You missed the link to the leader part... First I admit that is an assumption on my part. But I'll clarify why I assume that. He stated "We were planning". Not them. So that tells me two things, he was a part of the group and in a position to plan something.
So either they let some random nut job roll in and get on on planning meetings, he really was apart of it and in some position to "plan" something, or he's just blowing smoke.
I'd like to think he's blowing smoke but no ones steppes forward to say so. Again, the point isn't if he's a "leader" that's just a term I threw out there.
Important part is no one said he was lying.
If you went to an anti demonstration and grabbed the media and stated "the group was planning to carry lots of guns because they love them" pretty sure that group would immediately correct it. Not make excuses as to why it was said.
I just don't see how you figure. I can't fathom any basis for your conclusion that failure to deny is tantamount to support.
Especially when you're talking about something so obviously deranged.
Let's step back for a moment. Do you
seriously believe there were multiple (as in, more than one) people there who had premeditated plans to "use women and children as human shields"?
Because I don't believe that for a minute. It's one thing to say that these folks stepped into the public view, are therefore playing the public/political "game" and are fair game for any blunder or omissions they might commit. Fine; I can debate that on its own terms.
But, frankly, to me it seems only slightly less nutty to believe that that "plan" was commonly shared by multiple people, than it would be to carry out said "plan." (Remarkably less evil, to be sure, but only slightly less disconnected from reality.)
If you're reacting to the many people who have expressed no concern for this man's remarks (such as myself) and said so, it's only in response to the hysteria from those such as yourself. None of us secretly sympathize with this "plan", I assure you.
Consider:
1. Only one guy ever actually said this. He seemed like a nutty guy.
2. Nobody was actually used as a human shield, during "live fire" or otherwise.
3. The concept of a "human shield" makes little sense when people aren't shooting each other. The presumption that they "planned" to use "human shields" logically (i.e. necessarily) implies that they "planned" to get into a shooting fight with the Federal enforcers. And yet there is no evidence or any such intent, or plan, nor did anybody try to start a fight, nor did a fight ensue.
It is, therefore, demonstrably false that there was any sort of real (much less reified) "plan to use women and children as human shields."
Without out any such plan, intent, or action, the only way women or children are getting shot is if the Federal enforcers decided to start shooting them. They did not do this, of course, but you can certainly understand why folks get upset when you repeatedly suggest that as a distinct possibility.
You're implicitly doing this, of course, because if it wasn't a possibility, then why then hell are we talking about some thing some guy said, backed by no one and no action? :banghead:
I'm done with this tangent. Forever.
Also, I apologize if it seemed I was attaching you to any of this. That was not my intent. I don't know if you have any ties to any groups and that wasn't what was being discussed.
No worries.
