Because the former broke the overriding rule, don’t be a jerk, in the way he treated people day after day. The effect is to stifle discussion.
December never strays from his party line. Big deal. When he crossed the line recently, he was admonshed. I’m sure if he did it as frequently as Col, he’d be banned, too.
Frankly, I don’t miss that effete psuedo-intellectual snob, Col, one bit.
Because Coll was (sometimes) a condescending asshole, and December isn’t.
In retrospect you were probably asking that rhetorically.
Hmm. Most fanatical terrorists (especially when they get in power) don’t like people to freely speak their minds about things because it makes them more difficult to control. Protests usually involve huge groups of people using free speech to object to an action or policy of their own, or a similarly-minded, government.
So a terrorist bombs a building and thanks peace protesters. This causes not-too-sharp people like our esteemed OP to conclude that the protests are really encouraging the bombers, so the logical solution must be to stifle protest, right? Stifle free speech!
Err, wait. Wasn’t that what the terrorists wanted?
Giraffe: He ain’t acting.
December, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that opposition to Bush translates to support for terrorism?
Bush himself has encouraged, nay, levied carnage all over Iraq, both in Iraqi and American lives.
Whatever intentions he had ain’t going to bring anybody back either.
In short, (pretending here that it hasn’t already been said about a billion times), your “points” are pure bullshit.
Sig line! Fucking sig line if I ever saw one!
If december’s shit about anti-war protestors encouraging terrorism isn’t condescending assholery, I don’t know what is.
In other words, you can be a condescending asshole without using swear words too. The OP is a fine example.
I think the terrorists have already won.
Even my shoe could tell you the Bali Bomber is trying to manipulate public opinion with his stupid comments.
Yeah but he’s not a jerk to the actual particpants of the thread, and that’s the difference.
I don’t think he should be banned, I just think he should shut the fuck up.
Anyway he’s still here, so this discussion, and the 87 other incarnations before it, are a bit moot at this time.
John Mace:
Thank you for being an aspiration to december. Also, thank you for bringing up the fact that this guy is a terrorist, and any words from his mouth should be scrutinized.
His statement is akin to Osama stating that America is the devil. I don’t remember anyone taking it without a saltlick.
‘Unintended Consequences’. A phrase you and your ilk should become familiar with.
What the fuck do you expect when John Q. Terrorist, sitting in some cave in Asscrackistan, is watching thousands show up to protest against a course of action that he himself is going to do a little ‘protesting’ against. It must warm his heart to know that so many in the West share his views. “Heck, he thinks to himself, look at how many are in the streets! Maybe this fight is winnable after all!”
The unintended consequences of the idiot protesters in the streets was to encourage at least this one terrorist. Probably more.
I don’t think he should be banned either… but then, nor did I think Collounsbury should have been banned. shrugs
A. prove that demonstrators actions caused or encouraged the terrorist to act, as in, had the protestors not protested, the terrorist wouldn’t have bombed.
B. “unitended consequences”, learn it, use it, one of the ‘unintended consequences’ of the Iraq invasion is that Iraq now being called a ‘breeding ground’ for terrorists. that if SH had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, we haven’t a clue where they are now or whose hands they end up in. When he had a country, SH would have needed all the weapons he could get his hands on to protect his borders from Iran, Turkey et al, but now he doesn’t have to ‘save’ them for that purpose, he’s free to sell them, give them to whoever.
two can play the ‘unintended consequences’ game.
Mr Mace…so according to you those of us who oppose the war should sit back and shut up because we are aiding the terrorists?
If we did that, wouldn’t you and your ilk just continue to devastate the world?
Randy
Well, John Mace and World Eater have both answered your question. Are you still going to ask it in every december thread?
What, if anything, do you think those who oppose the war should do in response to this news?
Actually, it’s the unintended consequences of the idiot in the White House that has inspired all this terrorism, dumbshit. And it’s not like we idiot protestors haven’t mentioned the potential for increased terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiments about a million times since the first day he mentioned starting a war in Iraq for no good reason.
Are you honestly stupid enough to think if the U.S. was perceived as the frickin’ Borg in terms of civilian support for the government’s actions that there would be no resistance to the Iraqi invasion? Are you really, actually that stupid?
Yes, because as we all know, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids, our troops would be all over Iraq! (Oh, wait a minute…)
The unintended consequences of this war is that terrorists are pouring into Iraq. The unintended consequences of assholes like you (and december) is that terrorists are inspired to commit atrocities against the US, Israel, et al.
Congratulations…you fuckwits are encouraging terrorism.