Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Phokus
Rightwing radical muslims couldn't allow the rightwing radical christians take all the headlines, now could they :|
Op + Lupi are morons for insinuating this guy was a 'progressive' though, no surprise there.
Try lithium.
What's with your hatred of Phokus?
Someone posted a story about the shooting of the military recruiters, and Phokus compared the mindset of the shooters in the two cases of that and the abortion doctor..
Then he criticized anyone who says the shooter in this case - whose motives are unknown - where all we know is his Muslim-sounding name was a 'progressive' political act.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Phokus
Rightwing radical muslims couldn't allow the rightwing radical christians take all the headlines, now could they :|
Op + Lupi are morons for insinuating this guy was a 'progressive' though, no surprise there.
Try lithium.
What's with your hatred of Phokus?
Someone posted a story about the shooting of the military recruiters, and Phokus compared the mindset of the shooters in the two cases of that and the abortion doctor..
Then he criticized anyone who says the shooter in this case - whose motives are unknown - where all we know is his Muslim-sounding name was a 'progressive' political act.
He's right, and you are acting nuts with your personal attacks.
I'm not going to say there aren't people who will act violently on their 'progressive' political agenda; there are. In the 1970's, we had a good number, if you stretch the definition of 'progressive', such as the Weather Underground. While the left also has an especially strong non-violence tradition - MLK on the left led non-violence, the freedom riders did not resist while their opponents beat them - there is the potential for violence.
But there's no indication that THIS case involved a 'progressive' agenda. We don't have the facts - and the facts we do have point another direction is likely.
So he was right to say the comments were way off-base.
I could make a case that the right has a lot bigger violence problem, from our main domestic terrorist act in decades being a right-wing conspiracy, to militias being almost entirely right-wing organizations, to the anti-abortion violence, to the anecdotal incidents usually involving right-wing killers like the guy who shot up a Universalist Church because he couldn't get to the liberal leaders named in his right-wing commentators' books, while the radical left tends to - as Phokus said - target property (e.g., animal lab destruction), to chain themselves to trees, to protest non-violently, to ride boats harassing whaling ships, etc., but I do think there is a potential for a left-wing violent movement to grow, just as our founding fathers turned to violence, if the right were to provoke it, so I won't use that argument.
Instead, I'll just note that the posters were baseless to say this shooting was a progressive political act, Phokus was right to say so, and Hyabusa was wrong to attack Phokus for it.
Again. I'd like you to either justify your personal attacks by showing how his posts warrant them, or see you withdraw the attacks and preferably come to your senses and apologize.