3 ms·

You are the second person in this thread to pretend to not be able to distinguish between accepting collateral casualties, and having them as the primary object

You are the second person in this thread to pretend to not be able to distinguish between accepting collateral casualties, and having them as the primary objective. You also imply I'm trying to rehabilitate McVeigh, when I have done nothing but point out how the Guardian is playing loose with facts, and being opportunistic in who they associate with which decades-old tragedies. Do you think he is so sympathetic, one has to lie about him to avoid 'rehabilitating' him?

tptacek 2y ago
I don't understand what this has to do with what I asked. Do you mean to say "no, there is no effort [at least none you're aware of] to rehabilitate McVeigh"? "No" is a perfectly good answer.
- eth0up 2y ago
  I'm going to guess in fair faith, that op has absolutely no desire to excuse or advocate such things. Probably feeling barraged, he replied defensively, annoyed that expressing an understanding of the subject contrary to the TFAs tone, was interpreted as support for evil shit. I'll further guess that in a fresh situation, he'd probably agree with you.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    There's nothing to agree with, as, as far as I can tell, tptacek didn't voice any opinions, only asked a leading question - for some reason, pointing out part of the article is unsubstantiated speculation trying to pass itself off as near-certain fact, prompted him to wonder if there's an effort (somewhere!) to defend this act of mass murder. Edit: I don't understand why you think I'm some authority on how McVeigh is perceived, but to humor you, no, I don't know of any efforts to 'rehabilitate' him.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I'm not sure I see how it's "leading" and I'm starting to wonder why you don't seem to be able to answer it? You get that you can retain all your stated concerns and still not know of an effort to rehabilitate McVeigh, right?

3 ms·

You are the second person in this thread to pretend to not be able to distinguish between accepting collateral casualties, and having them as the primary object

by like_any_other 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago
I don't understand what this has to do with what I asked. Do you mean to say "no, there is no effort [at least none you're aware of] to rehabilitate McVeigh"? "No" is a perfectly good answer.
- eth0up 2y ago
  I'm going to guess in fair faith, that op has absolutely no desire to excuse or advocate such things. Probably feeling barraged, he replied defensively, annoyed that expressing an understanding of the subject contrary to the TFAs tone, was interpreted as support for evil shit. I'll further guess that in a fresh situation, he'd probably agree with you.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    There's nothing to agree with, as, as far as I can tell, tptacek didn't voice any opinions, only asked a leading question - for some reason, pointing out part of the article is unsubstantiated speculation trying to pass itself off as near-certain fact, prompted him to wonder if there's an effort (somewhere!) to defend this act of mass murder. Edit: I don't understand why you think I'm some authority on how McVeigh is perceived, but to humor you, no, I don't know of any efforts to 'rehabilitate' him.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I'm not sure I see how it's "leading" and I'm starting to wonder why you don't seem to be able to answer it? You get that you can retain all your stated concerns and still not know of an effort to rehabilitate McVeigh, right?