"The Fox News bomb claim turned out to be a false alarm involving fireworks."

Let's see....

"Two suspects are in custody after an incendiary device was found under a vehicle belonging to KSTU, a local TV station known as Fox 13 News Utah.
The incendiary device “had been lit but failed to function as designed,” according to court records obtained by CNN affiliate KUTV.
The device was discovered in Salt Lake City on Friday, two days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University, about 45 minutes south of the Utah capital.
KUTV reported that two suspects were arrested after FBI agents and local bomb squads converged on a home in Magna, Utah.
Additional explosives, along with firearms, illegal narcotics and other paraphernalia, were found in the home, according to court records.
Photos and videos from the scene showed anti-Trump signs on display outside the home."

And the men's names? "Adeeb Nasir, 58, and Adil Justice Ahmed Nasir, 31,"

Obviously white supremist!!

More?..."single non-political gun incident in LA with no confirmed motive." Actually Sacramento.

Motive? The FBI found a note...""For hiding Epstein & ignoring red flags. Do not support Patel, Bongino, & AG Pam Bondie [sic]. They're next. – C.K. from above."

And sadly, JD, these were the least inaccurate part of you last post.

mhaze,

Happy to revise where details shift. You’re right that the Utah incident was more serious than early reports suggested. I’ll also concede the Sacramento/LA mix-up (thanks for the correction).

But notice what’s happening here: you’ve turned the conversation into a body-count ledger, as if the relative morality of political movements rests solely on isolated incidents, rather than how those movements talk, react, and mobilise.

[Again, given the right's whopping lead in the tally count there, it's not a road you want to go down. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400168)]

I’m not defending violence from the left. I’ve condemned it. What I’m pushing back on is the growing rhetoric that turns a tragedy like Kirk’s death into a symbolic catalyst - a mythic moment tied to spiritual revival, political vengeance, and “the pendulum swinging back.”

And I find it telling that the more I raise concerns about tone - about the atmosphere, not the incidents - the more determined you are to argue the technicalities of those incidents, while avoiding the central point.

You posted a quote saying the left is running a “murder campaign” against conservatives. Trump said we must “beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics.” That’s not calm discourse. That’s emotional mobilisation through dehumanisation - and yes, that’s how retribution culture grows, whether you admit it or not.

I’m not pretending there’s no violence from the left. I’m saying that when the narrative becomes “we’re under siege, and God is with us,” history shows us what often comes next. You don’t need a manifesto to light a fire - just a cause, a symbol, and a villain.

So yes, let’s be accurate on details. But let’s not pretend this is just about fireworks and crime reports. It’s about how stories are being shaped - and what those stories are preparing people to believe and do.

"What I’m pushing back on is the growing rhetoric that turns a tragedy like Kirk’s death into a symbolic catalyst - a mythic moment tied to spiritual revival, political vengeance, and “the pendulum swinging back.”"

That's not all all what's happening. I'm not joining in an attempt to turn the murder into a 'symbolic catalyst'. I'm observing that it is an inflexion point. The US changed that day, just as it changed when JFK, RFK and MLK were killed. The pendulum was already swinging back under the efforts of Trump and the murder of Kirk gave it an almighty shove.

But the left is pushing back in the only way it knows - through violence. And the veterans of the MAGA movement know that the only way to combat that is to ensure there are consequences for the violence - not counter-violence but consequences through criminal courts and the courts of public opinion. The left have been calling MAGA and its supporters Nazis for a decade now and before that they were calling anyone to the right of Clinton, Hitler/Gestapo/Nazi etc and declaring that they had to be fought. Since 20/1/25 they've constantly said they were at war and need to defeat the enemy - ie the 80-odd million that voted Trump in.

But that's what's changing. But its not about vengeance. You keep hoping to make that label stick but you can't find one example of the right exacting vengeance in the form of violence and then cry foul when the multitude of examples of the left waging violence against their perceived enemy are mentioned.

And that's part of the change. Waging politics through violence as done by Antifa and BLM and the transgender crazies is now being faced full on and it will be defeated.

mhaze,

You're trying to sound like an observer, but everything in your rhetoric screams participation, not analysis. You didn't just "notice" Kirk's murder as an inflection point - you framed it that way, then echoed the biblical-vengeance tone of those mythologising it, right down to "the pendulum was already swinging back."

You say it's "not about vengeance," then immediately lapse into culture-war sloganeering - "Antifa and BLM and the 'transgender crazies'." You don't need to endorse vigilante violence to be part of the rhetorical scaffolding that justifies it. Cast your enemies as demonic threats, downplay right-wing escalation, and call the pushback "consequences" - and you've already done the rhetorical work of legitimising retaliation.

You demand a smoking gun from the right while ignoring years of right-wing bombings, mass shootings, political plots, militia organising, and stochastic terrorism - then cherry-pick a handful of left-wing incidents this month to declare a pattern. And I'm the one "desperately" shifting the narrative?

You're not defending the right from defamation. You're laundering its worst instincts through euphemism and selective outrage. When Trump says "beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics," you call it colourfully blunt; when the left shouts back, it's a murder campaign.

I'm not interested in your tally sheet or your sudden legal piety. I'm interested in the tone, the language, the narrative you're helping construct - one that casts your side as righteous victims and their opponents as violent degenerates. That's the oldest recipe for rationalised brutality in the book.

This is how it always starts - not with orders, but with stories; not with weapons, but with words that cast neighbours as threats and vengeance as virtue. You're not watching history unfold, you're helping it repeat.

"not with weapons, but with words that cast neighbours as threats and vengeance as virtue."

Still trying to pretend that you're not the only one seeing vengeance as an aim. I thought you'd already learnt that wasn't going to fly. You'll never learn, especially when you don't wan to learn. But calling for consequences for bad actions isn't the same as calling for vengeance - at least not on the right.

mhaze,

You keep retreating to the line that “calling for consequences” isn’t the same as calling for vengeance, fair enough as a principle. The problem is you don’t apply that standard consistently.

You say courts and due process are the answer now, yet for years you and others here have ridiculed or distrusted those same institutions when they produced inconvenient outcomes. Suddenly invoking them as your preferred outlet looks less like principled restraint and more like tactical selectivity.

Words matter. If you want to insist on consequences, then insist on them across the board - publicly, immediately, and without relish. Don’t couple that claim with rhetoric that paints whole groups as existential enemies, or repeat lines that describe opponents as a “murder campaign.” Those aren’t neutral descriptions; they’re mobilising metaphors. And when leaders in your camp talk about needing to “beat the hell out of” their opponents, claiming you’re merely seeking accountability is a hard sell.

If you can show real, consistent insistence on lawful accountability from your side - including repudiation of dehumanising rhetoric by prominent figures - I’ll stand with you on that. Until then, pointing to a handful of left-wing incidents while ignoring the broader pattern of right-wing political violence, and insisting the rhetoric is harmless, looks like special pleading.

Consequences through courts are legitimate. Using tragedy to canonise leaders, sanctify anger, and normalize dehumanisation is not. Words like that are the dress rehearsal for far worse.