Actually notropis, there is absolutely no question of victimhood here–a wingnut terrorist went into a liberal church and slaughtered as many people as he could. Fortunately, there were courageous people who stopped his suicide attack before he could kill more.
What Elizabeth sloppily attempted to do is equate the stories that he hated Christians with the reality that he specifically targeted religious liberals. I am sure she and others (Cornfed Yankee) would love to believe that. They would like to claim victimhood where there is no basis. (Freud would have a field day with that–why wingnuts burst into flames and cry victim when their terrorist goes on a rampage.)
It’s crystal clear whom your terrorist was targeting.
I have mentioned this elsewhere. It would be instructive for people to look at what the Boston pro-life and pro-choice communities did in the wake of the John Salvi murders (he shot up two abortion clinics, killing 2 or 3 people). They quietly sat down and talked about the issue. They lowered the temperature. Elizabeth is vaguely making the same point, but her bias trips her up. The difference is that in the Salvi case the pro-life people acknowledged at the start that they helped create the monster. They didn’t bizarrely claim he was trying to slaughter Christians. Just like a 12 step program–you start by admitting you have a problem.
The only question is whether the wingnuts can accept that they have blood on their hands. Based on your anonymous and snarky response, I can tell that you are too much of a coward to deal with that reality. That is only your problem, not mine.
