In war "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" are two regrettable but often unavoidable things that happen. Innocent people die but it's war. If there is any doubt that the GOP's war on democracy has resulted death tolls that rival and surpass actual wars against foreign enemies? Donald Trump loves to ask, "Who killed Ashli Babbit?" The…
In war "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" are two regrettable but often unavoidable things that happen. Innocent people die but it's war. If there is any doubt that the GOP's war on democracy has resulted death tolls that rival and surpass actual wars against foreign enemies? Donald Trump loves to ask, "Who killed Ashli Babbit?" The answer is he did. He brought her to Washington and inspired her to participate in the assault on the capitol. A woman died but she's become a good line to use at rallies. The vaccine debate might be expected at the Flat Earth Society but not in the halls of Congress. The former president and his party have no "policy" except to yell "socialist" and "freedom". It's as if saying those two words loudly actually explain anything about why they're willing to let people die. The Constitution they swore to support is the very one they're trying to destroy. Will future history books be praising the great leader Donald Trump or telling the truth about him? At least Benedict Arnold fought and bled for this country before he betrayed it. Trump never did the former and it's been a good deal for him to do the latter.
I agree with everything you have written but one point.
trump did not kill Ashli Babbit. He absolutely did foment violence against our government in general and quite specifically against all those verifying his election loss. He did stir up and incite his cult to commit violence (and he should have already been arrested for doing so) so he does bear responsibility but she made the very clear choice to commit crimes for the trump cult she willingly joined. And, as a veteran, she knew what the consequences could be - either while in action of her crimes or later, if held legally responsible. Her death was not collateral damage or friendly fire. Her death was directly related to her own choices and actions. She chose to join the trump cult. She chose to attack our Capital. She chose to climb through a broken window that she and the mob she was part of had just broken in order to reach members of Congress to enact their dear leader's called for violence. Ashli Babbit made her choices and her death was the result of those choices.
An assumption is made here that an individual is a "free agent" capable of making rational choices. Consider blackmail, based on a kidnapped child: go shoot someone and I'll give your child back. People do not have just one "rational objective," all perfectly prioitized, they can have bad intel, and they can be lied to. In such cases, the onus falls upon the one manipulating them.
With the exception of a few planners in the group, the entire batch of Jan 6 seditionists were profoundly brainwashed by anti-american resentments, "second-amendment" rhetoric, deep ignorance of history, and -- of course -- the then-president of the United States, waving the flag for personal gain and calling it "patriotism."
It doesn't absolve the individuals of responsibility, but demagogues don't get off the hook for manipulating other people to do their dirty work.
Well, Ashli Babbit was not blackmailed nor was a child or loved one of hers kidnapped and she then forced to attack the Capital. She made her views known prior to her willing involvement in the insurrection. Were those views and beliefs rational? No. But she was an adult and she chose to embrace those beliefs. Allowing herself to be deeply and wrongly influenced by our then President and by equally noxious media still does not absolve her of her actions. We are each responsible for the information and knowledge, even false knowledge, lies and batshit crazy conspiracy theories, that we take in and what we do with it all.
I don't believe any demagogue should "get off the hook for manipulating other people to do their dirty work". They do but they should not. With regard to trump I believe he should have been arrested for fomenting violence against our government the same day he did so and if not then, then the day after President Biden's inauguration. Allowing him to escape legal responsibility for whatever reason (presidents can't be arrested, it'll look bad, whatever) is wrong.
Once adults, we are each fully responsible for our actions.
Well said, Kasumii. Following demagogues is dangerous business. People are responsible for actions. The rule of law is now asserting itself, even if the current Republicans (aka white supremacists from the 19th century on down...) continue to spread the Big Lie, etc.
While I admit that they were brainwashed, I can see no justification for this mob or the fact that they obviously love Trump and his message. Anyone who voted for him the first time has a skewed moral compass, and, assuming that these people voted for him in 2020, makes them not fit to breathe our polluted air. There was never any question that he's deplorable (nod to Hillary), and he has only gone on to prove himself and his minions worse than that.
I can't say that I agree that trump "did not foment violence against our government in general and quite specifically against all those verifying his election loss."
Trump riled his supporters on January 6, stating: "'You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough and we will not take it any more,' he declared. 'And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
trump explicitly told his supporters to "fight like hell." He said, "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” iDJiT's cult then proceeded to yell, "Hang Mike Pence." A gallows was set up, presumably PRIOR to iDJiT cult's storming of the capitol. In response, Mike Pence was removed from the Senate chambers to a safe location.
Knowingly using falsehoods, he encouraged and incited the acts of violence. Ashley Babbitt died as a result. Police officers died as a result. Numerous people were injured. The capitol was vandalized . . . as he watched from the security of the oval office. He incited the violence. He is responsible for the deaths and injuries of ALL who were at the Capitol on that day.
I agree with you Diana, and I also agree that Ashi Babbit made the decision to participate in an unlawful act. She bears responsibility for that. She made the decision to risk her wellbeing and paid the consequences.
Hi Diana. If you could look at my post again you'll see that I did not use the word 'not' in the sentence you quoted. I do believe trump fomented violence - against our government and against those verifying the election results.
No apology needed Diana. I do that myself - get all caught up in what I'm reading and skip a word or two and react to what I thought I read. So, no worries.
The given metaphorical and literal perspectives on this matter, differ without either being inaccurate. From my point of view, Lawrence's metaphor is to true to Trump's effects on American society.
Literally, Babbit was a civilian, not an active duty soldier so both perspectives cannot be accurate at the same time.
Lawrence is correct. Trump did instigate and even foment the violence his cult committed after his speech. But, again, none of that absolves Babbit from her choices to act as she did.
I think both are correct. Two thoughts can be correct at the same time. Either/or-One Best Option is a meme that leads constantly to trouble. Multivariate analysis is the answer.
I am no longer sure what you are referring to so will end my part of this conversation with "I agree to disagree on what I think you are saying". I wish you well & hope it is a good day.
If I may interrupt here? I think Fern is saying that neither perspective is wrong in Kasumii's and Lawrence's posts, that it is a 'both/and' rather than an 'either/or' situation.
As Kasumii is a veteran, that is an important part of their (not sure which pronoun to use so I'll use the ambiguous they/them/their) perspective on the actions of Babbit.
Lawrence's perspective is to look at external influences that may have influenced Babbit's choices.
From my perspective, all participants need to be held accountable. Should there happen to have been some among the mob who were indeed incapable of making life decisions away from the guidance of caregivers, there should probably be some lenience. For the rest, instigators and performers of physical action, accountability is the only solution.
One problem with letting anyone capable of adult decisions off the hook because of 'brainwashing', 'blackmail', or any other form of mental/emotional coercion is that TFG could also use that argument, just by citing his niece's documentation of his childhood trauma at the hands of neglectful and abusive parents.
Yes, but...she was someone whose military background demanded her to follow her leader or authority, which certainly DJT, as her president, represented. I certainly agree that the insurrectionists were impulsive, destructive, and deranged. They also lacked common sense, but their defense lawyers are going to posit the argument that they were following orders.
I seem to recall the old "following orders" phrase didnt work out so well for the Nazies at Nuremburg, right? That might be a point for the prosecution to use.
The insurrectionists defense lawyers can certainly try to use the argument that trump is to blame for their client's actions but that should not hold up in civilian court. (His involvement should have been legally addressed already and is a different matter.)
Babbit was a veteran, not a soldier on active duty. Therefore, trump was nothing more than a deranged dictator wannabe riling up his cult to commit seditious acts. He would have only been her Commander in Chief if she was on active duty. (And the act of any active duty soldier committing insurrection on the clear orders of a Commander in Chief takes us into an entirely different scenario.) As a civilian she bears full responsibility for choosing to join a cult and then choosing to do what the cult's leader told her to do.
I am glad that Vindman used his critical thinking skills when he witnessed corrupt discussions that the occupier of our Oval office committed. He was an active person in the military and he did the right thing to question a traitor to our country.
With honors! And I am so glad to see that he is speaking and writing and I believe will have a much larger impact on our world with his voice. He is one of the heroes in this homegrown terrorist infiltration by the republicans and hostile foreign entities.
The capital police were armed and had ammunition. Why didn't they plug up the breached windows and doors with bodies of the attackers? Can anyone explain that to me?
In war "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" are two regrettable but often unavoidable things that happen. Innocent people die but it's war. If there is any doubt that the GOP's war on democracy has resulted death tolls that rival and surpass actual wars against foreign enemies? Donald Trump loves to ask, "Who killed Ashli Babbit?" The answer is he did. He brought her to Washington and inspired her to participate in the assault on the capitol. A woman died but she's become a good line to use at rallies. The vaccine debate might be expected at the Flat Earth Society but not in the halls of Congress. The former president and his party have no "policy" except to yell "socialist" and "freedom". It's as if saying those two words loudly actually explain anything about why they're willing to let people die. The Constitution they swore to support is the very one they're trying to destroy. Will future history books be praising the great leader Donald Trump or telling the truth about him? At least Benedict Arnold fought and bled for this country before he betrayed it. Trump never did the former and it's been a good deal for him to do the latter.
I agree with everything you have written but one point.
trump did not kill Ashli Babbit. He absolutely did foment violence against our government in general and quite specifically against all those verifying his election loss. He did stir up and incite his cult to commit violence (and he should have already been arrested for doing so) so he does bear responsibility but she made the very clear choice to commit crimes for the trump cult she willingly joined. And, as a veteran, she knew what the consequences could be - either while in action of her crimes or later, if held legally responsible. Her death was not collateral damage or friendly fire. Her death was directly related to her own choices and actions. She chose to join the trump cult. She chose to attack our Capital. She chose to climb through a broken window that she and the mob she was part of had just broken in order to reach members of Congress to enact their dear leader's called for violence. Ashli Babbit made her choices and her death was the result of those choices.
Well stated! Though I can also understand Lawrence's sentiment.
An assumption is made here that an individual is a "free agent" capable of making rational choices. Consider blackmail, based on a kidnapped child: go shoot someone and I'll give your child back. People do not have just one "rational objective," all perfectly prioitized, they can have bad intel, and they can be lied to. In such cases, the onus falls upon the one manipulating them.
With the exception of a few planners in the group, the entire batch of Jan 6 seditionists were profoundly brainwashed by anti-american resentments, "second-amendment" rhetoric, deep ignorance of history, and -- of course -- the then-president of the United States, waving the flag for personal gain and calling it "patriotism."
It doesn't absolve the individuals of responsibility, but demagogues don't get off the hook for manipulating other people to do their dirty work.
Ah, I see.
Well, Ashli Babbit was not blackmailed nor was a child or loved one of hers kidnapped and she then forced to attack the Capital. She made her views known prior to her willing involvement in the insurrection. Were those views and beliefs rational? No. But she was an adult and she chose to embrace those beliefs. Allowing herself to be deeply and wrongly influenced by our then President and by equally noxious media still does not absolve her of her actions. We are each responsible for the information and knowledge, even false knowledge, lies and batshit crazy conspiracy theories, that we take in and what we do with it all.
I don't believe any demagogue should "get off the hook for manipulating other people to do their dirty work". They do but they should not. With regard to trump I believe he should have been arrested for fomenting violence against our government the same day he did so and if not then, then the day after President Biden's inauguration. Allowing him to escape legal responsibility for whatever reason (presidents can't be arrested, it'll look bad, whatever) is wrong.
Once adults, we are each fully responsible for our actions.
100 times, Kasumii.
Well said, Kasumii. Following demagogues is dangerous business. People are responsible for actions. The rule of law is now asserting itself, even if the current Republicans (aka white supremacists from the 19th century on down...) continue to spread the Big Lie, etc.
I'm increasingly coming to see that last statement as either an aspiration or a dogma, depending on the day and my depth of cynicism.
Ah. Well, in my case it's not dogma but an aspiration, a code to live my life by.
While I admit that they were brainwashed, I can see no justification for this mob or the fact that they obviously love Trump and his message. Anyone who voted for him the first time has a skewed moral compass, and, assuming that these people voted for him in 2020, makes them not fit to breathe our polluted air. There was never any question that he's deplorable (nod to Hillary), and he has only gone on to prove himself and his minions worse than that.
High Five, Kasumii.
I’ll add 5 so that’s a high ten, Kasumii.
Thanks Christine! Sending one back to you and Lynell.
Thanks Lynell!
I can't say that I agree that trump "did not foment violence against our government in general and quite specifically against all those verifying his election loss."
Trump riled his supporters on January 6, stating: "'You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough and we will not take it any more,' he declared. 'And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
Then, as stated by Business Insider: "The president then sat by, watching cable news as those supporters broke into the Capitol, blocking lawmakers from certifying President-elect Joe Biden's victory." https://www.businessinsider.com/how-trump-in-final-weeks-incited-his-followers-to-storm-the-capitol-2021-1
trump explicitly told his supporters to "fight like hell." He said, "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” iDJiT's cult then proceeded to yell, "Hang Mike Pence." A gallows was set up, presumably PRIOR to iDJiT cult's storming of the capitol. In response, Mike Pence was removed from the Senate chambers to a safe location.
Knowingly using falsehoods, he encouraged and incited the acts of violence. Ashley Babbitt died as a result. Police officers died as a result. Numerous people were injured. The capitol was vandalized . . . as he watched from the security of the oval office. He incited the violence. He is responsible for the deaths and injuries of ALL who were at the Capitol on that day.
I agree with you Diana, and I also agree that Ashi Babbit made the decision to participate in an unlawful act. She bears responsibility for that. She made the decision to risk her wellbeing and paid the consequences.
Agree.
Hi Diana. If you could look at my post again you'll see that I did not use the word 'not' in the sentence you quoted. I do believe trump fomented violence - against our government and against those verifying the election results.
Hi Kasumii,
Sorry! I read too quickly. Please accept my apologies!
No apology needed Diana. I do that myself - get all caught up in what I'm reading and skip a word or two and react to what I thought I read. So, no worries.
The given metaphorical and literal perspectives on this matter, differ without either being inaccurate. From my point of view, Lawrence's metaphor is to true to Trump's effects on American society.
Literally, Babbit was a civilian, not an active duty soldier so both perspectives cannot be accurate at the same time.
Lawrence is correct. Trump did instigate and even foment the violence his cult committed after his speech. But, again, none of that absolves Babbit from her choices to act as she did.
I think both are correct. Two thoughts can be correct at the same time. Either/or-One Best Option is a meme that leads constantly to trouble. Multivariate analysis is the answer.
'The given metaphorical and literal perspectives on this matter, differ without either being inaccurate.'
I am no longer sure what you are referring to so will end my part of this conversation with "I agree to disagree on what I think you are saying". I wish you well & hope it is a good day.
If I may interrupt here? I think Fern is saying that neither perspective is wrong in Kasumii's and Lawrence's posts, that it is a 'both/and' rather than an 'either/or' situation.
As Kasumii is a veteran, that is an important part of their (not sure which pronoun to use so I'll use the ambiguous they/them/their) perspective on the actions of Babbit.
Lawrence's perspective is to look at external influences that may have influenced Babbit's choices.
From my perspective, all participants need to be held accountable. Should there happen to have been some among the mob who were indeed incapable of making life decisions away from the guidance of caregivers, there should probably be some lenience. For the rest, instigators and performers of physical action, accountability is the only solution.
One problem with letting anyone capable of adult decisions off the hook because of 'brainwashing', 'blackmail', or any other form of mental/emotional coercion is that TFG could also use that argument, just by citing his niece's documentation of his childhood trauma at the hands of neglectful and abusive parents.
Yes, but...she was someone whose military background demanded her to follow her leader or authority, which certainly DJT, as her president, represented. I certainly agree that the insurrectionists were impulsive, destructive, and deranged. They also lacked common sense, but their defense lawyers are going to posit the argument that they were following orders.
I seem to recall the old "following orders" phrase didnt work out so well for the Nazies at Nuremburg, right? That might be a point for the prosecution to use.
The defense lawyers at Nuremburg used that argument too; wasn't all that effective.
Whoops - didnt see your comment till after I posted mine! Great minds, huh?
Exactly! Thank you for bringing that up Dave.
The insurrectionists defense lawyers can certainly try to use the argument that trump is to blame for their client's actions but that should not hold up in civilian court. (His involvement should have been legally addressed already and is a different matter.)
Babbit was a veteran, not a soldier on active duty. Therefore, trump was nothing more than a deranged dictator wannabe riling up his cult to commit seditious acts. He would have only been her Commander in Chief if she was on active duty. (And the act of any active duty soldier committing insurrection on the clear orders of a Commander in Chief takes us into an entirely different scenario.) As a civilian she bears full responsibility for choosing to join a cult and then choosing to do what the cult's leader told her to do.
I am glad that Vindman used his critical thinking skills when he witnessed corrupt discussions that the occupier of our Oval office committed. He was an active person in the military and he did the right thing to question a traitor to our country.
He is a honorable man and soldier. His stolen promotion (by trump) should be awarded to him with back pay.
With honors! And I am so glad to see that he is speaking and writing and I believe will have a much larger impact on our world with his voice. He is one of the heroes in this homegrown terrorist infiltration by the republicans and hostile foreign entities.
The capital police were armed and had ammunition. Why didn't they plug up the breached windows and doors with bodies of the attackers? Can anyone explain that to me?
Well said.