Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation
-
We don't know enough about the shooter to say whether or not this had anything to do with the NG in DC. More than likely it's just another Muslim nutter who was just as likely to shoot a civilian or a metro cop. But I suppose it's as good an excuse as any to pin it on Trump. It clearly doesn't take much.
"You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell
-
I need you guys to be more specific. He was a lone shooter, they say. Why 500 more troops? Is there a heightened security need? Or is he just making a point to a guy who’s sitting in hospital/jail?
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I need you guys to be more specific. He was a lone shooter, they say. Why 500 more troops? Is there a heightened security need? Or is he just making a point to a guy who’s sitting in hospital/jail?
It's a meaningless show of force, because of course Trump would push back with a meaningless show of force. But please do continue to scratch your head with performative puzzlement.
-
Here’s why it makes no sense.
To the extent that there’s a heightened security risk, it would be copycats. (Perhaps especially Islamic copycats).
All adding 500 troops would do in that case is enrich the target environment. At the end of the day, anyone willing to trade his life for that of a guardsman or two can do so, barring some bad luck.
-
We don't know enough about the shooter to say whether or not this had anything to do with the NG in DC. More than likely it's just another Muslim nutter who was just as likely to shoot a civilian or a metro cop. But I suppose it's as good an excuse as any to pin it on Trump. It clearly doesn't take much.
-
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
"You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
No, strictly and only on one level. The guy that decided to ambush two soldiers.
Saying otherwise is akin to blaming the short skirt the girl was wearing for what happened in the alley…
No, having the national guard in DC in the first place is objectively unnecessary. Being shot is as well, of course. Both are not to blame but both are certainly unnecessary.
And yes. If your a girl wearing a short skirt in an alley, it’s foolish. Not guilty, but foolish.
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
No, strictly and only on one level. The guy that decided to ambush two soldiers.
Saying otherwise is akin to blaming the short skirt the girl was wearing for what happened in the alley…
No, having the national guard in DC in the first place is objectively unnecessary. Being shot is as well, of course. Both are not to blame but both are certainly unnecessary.
If she was a little more frumpy, it never would have happened.
This is the most inane argument that I have ever seen.
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
People will believe their own BS. Those who are most invested in their own BS, will also be most invested in propagating their BS to everybody who will listen. Say, how's the wallpaper on TNCR over the past year? Got a faint sniff of "jon infecting the world with his BS".
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
Nobody cares as much about the potential literal readings of your words as you do. As I've explained previously, you're happy to imply broadly, and then retreat to literal when you get pushback in your unpreferred direction. If anybody read your post as a blaming of Trump, you would get an endorphin rush. if anybody pushes back against a blaming of Trump, you get literal. This is known as motte and bailey, but you already know that fallacy. Not that it prevents you from employing it whenever it makes opportunistic rhetorical sense to do so.
-
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
That’s nonsensical.
In your head I'm sure it is. meanwhile, nobody else lives in your head. Only you. Despite your best attempts at wallpapering TNCR with your head. To the detriment of the whole dynamic.
-
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
The Brad
-
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
Education is extremely important.
-
Listen, despite all evidence to the contrary, I’m not an idiot. I can just tell you my reaction to this was “yeah, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place for a marketing stunt”. Eventually the same thing will happen with the shameful ICE raids I bet.
-
I thought it already had been done with the "shameful ice raids", except the crazy anti-American person in that case, accidentally killed a couple of detainees rather than ICE agents. The anecdotes are actually piling up for crazy anti-America violence. they don't get a lot of play here, because jon's counterpart does not exist here to remind the world of every single anecdote that crosses their Twitter feed, which satisfies their biases.
-
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situation…
But it’s easy to read things into written words that aren’t meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
I don’t find that case one that can be reasonably made at all. Let me make this counter: A federal push to restore safety and prevent violent crime in the federal city was successful, and even acknowledged as such by the mayor. Despite all of the screaming opposition, there were no rights trampled, and no disruption to the running of the city. Now, in the middle of the drawdown of NG troops, an Afghani from Washington travels all the way to DC to attack NG troops? I would argue forcefully that the cause was not the 2500 troops that were pretty innocuous, but were instead people like @89th arguing online that this was a travesty and an infringement on the freedom of Americans, unrivaled since forever and this was worse than Hitler! Kristalnacht is next!
So some dude from a country where armed insurrection and murder is the political coin, naturally responds to the instigation of 89th saying “She shouldn’t have worn the red lipstick, then this wouldn’t have happened!”
I think that’s a far more more reasonable argument, but still wrong, since the blame lies solely on the guy that pulled the trigger.
The Brad
