tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post8904396305436745668..comments2024-01-25T15:09:03.714-08:00Comments on Whiskey's Place: The Pittsburgh Shootings and the Question of ViolenceWhiskeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-4848874618639195482012-02-08T12:48:38.991-08:002012-02-08T12:48:38.991-08:00Hey, there's a great deal of effective info he...Hey, there's a great deal of effective info here!escortsite.eshttp://escortsite.esnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-42749109122606999022009-11-10T08:59:10.709-08:002009-11-10T08:59:10.709-08:00ok late to the party i know haven't read the b...ok late to the party i know haven't read the blog in a while.<br /><br />the thing you Americans as a whole (and yes i know I'm generalizing) seem to do is Say <br />"I'm going to go out and die to protect you!" substitue "potect you" for "country" "Flag" etc.. <br /><br />Why do you have to die to protect them. <br /><br />I'm English and one of the great things about the English especially in my experiance the Armed Forces (army brat) is that the English squaddie isn't going to go out and die to protect you but he will Kill anyone thats trying to hurt you.<br /><br />If he dies in the process thats bad luck but my god he'll try to survive first and foremost! <br /><br />The men in these situations where scared no if's no buts no maybe's and there isn't a single one of us that can say what we'd do unless we've been in the situation and know how we'd react. I like to think that if I saw someone in trouble I'd help, but i don't know that i would. <br />Would I jump infront of bullet to Save you? <br /><br />NO!<br /><br />Would i kill the man with the gun to save you? <br /><br />Yeah i'd like to think so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-71976952666505980672009-09-04T02:47:46.982-07:002009-09-04T02:47:46.982-07:00ADDENDUM:
I found a link to the above story
http...ADDENDUM:<br /><br />I found a link to the above story<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8233964.stm<br /><br />Turns out he was drunk and called the girl to tell her he loved her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-64701599005156098102009-09-04T02:34:45.896-07:002009-09-04T02:34:45.896-07:00I read in the paper about a planned massacre in En...I read in the paper about a planned massacre in England by two high school boys. Apparently one of them called a girl and told her about it. She reported them to the cops. I wonder why he told the girl his plans?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-52911624425784805092009-08-28T06:52:12.109-07:002009-08-28T06:52:12.109-07:00You are right on the money with young men becoming...You are right on the money with young men becoming disenfranchised with society. <br /><br />I am a young man and I was raised to do what was right. There was a time that I would not have meekly walked out of that room. Now, I don't know what I would do. Thinking about it something deep down inside tears at me to do the right thinking, yet my mind tells me to say bugger them there is nothing worth dying for, and my life is far more valuable than theirs. <br /><br />Long before I found your blog, and just as I found the PU community (which showed me a whole new world) I met one of these omegas. I met a guy who plainly told me he wouldn't fight in a war for his country, he wouldn't risk his life for anyone and he simply didn't give a shit. <br /><br />I have since met more and more people like him and they are growing in number. <br /><br />At the same time I've seen a massive rise in the mimicking of gang culture among Australian youth (even outside metropolitan areas). <br /><br />I see bad times ahead.<br /><br />-Bill R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-54670255168485788962009-08-12T11:02:58.271-07:002009-08-12T11:02:58.271-07:001) Considering their often extreme over-representa...1) Considering their often extreme over-representation in almost all other sports, the number of blacks in baseball really has declined by a large amount over the last 20-30 years, regardless of the exact way one sets out to try and measure it.<br /><br />Major League Baseball, in recognition of this, instituted the RBI (Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities) program in the early to mid-nineties.<br /><br />This was before the huge influx of players from the tropical region to our south (or asia) which is so apparent to even casual fans now.<br /><br />2) I keep reading that Sodini was "mentally ill", but I'm not sure the case for this being true has really been built, and it doesn't jibe with his functioning rather somewhat normally for the most part in day-to-day life -- obviously up til the point where he stepped out of obscurity. It wasn't like he was on meds or in therapy, and he wasn't a total loner; he had work associates and contact with family, so it wasn't like he was some unabomber. Since he obviously understood the ramifications of his actions, he took his own life rather than suffer the consequences. It's the truly deranged who tend not to do this, unless there is a social structure inculcating in them the kamikaze attitude -- i.e., that they're dieing for some supposed greater good.<br /><br />There are plenty of guys (and gals) who couldn't scare up a real date to save their lives, so his lack of any love life doesn't exactly serve as some sign that he was "mentally ill". And there are lots of people with somewhat bizarre or poorly reasoned or strongly held ideas about all sorts of things -- male/female relations being a common area where this happens (just look at many feminist writings) -- but that doesn't mean the person holding them really qualifies for being "mentally ill". Maybe they have "issues", but some argue everyone has these to some degree or another, that in fact it's entirely normal.<br /><br />It's a typical knee-jerk reaction to what at first appears to be some random incomprehensible act to call the person who did it "crazy", but to do so converts it from a structural or societal issue into a mere personal problem -- which I think is why it's done so often by the maintainers of the status quo who don't really want anyone looking behind the curtain.<br /><br />Once you've diagnosed the cause as being "mental illness", no further thinking is required.<br /><br />In other words, trying to combine social causes with the "mental illness" paradigm is fundamentally sort of schizo. :>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-76701686964151172092009-08-11T16:29:23.108-07:002009-08-11T16:29:23.108-07:00According to reporters Michel & Herbeck in the...According to reporters Michel & Herbeck in their book on McVeigh, “American Terrorist”: <br /><br />1. McVeigh shows Fortier the Murrah building in late December, 1994.<br /><br />2. The windows of the Murrah Building at that time are described as tinted, dark, black, reflective, and a sheen. The authors use the term “dark-tinted” on page 187, while all the other terms are attributed clearly to either McVeigh or Fortier. See, esp., 187-88. Excerpt reporting “tinted windows” at http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-29-2001/0001458397&EDATE=.<br /><br />3. Prosecutor Joseph Hartzler, and Fortier’s attorney, Mike McGuire, confirmed that Fortier told them he never spotted a day-care center in the Murrah Building. Chapter notes for page 368.<br /><br />Meanwhile, according to the UMKC timeline, on October 20, 1994, “McVeigh and Nichols drive by the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. They get out of their car, and time the distance to a place McVeigh would be at the time the bomb would go off.” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/mcveigh/mcveighchrono.html <br /><br />4. McVeigh told Jones, his defense attorney, that he did it but didn’t know there was a day-care center in the building. This was leaked to the New York Times. 183.<br /><br />5. “…[I]n a December 2000 interview, Fortier’s lawyer, Michael McGuire, would confirm that Fortier never saw the day-care center. [US Prosecutor] Hartzler later confirmed that Fortier told him the same thing.” 334.<br /><br />6. Also after the trial, Hartzler would “admit he had no idea if McVeigh was aware of the day-care center or not.” 319. Compare this to portions of Hartzler’s opening statement as reported in the book: ““As Helena Garrett left the Murrah Federal Building to go to work across the street, she could look back up at the building, and there was a wall of plate-glass windows on the second floor,” Hartzler said. “You can look through those windows and see into the day-care center, and the children would run up to those windows, and press their hands and faces to those windows to say goodbye to their parents.” Id, and see http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/mcveigh/prosecutionopen.html <br />Hartzler is positing, at the least a contrary, factual view regarding the windows –that they were sufficiently clear to see through them. <br /><br />7. The authors address the issue of why McVeigh’s defense attorney did not ask Fortier whether he or McVeigh had seen the day-care center at page 334. It was a tactical decision by his lawyers. <br /><br />On the other hand: <br />“"No matter what and how you go by that building, if you look at the building, you're going to see all the little cut-out hands, all the little apples and flowers showing that there's a kindergarten there -- that there are children in that building," Defenbaugh said.”<br />http://edition.cnn.hu/2001/US/03/28/mcveigh.fbi/<br /><br />“Common sense says that the FBI agent wouldn't have claimed that the artwork was insanely easy to see if it could be shown to not be.” Foxfier, above. <br /><br />But then again, what’s good for the goose... Common sense says nobody would say the windows were insanely dark tinted and reflective if it could be shown they weren’t. <br /><br />So, were they tinted or not? I don't know. Looks that way. But either way, no decorations. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/mcveigh/murrahbefore.jpg<br /><br />And, I’m finding it insanely difficult to find a good photo online in support of FBI Inspector Defenbaugh's statement above.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300064299643040666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-2894883892110298552009-08-11T14:22:41.856-07:002009-08-11T14:22:41.856-07:00@BGC
The implication is that this really was a pow...@BGC<br /><i>The implication is that this really was a powerful taboo, so powerful as to survive a high degree of mental disintegration.</i><br /><br />Maybe things are more genteel in Britain, but over here, men have been beating, murdering and raping women since time immemorial. Domestic violence is as old as human history. The victim then, as is now, was likely to be known to the perpetrator. In other words there was a social link. The social object of a man's hatred was proximate.<br /><br />Hatred and malice needs to be directed towards an object. However, with our societies' social atomisation, the proximate objects of hatred are missing, so more distant targets must be focused on. The guys who commit these crimes are loners. They don't have anyone close by to beat or murder.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-74067839609055318832009-08-11T10:45:26.452-07:002009-08-11T10:45:26.452-07:00IMHO the convenent between men and women is broken...IMHO the convenent between men and women is broken. Our protection and their providing. So why should any man take a bullet for a woman? I once held a door open (in my college) for a woman, only to have her stand in the doorway and tell me that she didn't need me to do that. So if I take a bullet for a woman (and survive) and then have her come to the hospital and tell me she didn't need me to take a bullet for her? Oh sure, she needed me when the bullets were flying, but once she's safe she's independant again! <br />The only people I will take a bullet for are my mother, father and brother. The rest of the world I owe nothing to. Feminists (and women in general) must wake up from their lala land delusion to the reality that they are on their own she the crap hits the fan.<br /><br />Signed "The Dude"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-17673424716941229812009-08-10T23:15:35.110-07:002009-08-10T23:15:35.110-07:00Longest comment thread I've ever seen here. I...Longest comment thread I've ever seen here. I have nothing to add, except that I think all of this is a natural confluence of nature and technology. It's not really being engineered on any large scale. We've come too far, too fast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-57082823300062910432009-08-10T22:17:01.534-07:002009-08-10T22:17:01.534-07:00Peter/Iron -- I think in the case of the two profe...Peter/Iron -- I think in the case of the two professors, it was both general (general social conditioning to protect women) and also for the younger man, training in the Army Reserve (on the theory that doing something is better than nothing). <br /><br />The Flight 93 folks, knowing their fate, did fight back. But their story has been mostly hidden, the memorial made into a "Crescent of Embrace' with "multicultural healing" and generally ignored by cultural elites who find its message and meaning very threatening. Not the least of which was ordinary people fighting back. As seen today in ObamaCare debates and Townhall meetings.<br /><br />Gustav -- the Western Society is "supposed to work" or at least the basis for it from around 1000 AD to 1965, was Western women had a good deal of freedom, and more of it as society advanced. Men spent very little time mate-guarding and women's sexuality had key constraints, basically having to choose one guy fairly permanently. Alpha sexuality was controlled, mistresses were confined to a few not harems, and seducers of other men's wives were generally thought to "have it coming" if they were killed. <br /><br />The social contract was that even if you were a relatively unlovely person such as the Vicar cousin of the Bennetts in "Pride and Prejudice" if you followed the rules you'd reproduce with a wife of your own. In return you were expected to give up your life for not just your wife, but women in general, and other men were expected to do the same. In a mutual covering of each other's backs. <br /><br />This had advantages: little resources mate-guarding, high levels of male cooperation and trust, reduced violence, and genetic diversity, along with increased "thing-oriented" tool makers who made new and deadly tools. The Maxim Gun, for example, was not invented nor manufactured in the Ottoman Empire.<br /><br />This is another data point of society breaking down in that basic contract. Since you can't force men to sacrifice themselves, and they only do it if they have a stake.<br /><br />Iron/Peter -- Your experience mirrors mine with: Sierra Club, Habitat for Humanity, Heal the Bay, Surfrider, and the Humane Society. Nobody wanted my help or input. It was a club for existing members. Kiwanis and the charity I'm involved with now was different, a personal friend and mentor got me involved.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-21796982959142114082009-08-10T21:06:43.186-07:002009-08-10T21:06:43.186-07:00Why bother trying to fix something, just say "...Why bother trying to fix something, just say "screw them all" and go on the merry way, destroying each generation of young idiots and thus making the problem carry on....Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-34810617971181024062009-08-10T21:04:20.575-07:002009-08-10T21:04:20.575-07:00The feminists got the society they wanted, let the...The feminists got the society they wanted, let them protect it. Except for friends and relatives, why should I put myself out in the slightest? The bitches want men to step up when it's convenient, and remember their place the rest of the time. Screw that.DRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-12089102289466729292009-08-10T20:05:29.588-07:002009-08-10T20:05:29.588-07:00Just as there is little use in bearing a child.Just as there is little use in bearing a child.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-60594902420269396592009-08-10T20:05:20.370-07:002009-08-10T20:05:20.370-07:00Students of American character should pay close at...<i>Students of American character should pay close attention to Flight 93 ... Certain death came for them by surprise but they did not panic and instead immediately organized, fought and robbed terror of its victory. They died but were not defeated.</i><br /><br />Not that their resistance actually saved any lives. It's likely that the hijackers would have crashed the airplane into the Capitol - which had been evacuated. All they saved was property damage, which, if the experience of the Pentagon is any example, would have been quickly repaired.<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-72530686496812381332009-08-10T20:04:23.723-07:002009-08-10T20:04:23.723-07:00If thats the way it is then there seems very littl...If thats the way it is then there seems very little benifit to being a man.Gustavnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-5125682153308455212009-08-10T19:57:49.438-07:002009-08-10T19:57:49.438-07:00Men protect women because they are men;
males may ...Men protect women because they are men;<br />males may not see the purpose of doing anything for females unless there is a direct gain.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-33834470088041771662009-08-10T19:52:56.434-07:002009-08-10T19:52:56.434-07:00The generally poor state of traditional volunteer ...<i>The generally poor state of traditional volunteer organizations, with many long-time Kiwanis, Lions, and Shriners chapters closing as their members age and no replacements are found, indicate that many younger men, particularly the generation that should be succeeding these older men, which is men in their fifties, forties, and thirties, have no interest or investment in society and traditional volunteering.</i><br /><br />Let me tell you what happened to me a couple of years ago. A few months apart, I tried to join two volunteer social organizations, not any of the ones you mentioned but similar in type. I had gotten the work number of the local area president of the first group and called him to inquire about attending a meeting. After some difficulty with an overprotective call-screening secretary, who didn't seem to believe that I wanted to talk to her boss in his status as the group leader and not for business purposes (I didn't even know what sort of business it was), he got on the line and said that I should show up at the group's next meeting, at a local restaurant, and just introduce myself to everyone. I told him quite sincerely that doing something like that would be quite awkward for me. It would be better if I could speak to him first, and then he could introduce me to everyone else. That wasn't the way we do things, he told me, you'll have to introduce yourself.<br /><br />Needless to say, I never went to the meeting and never pursued membership any further. It wasn't the introducing myself that was the obstacle, I could have gritted my teeth and managed that if need be, but rather the group leader's complete inflexibility and unwillingness to grant my simple request.<br /><br />In the case of the second organization, I actually went to a meeting. There were about 25 people present, both men and women. Almost the entire 2+ hours the meeting lasted was monopolized by three or four women who cackled back and forth about another woman (not present) whom they didn't like. The group leader was present, but made no attempt whatsoever to shut up these common scolds. It was a horrendously boring experience, and as you might imagine I didn't go back.<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-19488164407737024022009-08-10T19:45:57.117-07:002009-08-10T19:45:57.117-07:00I think I must be one of these uninvested males, b...I think I must be one of these uninvested males, because I just don't understand why your so eager to die for women. Why? Because there of a higher reproductive value, why else? <br /><br />Ofcourse I can see how on a large scale this will only plunge society further into the abyss. Seems after being degraded to second and third class citizens by the feminists and female collective, you fellas are still eager to die in defense of women folk. Seems pretty drone like to me. <br /><br />I really don't understand why a man should feel obligated to die for women, explain this rudimentary duty for me please? Why do you feel women are of such higher value than men? I can understand that men have an increased physical ability to stop such killers, but apart from that why you trying to shame them? <br /><br />I don't feel the least bit dissapointed in those men who left when Mike Lepine ordered them to. Lepine was keenly aware of the feminist threat, although he fought back in a way that can only harm us all, I think to think those deserters were also aware. <br /><br />I see the act of dieing for people that work actively to destroy you, who hate you, scold and insult you at every turn, as empty, pointless. I really hate these lone killers because there actions fuel the contempt of our enemies, but I just don't get your urge to die for women. Are you baby boomers or what? I mean after all the talk about women HATING beta males and wanting to reduce us to a slave class, you feel its our duty to die for the same folk who secure the chains? <br /><br />Tell me why?Gustavnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-33936819624852942162009-08-10T19:37:06.298-07:002009-08-10T19:37:06.298-07:00What disturbed me the most, about the accounts of ...<i>What disturbed me the most, about the accounts of the Virginia Tech shootings, was the total passivity of the young men, in protecting their female classmates. The only men who did anything at all, active, were Professor Liviu Librescu, an elderly Holocaust survivor, and and Professor Kevin Granata, a mid forties Army Reservist. </i><br /><br />It could be that these two men intervened because they were teachers and had some degree of responsibility for their classes.<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-59551758811470427202009-08-10T13:43:33.857-07:002009-08-10T13:43:33.857-07:00I've looked at photos both before and after. ...I've looked at photos both before and after. I left a link to an apparently very old photo of the building showing it from the north side N.W. Fifth Street (See above comment, and cf. 1) --where the truck was parked. Where's the fencing? Where's the playground? I don't see it on N.W. Fifth Street in those shots. The fact that the daycare center was on the second floor right in the blast zone is agreed all around. And I read that link about the daycare center worker saying the cribs were visible from the street through the window and that decorations were up. I've addressed my doubts about that already: he missed it. Doesn't excuse anything, but seems plausible to me. Especially considering the main point of the whole thing.<br /><br />Which main point, I can't help but fail to note, you avoid addressing. <br /><br />I mean it's great that you jump in and try to offer correction on the kids point, but if not even trying to tie it in to the main discussion seems a bit cowardly. Cat got you fingers?<br /><br />Finally, on second thought, it occurs to me Whiskey's take could make sense too, but for different reasons. Maybe the kids were the main target as eye for an eye payback for Waco. <br /><br />1.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/mcveigh/murrahdiagram.JPG, and http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/mcveigh/murrahbefore.jpgChristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300064299643040666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-25569552598004530462009-08-10T12:50:44.133-07:002009-08-10T12:50:44.133-07:00Given that I mentioned the huge f*ing hole from th...Given that I mentioned the huge f*ing hole from the bomb, YOU figure it out, genius. I'm done trying to get through your invincible belief.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-25119227129948724102009-08-10T12:44:52.212-07:002009-08-10T12:44:52.212-07:00Look at the picture. Link? http://www.douglouden...Look at the picture. Link? http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtown/vintage/1977.murrah1.jpg? I don't see anything either way. You have something better? <br /><br />"Not when conducting an attack." <br /><br />Well, it's a good rule of law, I'll give you that. See common law on arson. But in my observation I've seen different. <br /><br />"You're basically trying to claim that the word of one guy whose life was on the line that he didn't know there was a daycare outweighs multiple other people saying it was obvious, outweighs the evidence of him choosing that very spot as a target, and somehow nobody noticed the day care when they were casing the joint."<br /><br />Pretty much, yeah. <br /><br />"Nuff said." <br /><br />Nice try. What, I can't bring up the main point? It's like too late to remember the main point or something? This whole thread is proof I think the truth about the kids and his intent matters. <br /><br />Listen, from what I can tell, you're the military guy: McVeigh called them collateral damage. What's that mean to you? He said he was upset in part about what the government did at Waco, where kids also died. <br /><br />[Question: do you unreservedly support everything the government did at Waco?]<br /><br />I mean, really, what is your point? We agree he killed kids. We agree he murdered them. We agree he murdered a hundred score adults. This started with Whiskey saying he thought the kids were THE target. I'm saying, no, I don't think the kids were the target, but that the federal government was the target and so McVeigh is different from Soldoni. I never said the kids didn't matter. You're acting like the difference between primary and collateral targets, between effect and double-effect, problems of intent, and proof, and evidence don't matter. Just mashing them all together. And for what point? To say he's a bad guy? I already agreed with that --my first post: murderer. The question was, what kind of bad guy? <br /><br />I say he's went to the dark side because of hate of the federal government. Not women, not kids, not clowns, not some bully in 3rd grade. And I say this based on all the evidence I've seen so far including your stuff.<br /><br />What do you say?Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300064299643040666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-7966319408284673672009-08-10T12:03:23.590-07:002009-08-10T12:03:23.590-07:00My example is exchangeable, the point is how peopl...My example is exchangeable, the point is how people would react if put in a situation where they must choose between their lives and that of others, for the preservation of current society.<br /><br />Also, about Flight 93: Not exactly the same situation. If I'm not mistaken they knew they were going to die either way, so the resistance they put up was a last (and successful) ditch effort to preserve the lives of others. They were not given a choice between their lives and that of others, they were only given a choice between inaction and death and action and death (not to diminish their memory, just pointing it out).<br /><br />Also, the university example may not accurately represent the population at large, however, it does rather accurately represent the sample that we would want to look at, especially on this blog:<br /><br />The population of liberal, "modern" men. Isn't the focus of this blog PC, modern, big-city liberal society and its pitfalls? No point including people who much closer emulate the pre-PC society in the sample.<br /><br />At least that's how I see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-65878283802901876092009-08-10T11:54:54.246-07:002009-08-10T11:54:54.246-07:00Christopher-
look at the pictures. The flat spot,...Christopher-<br />look at the pictures. The flat spot, right next to the huge indent where the bomb was, that has all the wire fencing?<br /><br /><i>Haven't you ever failed to notice something? </i><br /><br />Not when conducting an attack.<br /><br />You're basically trying to claim that the word of one guy whose life was on the line that he didn't know there was a daycare outweighs multiple other people saying it was obvious, outweighs the evidence of him choosing that very spot as a target, and somehow nobody noticed the day care when they were casing the joint.<br /><br />And now you're basically saying that it doesn't matter if he *did* know, because they weren't the primary targets. Uuuuh....right.<br /><br />Nuff said.Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.com