March 06, 2008

Homegrown IED Targets Manhattan Military Recruiting Station

The NY Times City Room blog has the latest details:

The police have attributed the blast to an improvised explosive device, and police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said the device had been placed in an ammunition box like the kind that can be bought at a military supply store. Mr. Kelly spoke with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg at a news conference at 9:30 a.m. in Times Square. The authorities are looking into a possible connection to two earlier bombings at foreign consulates in Manhattan, in 2005 and 2007. Official said that in today’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle. Subways and traffic are running normally through Times Square.

They also have a useful slideshow of images from the scene, which gives us just enough information to start making some inferences about the bomb and the bomber.

Looking at images 1-3 in the slideshow, you'll note that the damage from the blast seems relatively minor. Image 1 give you a pretty good idea of precisely where the bomb was placed, as you can see how the shrapnel radiated out from a central point, which appears to have been (as we face the building) almost dead-center in front of the plate-glass window.

Slightly enlarging the same photo and cropping it to focus on the recruiting center front helps to see the central radiating point of the blast a bit better.

You'll also note in this closer view, and in the second and third images of the scene, that there was no attempt to make this an anti-personnel weapon, as there is no evidence of there being ball bearing, BBs, or another other sort of shrapnel that would form an intentional secondary blast mechanism.

The time of the blast was around 3:43 AM, when pedestrian traffic in the area is typically light and the recruiting station was closed. From the time of the blast and lack of shrapnel, we can make the guarded assumption that causing casualties was not the bomber's intention.

We can also infer that the bomber had no intention of destroying the targeted building as well, as the blast was small, and the ammunition can that carried the device could have easily held far more explosives.

From the choice of target, lack of shrapnel, and low amount of explosives used, I think it only logical to conclude that the blast was political in nature, a violent though purposefully less-lethal bomb, if you can ever call an improvised explosive device "less lethal." For these reasons, I doubt it was the act of Islamic extremists.

This was an act of domestic terrorism.

I do not, however, feel comfortable blaming any specific anti-war group for this act, or even pinning this as an anti-war act at this point in time.

Anti-war groups, in general, are non-violent in nature, and those that lean towards the anarchist fringe that are violence prone tend towards vandalism, and generally, don't have the technical expertise to manufacture even such a simple device.

Whoever built this bomb may have sympathies towards the anti-war movement and/or anti-military feelings, but I would be surprised to find them affiliated officially with any specific anti-war or anti-military group, and would be even more surprised if anyone inside one of these groups had advance knowledge of the attack.

There are some news accounts noting that there were similar minor blasts carried out against the Mexican and British consulates in New York in recent years, each using blackpowder inside inert hand grenade casings, also carried out by a bomber on a bicycle.

This seems quite plausible, but we won't know more until the FBI announces the findings of their investigation.

Update: A reminder, via Ace-of-Spades, that the peace-loving left isn't always so peace-leaving:

Thirty-Eight Years Ago Today

March 6, 1970 at 11:55 a.m.

Three members of the radical activist group known as the Weather Underground, Diana Oughton, Ted Gold and Terry Robbins, blew themselves straight to hell when the bomb they were building, which was intended to blow up a dance at Fort Dix, exploded in an otherwise quiet New York neighborhood.

Had they been better bomb-makers, instead of killing themselves, they would have killed an untold number of American soldiers. In the name of peace.

Luckily, the Weathermen's expertise at bomb-making left much to be desired.

The Weathermen's hatred of the United States manifested itself in the bombings of the U.S. Capitol building, New York City Police Headquarters, the Pentagon, and the National Guard offices in Washington, D.C. The Weathermen's leader, Bill Ayers summed up the Weathermen's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

Yes, the Bill Ayer's above is the same man that has had Barack Obama as a dinner guest, and who served with Obama on the board of directors of the left-leaning Woods Fund from 1999 until 2002.

Diana Oughton, one of the deceased, was Ayer's girlfriend until some of the 100 pounds of dynamite they intended to use to bomb a non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix detonated.

Update: Hot Air has surveillance video of the bike-riding bomber approaching the recruiting center, and the NYPD thinks they have his bike.

Was the suspect smart enough to wipe his prints from the bike?

Update: The bomber sent an anti-war manifesto to eight NY Democratic Congressmen.

Update: Coincidence? Authorities are now saying the anti-war activist that mailed the "We did it!" letters to Congress had nothing to do with the recruiting center blast.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 6, 2008 10:48 AM

My very first thought, when I saw the headline and before reading the story, was that this was the New York extension of the Code Pink protests outside the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center. From the bomber's perspective, this is a "statement," as opposed to a massively destructive act of war. As you note, it's not obvious whether the bomber was actually affiliated with an anti-War group, but that's certainly where his sympathies lie.

Posted by: Bookworm at March 6, 2008 11:05 AM

I keep reading that it was a small explosion, but early this morning, right after it happened, I heard two different phone interviews with people who lived on the upper floors of either this building or one very close. The first interviewee said she lived on the 41st floor and the blast shook her apartment. Another caller, a man, said it shook him out of bed. That doesn't sound like such a small blast to me. I think they are lucky that the damage wasn't more extensive.

Posted by: Sara at March 6, 2008 11:34 AM

Isn't the ammo can alone enough to make some pretty lethal shrapnel?

I'm not arguing against your thesis, which seems sound. I'm just saying, if someone had been unlucky enough to be walking past, this could have been nasty.

Posted by: S. Weasel at March 6, 2008 11:43 AM

Some conclusions are being jumped to here.

How many recruits are angry at their recruiters? I would bet this is at least as likely as an anti-war protester. And since an ammo can was used, this is probably not a bad bet. An anti-war protester would be more likely to use a pipe or a jar/molotv style.

Posted by: Skyler at March 6, 2008 12:10 PM

i think i've read a dozen commentaries on this bomb, and yours is the only rational response to this whole thing. Let's wait for the FBI.

Everyone else has figured out who it is already, and wants to cut their heads off for treason.

Thank you for this small island of calm in an ocean of screaming vigilantes.

Posted by: eric taylor at March 6, 2008 12:13 PM

How dare they interfere with a person's right to choose what to do with their body!

Posted by: Glen Harness at March 6, 2008 12:20 PM

"in today’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle."

At least he's a carbon-neutral domestic terrorist.

Posted by: zorn at March 6, 2008 12:25 PM

[quote]How many recruits are angry at their recruiters?[/quote]

Actually, not many. While you are being recruited, it's all sunshine and candy. It isn't till you get to boot that you realize that the recruiter may have colored the facts a bit.

When I went in the Marines, the only people mad at the recruiter were the ones he had to tell that they were not eligible, for whatever reason.

Posted by: DanB at March 6, 2008 12:28 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if the culprit is a "Unibomber" type.

Just look at the police sketch of the Unibomber that was originally distributed:

Coincidence? I think NOT.

Posted by: MarkJ at March 6, 2008 12:30 PM

"How many recruits are angry at their recruiters?"

Skyler, you do know there is no draft, right?

Everyone who visits a recruitment office does so voluntarily, to obtain information so that they can make their own decision about whether to volunteer or not. How, exactly, would this lead to recruits being angry at their recruiters? Angry about what?

Please explain.

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 12:30 PM

Sklyer, that's a pretty lame assumption you're making. If someone was mad at his recruiter, is the answer "I'm going to attack his place of work," which means he gets a day or two off or "I'm going to attack him for lying to me"?

This seems like it was clearly a political act aimed at the military. The purpose was to send a message to the war effort.

Posted by: Tibor at March 6, 2008 12:39 PM

Likely a domestic terrorist a la OKC or possibly a COINTELPRO hit.

Posted by: Samir at March 6, 2008 12:40 PM

How many recruits are angry at their recruiters?

Few, if any. This is high brow comedy.
But, lets take this "logic" to it's extension. Assuming for the minute there is someone pissed off enough at their recruiter to do this.

What is the likely hood they were recruited in Manhattan? I'd say 0.02

Likely hood they are still so mad, while not on active duty, but out of the military riding around on a bicycle in Manhattan in a hooded sweatshirt: 0.000000001

I would bet this is at least as likely as an anti-war protester.

And you'd lose that bet.

Posted by: The Ace at March 6, 2008 12:42 PM

so I make a comment saying that we hold our troops to a higher standard than the insurgents and it gets deleted?

in-f-ing-credible. talk about thought control.

Posted by: rapid at March 6, 2008 12:54 PM

Rapid, I have no record of you even posting a comment, so please, put on your big-boy pants and stop whining.

I have, however, deleted someone else's comment for profanity. It isn't allowed here, folks, and if you can't make your point without it, you are invited to leave.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 6, 2008 12:59 PM

"Anti-war groups, in general, are non-violent in nature"

Really? Someone should tell them that.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at March 6, 2008 01:19 PM

"possibly a COINTELPRO hit"


Posted by: Rob Crawford at March 6, 2008 01:21 PM

I think we need to convene a commission and have a series of hearings and investigations complete with wild speculations in the conclusions.

I've seen IED damage before, working in movies, and this was no IED. It was a controlled demolition from _INSIDE_ the recruiting office.

Obvious suspects: New York City moneymen, Bush, the Israelis, the RNC, the KKk, Bush, freepers, Michelle Malkin, Bush, St. John McBush, the Clintons, the ghost of Vince Foster, Bush or the one Dixie chick who is a dwarf or a midget.

Or, going to the left, Cindy McKinney. Anyone check that facade for slap marks?

Posted by: docweasel at March 6, 2008 01:21 PM

We can see the pictures, too.

Can you tell us something we don't already know?

Posted by: nick at March 6, 2008 01:23 PM

About a year ago, local lefties did something similar in Milwaukee. I'd post a link to the story, but your blog won't let me.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2008 01:26 PM

smells like a false-flag op; no one truly opposed to the military would hand recruiting stations such a powerful PR tool as this. one can only imagine the sympathy (and sympathetic legislation, no doubt) this will engender....

Posted by: j at March 6, 2008 01:28 PM

Does anyone know where Cindy Sheehan is?

Posted by: jfp at March 6, 2008 01:46 PM

The positioning of the bomb in the first picture is incorrect. Look for the pic of the marine opening the door. You can clearly see that the front edge of the door is heavily bent, but that bend sharply abates so that the bend is gone before the opposite end of the door.

This indicates the blast was very close to the leading edge of the door, which took the brunt of the explosion. No doubt the doorjam near the leading edge of the door is probably heavily damaged and bent almost directly back, tho the pictures I've seen are taken at the wrong angle to show this.

Posted by: mcgurk at March 6, 2008 01:52 PM

Holy crap J!! You hit it right on the head! False flag! Explosives never broke glass! Look at the pattern of how the glass fell! You're a gen-U-wine jeen-I-us!
There's still glass at the top of the window! It defies all the laws of gravity! Can anyone confirm Rove's whereabouts at the time of the attack?

Posted by: TBinSTL at March 6, 2008 02:00 PM

"smells like a false-flag op; no one truly opposed to the military would hand recruiting stations such a powerful PR tool as this."

Um, right. Sure. Because anti-war protesters are all clear-thinking, logical people who would never do anything stupid, pointless, or counter-productive.

No, the military recruiters must have set off the bomb themselves, in order to . . . um . . . wait a minute, I'm sure I can think of some way that bombing their own office would benefit them. Wait, I've got it! To discredit the anti-war protesters and make them look bad! Because the anti-war folks are definitely not doing that to themselves already.

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 02:06 PM

Hey, I just had a thought. Wouldn't a small bomb placed in front of a window take out the entire window? In the pictures, only the bottom part has been destroyed. If it is shatterproof glass, is shatterproof glass that damage- resistant?

Posted by: chicagodudewhotrades at March 6, 2008 02:07 PM

Good analysis, Bob! See you in March!

Posted by: Snooper at March 6, 2008 02:11 PM

"Anti-war groups, in general, tend towards the non-violent..."

Since when has this nonsense been true? One of these "non-violent" types concluded an argument with me by taking a swing at me. He had to be held back by his friends. During that same event i saw a half-dozen of these "non-violent" types menace a fifteen year-old girl, knock her to the ground and tear up her sign.

a year ago, a fossil from the original SDS started a new version. It's kinda silly i know, but what purpose is served by creating a new "SDS" when the current "anti-war" movement has all bases well-covered, especially the campuses? The only thing this "anti-war" movement misses that those nostalgic for the SDS of olde might note, is the sort of vile domestic terrorism of the SDS offshoot, the Weather Underground.

Has anyone seen the Weather Underground documentary? You know, the one nominated for an Oscar and winner of the Palm D'Or? It's a celebration of "anti-war" violence and a lamentation that the current anti-war movement isn't earnest enough to start killing "pigs" again.

Not only are they not "generally non-violent", they are slaveringly eager for the opportunity to become violent.

Even if we dismiss that this was in any way cordinated amonst several people, individual progressives have been quite active in committing violent acts for "Social Justice".

Andrew Mickel shot a cop in the back of the head after leaving his manifesto on IndyMedia.

Matthew Marren sought out and shot an Air Force member before shooting himself and leaving behind a letter explaining that it was an act against the government.

Two years ago, "peace" protesters conducted a drive-by shooting on a Denver recruiting facility.

Honestly, that was nonsense what you wrote there.

You should check the NYC Indymedia, They're not hedging their bets on this at all:

"Bringing the war home, a hooded bicyclist bombed the Times Square Armed Forces recruiting station this morning. There has been no statement regarding this thus far, and perhaps there will not be, although in this case, perhaps the medium is the message."

They even have a theory on the linkage of this and the other two past explosions:

"The New York Times is reporting that police suspect a connection between this attack and similar blasts outside the British Consulate (May 5, 2005) and the Mexican Consulate in New York (Oct. 26, 2007). Unmentioned in the NY Times coverage: the British Consulate bombing occurred on the day of the UK's general elections, during which pro-war PM Tony Blair won a third term; the Mexican Consulate blast was on the one-year anniversary of the murder of Indymedia journalist Brad Will, a killing widely attributed to PRI-backed paramilitaries."

Posted by: albnorgrimex at March 6, 2008 02:12 PM

At ABC news comments the liberals are chanting the same thing. That it was an inside job.

Their claim is that an anti-military hate crime is actually the military commiting a crime against themselves, in order to frame liberals and discredit their views. They believe this attack to be anti-liberal.


Posted by: brando at March 6, 2008 02:15 PM

"Wouldn't a small bomb placed in front of a window take out the entire window?"

Obviously not.

It looks like safety glass to me. Safety glass is a laminated glass made by sandwiching a thin, flexible plastic sheet between two layers of glass. When safety glass is broken, the plastic layer tends to hold the fragments together instead of letting them fly everywhere. Safety glass also shatters into smaller pieces with fewer sharp points than ordinary plate glass. The results are consistent with what is shown in the photos of the recruiting office. This picture shows another example.

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 02:20 PM
Isn't the ammo can alone enough to make some pretty lethal shrapnel?

Generally, no. Ammo boxes aren't designed to turn into bombs if enough ammo 'cooks off' : traditional metal ones have weaknesses at the seams to allow gases to vent without really making a messy detonation, while plastic ones will just rip the rings and hinges off and rocket a plastic piece into the air. They could do some damage, but not much compared to a traditional pipebomb or even a well-designed suitcase.

That's not to say the bomber meant for it to be less-lethal. You don't need much technical knowledge to make a very basic bomb, and I expect he or she thought it would do well enough damage for their purposes and didn't care past that point.

My bet is that the case, and for that matter the target and likely the explosive and trigger device (gunpowder rather than homemade stuff), were all chosen for the symbolism.

Posted by: gattsuru at March 6, 2008 02:22 PM

Should name this site "Dumbass Neocon Bastards".

Posted by: Hymietown Boy at March 6, 2008 04:45 PM

Glad you could stop by, HB. Please come back if you have any more brilliant insights to share.

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 05:05 PM

False flag attack to divert people's attention away from the collapsing economy until the rich have managed to sell all their stocks and bonds.

Posted by: Bubba at March 6, 2008 05:18 PM

For the people questioning my credibility, I'm an officer of Marines. I've seen plenty of craziness that would make my theory plausible. Not everyone who enlists is a model citizen or even quite right in the head, though I'm not in the least saying it's a significant number. Most are the heros you expect them to be, just not 100%. More like 99.99%. But 0.01% of 200,000 is enough to have a few demented people out there.

You know the old saying, tell it to the Marines, they've seen everything.

In the end, it doesn't much matter why they did it. It only matters that they get caught. And punished.

Posted by: Skyler at March 6, 2008 05:39 PM

"False flag attack to divert people's attention away from the collapsing economy until the rich have managed to sell all their stocks and bonds."

Whatever you say, Bubba.

I do have a few questions about this theory.

1. Who, exactly, is supposed to have carried out this "false flag attack" on behalf of "the rich"?

2. Who, exactly, is "the rich"? Everyone who owns any stock or bonds?

3. Just how long does it take to sell stocks and bonds, anyway? I was under the impression that such transactions could be done in a matter of minutes. Why haven't "the rich" already sold their stocks and bonds, if that's what they want to do?

4. When was it determined that the economy is "collapsing"? I missed it.

5. How will this event "divert people's attention" from the economic collapse if the news media are reporting said collapse? Or are they in on the conspiracy too? If the news media have already promised to keep quiet about the collapse, then why is a false-flag bombing necessary?

6. If people's attention isn't distracted, exactly what will happen?

7. What have you been smoking, and where can I get some?

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 06:19 PM

Skyler, are you claiming that there are more mentally unstable people in the military than in the civilian population? I don't think there is any evidence to support such an assertion.

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 06:21 PM

"Everyone who visits a recruitment office does so voluntarily, to obtain information so that they can make their own decision about whether to volunteer or not. How, exactly, would this lead to recruits being angry at their recruiters? Angry about what?"

You seem to think someone who would plant a bomb is rational and not prone to overreaction to events real or imagined.

I suggest you revisit your premise.

And Bob: "This was an act of domestic terrorism."

I suggest you look up the definition of the term (USA PATRIOT Section 802). Without knowing the intention, you can't make that determination. It could just as easily be simple mindless vandalism for all we know now. Keep you bugbears in check.

Posted by: Overreaction Central at March 6, 2008 06:22 PM

Skyler is right. Saying that you are still looking for your recruiter is a cliche among veterans. It is a sort of short hand bonding ritual.

Posted by: Lifeofthemind at March 6, 2008 06:30 PM

"You seem to think someone who would plant a bomb is rational and not prone to overreaction to events real or imagined."

Nope. I'm sure the person who planted the bomb was irrational. And we already know about lots of irrational people who hate the military and are in the habit of using recruiting offices as the target of their hostility. I see no need to invent, out of whole cloth, a theory that this attack was carried out by a disgruntled member of the military. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a notion.

Posted by: Pat at March 6, 2008 06:42 PM

Pat, of course not. I was providing hypothetical numbers. But it could be the case, I just don't know.

Posted by: Skyler at March 6, 2008 06:45 PM

Re: rapid's complaint of 12:54 and CY's answer of 12:59 -

The comment that rapid thinks got deleted was actually posted over here. It wasn't deleted, he was simply looking for it in the wrong comment thread.

Glad to be of service. :-)

Posted by: Robin Munn at March 6, 2008 07:14 PM

I've already heard attempts by media to downplay it by calling nis "vandalism"

Posted by: Sam at March 6, 2008 10:58 PM

>How many recruits are angry at their recruiters? I would bet this is at least as likely as an anti-war protester. And since an ammo can was used, this is probably not a bad bet.

Ammo cans are widely available at sporting goods stores and surplus stores and hardware stores and...

"False flag" ?? Occam's Razor is more likely.

Posted by: Barry at March 6, 2008 11:40 PM

I note that anti-war wackos are now taking credit.

I believe that several helpings of crow are in order for some of the commenters here.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 6, 2008 11:42 PM

All things considered New York is over reacting. Clearly no one got hurt, or was even meant to get hurt. This is a patriotic outcry against the what the american institution has become. Remember, just because the news reports a story one way does not mean it's the right way.

Posted by: iraq vet at March 7, 2008 12:29 AM

Skyler: For the people questioning my credibility, I'm an officer of Marines.

I call bull. You are not a Marine, much less an officer. Who is your S-3?

Posted by: Fen at March 7, 2008 12:56 AM

It was terrorism and it was committed by anti-war activists. Big surprise. From the Daily News:

"Happy New Year, We Did It," declared a sign held by a man who was photographed with the placard outside the recruiting center sometime before the early-morning blast. Cops were investigating whether he was the elusive bomber.

Copies of the photo and a 32-page missive that railed against the Iraq war and was signed "David Karne" were sent to nine congressional offices, a source briefed on the probe said.

Posted by: Zach Foreman at March 7, 2008 03:53 AM

Who is my S-3? What an absurd question. How would that help you know whether I'm a Marine? If I said Major John Doe, would that even mean anything to you? And what would that indicate anyway? My point is valid regardless of my credentials: People should be more careful in making accusations until they know the facts. I was simply pointing out that it's not a far fetched idea at all that a disgruntled recruit was getting revenge on his recruiter.

The danger of jumping to conclusions is that if you jump in the wrong direction, then in the future the guilty party will be able to claim that everyone is maligning them again. We should be a bit more patient and wait for a little more evidence before condemning people and organizations for specific acts.

There's plenty of stuff to legitimately hate these violent and disruptive anti-war organizations. We don't need to look too hard for that. I'd rather that we know they've done something before piling on top or else they will be able to wave a bloody flag in our faces the next time they do something bad.

Someone has been emailing me about this and I'll copy what I told her:

I have personally seen a Marine who, through an unfortunate admin error, was not given his enlistment bonus but didn't even tell anyone. He destroyed three jet engines, wrote enough fraudulent checks to cover the amount of his bonus, and went back home to mommy and daddy until I called them and told them he was about to be declared a deserter. I had a master sergeant in my squadron get thrown in prison for having sex with his elementary school-age children because his wife was sick and he "had to do something to relieve his urges." While I've been in, I've seen a Lance Corporal on my base steal an attack aircraft and fly it around southern California for a few hours (his name was LCpl Foot, you can look that up, and I was the duty officer that day). I've had drug dealers and gang members in my section. I've had a Marine threaten to kill himself and the commanding officer so he wouldn't have to go to Iraq (sadly, he succeeded). The commanding officer of another logistics squadron was murdered by a disgruntled Marine in Camp Pendleton back in 87 or so. Around the same time, a Marine went crazy and started shooting people on the shooting range.

In the news, an army soldier has just in this recent war rolled a grenade into the tent of his officers. Do I need to continue? Shall we also go into Arthur and Michael Walker, Lonetree and other traitors and spies? I think it's fascinating that so many people here think that it's virtually impossible that someone in the military could be involved. It's not inconceivable that one of those kooks went through the "busiest" recruiting station in the country.

There are plenty of kooks in the military. Yes, there are likely more who are not in the military, but my point is that before jumping to conclusions it's best to be patient and learn a bit more about who the guilty bastards are.

Posted by: Skyler at March 7, 2008 05:55 AM

It's way too much like the Weather Underground. How do we know they haven't kept their organization over the decades--just in case we got an "evil" President as they claim we have now?

Posted by: Al in St. Lou at March 7, 2008 08:22 AM
Do I need to continue?

No, because you are trying to prove a point that was never in question. Of course there are some bad and crazy people in the military. No one in this thread has claimed otherwise.

But when you hear hoofbeats, you should assume it's horses, not zebras. This was an attack on a military recruiting office, something we've seen many times in the past. Such attacks are invariably carried out by anti-war activists. I'm not aware of a single instance in which a member of the military was responsible. That doesn't mean that it will never happen -- but your insistence that the two scenarios are equally likely is simply not supported by history.

An initial assumption that anti-war activists were responsible was not "jumping to a conclusion". It was a perfectly reasonable working hypothesis, and one that has apparently been borne out by the evidence.

Posted by: Pat at March 7, 2008 08:22 AM

Violence should ALWAYS be state sanctioned and always rationalizeable as to diffuse individual responsibility..My Lai, Kent State, any collateral damage in Iraq, etc..

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 10:53 AM

It's nice to see the Lefties show their true colors for a change.

Posted by: Techie at March 7, 2008 11:10 AM

Rebellion is always illegal in the THIRD person, NEVER in the FIRST. paraphrasing Ben Franklin

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 12:45 PM

the weather underground was a group dedicated to making a statement using violence but violence not directed towards people. where did you get that report its totally false. as far as i know besides the one accident no one was ever killed in their mission. they were a great group of people.

Posted by: Nathan White at March 7, 2008 01:24 PM

the bomber is my new hero.


all you "wackos" keep driving your suv's, keep sheltering your children from the rest of the world, and most importantly shop shop shop.

Posted by: Nathan White at March 7, 2008 01:26 PM

Real empathy and "compassion" would take a more christian view of certain situations. You know the "splinter in someone's eye vs the two by four in your own"..State sponsored violence is inherently problematic. I personally remember the story early in the current conflict where they bombed some palace THINKING Sadaam was there only to later claim he wasn't, brushing aside the innocent civilians killed in the effort. It's hard to always swallow the "ends justifies the means" rhetoric.

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 01:33 PM

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 01:46 PM

It's nice to see Chris enjoys talking to himself.

Posted by: Techie at March 7, 2008 04:37 PM

Wow, I'm invalidated.

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 04:53 PM

Maybe Chris can pull out the dusk-orb or cannibalism arguments from a few threads back. I'm actually glad to see the left jump behind this behavior. It's a lot more straightforward than the "we support/don't support the troops" concept.

My 2 cents on this bombing is that it's emblematic and also a crime.

Posted by: brando at March 7, 2008 05:03 PM

You know I'm interested in what your leaders mean by "compassionate conservative" in looking at Malkin's blog, Limbaugh's program, Coulter's books, the comments on this site, even many of the counter protesters at the Peace marches, I have ALWAYS encountered the same snarky, bitchy name calling and squelching of constructive give and take. I am not saying that there are left wing reactionaries who shout down opposing viewpoints but right now I am talking to people like Brando and Techie to start.

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 05:13 PM

Skyler. I will not call your service into question. If you are, then you are, if you are not, then you have to live with a lie.

My only question is this. Why would you assume that it is/was a service member that did this, when there are many more likely candidates? Calling the service into question is not something I know a lot of service members to do.

Chris, you are an idiot. But I will die making sure you can continue to be an idiot.

Posted by: Matt at March 7, 2008 06:10 PM

Matt, thank you again for your service. I know I've said it before, but it's hard to say that too much.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 7, 2008 06:30 PM

C, Thanks. But as I have said before. Do not thank me. The Corps thanks me twice a month.

Posted by: Matt at March 7, 2008 06:39 PM

Matt..thanks for illustrating my point. Where are your Allen Blloms, William F Buckleys and milton Friedmans? Now it's rude insults like Matt.

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 09:35 PM

Allan Bloom

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 09:53 PM

"Now it's rude insults like Matt."

Son, that was not an insult. It was a statement.

Posted by: Matt at March 7, 2008 10:09 PM

People don't see what they "
SEE" they see what they BELIEVE...

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 11:20 PM

actually I think alot of you are phonies a nd I think Gore Vidal was his nemesis...esposing even WFB's phoniness...

Posted by: chris lee at March 7, 2008 11:24 PM

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, Chris.

You just curl up in your little fantasy world if you want. The yellow submarine will be by to pick you up pretty soon.

The rest of us will do just fine without you.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 7, 2008 11:32 PM

"actually I think alot of you are phonies"

Ok, how about you man up and say what you mean instead of tippy toeing around it.

If you mean phony about who I am, then you sir are dead wrong. Feel free to join me on SOFNET. Or if you do not want to get hammered by the members there, feel free to email me at where I will send you a copy of my SRB edited for OPSEC and you can go ahead and finish chewing on that foot you stuck in your mouth.

Posted by: Matt at March 7, 2008 11:33 PM


Posted by: chris lee at March 8, 2008 05:07 AM

You throw out one hell of an argument. Not so much.

Posted by: Matt at March 8, 2008 06:46 PM

Thank you so much for the link and for the additional information!

Posted by: LindaSoG at March 9, 2008 08:51 AM
I have ALWAYS encountered the same snarky, bitchy name calling and squelching of constructive give and take.

Really, chris? I ask because you were constructively engaged here, and your reaction was to try a couple of dodges and, upon them failing, to disappear. And yet now you claim that you ALWAYS have found bitchy name calling and no give and take. Perhaps that's because give and take requires that both parties have something to give and you don't. Remember this: the common denominator of all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

Posted by: Pablo at March 9, 2008 09:07 AM

Yes, Pablo and the common denominator of my FUNCTIONAL relationships is me, too. What's your point? Are you saying that the derisive tone of contemporary conservative opinion is justified by the unworthiness of liberals?

Posted by: chris lee at March 9, 2008 11:01 AM

No, chris, I'm saying that you have an obvious perception problem and that you may be a walking, talking self-fulfilling prophecy. I think you see so much derision because you earn it, especially given that you are so unable to recognize, relate or respond to sincere, substantive argument that you decide it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Pablo at March 9, 2008 11:15 AM
actually I think alot of you are phonies

Is that the derisive tone of contemporary liberal opinion I see there, chris? I think it's missing a "RACIST!!1!one!!" and maybe a "HOMOPHOBE!!eleven!!"

Oh, and Halliburton.

Posted by: Pablo at March 9, 2008 11:19 AM

Pablo, Good assessment of Chris.

In simpler terms. If one person calls you an idiot, they may be an idiot, if twenty people call you an idiot, then it is time to take a long hard look at yourself.

Matt, kicking the darkness till it bleeds light.

Posted by: Matt at March 9, 2008 12:25 PM

Pablo, screaming "Racist!!!!11!!!!!" or "Warmonger!!!11!!" or "Nazi!!!!!11!!!!" (and always finishing with "HALLIBURTON!!!!!!!!" is what those on the left consider "substantive debate."

Therefore, because we haven't been screaming those things, Chris thinks we haven't been engaging him substantively.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 9, 2008 12:41 PM

I claim that terrorism's bad, and also a crime. Chris disagrees completely.

That's one more concept to add to the list.

I really liked a few threads back when Chris claimed that his insane arguments were not based on flawed concepts, but because he writes his ideas in a hurry, and on his friend's faulty computer.

Faulty Computer, huh? Well then, by all means, go bananas.

Posted by: brando at March 9, 2008 01:04 PM

"I really liked a few threads back when Chris claimed that his insane arguments were not based on flawed concepts, but because he writes his ideas in a hurry, and on his friend's faulty computer."

I have seen a few (be it very few) level headed leftists, but I tend to think of them as Conservatives in denial.

But the left has never been good at faulting themselves for their shortcomings. It is human to want to blame others for your faults. But one of the key resources in the learning process is knowing when to say, "Oh I am sorry, I was wrong."

Then saying. "But now I know I was wrong, and I will do my best to correct that failing."

Posted by: Matt at March 9, 2008 02:44 PM

Perception problem Brando? Did I say "terrorism" is NOT bad? I used this incident as an opportunity to make a statement that violence, state sponsored violence is "problematic" and not so easily reduced to binaries. The American "rebels" were terrorists, so was the confederate south.

Posted by: chris lee at March 9, 2008 07:45 PM

Chris, what "state" sponsors terrorism?

Would you be willing to send the US Armed Forces to that "state" to stamp out terrorists?

Oh, and which side in the Revolutionary War beheaded innocent journalists after capture? How about the Civil War?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 9, 2008 08:30 PM

I love it when people ignore something they can not argue against. You see you are failing in one area, and instead of addressing it, you move onto another idiocy.

Posted by: Matt at March 9, 2008 09:07 PM

The POINT is "state sponsored" violence is called something else, but the outcome is still civilian death. Nothing is good about beheading people, nothing is good about haveing your skin burnt off in a napalm attack, nothing is good about being "collateral damage" in a bunker buster attack, nothing is good about being wiped out in the westward expansion of the 19th century U.S. It's the "rationalization" that makes all the difference in the world ,from the viewpoint of the "poi-petrator".

Posted by: chris lee at March 9, 2008 09:07 PM
You see you are failing in one area, and instead of addressing it, you move onto another idiocy.

Which is what I'd call a dodge. And chris wonders why people get derisive with him. There you have it.

Posted by: Pablo at March 9, 2008 09:34 PM

Oh, so now any "state sponsored" violence is terrorism, Chris? Would you rather we had let Hitler take over Europe and Hirohito take over Asia? Were the Allies "terrorists" for using military force to stop them?

You're digging yourself ever deeper, and forgetting the first rule of debate: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 9, 2008 09:35 PM

"The POINT is "state sponsored" violence is called something else, but the outcome is still civilian death."

No bright box. The point is, in one type of violence, innocent death is avoided, and not reason it is done, the other type it is the desired effect.

Yes civilians die during war, it is a bad thing, but sometimes it can not be avoided, but we do try to avoid it. Terrorists attempt to cause as many civilian deaths as they can. Big difference buddy.

Posted by: Matt at March 9, 2008 09:43 PM

Indeed, Matt, and that goes back to my earlier question to Chris... which he hasn't answered yet.

Which side in the Revolutionary War beheaded innocent journalists, Chris? Which side in the Civil War did?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 9, 2008 09:49 PM

CCG- What are you talking about? There were atrocities in both the Civil War AND Revolutionary War..The Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence under threat of seem to be advancing OUR "gentlemanly, bureacratic" violence against THEIR brutal, primitve violence. It's all coercive injury and mayhem toward a political aim. Who's AIM is just is a function of the viewpoint involved. Napalm attacks, slaugher of Native American children in the 1800's, how is that an attempt to avoid civilian death?

Posted by: chris lee at March 10, 2008 04:50 AM

Okay, Chris, prove your statements. Give me verifiable proof of those atrocities against civilians... meaning something other than a post on DailyKOS.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 10, 2008 08:01 AM

CCG..I recommend you do some reading of Harper's Weekly Civil war reporting, I used to sell antique issues. Amongst other things you'll find stories of soldiers burying other soldiers alive, as far as the Revolutionary War, do your own research as well, not a pretty picture what was done in that era on both sides.

Posted by: chris lee at March 10, 2008 08:37 AM far as napalm and agent orange used against the North Vietnamese, and US soldiers killing Native Americans do your own research, I don't work for you and could care less whether you are convinced of what I say or not. If it inspires you to look a little further fine, if not so be it.

Posted by: chris lee at March 10, 2008 09:01 AM

I asked for specific articles, Chris, a vague "go read Harper's" won't do it, because if I don't find anything, you'll just say that I didn't read the right ones.

I presume you graduated from high school, so give me an article reference as you would if you were putting it in the bibliography of a paper.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 10, 2008 08:06 PM

That's my cue CCG, the topic is've "cornered"me into admitting all of my assertions are groundless fantasies pulled out of my a**.

Yossarian: That's some catch that Cath-22.
Doc Daneeka: It's the best there is.
Sweet dreams everyone ;)

Posted by: Chris lee at March 10, 2008 08:19 PM

Thanks for admitting it, Chris,

We have some lovely parting gifts for you. Unfortunately, a good reputation is not among them.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 10, 2008 09:19 PM