One more time, with feeling: People are not responsible for how their peaceful actions SEEM to terrorists! If I am acting lawfully and peacefully and civilly, and some individual wholly unrelated to me or my cause takes my actions as motivation to do something violent, that is not my problem. And I sure as HELL didn’t cause his actions. They are not the “consequence” of my action; they are the consequence of his own fully volitional, independent actions.
That is not a consequence of the protest! It is a consequence of their own volitional acts bringing about a perceived positive result, which in turn prompts them to repeat the same catalystic action to achieve the same positive result. If I hit a red button repeatedly because every time I do so it pays off with a cookie, the cookie is not causing me to hit the red button; I am choosing to do so because I want the cookies.
Besides which, you’ve mixed up cause and effect. In your examples, the cause is the act of terror; the hoped-for result is greater protest. In the ridiculous position advocated in the OP it’s the other way around.
Once again, december steps right up to the plate, and deals with the tough question that he thinks his OP has raised. So what was the point of the OP, again?
By the way, I completely disagree with those who say that december, like Collounsbury, is a condescending asshole. Coll is actually intelligent enough to be capable of condescension, whereas december only thinks he’s intelligent enough to be condescending. In that respect, he and Brutus, our resident troglodyte bully-boy, are very similar.
I think you miss the point, Jodi, that this is exactly what they expect. While december et al. would ideally like everyone to think exactly the way they do, they are willing to accept a situation where everyone who thinks differently simply declines to express an opinion.
But december’s name could clearly be construed as an endorsement of the December 1825 plotters. By speaking out against tsarist Russia like this, december has clearly supported the Soviet Union.
I’m sure he had no such intention, but good intentions won’t bring millions of victims back to life.
Do you have a reading problem? Or merely a comprehesion problem? I am responsible for MY actions. I am not responsible for YOURS, so long as yours are intentionally done and wholly unconnected to mine. You can certainly point to me as the reason for doing as you chose to do, but since you, in this hypothetical, are a craven dishonorable murdering terrorist, who gives a shit how you justify your actions?
Apparently CNN botched this one (no surprise there, eh december?), as they left out the rest of the statement. There must have been a problem with the translator. Luckily, TurdNetDaily had the entire statment, and so we present:
To those who claim that the protestors are in any way responsible for this, you “encouraged” Bush to killed thousands of innocents in Iraq, and we “encouraged” the death of under 200. I guess you win in the numbers game.
Oh, and I’ll continue to feel free to protest and even to burn the flag if I see fit. It must be okay, since you keep shitting on it.
Ssshhh Read_neck, every word you say kills a baby somewhere. It’s your right of course, but you might want to think about it. You know, is that post really worth dead babies? Not that I’m against free speech, it’s just that I’m against baby-killing. I am so torn. Just think over your next post OK?
I’m not sure why everyone is getting down on december. He merely pointed out that the actions of some protestors encouraged the actions of some terrorists. Since bin Laden has noted on multiple occasions that his original beef with the west was inspired by the desecration of the Muslim Holy Lands by the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil, I think that we can all agree with december that Georgw H. W. Bush was the one who encouraged the bombing of the African embassies, the USS Cole, and the WTC and Pentagon.
I am mildly surprised to find december arging that it was wrong for the U.S. to station troops in Saudi Arabia, but it is his argument and I have to applaud his courage in making it.
december, note that the terrorist claims Bush wants the same things he does and is helping the cause of recruitment. What do you, using your methods of logic, conclude that Bush is responsible for?
For someone already “on very thin ice”, this OP is a deathwish.
The last few months’ worth of posts on these boards have given me renewed hope that the American voters will opt for regime change at home next year. The arguments of Bush’s defenders have become increasingly lame. If this is the best they can do, there’s light at the end of this frighteningly dark tunnel.
Well, Miller made a very similar argument quite a while ago, and it has been studiously ignored by december and his brethren. Don’t hold your breath for a response.