Explosion at Boston Marathon

[VeloCity]

Read it word for word. Read the follow up word for word. The the "prejudice" piece word for word.

He's something. I'm not at all surprised he appeals to you.

I read both word for word. He's talking about the double standard between our response to foreign terrorism versus domestic terrorism. You didn't read it before posting the first time, did you.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Man talk about group think. Saul Alinsky? Surely you guys have a new folk hero by now.

You have it exactly backwards.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I read both word for word. He's talking about the double standard between our response to foreign terrorism versus domestic terrorism. You didn't read it before posting the first time, did you.

Face palm. I don't know that there's anything left to say. Up is down, black is white.

 

[del1962]

I have read reports in the Washington Post that clearly make the radical Islam connection.

From other reports I have read, there was a higher probability of the attack being caused by American radical groups than foreign ones. Without attempting to generate irrational reactions, it is useful to indicate the motivation behind such inhuman acts.

Reminds me a bit of those Jewish Kids shot in France, everybody blaming Sarkozy for apparently stirring up the right, well they were wrong there, more to blame (than Sarkozy) would be apologist for Islamist terrorists like the guardian.

There are three groups of anti-semites in Europe, the far right, the far left and radical Islamists, and guess which one are most likely to kill jews.

 

[VeloCity]

Face palm. I don't know that there's anything left to say. Up is down, black is white.

Dude, it's right there in the subtitle: "There is a double standard: white terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats". But apparently you didn't even get that far.

Let's delve in a little further:

"Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues."

That's what he's talking about, Scott. It's immensely ironic that much of it are things that most conservatives and esp libertarians would agree with. You clearly didn't read past the title.

 

[VeloCity]

You have it exactly backwards.

Odd, cause it's only conservatives who ever bring up Saul Alinsky.

 

[python]

Good summary of the brothers here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130419

that's indeed a good summary confirming that both essentially grew up in america.

CNN interviewed a classmate who called him a good wrestler and "a normal kid. He parties, sometimes he smokes. He was raised here. He was just as American as I am.

 

[DirtyWorks]

more to blame (than Sarkozy) would be apologist for Islamist terrorists like the guardian.

Do many people have opinions like this? Where some media outlet gets some kind of label. It's an honest question. I'm so disbelieving regarding media properties I don't know what is common.

 

[thirteen]

that's indeed a good summary confirming that both essentially grew up in america.

the older brother was out of the country for six months: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...203787721.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_NYBrand

 

[DirtyWorks]

Massive explosion at a "remote" fertilizer plant near Waco, Texas

You haven't spent much time around lots of fertilizer. It lets off explosive gases if it is rich enough and that's common. Now, industrialize the process and it's like working in a fireworks factory. Really. Similarly, check out haystack fires.

 

[del1962]

Do many people have opinions like this? Where some media outlet gets some kind of label. It's an honest question. I'm so disbelieving regarding media properties I don't know what is common.

Here is a guardian editorial b4 the identity of the killer was known, note the blame for Sarkozy

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/france-republican-ideals-editorial

 

[DirtyWorks]

That really bothers. Political correctness often hinders the truth or reality to come through.

As opposed to sprinkling some loose-fitting allegations into some possible facts is better? Both happen. The latter is happening on this thread right now.

And so as in this case, where the Muslim aspect seems to be a factor in this case. For example, one of the two had a terrorist section (videos) and Muslim preaching sections on his YouTube profile.

And you know it's one of the suspect's profile because the twitter feed posted earlier belonged to one of the suspects? Oh wait, that apparently didn't belong to one of the suspects. And yet the other Twittering feed does?

The rush to fill the voids is not good. Please exercise some patience.

 

[The Hitch]

So it wasn't North Korea?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm still trying to think you're not serious, but then I remembered your comments on the Pistorius thread...

You do know these guys shot and killed a police officer, injured another, hijacked a car and ran away, right? Do you still think it is reasonable to think they are not guilty?

So you are just going to ignore all the times the wrong person has been convicted of crimes they didn't commit? How about the times the "person of interest" was publicly named, then reported as a suspect, and oh yeah, it turns out they had nothing to do with the crime.

I'm not arguing the facts in this situation, but don't ignore the others.

You're talking as if the FBI had just published the pictures of the first dodgy-looking guys they found... they crosschecked this thousands of times.

And yet, in other crimes, the wrong person has been punished for crimes they didn't commit. Again, this particular case has likely an infinite budget compared to most and certainly nationwide attention. They've botched cases with national attention before.

Publishing pictures of extremely dangerous suspects is not illegal, and it helps police tremendously to find the criminals through citizen cooperation, thereby preventing further casualties.

Guilty as charged! Oh wait, they haven't even been arraigned yet. That doesn't matter though, does it? Let's hope you don't get swept into a crime you didn't commit.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So it wasn't North Korea?

Doubtful. The Government of Iran AND Al Quaeda figure into it somehow. We can be sure of that. Chechens (they aren't Americans any more) get around you know.

 

[thirteen]

i think alitogata and the aunt may be one and the same.

 

[ChrisE]

Guilty as charged! Oh wait, they haven't even been arraigned yet. That doesn't matter though, does it? Let's hope you don't get swept into a crime you didn't commit.

If he does, hopefully he will employ the actions of the potentially mistakenly identified "non-arraigned" people by killing a cop, robbing a 7-11, stealing a car, having shootouts with police while tossing home-made bombs out the stolen car's window, then running towards them with explosives wrapped around his chest. All this while your other non-arraigned brother who was also victimized by having his pic run on TV, runs over your dead body and flees some more.

It would seem so much easier to just give yourself up peacefully and let the truth attempt to come out. But hey, some of us are just rebels I guess.

 

[patricknd]

You haven't spent much time around lots of fertilizer. It lets off explosive gases if it is rich enough and that's common. Now, industrialize the process and it's like working in a fireworks factory. Really. Similarly, check out haystack fires.

and grain elevators

 

[Descender]

What I have said, and I repeat, is that when police and authorities have sufficient reasons to believe that certain individuals are involved in a crime, and that releasing pictures and information of potentially dangerous criminals on the loose will likely increase the chances of aprehending them, they should do it.

Note we are not talking about executing them, we are talking about arresting them. Going after the wrong people should be avoided, but unwarranted arrests will happen from time to time if we want to maximise our efforts.

It is indeed a matter of conflicting interests and balance. In this case, it seems obvious the benefits of releasing the pictures greatly outweighs the likelihood of having got the wrong guys, with the consequent name-besmirchment.

Guilty as charged! Oh wait, they haven't even been arraigned yet. That doesn't matter though, does it? Let's hope you don't get swept into a crime you didn't commit.

Demagogy at its purest state...

 

[Descender]

So you are just going to ignore all the times the wrong person has been convicted of crimes they didn't commit? How about the times the "person of interest" was publicly named, then reported as a suspect, and oh yeah, it turns out they had nothing to do with the crime.

I'm not arguing the facts in this situation, but don't ignore the others.

I am.

And yet, in other crimes, the wrong person has been punished for crimes they didn't commit. Again, this particular case has likely an infinite budget compared to most and certainly nationwide attention. They've botched cases with national attention before.

I am well aware of that, what makes you think I am not?

But again, I am talking about this particular case. It seems to me you simply assumed I'm for the instantaneous public exposure of pictures of persons of interest. Nowhere have I said that.

What I have said, and I repeat, is that when police and authorities have sufficient reasons to believe that certain individuals are involved in a crime, and that releasing pictures and information of potentially dangerous criminals on the loose will likely increase the chances of aprehending them, they should do it.

Note we are not talking about executing them, we are talking about arresting them. Going after the wrong people should be avoided, but unwarranted arrests will happen from time to time if we want to maximise our efforts.

It is indeed a matter of conflicting interests and balance. In this case, it seems obvious the benefits of releasing the pictures greatly outweigh the negative consequences (name-besmirchment) of having got the wrong guys, especially given that we have good reasons to believe the chances of having got the right guys vs the wrong ones were not exactly 50%-50%.

Guilty as charged! Oh wait, they haven't even been arraigned yet. That doesn't matter though, does it? Let's hope you don't get swept into a crime you didn't commit.

Demagogy at its purest state...

 

[python]

less than 2 minutes ago, i listened to the live interview with the mother
of the 2 suspect brothers...

she spoke excellent english and flat out insisted that her boys were set up. she said 'never, ever she suspected or heard of any extremist views expressed by her sons. when asked if may be, just may be she might have not known of some dark side in her sons, she said 'impossible' because she spoke with them frequently about the subject.

when asked what would she say to her son who is currently being man-hunted if he is listening to her, she said, 'come out and tell them you have nothing to do with it.'

 

[DirtyWorks]

If he does, hopefully he will employ the actions of the potentially mistakenly identified "non-arraigned" people by killing a cop, robbing a 7-11, stealing a car, having shootouts with police while tossing home-made bombs out the stolen car's window, then running towards them with explosives wrapped around his chest. All this while your other non-arraigned brother who was also victimized by having his pic run on TV, runs over your dead body and flees some more.

It would seem so much easier to just give yourself up peacefully and let the truth attempt to come out. But hey, some of us are just rebels I guess.

This time, there's no arguing the basic facts you can't trust those evil chechnians from the Czech Republic that *somehow* got into this country like all the other ferigners we don't trust. Did you see what I did there? That's how ridiculous you sound. What about all those other times the media and THEN the judicial system got it wrong? It's easy to forget those when righteousness takes over.

I get it too. There's a void, a bloodlust for some kind of justice to be done. For example, the utterly false Iraq WMD explanation and all-encompasing rhetoric used to invade a despot ruler's nation the Bush Administration didn't like. Whooops!! Bloodlust satiated though! But, let's not talk about when we, as an enormous group of people, got it wrong. Sssshhhh.

 

[BroDeal]

These guys certainly did not plan their escape well. The had three days. They could have been overseas on Tuesday.

I have to think they did not think they would be identified so easily and freaked out yesterday when their pictures were released.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I am well aware of that, what makes you think I am not?

Your indignant reply when someone suggests some caution regarding identifying people who may or may not be part of a heinous crime.

 

[DirtyWorks]

These guys certainly did not plan their escape well. The had three days. They could have been overseas on Tuesday.

I have to think they did not think they would be identified so easily and freaked out yesterday when their pictures were released.

Where would they have gone? They didn't have power or money to be protected by some extradition-free country.

The thinking is a mess from beginning to end. How else does someone get to making such horrible choices?