Message 21518977
"so much for your politcal analysis"
considering the fact that i wasn't posting my "politcal analysis' to you , and considering the fact that you injected yourself into my commentary to kholt (whose response i was seeking)
by dismissing my analysis (without substance of course)..
i find this amusing:
"The only reason you decided to attack me personally by telling me I have comprehension problems is because I don't agree with you. I'm really not interested in taking this any further, after this post, because I don't like to be treated the way you treat me, and I won't put up with it."
i considered your initial post to me to be dismissvely impolite
"so much for"
meaning? ??
(never mind, don't bother, i'm sure you will come up a sanitized implication to your words)
however...recognize that when you post to someone, the probability is they may respond
frankly you don't need to 'put up with' my posts anymore than i need to 'put up with yours'
but i will of course respond when challenged
my suggestion is if you don't want to be challenged back don't initiate a dialogue with me
finally, responding to your answer...
Since you must have your answer to the Dutch killing (which I thought would be obvious from my treatment of Rudolph- the two situations are ver similar, imo):
The killer of the Dutch man had a poltical grievance- and I'd say it was a politically motivated killing. It was a political protest that was also criminal murder. The fact that a political grievance is handlend violently, does not make it not poltical. The fact that the poltical protest is born of rage does not make it not political nor does it negate the fact that is may be an act of protest. It may be uncomfortable, for some people, that political protest encompasses the violent, but I do not think discomfort should drive definitions. If I allowed my own discomfort to drive my definitions, I would prefer to define violent and criminal actions out of the realm of "political protest", but logically I cannot for the life of me see how I would do that.
of course i never said that the murder without motivation
i'm not the least uncomfortable with assigning motivation to a killer, whether it be political, hate, greed, (fill in the blank)
thankfully right thinking people are able to differentiate between committing crimes 'in the name of' and legitimate protest
the fellow who bombed abortion clinics and the olympic venue in atlanta may have convinced himself that he was 'protesting'
but our laws state otherwise...
and he is going to have a good long time to fully contemplate the significance of that distinction, if he had simply painted up a sign and walked peacefully back and forth he would have been afforded the right to his freedom of expression, his protest...
but instead he committed crimes, and thankfully no more 'protest' for him
in a democracy legitimate protest is given certain protection by our laws...we give a place *respect* to legitimate protest
when an equivilant status is conferred upon peaceful and violent 'protesters' by the very definition, the term has been rendered useless
just like 'homicide bomber' one can bomb and commit homicide without killing onself.....like those in madrid...they would be true homicide bombers..they did not commit suicide, when one eliminates the word 'suicide' from the bombing, the true meaning of the act is distorted by redefining 'suicide' into homicide...using suicide and homicide interchangeably simply impedes recognition of the factual cirumstances
going back to my original post to kholt...where she states it is 'unhelpful' to conflate acts of murder, mayhem and violence into 'protest'...
i certainly concur
and reiterate that those who persist in conflating do so out of profound intellectual dishonesty
words have meaning...
ask mr. durbin when he recklessly and stupidly equates gitmo with nazi concentration camps, gulags, and the carnage of pol pot
there are consequences to that type of abusiveness of the language
this lack of intellectual integrity associated with reconfiguring the language to comport with one's political bias and internal worldview may perhaps slip by analytical thinking of weaker minds
it is up to those of us who see it to call it out and expose it |
