it’s bullshit like this - saying that those who find it bothersome of you do so because it “hits too close to home” or are being “defensive”. who’s ascribing intentions and motivations here? Do you really not include the possablity that some one may find your statement indefensibly offensive even if they don’t ascribe to the motivations that you believe?
That’s what happens when you’re that unclear. Instead of going on about it I’ll just answer the question you asked The King of Soup:
Neither one. That’s just the type of guy they think you are: the type who’d take that kind of irrelevant, out-of-left-field shot and liberals and then play innocent.
Why yes, yes you do mention liberals in the OP. My apologies, I took the OP at face value when I first read it and missed that oh-so-loaded “liberal” buzzword, and that was entirely my own fault. You then did so much hand-waving on this totally irrelevant subject:
that I got caught up in it and did not go back and check the position you staked out at the beginning. Again, I apologize, I’ll do my best to avoid your partisan wankfests in the future.
Yes. I’m also the King of Hero-hating Monocle-smudgers–BOO!
Except for the distaste and contempt you feel for people (whoever they are) who denigrate patriotic heroism and sacrifice as told in the story of Flight 93, you mean.
I never claimed to know why you’re saying stupid things or whom you’re trying to annoy by it. But you said there is a cadre of people who are anti-patriotic and opposed to the U.S. as an evil-corporate-controlled entity. That would be a “political group.” You claim to have seen them. You claim to have talked to them. You think they’re monitoring your internet message board posts. You didn’t identify this group as liberals, or as orthodontists, or as people who wear too much cologne, any more than you’re clarifying the issue by specifying who you do mean (now that would take courage. Not a lot, but some). I don’t particularly care what people you think you’re slandering, my point is that that the assertion itself is abominably stupid, and will continue emitting high-energy stupid rays long after you eventually disavow it.
WTF? Are you saying that everytime a poster Pits another poster that he must have felt the offense “hit close to home”? That makes no sense. If I Pit someone for saying all gays should be shot, then how does that statement hit me, a straight man, close to home? I can think of many, many times when someone Pits another person for something that has nothing do with his own beliefs, attitudes or characteristics.
I don’t like the retard part, but your reaction makes my point. The idiots who earnestly use the phrase “homicide bomber” also happen to be the type of dudes who went a whompin’ on Ayrabs in the aftermath, that brutal October, hollering Let’s Roll! like a battle cry. The thought of that turns my fucking stomach.
There are many ways to look at it. I think you are overreacting.
I agree. “You’re angry at what I said, so I must be right, nyah-nyah!” is the kind of response you’d expect from Rush Limbaugh and little children. But I repeat myself.
Cite?
Ari Fleischer brought the term into the public consciousness four years ago, and Fox News and the NY Post have continued to use it. Unless you’re saying they don’t use it in earnest - it’s obviously done for political purposes - I’m not sure that’s true.
I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, nor do I believe that “tha whole thing was planned by the gub’mint!!!111111111.” I merely refuse to believe the story of a heroic, action movie-like effort on the part of the Flight 93 passengers in which they screamed “let’s roll!” then jump kicked and karate chopped their way through that evil terr’rist before, uhh, intentionally crashing the plane into a field. Very little about that account makes sense in any way, and you really have to admit that it’s just the sort of glurgey, feel-good, patriotic, Schwarzenegger movie sentiment that people ate up like candy following 9/11.
I think that it’s more likely that given the heaps of eyewitness accounts of another plane (specifically an F-16) in the area, the fact that the plane conveniently went down in a completely isolated area, the miles-long trail of debris that fell from the plane before it crashed, the reports of a loud boom before the plane crashed, the fact that the plane suddenly “fell out of the sky” rather than slowly descending, the plane was probably shot down by the fighters that were scrambled to intercept it. And I think that was definitely the right thing to do, but still a very tough decision.
No, that is not even remotely what I was saying, and I think it’s rather disingenuous of you to say so. It should be clear that we’re only referring to the big EO-vs-Dio fight going on here, right? Please don’t generalize a comment about a single pit thread to mean I must feel that way about all pit threads.
As for the “hitting close to home” thing, since I have a feeling you’ll carp on that next, I want to make it clear I’m not using it in the same way EO is. If I read this fight right (and maybe I don’t) EO is apparently trying to hang the “liberals == cowards” label on Dio and because Dio is angry, EO seems to be saying “A ha! It must be true!” A sentiment you seem to be dumping on me as well. Let me state that I do not even remotely hold that belief.
The only thing I’m saying about the whole “hitting close to home” thing is that EO seems to have targeted liberals with his remarks and that got a rise out of Dio. That is all, thank you. Hope that covers everything …
I gather that you stopped paying attention to this story quite a while ago. It’s been accepted for several years that the hijackers crashed the plane to prevent the passengers from retaking it.
God, I don’t want to get in a debate about this but…
Don’t we have Mrs. “Let’s Roll” saying that Mr. “Let’s Roll” told her over his cell phone that some of the passengers were planning to take the plane back from the hijackers? Did she just make that up? If she didn’t, then the heroic passenger scenario seems at least as likely as your theory.
The flight data recorders also have the terrorists discussing the passenger’s attempts and deciding to crash the plane. But I guess you don’t have to believe the phone call records or black box either.
I’d love to see a cite for this!
… and the 9-1-1 emergency call recordings.
So, VCO3, you seriously contend all of these sources have been compromised? And your “proof” is a 911 conspiracy site?
Dude, that plants you so firmly in the “conspiracy theorist” category that redwoods envy your roots.
VCO3, this is very public knowledge. The black boxes were played for the families of Flight 93 victims in 2002, and the September 11 Commission discussed them as well. I’m sorry to use Wikipedia for this, but that was near the top of my search results anyway.
Cite? Cite??
I don’t know about Marley23, but I don’t think anyone needs a cite for something that was all over all the major networks for a good year or so after the event. Only a complete and total looney* is going to call for a cite on this.
-
- If you have Alzheimer’s and do not actually remember events from this time period, I apologize, and suggest you read the source I see on preview that Marley23 has provided.
While he’s not a poster here to anybody’s knowledge, I’m surprised Michael Moore hasn’t been mentioned.
I’ve heard other provocateurs make similar comments. Gore Vidal stopped short of challenging the heroism but essentially said they weren’t as heroic as their suicidal hijackers (and of course that Bush was responsible for it all and essentially America had it coming).