While one can debate the niceties of wishing AIDS on a suspect in a criminal case, the phrase quoted above appears highly racist. You may wish to rethink your wording in future.
This appears to be a knock in the eye to profilers, who had said that the bomber was likely a middle-aged man working alone.
Did they? All I’d ever heard was ‘educated white male’, which could easily fit…
Wonder if he has any connection to this band:
http://artists4.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Apathy_MN/
…The car they’re looking for does have MN plates.
Hmmm. A friend of mine’s son is in that band.
Sorry, I was listening to an Anal Cunt song while writing it, so that explains the wording.
Yup. Guy’s got three names, so he must be guilty! (Not that I’m doubting the possiblity, its just that whole “three names thing” that News of the Weird and others have pointed out. The only thing that could be more perfect would be if one of the guy’s names had been “Wayne.”)
I just checked with my friend whose son is in that band, and yeah, that’s the guy.
It’s always three names when you’re in trouble. Just about every person in America has at least three names, and didn’t your mom always call you by your full name when you’d just screwed-up? I know mine always did…
The FBI is just ‘mom’ writ large… 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Angel of the Lord *
Methinks someone watched Fight Club too many times. And missed the part where Tyler Durden didn’t try to kill anyone.
[QUOTE]
Didn’t he try to kill the woman?
Oh joy, another nutcase from Wisconsin…
but he is innocent until proven guilty!
Absolutely! Did you notice that the geographical pattern of the bombs was starting to look like a smiley face?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020507/161/1i4k5.html
He must have missed the part where Tyler says, “We’re not murdering anyone. The people in the buildings all work for us.”
The first rule of Project Mayhem is you do not ask questions…
Dumbass.
Twisty,
Wikkit was correct, had I previewed my response, it might make more sense with the bolding.
What she is saying is completely why I rolled my eyes. The fuck that did this was obviously a terrorist in his own right. And she made a very redundant point. It was clearly obvious that the fuck had to terrorize innocent people, so why point out the obvious? But she also said, “I don’t fucking care.”
It just struck me as “preaching to the choir” kind of comment. And the I don’t fucking care comment made little sense, because if she didn’t care, then why did she feel it was important to bring up the topic? Honestly I think she cares, in some manner to understand the fuck that is apparently in custody now.
So, she doesn’t care but she cares enough to bring up the topic and not really understand that the fuck is a terrorist. A terrorist (domestic or foreign) doesn’t give a shit about what would happen to an innocent person, that’s the nature off terrorism, real or those looking for the spotlight for sick reasons.
They use tactics to scare the living shit out of people. That’s it. Their methods may be crude but it worked. It woke people up. We live in a pretty fucking weird world in the US now, which used to be relatively safe and those terrorists are using other means to bring us all to our fears. So, her comments again, struck me as strange given the knowledge we really have on those that commit crimes like this. There is an agenda but overall it’s fucking with the minds of the general population and that’s really easy to comprehend.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 
Forgive me for saying it, but welcome to the rest of the world.
I suppose I’m just looking at the same thing as you are, but from a different point of view.
I still don’t think she deserved a rolleyes though.
Well, yeah, terrorists, by definition, don’t care about terrorizing innocent people. (Or if they do care, they are willing and able to overcome their scruples in the matter.) But, maybe not in all cases, but generally speaking, the terror is not an end in itself–they are inflicting terror in some cause. And what the OP appeared to be saying was “Since you have chosen to use terrorism to draw attention to your cause, we don’t give a fuck about what your cause is”.
I really don’t see why that stance merits a rolleyes.
Thanks for explaining it more clearly than I apparently did, MEBuckner. To quote the line from the OP causing the difficulty:
It was then followed by my comments about him killing innocents unrelated to whatever “issues” he might have with the government. Yes, I realize that this is domestic terrorism’s definition. My point was that my anger over his way of trying to draw attention to his agenda meant that I don’t give a shit what he was protesting - he could have been trying to bring attention to some real case of our government committing some atrocity, or whatever. If you’ve got a point, I don’t think you should be killing innocent civilians to get attention.
And naturally, I’m biased in this instance. My husband is a letter carrier, as I’d mentioned, and dealing with the anthrax scare was tough enough. He just kept going into work though, saying it was his job. So, I’m venting against this nutjob college student who thinks that “dismissing people from reality” will allow us all to escape the bonds of governmental control once we no longer fear death, because he’s putting people just like my husband at risk. My OP was inspired by my rage against another asshole with a grudge against the government targeting some hard-working folks, one of whom I happen to be married to.
Did y’all catch the news footage of the MIQ (Moron in Question; i.e., the pipebomber)? The fool was smiling and laughing as he was taken to jail.