Its quite simple like I said previously.  They warned her that crossing that line would get her shot because there were Government officials behind,  she crossed it.  She got shot. 

If you breached the Whitehouse, similar would happen. 

If you breached a military base,  same.

etc, etc, etc.

Had that been BLM or Antifa they should also have been shot.  Doesn't matter your political views or the color of your skin.  Break the law, suffer the consequences.   Self defense applies to all.

moving goalposts again
reiterating his case when i asked him to back up his statement that i was "defending these terrorists"

moving goalposts again
reiterating his case when i asked him to back up his statement that i was "defending these terrorists"

Common tactic instead of admitting he was wrong and you were never defending those terrorist.

goalposts----->mobile

blanked

You know who makes pussy attacks on people, doesn't stand their ground in a fight, retreats to another position, makes more weak attacks and runs away?  Terrorists

Omnidumb says we should shoot people who attack and try to destroy the government no matter what group they belong to, ignores all the people that attacked the POTUS after the 2016 election.

moving goalposts again
reiterating his case when i asked him to back up his statement that i was "defending these terrorists"

Common tactic instead of admitting he was wrong and you were never defending those terrorist.

Nope you were still defending them.  IF you only question those who say they are terrorists and not those who don't, you have a bias against a certain view.  That view being that they are terrorists.  Hence defending terrorists.  Also the language you used was more geared in defense of that person. 

Lets put this is other simple terms. If there was a thread about some BLM riot and you only pointed out how peaceful those protesters were, clearly you are taking a pro BLM side. 

Omnidumb says we should shoot people who attack and try to destroy the government no matter what group they belong to, ignores all the people that attacked the POTUS after the 2016 election.

People attacked Trump?  I don't remember this.   When did they invade government buildings to get Hilary put into power?  Unless you mean freedom of speech then sure they attacked him and sure that's completely allowed even against Biden.

Nope you were still defending them.  IF you only question those who say they are terrorists and not those who don't, you have a bias against a certain view.  That view being that they are terrorists.  Hence defending terrorists.  Also the language you used was more geared in defense of that person.

Assumptions are the mother of all F-ups. Under Siege 2 quote.

I never took any statement that Mac said as "defending terrorist".  So that would mean that you FEEL that he is, since there are 2 opposing views now.

People attacked Trump?  I don't remember this.   When did they invade government buildings to get Hilary put into power?  Unless you mean freedom of speech then sure they attacked him and sure that's completely allowed even against Biden.

1 dementional thinking again. Swooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhh

Doesn't understand that the definition of terrorism is political coercion by fear. 2 fake impeachments certainly qualify.

Doesn't understand that the definition of terrorism is political coercion by fear. 2 fake impeachments certainly qualify.

Just to name 1 example.  Hence 1D thinking.

Nope you were still defending them.  IF you only question those who say they are terrorists and not those who don't, you have a bias against a certain view.  That view being that they are terrorists.  Hence defending terrorists.  Also the language you used was more geared in defense of that person. 

Lets put this is other simple terms. If there was a thread about some BLM riot and you only pointed out how peaceful those protesters were, clearly you are taking a pro BLM side.

The language he used you felt was defending.
Why not quote any of that language.  Lol


Like someone else mentioned,  the feeling of words over everything else for you

Nope you were still defending them.  IF you only question those who say they are terrorists and not those who don't, you have a bias against a certain view.  That view being that they are terrorists.  Hence defending terrorists.  Also the language you used was more geared in defense of that person. 

Lets put this is other simple terms. If there was a thread about some BLM riot and you only pointed out how peaceful those protesters were, clearly you are taking a pro BLM side.

Stop hijacking the threads.  This is the "Re: Media Lies, Lies by Omission, Misinformation, Disinformation Thread".

Yet, here you are blabbing on and on about defending what you want to call domestic terrorists. 

Start another thread if you want to hash out a specific article or comment about this topic.  2 pages of tangential BS is not keeping the thread on topic.

 

 

Start another thread if you want to hash out a specific article or comment about this topic.  2 pages of tangential BS is not keeping the thread on topic.

A Media Truths threads would be very short indeed.

The language he used you felt was defending.
Why not quote any of that language.  Lol


Like someone else mentioned,  the feeling of words over everything else for you

I mean you can go one page back and get all of it...

please show where it is "documented" that they were "behind that door"
"whatever area" is just your pre-emptive moving of the goalpost...

"secured building"?
there are numerous videos of the guards letting people in...

please show where they were "doing terrorist things"...

please show where ashli babbit was "threatening government officials"...

please show where this is in the definition of what a terrorist does...

Clearly he is defending ashli babbit and her actions.  And denying that those actions match up with a terrorist. 

I mean you can go one page back and get all of it...

Clearly he is defending ashli babbit and her actions.  And denying that those actions match up with a terrorist.

Media Lies, Lies by Omission, Misinformation, Disinformation Thread

 

I mean you can go one page back and get all of it...

Clearly he is defending ashli babbit and her actions.  And denying that those actions match up with a terrorist.

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

He actually took time to find what he felt was right, only to be wrong again. Hhhahhah
Refund

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I mean you can go one page back and get all of it...

Clearly he is defending ashli babbit and her actions.  And denying that those actions match up with a terrorist.

asking questions is "defending"?
asking questions is "denying that those actions match up with a terrorist"?
i think it was not only English that brought down your GPA...

Assumptions are the mother of all F-ups. Under Siege 2 quote.

I never took any statement that Mac said as "defending terrorist".  So that would mean that you FEEL that he is, since there are 2 opposing views now.

consensus...