3 ms·
Maybe because only one of those movements was rooted in white nationalist ideology and massacred children? The whataboutusm to defend a terrorist is pretty sick
by SonOfKyuss 2y ago
Maybe because only one of those movements was rooted in white nationalist ideology and massacred children? The whataboutusm to defend a terrorist is pretty sick
- like_any_other 2y agoWaco massacred children, yet the Guardian doesn't use it to tar anyone defending the federal government or the ATF that perpetrated it. If you can't recognize this article for the transparent propaganda that it is, I can't help you.
- eth0up 2y agoIs he defending a terrorist, or is he defending information accuracy? If he's defending terrorism, fine then. But it's kind of creepy when because terror, we advocate low quality or bad information and insult those who speculate. If it's the latter, that may well be a form of psychoterrorism. I didn't observe any advocacy of terrorism, but I guess I'll read the comment again to be sure.
- tptacek 2y agoNo, no, I don't think we're going to accept the premise that disagreeing with someone on a message board is itself a form of terrorism, sorry, gotta draw the line somewhere.
- eth0up 2y agoPremature. Wait til it becomes collective. You'll see. It's certainly happened before. But suit yourself
- tptacek 2y agoLife is a mystery. Everyone must stand alone.
- eth0up 2y agoI generally respect aand admire your comments, which are abundant here. But saying someone is sick simply because they've questioned journalistic integrity on a pretty sore subject and intimidating them into avoiding discussion seems a lot closer to terror than someone doubting motives. I can't say I understand this particular comment though.
- ConspiracyFact 2y agoFor some reason he’s lapsed into Madonna lyrics.
- ConspiracyFact 2y ago[flagged]
- eth0up 1y agoEvidence that even great thinkers can have terrible taste in music... Or does he only want us to believe it? Ignorance soothes the swollen head, in this case mine.
- SonOfKyuss 2y agoI’m all for holding journalists to account, but I think they gave away the game when their main takeaway from reading that article was to complain that a terrorist was treated unfairly using a weak comparison to another group they likely have less sympathetic feelings towards. It was very clearly an attempt at whataboutism between black lives matter and the Waco bombing.
- ConspiracyFact 2y agoThe “Waco bombing”…?
- like_any_other 2y agoYou are conflating different parts of my post, and summarizing them in highly misleading ways. I'm not complaining that the Guardian is treating McVeigh unfairly - I'm complaining that they're lying about him - or at a minimum, stretching the truth. And I'm not using the comparison to BLM for this - that is a completely separate, independent complaint. And has nothing to do with my feelings towards or the merits of BLM - it is to illustrate how opportunistic the Guardian is being in which group they associate with which tragedy. E.g. they didn't associate the defenders of the federal government or gun control with the Waco massacre, or (certain) anti-law-enforcement activists, or any of the other #resist groups, with McVeigh. It is transparent propaganda, and I am frankly shocked others don't see it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]