murder in utero on the false claim the mother's life is in danger and other such bullshit. If he cared about Gazan children, he would be supporting Israel's actions to wipe out the Gazan leaders they elected, referred to as "Hamas". That's the only way muslim kids in muslim majority countries can live in peace...if their leaders stop trying to kill Jews, Christians and muslims who don't practice islam as they do.
And of course, as to the number of Gazan children actually killed because of their own people, but blamed on Israel as Dan is doing now, Dan has only the Gazan's inflated numbers to highlight the deaths of any children being more numerous than they are, which is also done for effect.
Dan's a world-class, gold medal winning useful idiot. He wears that medal with pride.
Oh, and one more thing, and this can't be said enough, either, given Dan's devotion to Gazan lies: Whatever the number of Gazan children killed in RESPONSIVE or DEFENSIVE shelling by Israel, they are all collateral deaths, while in the meantime, the Gazans target Israel citizens including children. This was plainly proven on the attack of Oct 7, and Dan dares pretend Israel are the bad guys. What a liar and evil person Dan is!
Art,
The notion of responsibility of those who are supposed to protect children has been lost on the APL. Given the rush to unlimited abortions and "transing" children, it seems that protecting children isn't a high priority. Oh, and let's not forget that vast amounts of US "aid" money (both ONG and otherwise) is going to programs dedicated to inculcating African women to abort their children, contrary to their cultural instincts that children are important and worth protecting.
Interesting, Dann starts by equating me with terrorists, then opines that the "moral" thing to do is to NOT do everything possible to ensure the return of hostages taken by terrorists. Obviously the "Rational" way to get hostages back is to reward those who took the hostages by giving them everything they want, even if their demands are unjust.
No, I'm not. You're the one who doesn't seem too concerned over actual children being held hostage and actually tortured, so you can get all worked up over pretend crap.
You do claim you want to protect the innocent, even when the things you advocate harm the innocent.
I do so love it when you're reduced to bald faced lies as with your insane notion that I'm "defending the Tesla burners". Your friends that "Tesla burners" are actually causing harm to millions based on their idiotic assault on a company that plays no part in any government policy and which Musk isn't even the majority owner. But hey, the lies keep coming.
Hamas is the one playing stupid games, and they are intentionally using children and the elderly to accomplish their goals. Their strategy is to get people like you all pissed off so that you'll advocate for them against Israel.
How's it feel to be the easily manipulated pawn of terrorists?
Coming from a useful idiot who's parroting Hamas talking points, this is just one more amusing example of desperate bullshit.
Again, Dan strangely things that being a shill for Hamas isn't being a tool of terrorists. Especially when the terrorists have stated publicly that this is their exact strategy. Idiots like Dan know (or should) that they are doing exactly what Hamas wants based on their publicly articulated strategy, and yet Dan goes right along.
It hasn't his double standards are legendary.
"Also, this is why the useful idiots like you don't see how they are being used and abused by people like Hamas terrorists. YES, there IS a tendency for cause and effect. IF Israel kills hundreds of innocents, THEN the families of those innocents are NOT going to be inclined to be peaceful, they're going to strike back. And the same is true in the other way. IF Hamas kills hundreds of civilians, THEN Israel is going to be inclined to strike back."
Wow, Dan! How's your father, Satan...the father of lies? This is a conscious perversion of the situation and you lie in pretending otherwise. It's always been a case of one side--your beloved Hamas and their Gazan supporters--seeking the destruction of the Jews. If they stopped trying to wipe out the Jews, none of their own would be in any danger, except by other islamists. THAT is reality. You lie in making it some kind of moral relativist tit-for-tat. You're scum.
It's amusing to know that Hamas has publicly explained that their strategy is to place their children and elderly in positions where they will face the consequences of Hamas' actions for the express purpose of goading people like Dan into responding exactly like Dan is responding. That Dan has been exposed to this information, and continues to behave exactly as Hamas wants his to is beyond belief. To knowingly choose to further the ends of a terrorist group that sacrifices the elderly and children of it's members/subjects seems incredibly extreme or stupid.
Craig, still missing the point, said:
It's amusing to know that Hamas has publicly explained that their strategy is to place their children and elderly in positions where they will face the consequences of Hamas' actions for the express purpose of goading people like Dan into responding exactly like Dan is responding.
OF COURSE that is their strategy. And YOU are playing right into it by giving them exactly what they want. Open your eyes, little brother. Just because Group A chooses to act in an evil manner does NOT justify Group B responding in EXACTLY the way Group A wanted them to... Group B has the choice to choose to kill or torture or rape children, but if they aren't immoral fools, they will NOT stoop to the evil actions of their enemies and thus, allow the enemy to get the better of them.
Craig:
then opines that the "moral" thing to do is to NOT do everything possible to ensure the return of hostages taken by terrorists
YES. That is morally correct point. OF course, we should not engage in evil in response to evil. Have you even read the Bible? Do you even CARE what Jesus has to say? It is not moral and never is moral to deliberately kill, maim and rape children. It's just not. It doesn't matter if the enemy has done that, GOOD people do not respond in such an evil manner.
Again, are you seriously trying to suggest that IF someone harmed a loved one of yours, that YOU PERSONALLY think that it would be a moral option to deliberately harm a loved one of theirs - someone complete innocent of the evil committed by the person who did you wrong?
?!
This is astounding.
All I know to do is tell you to take the teachings of Jesus and those of other speakers/authors in the Bible more seriously, you know, as if those teachings matter to you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek,
turn to them the other cheek also..."
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child."
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' says the Lord"
And on it goes.
MIND YOU (because you all have such a hard time understanding this), I am NOT saying we should not kill innocent children because there is a line in the Bible. I'm saying don't do it because it is an evil atrocity. That you all think there are exceptions for when it's okay to slaughter children... that just really makes you not a credible speaker for morality.
And he dares to regard us as the "useful idiots" of Hamas!
Again, since you claim to understand the strategy they articulated, it seems strange that you'd totally miss their purpose in using this strategy. They have been abundantly clear that the purpose of their strategy of using children and the elderly to be sacrificed, is to influence WESTERN LIBERALS. They know that people like you will bitch and moan, and put pressure on Western governments to push for the achievement of Hamas" goals. We know that it works because of your comments, and the fact that Israel gave in to pressure and agreed to the horribly unjust swap of 150 terrorists and criminals for 50 hostages, while leaving more hostages to be held, mistreated, and possibly killed. You're not screeching about the release of the hostages, which would instantly stop Israel, you're screeching about Israel trying to get the hostages back.
Thanks for acknowledging that you are willing to let hostages suffer, and die to maintain your subjective moral high ground. I guess your tolerance for harm to innocents only extends to the victims of Hamas.
I think that it is 100% moral, legal, and incumbent on governments to do anything possible to effect the rescue of their citizens being held hostage illegally. As this is a discussion about one legal government of a sovereign nation, and a terrorist group that managed to gain control of Gaza to give themselves a base to use international aid money to wage a war of extermination against Israel. How I personally would act, in a country with reasonably good enforcement of laws and other means to address grievances is irrelevant. However, for an excellent fictional treatment of this dilemma, I recommend A Time To Kill by John Grisham.
If we were talking about countries and terrorist groups that all strictly adhered to this snippet of scripture, you might have a point. However, since the closest thing to a theocracy in this conflict is the aggressor, maybe you're talking to the wrong person. Further, in the absence of proof that Jesus was referring to intercourse between national entities, terrorist groups, or non Christians, I fail to see the relevance.
If only you'd apply the same level of standards and demands to Hamas as you do to Israel, you might have a small fraction of the credibility you think you have. If you'd lead with, or even mention, releasing the hostages as the single most significant act that could stop everything, you'd gain a bit more credibility. As your strategy seems to be (in the absence of any actual strategy laid out) to let Hamas hold the hostages indefinitely until they're all dead, I'm not impressed with your vaunted morality.
While I agree that he's an idiot, I'm not really sure how useful he is.
Maybe he and Queers for Palestine can go to Gaza and get the hostages released through the magic of nonviolence.
"Group B has the choice to choose to kill or torture or rape children, but if they aren't immoral fools, they will NOT stoop to the evil actions of their enemies and thus, allow the enemy to get the better of them."
As this is neither the case nor have we suggested it ought to be, your arrogant condescension is unjust assholery, little pig.
"YES. That is morally correct point. OF course, we should not engage in evil in response to evil."
Yes, the morally correct point, because Scripture demands we must allow our families to be murdered, kidnapped, raped and subjected to other forms of torture rather than do what must be done to put an end to it. "Love thy enemies, or Turn the other cheek" is not an encouragement to let enemies perpetuate their evil.
It's abhorrent how you so easily and willingly pervert Scripture in order to defend the indefensible, over and over and over again. It's abhorrent how easily and willingly you attack those seeking to defend themselves from the evil you defend.
You're a vile and evil fake Christian.
Of course, Group A also has the choice not to attack group A, take Group A's children and other innocent people hostage, to torture, starve, rape, and kill those hostages, as well as to agree to a more just exchange of hostages for terrorists. Group A could choose not to rape and murder Group B as well. Group A made a deliberate, intentional, calculated choice to do all of the above and more knowing that Dan and others like him will buy the lies and propaganda uncritically.
Given that Dan has not and cannot propose an objective, universal system of morality, it is the height of foolishness (or arrogance) to announce that his "point" is THE "morally correct" one. Strangely enough, Hamas strongly disagrees with Dan's subjective moral code, yet Dan doesn't hold them to the same standard (or if he does he does so relatively silently).
Self defense, defense of the innocent citizens of one's country (tribe/society/ect) is not condemned in scripture. Jesus tells His followers to arm themselves for their own protection, even His rebuke of is Peter in the garden is more about Peter screwing up the plan than a condemnation of defending the innocent. Finally, Jesus tells his followers that any who harm children should be severely punished which would seem to allow for the defense of innocent people.
HA!
I bet they could get a group rate on airline tickets. You and I both know that the likelihood of Dan putting himself in danger to defend a cause or help the oppressed is virtually zero.
Post a Comment