I was repeating what I understood your argument to be. You argued that the terrorists on 9-11 'murdered people randomly', while abortion clinic bombers didn't, therefore one was terrorism and one wasn't. I countered that neither was random: in both cases the targets were chosen to send a message.
You also asserted that "Labeling a tax protester an enemy of America is an admission of whose side you are on", and I affirmed that I am on the side that does not crash planes into buildings on purpose. If one would like to carry around signs and have rallies on the Mall, I might disagree with your position, but I agree you have those rights. You do not have the right to crash planes into buildings without permission*. I also wouldn't call someone that reckless an 'enemy' when the word 'criminal' works fine.
* I mean, I could imagine that one might wish to test building designs by flying drones into them. In which case, there better be a lot of precautions taken for safety. Or I guess you could build an airfield and buildings on your own land and fly planes into your buildings all you want if you don't hurt anyone.
no subject
Date: 2014-04-15 12:51 am (UTC)You also asserted that "Labeling a tax protester an enemy of America is an admission of whose side you are on", and I affirmed that I am on the side that does not crash planes into buildings on purpose. If one would like to carry around signs and have rallies on the Mall, I might disagree with your position, but I agree you have those rights. You do not have the right to crash planes into buildings without permission*. I also wouldn't call someone that reckless an 'enemy' when the word 'criminal' works fine.
* I mean, I could imagine that one might wish to test building designs by flying drones into them. In which case, there better be a lot of precautions taken for safety. Or I guess you could build an airfield and buildings on your own land and fly planes into your buildings all you want if you don't hurt anyone.