Possible BOMB found in van in NY's Time Square

[kyzr]

This thread isn't about Tim McVeigh any more than its about Obama's terrorist buddies

William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist)
Frank Davis (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama)
Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor)
Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing)
Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)
Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization)
Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin)
Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua)
Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)
Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party)
Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party)
The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist)

So can we stick to the thread topic instead of chasing straw-men carrying red-herrings?

Who tried to bomb Times Square, and why???

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

 

[chanel]

There are many "home grown" Al Qaeda sympathizers in NYC unfortunately. The blind sheik and the group involved in 93 were from Brooklyn,

They are looking for a "white guy in hi 40s" who changed his shirt in an ally nearby but who knows. We'll find out soon.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You should probably step down off your high horse once in a while. Take a sniff of the roses.

Well I appreciate the concern big fella, I really do... But my Horse isn't all that high, it just seems that way at times, when one's own horse doesn't measure up... and I'm afraid that where you're sittin' at the moment.




Well there's no universally accepted definition of a lot of things when one expands the scope of opinion beyond that which matters... In this instance, it's you and I... my definition for both is registered throughout this site and on dozens of others just like across the web.

There's not a ton of debate over the terms, accept where Leftist want to revise the terms they hijack to define themselves so as to produce the illusion that they've something in comon with Americans.

But let's take a look and see what ya decided to go with.

So try this on for size: Definition of Progressive Politics | eHow.com

right wing - definition of right wing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Almost ALL "definitions" of these things are fluid and subject to accidental or deliberate manipulation. For example, many far left liberals CLAIM, nonetheless, to be "progressives." Why? Because they do not wish to be properly classified as what they are. Even some of them recognize the legitimacy of the stigma associated with "liberal" as that term is used in modern American parlance.

If you truly wish to argue that McVeigh's political instincts and proposals were merely "forward looking," then I reject your manipulation of the meaning of the word "progressive." Indeed, just because some authoritarian far left statist chooses to assume the mantle of "progressive" does NOT mean that the term "progressive" ought to be understood by reference to such ideologues.

McVeigh had very pronounced issues with our "left wing" government. His rambling thoughts are recorded. You can quibble all you wish, but it seems to me that a guy who stands opposed to a left wing government, gets involved with a militia and takes up arms against the people and the left-wing government he opposes on the ground that it is too grasping and controlling is showing his opposition to the politics of the left. He was a right winger. Misguided as all hell, but a right winger nonetheless.

Consider the implication of this excerpt of a trial reporter's article in the Slimes during McVeigh's trial:

Political Ideas Of McVeigh Are Subject At Bomb Trial - NYTimes.com

Yeah... That's what I thought... Your feelings on McVeigh are founded in him being 'to the right' a feminized pacifist... You're working from the erroneous notion that ideology is linear... Left is on one side and they're entitled to their ideas; which are just as viable, just as plausible as their opposition on the other end of the line and to their right... who have other ideas, which are equally viable and plausible; and that the best solutions are those where each side comes together to compromise; taking the best characteristics from each side...

From this ya hear of McVeigh's rants regarding his would-be opposition to: 'the Left', along with his advocacy for gun ownership; which ya feel 'the left' opposses... and this you conclude from that basis, that this provides McVeigh was a "Right Winger".


But here's the problem ya have: being anti-wrong, doesn't make ya right...

Being RIGHT... is not a direction, Liability... it is a status. It's pretty damn hard to be Right when the last thing ya did with the responsibility which you had that sustained your rights to BE FREE... was to murder a couple of hundred innocent people; many of which were children who had never wronged anyone.

There's a HELLUVA LOT MORE TO BEING RIGHT, than oppossing the wrong, OKA: the Left... and any claim that McVeigh ever had to that lofty title, he forfeited the instant that he decided his means, which was mass murder, was justified by the righteousness of his cause, to strike a blow against 'the Left'...

He became THE LEFT... when he began to ACT AS LEFTIST ACT. That he was entitled to take the lives of those innocent people; because HE HAD A BITCH! Because someone had pissed him OFF, HE WAS GOING TO EVEN THE SCORE...

This isn't complicated Liability... It's an age old formula:
"Because 30 Million people do not have Health Insurance, WE'RE GOING TO FUCK UP EVERYONE'S INSURANCE!

Because some people can't afford to buy a house, WE'RE GOING TO CRASH THE ENTIRE MORTGAGE, REAL-ESTATE AND BUILDING INDUSTRIES...

Because this or that person can't maintain their responsibility for themselves with regard to their firearms, WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT EVERYONE'S MEANS TO OWN AND USE A FIREARM.

To hell with YOU and your Rights... Your Rights are what the Government says they are... what WE say they ARE."

Nothing Right about that...

Don't fall into the trap that these idiots can't be defined... there's nothing to defining them. It's simple, common sense.

Fascinating lecture. Entirely subjective. Largely erroneous. But quite fascinating.

No.

Your notion of simple common sense is misguided.

That the left-right dichotomy is not necessarily linear is not disputed in all cases; but that doesn't mean that the two political philosophies don't exist. And if and when you can plot out a person's beliefs, you can and most often do get a pretty good notion of where he falls on the political spectrum.

McVeigh clearly falls to the right in the way he thought.

That his actions were entirely aberrant doesn't get him excused from classification as a RIGHT winger.

Well actually, it does. As one's actions weigh, where one's words carry no weight.

You cannot point to anything he ever said (and presumably believed) that demonstrates that he was in any way a so-called "progressive." And if you have any evidence of his being a leftist, you have yet to show that card.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that McVeigh murdered hundreds of people to make a political statement...

You're entire argument assumes that mass murder and violence is a trait common to right... and distinct from the character of the Left. When in truth, the Right has no history of offensive violence.

By contrast, I have shown a good deal of information that leads one to rationally conclude that however fucking misguided that prick was, he was nevertheless politically on the right wing. The fact that he did wrong -- morally reprehensible wrong -- doesn't change that fact.

What evidence was that? That he mouthed some disdain for the Left and felt strongly in gun ownership? Few have killed more socialists than Mao, Pol Pot and Joe Stalin and they were all BIG BELIEVERS THE POWER OF THE FIREARM. And only the most addle-minded fools classify them as "Right"...

You are arguing rather irrationally. To say that he was a right winger is NOT to endorse anything the fucker did. It's just to note that even one on the right can go wrong. McVeigh was on the right and he did go very very wrong.

Well, to claim that the Left is not founded in Mass Murder, not oriented around and resting upon moral relativism which defines means/ends... and that McVeighs final act as a free man was to practice these Leftist traits, is an argument which lacks a sound, sustainable rationale... one which is constructed in an invalid logical construct and stands on the shifting sands of historical revision... And given that such defines your argument Liability... its yours which is irrational.

One can'treasonably claim another to be a rightwinger, where that person is defined by an act which is typical of, and common to, the character and practices of the Left.

You're falling victim to popular consensus... which as usual is a consensus of the erroneous variety.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This thread isn't about Tim McVeigh any more than its about Obama's terrorist buddies

William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist)
Frank Davis (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama)
Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor)
Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing)
Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)
Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization)
Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin)
Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua)
Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)
Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party)
Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party)
The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist)

So can we stick to the thread topic instead of chasing straw-men carrying red-herrings?

Who tried to bomb Times Square, and why???

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

I agree... it's the work of the Left...

 

[Liability]

This thread isn't about Tim McVeigh any more than its about Obama's terrorist buddies

William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist)
Frank Davis (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama)
Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor)
Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing)
Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)
Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization)
Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin)
Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua)
Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)
Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party)
Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party)
The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist)

So can we stick to the thread topic instead of chasing straw-men carrying red-herrings?

Who tried to bomb Times Square, and why???

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

The thread topic was the early report of the fact of a then suspected bomb being discovered in Times' Square.

The thread, like any thread, can take any twist or turn the members choose to discuss.

As for the question of "whodunit," the answer so far is "we don't yet know."

As for suspects, I still don't know. Any number of fucking scumbags could be behind it. Lone-wolf nuts (left wing or right wing, unknown) or organized vermin like AQ. As far as I can tell, so far, at least in terms of information that has been released during the ongoing investigation, there is simply insufficient information available to us to make any rational "call" on "whodunit" or who is most likely to have been behind it.

I'm hoping it doesn't take too long to find out.

 

[Kalam]

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

What does that stand for?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"A Pakistani Taliban group claimed responsibility for the failed attack in a 1-minute video. Kelly, however, said police have no evidence to support the claims, and noted that the same group had falsely taken credit for previous attacks on U.S. soil. The commissioner also cast doubt on an e-mail to a news outlet claiming responsibility."
NYPD: Video has possible SUV bomb suspect in alley - Yahoo! News




I almost hope that we find out it was a home grown nut case.

Oh I think we can count on it...

Wait until the Left is kicked to the curb in November and the Conservative Legislature goes to work Repealing and Rreplacing the HealthsCare crap, rolling back entitlements and such... There'll be VBIEDS popping off all over the place.

Which will of course be blamed on RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS! "Cause they're the violent one's, ya know..."

 

[Liability]

* * * *
Well, to claim that the Left is not founded in Mass Murder, not oriented around and resting upon moral relativism which defines means/ends... and that McVeighs final act as a free man was to practice these Leftist traits, is an argument which lacks a sound, sustainable rationale... one which is constructed in an invalid logical construct and stands on the shifting sands of historical revision... And given that such defines your argument Liability... its yours which is irrational.

One can'treasonably claim another to be a rightwinger, where that person is defined by an act which is typical of, and common to, the character and practices of the Left.

You're falling victim to popular consensus... which as usual is a consensus of the erroneous variety.

You are engaged in gibberish.

Distilled to its essence, your argument is that "no right winger could ever stoop to mass murder." That's honestly too stupid to be credited. McVeigh was a right winger -- he went off the deep end -- and he most certainly DID stoop to mass murder. His actions are not an indictment of the right. But he nevertheless is an example of how a right winger could be responsible for the hideous actions that took so many lives.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This thread isn't about Tim McVeigh any more than its about Obama's terrorist buddies

William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist)
Frank Davis (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama)
Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor)
Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing)
Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)
Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization)
Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin)
Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua)
Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)
Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party)
Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party)
The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist)

So can we stick to the thread topic instead of chasing straw-men carrying red-herrings?

Who tried to bomb Times Square, and why???

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

The thread topic was the early report of the fact of a then suspected bomb being discovered in Times' Square.

The thread, like any thread, can take any twist or turn the members choose to discuss.

As for the question of "whodunit," the answer so far is "we don't yet know."

As for suspects, I still don't know. Any number of fucking scumbags could be behind it. Lone-wolf nuts (left wing or right wing, unknown) or organized vermin like AQ. As far as I can tell, so far, at least in terms of information that has been released during the ongoing investigation, there is simply insufficient information available to us to make any rational "call" on "whodunit" or who is most likely to have been behind it.

I'm hoping it doesn't take too long to find out.

Actually... It's a mathematical impossibility that a "RightWinger" would set a bomb designed to murder innocent people...

And this is because one canNOT BE RIGHT when one is overtly commiting WRONG.

 

[Liability]

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

What does that stand for?

Hm.

I was wondering that myself until YOU asked. Now I get it.

SN seems to stand for the racist term Sand-N*****.

I hope you realize that -- all of our disagreements notwithstanding -- many of us on the right do not use or endorse the use of that kind of language.

 

[Father Time]

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liability]

This thread isn't about Tim McVeigh any more than its about Obama's terrorist buddies

William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist)
Frank Davis (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama)
Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor)
Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing)
Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American)
Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization)
Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin)
Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua)
Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)
Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party)
Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party)
The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist)

So can we stick to the thread topic instead of chasing straw-men carrying red-herrings?

Who tried to bomb Times Square, and why???

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

The thread topic was the early report of the fact of a then suspected bomb being discovered in Times' Square.

The thread, like any thread, can take any twist or turn the members choose to discuss.

As for the question of "whodunit," the answer so far is "we don't yet know."

As for suspects, I still don't know. Any number of fucking scumbags could be behind it. Lone-wolf nuts (left wing or right wing, unknown) or organized vermin like AQ. As far as I can tell, so far, at least in terms of information that has been released during the ongoing investigation, there is simply insufficient information available to us to make any rational "call" on "whodunit" or who is most likely to have been behind it.

I'm hoping it doesn't take too long to find out.

Actually... It's a mathematical impossibility that a "RightWinger" would set a bomb designed to murder innocent people...

And this is because one canNOT BE RIGHT when one is overtly commiting WRONG.

Absolute sophistry.

 

[Kalam]

My money is on SNs who are AQ wannabes.

What does that stand for?

Hm.

I was wondering that myself until YOU asked. Now I get it.

SN seems to stand for the racist term Sand-N*****.

I hope you realize that -- all of our disagreements notwithstanding -- many of us on the right do not use or endorse the use of that kind of language.

Yeah, I know what it stands for. I was just trying to draw attention to the fact that he's too much of a pussy to type out "******." Most racists are, after all, pussies.

 

[Liability]

What does that stand for?

Hm.

I was wondering that myself until YOU asked. Now I get it.

SN seems to stand for the racist term Sand-N*****.

I hope you realize that -- all of our disagreements notwithstanding -- many of us on the right do not use or endorse the use of that kind of language.

Yeah, I know what it stands for. I was just trying to draw attention to the fact that he's too much of a pussy to type out "******." Most racists are, after all, pussies.

I rarely type out that word, either.

I have used the c word and the f bomb and a variety of other salty language and sometimes done so with gusto.

But that kind of racist bullshit holds no attraction.

I saw a thread here the other day asking when whites can use that word? My immediate reaction was to wonder why anyone would want to.

 

[AquaAthena]

The NY Slimes is reporting "breaking news" concerning a possible BOMB (found in a van, smoking).

Suspected Bomb Prompts Clearing of Times Square - NYTimes.com

as Pakistani Taliban reportedly claim responsibility.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

* * * *
Well, to claim that the Left is not founded in Mass Murder, not oriented around and resting upon moral relativism which defines means/ends... and that McVeighs final act as a free man was to practice these Leftist traits, is an argument which lacks a sound, sustainable rationale... one which is constructed in an invalid logical construct and stands on the shifting sands of historical revision... And given that such defines your argument Liability... its yours which is irrational.

One can'treasonably claim another to be a rightwinger, where that person is defined by an act which is typical of, and common to, the character and practices of the Left.

You're falling victim to popular consensus... which as usual is a consensus of the erroneous variety.

You are engaged in gibberish.

Distilled to its essence, your argument is that "no right winger could ever stoop to mass murder."

That's an incontrovertible fact. You can claim it to be gibberish, but doing so is a function of either ignorance or deceit.

Right-thinking people are NON-Murderers... we stand wholly against ANY act which usurps the divine endowment of unalienable individual human rights. That is an immutable principle of nature which is not negotiable to Right-thinking people. There is only ONE valid moral justification for the taking of the life of another... and that is in the defense of one's own life, OR in the defense of the life of another.

When one takes to murdering another, one departs any sense of Right-think... adhering to unsound, unsustainable species of reasoning common to Left-think...

That's honestly too stupid to be credited. McVeigh was a right winger -- he went off the deep end -- and he most certainly DID stoop to mass murder. His actions are not an indictment of the right. But he nevertheless is an example of how a right winger could be responsible for the hideous actions that took so many lives.

Sadly Liability, repeating one's argument doesn't actually reinforce it.

If McVeigh had been a example of perfection in Right-think for the whole of his life... which he surely did not; but assuming for the sake of argument that he did... THE INSTANT that he began to rationalize mass murder, he departed Right-think, PERIOD. His history as a Right-thinker is IRRELEVANT, as his actions are at that point are wholly anti-thetical to RIGHT-THINK; whereupon the individual becomes that which his actions have determined that he IS...

Again... it's not a complex calculation...

 

[CMike]

This is the 2nd time that we averted a major terrorist attack under Obama's watch, and no thanks to him.

The panties bomber

And now this one.

 

[Father Time]

This is the 2nd time that we averted a major terrorist attack under Obama's watch, and no thanks to him.

The panties bomber

And now this one.

Ok what was Obama supposed to do to stop this, put rations on gasoline or propane? Ban vans? What?

 

[CMike]

How about get the terrorists before they actually carry out the terrorist attacks? Yanno, like the Bush Administration used to do.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Sadly * * *, repeating one's argument doesn't actually reinforce it.

* * * *

Very true. Now, learn how to apply this properly to your own arguments.

Your sloppy form of logic is quite silly and utterly unpersuasive:

Right wingers are pure as the driven snow.

If one does anything wrong, then one is no longer a right winger.

Tim is a right winger.

Tim does something wrong.

At that moment, Tim ceased to be a right winger.

Thus no right wingers can commit a wrong.

All right wingers are as pure as the driven snow.​