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.
@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
-
@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.
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@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.
That seems reasonable as well.
-
@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.
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@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.
If the troops were there for a legit purpose, it wouldn’t be a problem, but it was a marketing stunt. It’s the same as if Trump said let’s see if we can fit 100,000 troops into a stadium, and as part of the stunt, a light falls and crushes two of them, that is why this is an unnecessary tragedy.
-
All messaging is a marketing stunt. What did left-leaning messaging have to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Or the assassination of these natl'l guard troops? Of course it was integral. At least the presence of Natl Guard troops can be interpreted as peaceful, and in fact is peaceful in intent, if any of the guardsmen were spoken to, including the ones killed. The messaging about fascism and hate hate hate that permeates how the left speaks of their opposition, on the other hand, was anything but peaceful. No peaceful intent no matter how you view it.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@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.
If the troops were there for a legit purpose, it wouldn’t be a problem, but it was a marketing stunt. It’s the same as if Trump said let’s see if we can fit 100,000 troops into a stadium, and as part of the stunt, a light falls and crushes two of them, that is why this is an unnecessary tragedy.
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@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.
If the troops were there for a legit purpose, it wouldn’t be a problem, but it was a marketing stunt. It’s the same as if Trump said let’s see if we can fit 100,000 troops into a stadium, and as part of the stunt, a light falls and crushes two of them, that is why this is an unnecessary tragedy.
We’re blaming messaging, now? Okay, which messaging put the killer in DC with a plan to kill National Guardsmen? Trump’s message of reducing crime and beautification of the Capitol, or the messaging promoted by you and others that these are Trump’s brown shirts oppressing the citizens of DC. One message was “we shouldn’t get carjacked”, the other message was Trump and the Guard were violating their constitutional authority and were massively disrupting the lives of people in Washington, DC. Which of these messages do you think put that guy on the streets of DC?
