4 ms·

> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried ou

> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention. It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1] [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-capitol-riot-11610387004 https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...

julienchastang 6y ago
OK, I stand corrected. Apparently, this did really happen [1], but my other comment still holds. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-us-capitol-nov-7-1983-244578 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...
- runarberg 6y ago
  Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified. Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths. Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
    - triceratops 6y ago
      I have no clue who that is but from reading other comments, I learned > She was pardoned by Clinton Her sentence was commuted. She wasn't pardoned. > Not sure how she has paid for her crimes She served 16 years of a 58-year sentence. You can consider that at least partial payment.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      It is still a moot point. You can point out the specifics all you want, it still wont make this good faith argument. If a cause was void because terrorists advocate for it, there would be no cause worth celebrating. And there is no evidence that left wing terrorism is given more leeway then right wing terrorism. Quite the contrary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-us...

julienchastang 6y ago

OK, I stand corrected. Apparently, this did really happen [1], but my other comment still holds. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-us-capitol-nov-7-1983-244578 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...

runarberg 6y ago
Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified. Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths. Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
  - triceratops 6y ago
    I have no clue who that is but from reading other comments, I learned > She was pardoned by Clinton Her sentence was commuted. She wasn't pardoned. > Not sure how she has paid for her crimes She served 16 years of a 58-year sentence. You can consider that at least partial payment.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    It is still a moot point. You can point out the specifics all you want, it still wont make this good faith argument. If a cause was void because terrorists advocate for it, there would be no cause worth celebrating. And there is no evidence that left wing terrorism is given more leeway then right wing terrorism. Quite the contrary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-use-of-force-protests-black-lives-matter-far-right https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-us...