Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Neither you or Turley know that anything was mislabeled, though to create political pressure or news both of you and Reuters mislabel unattributed comments as evidence and present order of indictment as evidence of something.
Those in the media or various politicians who use the "insurrection" label don't know that it was an insurrection. If they do, they haven't demonstrated that it was. It's an unproven opinion/accusation. For political effect.
Indictments follow a predictable pattern, smaller fish first, build the evidence and collaborating witnesses and then the big fish are caught.
Predicates exist for all the people charged in the Jan6 cases and they are being prosecuted.
So, if and when, it is adjudicated/proven to be an "insurrection," that would be the time to label it as such.
Perhaps if you are concerned about mislabeling, you could commiserate with Allan Weisselburg on compensation illegally labeled as "Holiday Entertainment". But that's criminal behavior not political.
Or are you referring to the words of former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski who during an interview on MSNBC in February 2019 said, “I don’t ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with Jeff Sessions or the Department of Justice in any way, shape or form ever.”
Which is not what Lewandowski told special counsel Robert S. Mueller III under oath in 2017. Lewandowski said then that Trump had instructed him twice to tell Sessions, then the attorney general, to curtail Mueller’s investigation of Trump, and Lewandowski failed to do so, perhaps saving Trump from an overt act of obstructing justice.
|
So, from those examples it sounds like you don't approve of mislabeling. Or maybe you're just calling them to my attention. A lot of that goes on. I pointed out a politically influential one. There are many, many more. Perhaps you could make one of your big lists, this time pointing out all the improper names floating around out there, especially right wing MAGA ones. And that will somehow show that calling the J6 riot an "insurrection" is but a trifling thing. Probably even less important because Trumplikans, suposedly, do a lot more . . . and no doubt even worser ones.
Or, maybe, it not only doesn't concern you, but you think it's really cool to disparage folks by mislabeling them some evil kind of thing. You have labeled me many disreputable sounding things and called me weird names like Saul Alinsky or claimed that Putin must be proud of me. And you claim I see war crimes and genocide as "answers" and who besides Muslims do I want to exterminate. It's the kind of tactic that simplifies adversary argument. No need to prove. Just imply, insinuate, label, throw in long lists and opinion pieces and some irreverent humor, and it will sound, to some like-minded people, as very true and important stuff.
As for your claim that I think genocide is an answer, I didn't claim it was. I said "We should not have occupied Afghanistan to begin with. If they had Osama and wouldn't turn him over to us, we should have just carpet bombed that country and left a message on top of the rubble for the survivors and leaders that we would be back with more if they messed with us.
Nowhere did I say we should exterminate the Afghan people. If we did, there would be no-one left to read our note. Actually, what right did we have to invade Afghanistan? They had every right to shield whomever they wished. But wars are like that. Those who start wars can tell you how they very well had the right to attack.
Then I posited that "Having not done that, but intruding ourselves into their wonderful Islamic nation, we should only have done it after
totally defeating the Taliban, totally wiped it out,
then peacefully cleaning up the mess we made, and offer them assistance in rebuilding and occupying for a while."
Again, no mention of exterminating the Afghan people. I do believe, that in creating a war with the Taliban, the only permanent victory would be to wipe it out.
You claimed that all of that meant that I thought "genocide" was an answer. I opined that we committed "genocide" on the Nazis. You countered with "We didn’t commit genocide in the Second World War." I quoted a strictly denotational definition of "genocide" that fit the notion of what we did as "genocide."
OK, so if you did not think we committed any genocide in WWII, then let us use what seems to be your notion of "genocide" and apply what we did in WWII to reducing Afghanistan to rubble to achieve our goal. Let's say instead of doing it all at once, we did it a bit at a time until we got what we wanted. Pick a large city in Afghanistan, and totally annihilate it including all the people, guilty or innocent, in it. And if we still didn't get what we wanted, pick another large city, and destroy it and all the people in it. And if we still didn't get what we wanted, continue the destruction until mission was accomplished.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind?
As far as your implication that I want to exterminate Muslims goes, I never said nor implied that I want to do that. Islam is another matter. If folks want to practice that religion as it really is, they can have their own country in which the people support it. I don't want it practiced, as it really and fundamentally is, here. People keep talking about reform. Fine. When it, or some version of it, actually is reformed in such a way that it is compatible with our laws, that's a different story.
And if those that want to practice it in the fundamental way it actually is want to severely mess with us, I would not be reluctant to totally wiping them out. Negotiation without brutal force, doesn't seem to work with them.