"I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me... All I ask is that you respect me as a human being."
Jackie Robinson
John Patrick Bedell, who wounded two security guards at the Pentagon,
died from gunshots fired by the officers in retaliation. This is another act of domestic terrorism. We're getting it from the fringe on the left, here, and the right as we did with the Austin plane attack. It's sad that people don't have the sense to act within the law and the political process.
"When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every Americanwas to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have a dream."
3 comments:
And your evidence that Bedell was a leftist is?
Don't worry.
I don't expect and answer.
The same evidence I used to say the guy in Austin was on the right, but I see you don't have a problem with that because in your mind only people from the right or religious people commit acts of terror.
How about these bits? If he had been far-right loon, the media would have already told us how his acts remind them of The Turner Diaries.
Bedell hated the military, hence the attack on the Pentagon (ever heard of Bill Ayers?). Like the communist Van Jones, Bedell was a 9/11 truther.
It might be inconceivable to you that people on the left commit acts of terrorism, but they do.
How's that for an answer?
The problem with many on the left is the misguided belief their pretense is justified based on their political views. For example, uptownsteve assumed the host of the blog wouldn't respond based on a stereotype of all of those on the right are not far removed from the image of John Birchers or Aryan Nation members --- simply a bigoted, ignorant, and frightened bunch.
I've been taught the best way to draw bees is to use honey, not insect repellant. In order to convince as many as possible, a rational approach should be attempted, rather than a lecture or scolding. Therefore, it would behoove uptownsteve to place his bias aside, and assess the situation with a more critical eye. The question that should be asked is: Why was he so angry, frustrated, confused, etc. to commit such a horrible act in the first place not Is he right or left? Getting to the crux of the matter will more likely lead to a solution of the problem.
Political discourse can only occur if both (or any) parties "agree to disagree without being disagreeable." If one expects to be taken seriously, then one must take others seriously. Please no more name calling, finger pointing, or jumping to conclusions, because there's more at stake than hurt feelings.
Post a Comment