I would spend some time searching for a funny "Fail" image, but just imagine one here instead heckuva job on those links Philly!
Yes, because clearly I have nothing better to do than sort through a 2-month old thread with several hundred posts in it.
I recall a few folks remarking that the Times Square bombing had tea-party fingerprints all over it. Of course I don't think the used the term "tea party".
He said that "several posters" were disappointed that it turned out to be a Pakistani terrorist, rather than a right-wing terrorist. That's what I want him to document because I don't recall anyone expressing disappointment.
I would not be surprised if some people that had originally thought the Times Square bomber was a Tea Partier were not upset that the guy turned out to be Pakistani - that it would put that movement to rest and show the Tea Partiers as the fundamentalists that some of you believe they are. Although you would never have someone admit it, lets be serious, some people are sick like that.
I distinctly remember a couple people openly saying it. I think either chad or Revolt was one of them, and an infrequent poster was another.
1. First, this was not an example from the mainstream media. This was a radio talk show where a person who is an anchor on a news television program gave a personal opinion. She did not express that opinion on her news program. Surprise surprise, even people who present the news have opinions. So you FAILED. 2. The blog post you provided says right up front "I can't prove it, but..." You promised "tangible" disappointment, and you failed. EVen this blogger didn't make that promise. 3. But I appreciate your attempt at moving the goalposts, you are switching the subject from right wing victimization by the mainstream media, for which you have no tangible evidence, to "big soccer posters" victimizing the right wing. You have proven to be a person who is not serious about posting here. IF so, fine, I'll consider your "opinions" accordingly.
Okay, I just reviewed the first 80 posts for you (81 was on the arrest which made speculation more or less moot.) Took about two minutes. I think your memory is a bit biased... Kobranzilla and Bill Reeves both hazarded a guess that the bomber would be domestic and in the militia/teabag persuasions. Both clearly expressed it as a guess, not a conviction or a hope. Sgt Shultz expressed a belief that unnamed posters on BS, not necessarily the thread, hoped that the attempt was a domestic effort And Chad in response did openly express a hope that the perp was on the right, but in no particularly serious terms. (Well I guess he was relatively serious by his standards, but there was a strong element of satire as usual.) And that was it; I suspect your memory is as much influenced by Sgt Shultz' belief as by anyone else's expressed opinions...
I was hoping it was not an American, whether right or left wing; anyone that feels the need to resort to violence to prove a point is a huge tool and should be dealt with accordingly.
So, what you wouldn't be surprised at is on an equal plane with what actually happened. Gotcha. No, it's your fault you can't read better.
Well, by your own standards, you're sick. This was an attempted terrorist attack that came close to killing hundreds of people, and you're disappointed that the guy was American and not a foreigner? You'd be happier if a foreigner killed 200 tourists enjoying an evening in Times Square?
Where the eff did you get that from? Lets break this down: 1. you asked me if I was hoping it was not a tea partier or right wing connected person. 2. I answered that I was hoping it was not an American and followed that with terrorists are tools. 3. You make an assertion from the above that I was disappointed that the guy was an American and not a foreigner. Which is true. It is sad when an American feels the need to carry out terrorist acts on his fellow countryman. But you take that further to mean that I place more solace on an event because of that. That's a giant leap and one that is untrue. 4. My own standards do not apply to this situation because I was not hoping for a particular outcome to satisfy my agenda of silencing a dissenting crowd. Keep reaching.
Someone needs to read the reaction posts to find the "several" people who PQF claims were upset that it was a Pakistani, not and American Redneck. However, I believe that someone needs to be PQF since he's the one who made the argument.
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. You said it was "sick" for people to be "upset" that it wasn't a tea partier. You were "hoping" that he was not American. Since your hopes were disappointed, is it a leap to say you were "upset" by the fact he is? I don't think so. You call that a "giant leap". 4. "My own standards don't apply" to myself. Awesome. so when you say "I was hoping a terrorist wasn't american" but were disappointed when you found out he was, you're playing politics with peoples lives. Let me tell you something pal, I live in this city, and I don't give a rat's ass whether someone trying to explode a massive bomb is american or not. Nationality of the criminal does not make my fellow new yorkers any more or less dead. A**hole.
3. Would you please read the whole post I had, specifically the part that says, "that it would put that movement to rest and show the Tea Partiers as the fundamentalists that some of you believe they are." I am not trying to satisfy an agenda. That is a key bit. Its the little details that are vital. 4. Let me get this straight because I was disappointed when I found out the terrorist was American I cannot feel the same amount of remorse than if he wasn't American. I am not taking solace in the fact that the bomber might have been a foreigner, simply disappointed that there is something so utterly f*cked up with our social fabric that Americans feel the need to harm their fellow countrymen. You're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Bad idea. And you're right, the nationality of the criminal does not make my fellow AMERICANs any more or less dead. So, quit reaching, a**hole.
Not wanting a criminal to be american is an agenda, and a sad one when you're talking about a person who is trying to kill hundreds of innocents.
Ok, you've got me on that one point. But that is it. My agenda in this particular instance involves the current state of our social and cultural environment. It is not an agenda that hopes to silence a dissenting point of view, as was the original premise behind this tangent. Broken down further: the promotion of my agenda will help to quell the future harming of innocents, while the other is simply to satisfy a differing opinion. So do not lump me with those sick f*cks that secretly hoped that Shahzed had right-wing affiliations.
I secretly hoped it was dirty muslim terra'rists who blew up Oklahoma City...not that nationality really matters to the victims or their families or how they should be prosecuted.
Uhmmmm, no again. The promotion of your agenda will do no more or less to "quell the future harming of innocents", nor was that your motivation in saying it in the first place. And please explain how "secretly hoping" the times square bomber was right wing affiliated would promote silencing a dissenting point of view. This is the height of right wing victim paranoia, actually suggesting that a liberal's thoughts silences the voice of the right. This just gets more beautiful by the post.
Umm, you can read my mind? That's impressive. That was my motivation. Thank you for putting words into my mouth. That must be a great talent, litigator? If the aim of America is to promote peace and eliminate harming your fellow man and you have internal strife among countrymen, then how can you tell the rest of the world to cease what they are doing? It should be a sign that we need to step back and ask what the hell is wrong here. If you can't see how the Times Square bomber being affiliated with the right wing would not be a dent in their goals and philosophy, then you must not be aware of the guilty by association card played by both the right and left in the media and on these boards. If the bomber is a right winger and is a right winger and is crazy, then all right wingers must be crazy. Look no further than Obama, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Tim Tebow, FotF. If people draw conclusions there, it is reasonable they will do the same here. I never said it was sound logic, just logic that some would employ. Do you disagree?