Wehrwolfen
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 402
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
by Mara Zebest
August 25, 2013
An atheist group is believed to be behind an IED explosion at a war memorial cross in Coos Bay, Oregon. Coincidentally, the cross has been the recent target of lawsuits from the atheist group, “Freedom From Religion Foundation” (FFRF). If it is proven this group planted an IED, can we officially declare the FFRF group a terrorist organization? Luckily the explosion didn’t kill anyone and damage was minimal charring to the memorial.
Christian-Memorial-attack-with-IED-from-athiest-group
Todd Starnes at FoxNews reports the following:
Someone ignited an improvised explosive device next to a war memorial cross that a prominent atheist group wanted removed from a public park in Coos Bay, Ore., an attorney for the city told Fox News.
An official statement on the city’s website called it an act of “criminal mischief” and stated that an ”unknown person(s) vandalized the memorial with an improvised explosive device.”
“We unfortunately are now to the point where explosive devices are being placed next to crosses,” said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation at the Liberty Institute.
The Texas-based Liberty Institute was hired by the city to determine the constitutionality of the Mingo Park Vietnam War Memorial cross.
The cross is still standing, but did sustain superficial damage, Coos Bay City Manager Roger Craddock told Fox News.
“Other than some charred marks on the cement structure there was no real damage to the memorial,” he said.
Read more at:
The Gateway Pundit | Where Hope Finally Made a Comeback
Must have been the Tea Party terrorists again. <sarc.>
Aside from the fact that this is a BLOG opinion piece regarding a FOX News report...the FOX report makes no statement alleging any athiest group is "suspected." The blogger is clearly jumping to conclusions and assuming facts not in evidence in posting their own "opinion."
Don't you ever even READ the articles you post?
Excuse me? I used the Lead of the article. I didn't make that up. My sarcastic remark at the end was meant to get a reaction. Perhaps you should learn to read comprehensively.
You are excused. You posted this crap and did it either unknowingly (which shows poor judgment) or with the intent to deceive. Your thread title is deceptive because it states an allegation of one persons opinion as if it occurred in fact. Your source material is faulty and neither supports the title nor the position you took so "sarcastically" in your OP.
OWN your mistakes if you want any respect in this forum.
There was no mistake other than on the part of this administration assigning the TEA Party as terrorists, so why not be sarcastic by including the Tea Party. They get blamed falsely for everything else.
There was no mistake other than on the part of this administration assigning the TEA Party as terrorists, so why not be sarcastic by including the Tea Party. They get blamed falsely for everything else.
The "opinion" did not state that the group planted the bomb. Your title states the group planted a bomb.
The "opinion" states the group is suspected. The FOX news report cited did not state the group was "suspected."
The "article" is not a news report. The "article" is an "opinion blog."
The "sarcasm" implies that our news media and the general public is treating "Godless Lefties" more fairly than "God-Fearing Tea Party Members."
Nothing in your article implies that in the least.
Finally, although you used the title of the "opinion blog" you were aware it was a libel, since even the blogger indicates only personal "suspicions" and has no factual basis to back that claim made in the title.
Hence, you posted a libelous thread title knowing it was untrue. Then use a sarcastic remark based on this deception to steer the conversation into how Godless Athiesm is getting a break, while the Godfearing Tea Party is sufferring unfair abuse.
But other than that, it was a great post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?