Did Bush Just Compare the People who Stormed the Capitol to the 9/11 Mass Murderers?
-
Bush's statement seems to cover left wing rioters and MAGA insurrectionists. Both would fit the definition of terrorism, no?
Bush's statement seems to cover left wing rioters and MAGA insurrectionists. Both would fit the definition of terrorism, no?
The word "terrorist" became pretty meaningless when GWB started using it. He took that word and changed its meaning to not just include al-Qaeda, not just jihadists, but "evil." And then when he used this good vs evil dichotomy to justify assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance. So, in his speech he talked about "our continuing duty to confront them." That sounds a lot like a rally cry for a domestic war on terror.
So again, I'll ask. Do you think that the people who invaded the Capitol, or hell, even the antifa kid who threw a firework at the Portland courthouse should be subject to the rules that we applied to the people we accused of being associated with the 9/11 attack?
I find it incredulous that I even have to ask this question.
-
Bush's statement seems to cover left wing rioters and MAGA insurrectionists. Both would fit the definition of terrorism, no?
No. Probably not in either case.
WSS
No. Probably not in either case.
WSS
"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
-
Bush's statement seems to cover left wing rioters and MAGA insurrectionists. Both would fit the definition of terrorism, no?
The word "terrorist" became pretty meaningless when GWB started using it. He took that word and changed its meaning to not just include al-Qaeda, not just jihadists, but "evil." And then when he used this good vs evil dichotomy to justify assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance. So, in his speech he talked about "our continuing duty to confront them." That sounds a lot like a rally cry for a domestic war on terror.
So again, I'll ask. Do you think that the people who invaded the Capitol, or hell, even the antifa kid who threw a firework at the Portland courthouse should be subject to the rules that we applied to the people we accused of being associated with the 9/11 attack?
I find it incredulous that I even have to ask this question.
The word "terrorist" became pretty meaningless when GWB started using it. He took that word and changed its meaning to not just include al-Qaeda, not just jihadists, but "evil." And then when he used this good vs evil dichotomy to justify assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance. So, in his speech he talked about "our continuing duty to confront them." That sounds a lot like a rally cry for a domestic war on terror.
So again, I'll ask. Do you think that the people who invaded the Capitol, or hell, even the antifa kid who threw a firework at the Portland courthouse should be subject to the rules that we applied to the people we accused of being associated with the 9/11 attack?
I find it incredulous that I even have to ask this question.
No, we're clearly talking about different levels of violence here. Different motivations. Different end goals.
But it's all "unlawful acts / violence" for "political aims".
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
-
well you gotta remember too that GWBush was a Lincoln project guy
the subscription arm of the TDS elite - orange man bad...
-
-
It was unfair for feeble minded Bush to call them terrorists.
What we refer to as "terrorists" are those belonging to organized groups or individuals who's sole aim in life is to use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims...or ideological or religious.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.
Those people were not that.
Call them insurgents ok, not terrorists.
-
It was unfair for feeble minded Bush to call them terrorists.
What we refer to as "terrorists" are those belonging to organized groups or individuals who's sole aim in life is to use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims...or ideological or religious.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.
Those people were not that.
Call them insurgents ok, not terrorists.
It was unfair for feeble minded Bush to call them terrorists.
What we refer to as "terrorists" are those belonging to organized groups or individuals who's sole aim in life is to use unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims...or ideological or religious.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.
Those people were not that.
Call them insurgents ok, not terrorists.
Of course if we are to accept that weak-ass definition we must admit that blm is no doubt a terrorist organization. And to the best of my knowledge no Republican candidate ever had members of Al Queda, Hamas or Islamic Jihad on stage during the primary.
WSS
-
Aw, hate to disappoint you- bash Biden to your hearts content. It's SOP around here- and I'm not wasting my time anymore...
Buh bye
Damn right is, as it should be the SOP. Biden is the president now.
You're wise not to waste your time because you suck at defending Biden who can't be defended.
-
-
The word "terrorist" became pretty meaningless when GWB started using it. He took that word and changed its meaning to not just include al-Qaeda, not just jihadists, but "evil." And then when he used this good vs evil dichotomy to justify assassination, indefinite detention, mass surveillance. So, in his speech he talked about "our continuing duty to confront them." That sounds a lot like a rally cry for a domestic war on terror.
So again, I'll ask. Do you think that the people who invaded the Capitol, or hell, even the antifa kid who threw a firework at the Portland courthouse should be subject to the rules that we applied to the people we accused of being associated with the 9/11 attack?
I find it incredulous that I even have to ask this question.
No, we're clearly talking about different levels of violence here. Different motivations. Different end goals.
But it's all "unlawful acts / violence" for "political aims".
No, we're clearly talking about different levels of violence here. Different motivations. Different end goals.
But it's all "unlawful acts / violence" for "political aims".
I'm honestly glad to hear you make the distinction. I find it troubling that the talking heads in MSM aren't doing the same.
-
Aw, hate to disappoint you- bash Biden to your hearts content. It's SOP around here- and I'm not wasting my time anymore.. Hoorta.
*************************************************************
How can we explain why Hoorta irrationally bashes Pres Trump on every thread, but will NOT complain about biden? or obaMao commie?
Not once. but he says WE are biased?
More likely, Hoorta "says" he's given up trying to control the narrative on this forum. I won't miss the bitching. But he'll probably come back - demanding to be controlling the narrative is a manifestation of extreme ego - that doesn't change easily.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login