or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Boston Marathon Bombing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Boston Marathon Bombing. - Page 4

post #121 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/west-point-report-americas-violent-far-right/61181/

 

I'm sure you'll find fault with the West Point study showing the sharp spike in right-wing terror, too.  

 

Clearly you must have looked at the pretty graph and not much else. This is right at the beginning. It's not the West Point study. It is the author's study.

 

The views expressed in this report are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, Department of Defense or U.S. government.

 

Of course the second source in no form or fashion supports the contention you made with your first source. The second source shows violent acts spiking but the spike occurred during the second term of the Bush administration and declined the second Obama took office. That is nothing like your second source, the "hate for hire" SPLC which claims an almost 1000% increase starting with when Obama took office.

 

That said you really should read your report because it makes some very interesting claims for example noting that all the violence is taking place in blue states because the groups are not in the South. Likewise the 34% of the "violence" is vandalism.

 

Ask yourself how much "left wing violence" we could find if we considered every time a person or gang tagged a bridge, building, or fence to be an act of left wing violence. The levels would be astounding.

 

 

The sad part about this and many other aspects of the left and their agenda is the very clear racism within their process.

 

Then, this January, an Alabama high school student was arrested for allegedly plotting to attack his black and gay classmates and bomb his school. Former friends of the student said he and a group of up to 11 other students regularly shouted “white power” and gave stiff-arm Nazi salutes in the halls of their Seale, Ala., school but were ignored by school officials and security officers.

 

Change the Nazi salute to a gang sign and change the shouts and group associate with to known gang plotting an attack against another gang almost always for racial reasons and this happens 50 times a day. The point, SPLC never calls it racism or a hate crime. Mexican drug cartels have wiped out and terrified entire African-American neighborhoods, targeted and killed people for no other reason than being black and the SPLC never considers it worthy of reporting, tracking or a form of hate. The sad fact is that claims and actual actions by alleged right wing groups are so small and rare that, massive report and fundraising groups can only find or even allege a small number of incidents per year.

 

The actual violence though, for example the 500+ murders in just Chicago last year including the gang related death of Hadiya Pendleton as an example isn't worthy of a study nor per the SPLC is it in any form a type of hate crime. It just is normal and routine.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #122 of 255
Quote:
Police ordered businesses in the suburb of Watertown and nearby communities to stay closed and told residents to stay inside and answer the door for no one but authorities.

 

1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

If the terrorists are found to be of the Islamic kind, then most of the media will immediately circle the wagons. Remember people, this is only a tiny, tiny minority and let's not jump to any conclusions. Islam is a religion of peace, blah blah blah etc.

 

That's already happening. One article I read this morning ended with the advisory:

 

Quote:
The source added that it should not be assumed that either brother was radicalized because of their Chechen origins.

 

Yeah, probably not.

 

This part was downright ironical:

 

Quote:
A 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service said in 2007 Russian security forces ran 850 sweeps through Chechnya that involved surrounding entire villages and searching every house. "Critics of the operations allege that the troops frequently engage in pillaging and gratuitous violence and are responsible for kidnappings for ransom and 'disappearances' of civilians," the report said.

 

So much for pinning this on right-wing Tea Partiers so well know for their violent terrorist acts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #124 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal1 View Post

Yes, I did.  It's gibberish.  There was no law enforcement  "narrative" that was thrown into "disarray" by pictures of private security personal.  There was a lot of wild speculation and repeated claims of "suspects" based on "sources" that didn't pan out.  Claiming that the blog/cable news/internet appetite for quick, unvetted, sensationalistic "scoops" is somehow an artifact of a sketchy law enforcement scheme is just grotesque, although I guess for the clinical paranoia set business as usual. 

 

I'm also puzzled by why the presence of private security people at crowded public event would be considered mysterious or suspicious, if indeed the people are even that, which we don't know (logos on hats and similar dress are not slam dunk evidence of anything in particular, at least not in non-crazy land).

 

And so anyway the kid circled and trumpeted as a suspect in the earlier picture turns out to be a 17 year high school student who went to the police when he saw himself on the front page of the NY Post labeled as a "bagman."  Good work!

 

So I guess you're just going to ignore that half your post was almost immediately discredited and still come on all aggrieved?  Is that you've had any sense of shame surgically excised, or you just figure everything is a bottomless hole of conspiracy and "facts" are just part of their game? 

 

Interesting assumptions. Carry on.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #125 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

If the terrorists are found to be of the Islamic kind, then most of the media will immediately circle the wagons. Remember people, this is only a tiny, tiny minority and let's not jump to any conclusions. Islam is a religion of peace, blah blah blah etc.

 

That's already happening. One article I read this morning ended with the advisory:

 

Quote:
The source added that it should not be assumed that either brother was radicalized because of their Chechen origins.

 

Yeah, probably not.

 

This part was downright ironical:

 

Quote:
A 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service said in 2007 Russian security forces ran 850 sweeps through Chechnya that involved surrounding entire villages and searching every house. "Critics of the operations allege that the troops frequently engage in pillaging and gratuitous violence and are responsible for kidnappings for ransom and 'disappearances' of civilians," the report said.

 

So much for pinning this on right-wing Tea Partiers so well know for their violent terrorist acts.

 

I'm not really clear what point you are trying to make. Apart from some isolated comments, such as the headline from the highly reputable Salon, I have seen little enthusiasm elsewhere to pin this to an entire ethnic or political group. From your criticisms you seem to be both advocating the assumption that these subjects were radicalized and promoting the view that it should be taken as a reflection on Islam as a whole. Is that correct?

 

And, if so, is that because you think that is appropriate, or just because you believe that had it been right-wing domestic terrorism then the "left" would have similarly tried to demonize the "right" and that this represents some kind of balance in iniquity?

post #126 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

From your criticisms you seem to be both advocating the assumption that these subjects were radicalized and promoting the view that it should be taken as a reflection on Islam as a whole. Is that correct?

 

No.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And, if so, is that because you think that is appropriate, or just because you believe that had it been right-wing domestic terrorism then the "left" would have similarly tried to demonize the "right" and that this represents some kind of balance in iniquity?

 

What I have seen is that if is did/does have a hint of something like a "right-wing" or "Tea Party" or "anti-government" motive, the brush is swiped fairly broadly.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #127 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

From your criticisms you seem to be both advocating the assumption that these subjects were radicalized and promoting the view that it should be taken as a reflection on Islam as a whole. Is that correct?

 

No.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And, if so, is that because you think that is appropriate, or just because you believe that had it been right-wing domestic terrorism then the "left" would have similarly tried to demonize the "right" and that this represents some kind of balance in iniquity?

 

What I have seen is that if is did/does have a hint of something like a "right-wing" or "Tea Party" or "anti-government" motive, the brush is swiped fairly broadly.

 

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

post #128 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left...

 

Interesting...a straw man.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

 

1bugeye.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

 

Define "right".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #130 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left...

 

Interesting...a straw man.

 

Actually no - that's a conditional (note the "if") derived from your comments that I followed with a hypothesis (below). And are you saying that you don't agree with that statement? Feel free to correct that perception if it is wrong, and you see the right as equally prone to mischaracterize the left.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

 

1bugeye.gif

 

Do you really think that, aside for your purely libertarian comments, your posts don't almost exclusively attack the left and defend the right? I'm not criticizing that position either - just pointing out that it rather obviously dominates much of what you post.

post #131 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

 

Define "right".

 

I'm sorry - I assumed that most readers were aware of the left-right spectrum of political thinking. You should check it out.

post #132 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm sorry - I assumed that most readers were aware of the left-right spectrum of political thinking. You should check it out.

 

Sorry, I thought it would be helpful to know what your definition of "left" and "right" are. No need to be condescending.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #133 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm sorry - I assumed that most readers were aware of the left-right spectrum of political thinking. You should check it out.

 

Sorry, I thought it would be helpful to know what your definition of "left" and "right" are. No need to be condescending.

 

Apologies then - I thought that you were dissembling.  I'm perfectly content with the regular definitions that align the GOP as right and the Democrats as left, even though on a geopolitical scale the Democrats may be argued to be centrist or even a little to the right. Either way - they are left of the GOP.

post #134 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Apologies then - I thought that you were dissembling.  I'm perfectly content with the regular definitions that align the GOP as right and the Democrats as left, even though on a geopolitical scale the Democrats may be argued to be centrist or even a little to the right. Either way - they are left of the GOP.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I can't speak for MJ, but we do agree on many key issues. I think we have been pretty consistent in our criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps the instances of criticism of Democrats outnumber those of Republicans, but I think that is likely due to the fact that the Democrats are in control of the Executive branch of government, as well as the Senate. They are the dominant party in government right now. They have the power to approve or deny any expansion of the State. Undoubtedly, they have presided over the greatest expansion of U.S. government power, control, and influence in history. If the Republicans were the dominant party in government, and this growth occurred on their watch, I dare say you'd see the same frequency of criticism we've given the Democrats.

 

But really, from my perspective, Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin. Fundamentally, their goal is the same: they both desire the continued growth and expansion of government, which inevitably results in the decreased liberty and freedom of the people. The only difference between the two is in which areas they want to grow government.


Edited by jazzguru - 4/19/13 at 8:16am

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #135 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...and you see the right as equally prone to mischaracterize the left.

 

I do.

 

So then this is really a red herring.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you really think that, aside for your purely libertarian comments, your posts don't almost exclusively attack the left and defend the right? I'm not criticizing that position either - just pointing out that it rather obviously dominates much of what you post.

 

Really? Defend the right? Where? How? When? Perhaps you perceive pointing out flawed and biased critiques of the right by the leftist elements on this board as "defending" the right.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #136 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...and you see the right as equally prone to mischaracterize the left.

 

I do.

 

So then this is really a red herring.

 

No, it's not a red herring either, it's a false conditional if you do not agree with the statement, which I note that you don't.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Do you really think that, aside for your purely libertarian comments, your posts don't almost exclusively attack the left and defend the right? I'm not criticizing that position either - just pointing out that it rather obviously dominates much of what you post.

 

Really? Defend the right? Where? How? When? Perhaps you perceive pointing out flawed and biased critiques of the right by the leftist elements on this board as "defending" the right.

 

 

OK - I do not regard doing that as defending the right, but I notice that your posts are entirely one-sided in that respect. I have never seen you take on the flawed critiques of the left by right-wing elements (which you stated above that you believe to be equally egregious), whether on this board or anywhere else. Why is that, if that imbalance does not reflect your own political position?

post #137 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, it's not a red herring either, it's a false conditional if you do not agree with the statement, which I note that you don't.

 

It is a red herring in the sense that I was not commenting at all on the differences between right/left on who they treat one another. I was commenting on what I have observed in the general, mainstream media.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 255

This keeps dragging on.  Can only imagine the drain on LEOs, and the stress on the people of Boston.

 

The boys' uncle is now giving an interview.  Can only imagine the &&&& his family will be put through by the media and the crazies out there.

 

He's calling on the boy to turn himself and ask for forgiveness.  Says the boy has shamed the family and the Chechen ethnic group.

 

 

Wow.  

 

 

Then The Media had to ask the uncle how HE felt about America.


Edited by Bergermeister - 4/19/13 at 9:17am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #139 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No, it's not a red herring either, it's a false conditional if you do not agree with the statement, which I note that you don't.

 

It is a red herring in the sense that I was not commenting at all on the differences between right/left on who they treat one another. I was commenting on what I have observed in the general, mainstream media.

 

And what you observed was:

 

 

Quote:
What I have seen is that if is did/does have a hint of something like a "right-wing" or "Tea Party" or "anti-government" motive, the brush is swiped fairly broadly.

 

which appears to be another criticism of the left - hence my observation.

 

So my previous question stands unanswered:

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Really? Defend the right? Where? How? When? Perhaps you perceive pointing out flawed and biased critiques of the right by the leftist elements on this board as "defending" the right.

 

OK - I do not regard doing that as defending the right, but I notice that your posts are entirely one-sided in that respect. I have never seen you take on the flawed critiques of the left by right-wing elements (which you stated above that you believe to be equally egregious), whether on this board or anywhere else. Why is that, if that imbalance does not reflect your own political position?

 

post #140 of 255

Republicans are trying to tie these events to the immigration control discussions.

 

Before knowing all of the facts.  (please note this point; the situation is ongoing and nobody knows all of the facts)

 

 

Another Republican genius tweeted that liberals in Boston probably wished they had a gun.

 

 

Seriously.  


Edited by Bergermeister - 4/19/13 at 9:20am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #141 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Apologies then - I thought that you were dissembling.  I'm perfectly content with the regular definitions that align the GOP as right and the Democrats as left, even though on a geopolitical scale the Democrats may be argued to be centrist or even a little to the right. Either way - they are left of the GOP.

 

The "regular" definitions often appear to have selective memories and selective enforcement of terms. Communist China and the former Soviet Union were profoundly nationalistic as an example. Yet clearly they are to the left. Hitler's Socialists though, because that holocaust was unable to be hidden, are declared right wing because of their nationalist traits.The KKK is listed as a right wing group even though it originated and remains with the Democratic party.

 

Libetarians clearly look at the world through the lens of authoritarian power. By that regard certainly there are elements of the left and right that are the same. Mayor Bloomberg doesn't mind day after pills to 12 year olds but screw you if you want a 20 oz soda.

 

The left has a severe blind spot to their own authoritarian actions. I noted for example that the same commerce clause that made abortion legal makes marijuana illegal. Yet you here them go on about state's rights with regard to drug laws. If it is marriage or abortion though and you say "state's rights" you are a right wing nut, even though you are supposed to be nationalistic and thus support your federal government with regard to traditional terms.

 

It basically goes all over the place. Every definition I've read has been very badly off. This especially becomes true for the left which is nothing more than a mob based interest group. Restrict the bill of rights on speech and guns, but not on marriage or abortion?!? The reasoning is beyond tortured.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

 

Define "right".

 

I'm sorry - I assumed that most readers were aware of the left-right spectrum of political thinking. You should check it out.

 

Perhaps some of us think more broadly than caricatures.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not really clear what point you are trying to make. Apart from some isolated comments, such as the headline from the highly reputable Salon, I have seen little enthusiasm elsewhere to pin this to an entire ethnic or political group. From your criticisms you seem to be both advocating the assumption that these subjects were radicalized and promoting the view that it should be taken as a reflection on Islam as a whole. Is that correct?

 

And, if so, is that because you think that is appropriate, or just because you believe that had it been right-wing domestic terrorism then the "left" would have similarly tried to demonize the "right" and that this represents some kind of balance in iniquity?

 

I've read several comments relating to pinning it on the right or blaming the tea party. President Obama himself suggested it might have been a tax day protest. Since you are so familiar with the left/right spectrum of thinking, who do you infer he was attempting to pin it on there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you see the left's characterization of the right as any worse than the right's characterization of the left then I think that is simply indicative of your strong leaning towards the right, which, despite your protests that you are neutral, is clear from most of your posts.

 

I would suggeset that you and others stop pinning labels on others. If they take them on themselves, then that is fine but why argue with someone that you have the right to put them and their thinking into a box? It limits your own thinking.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Really? Defend the right? Where? How? When? Perhaps you perceive pointing out flawed and biased critiques of the right by the leftist elements on this board as "defending" the right.

 

In his adversarial worldview, by definition, not supporting his cause means you are undermining it. There isn't a middle ground.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #142 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Republicans are trying to tie these events to the immigration control discussions.

 

Before knowing all of the facts.

 

 

Another Republican genius tweeted that liberals in Boston probably wished they had a gun.

 

 

Seriously.  

 

And why shouldn't they? There are a lot of sad leftists today, because we now know that the terrorists were not what the left had wished that they were. 

 

Now that more and more facts are coming out, it is appropriate to point out the follies of the political left and to mock them.

post #143 of 255

Again, with the potential of this being Islamic terror, I am concerned for the safety of Muslims in this country.  I only hoped the bomber were homegrown, right-wing, and white because it would be highly unlikely that white people would be targeted in the streets or gunned down in their churches as reprisals for Boston's bombing.

 

Sikh Temple.  Enough said.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #144 of 255
Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

[Random drivel]...

 

This especially becomes true for the left which is nothing more than a mob based interest group. 

 

[More random drivel]...

 

I would suggeset that you and others stop pinning labels on others.

 

What were you saying?

post #145 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Again, with the potential of this being Islamic terror, I am concerned for the safety of Muslims in this country. 

I'm not. There were no mass killings of Muslims after 9/11. 

 

 

Islam deserves all of the criticism that it gets, and more.
post #146 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'm not. There were no mass killings of Muslims after 9/11. 

 

Indeed. Leave it to BR to take the actions of an alcoholic, white supremacist loner as suggestive of what will happen more widely or broadly.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #147 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'm not. There were no mass killings of Muslims after 9/11. 

 

 

Islam deserves all of the criticism that it gets, and more.

I'm with you on religion needing a bashing.  However, killing isn't the only way Muslims were hurt in the decade after 9/11.  Remember that whole flap about the community center?  Remember all the institutionalized racism?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #148 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

[Random drivel]...

 

This especially becomes true for the left which is nothing more than a mob based interest group. 

 

[More random drivel]...

 

I would suggeset that you and others stop pinning labels on others.

 

What were you saying?

 

That is a description, not a label. Racist. That is a label. Extremist. That is a label.

 

However tell the forum editor he's fired if you happen to see him (or be him.)


Edited by trumptman - 4/19/13 at 10:21am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #149 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm with you on religion needing a bashing.  However, killing isn't the only way Muslims were hurt in the decade after 9/11.  Remember that whole flap about the community center?  Remember all the institutionalized racism?

The community center? Yeah, that was in my city, I remember it. I was against it. I thought that it was not appropriate.

 

And just for the record, no, I do not support any kind of discrimination or anything like that against any random Muslims. However, I am highly suspicious of all religious Muslims, and am not afraid to say so. There is a lot of extremism taking place.

post #150 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

The community center? Yeah, that was in my city, I remember it. I was against it. I thought that it was not appropriate.

You're proving my point.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #151 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You're proving my point.

 

Well, I suppose that I am just one of those horrible "islamophobes", in that case.lol.gif

 

Oh, and probably a racist too, obviously.lol.gif

post #152 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Well, I suppose that I am just one of those horrible "islamophobes", in that case.lol.gif

 

Oh, and probably a racist too, obviously.lol.gif

 Well, would you ban Christian churches near family planning centers?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #153 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Well, I suppose that I am just one of those horrible "islamophobes", in that case.lol.gif

 

Oh, and probably a racist too, obviously.lol.gif

 Well, would you ban Christian churches near family planning centers?

 

Wouldn't you ban the churches and religion outright?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #154 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Wouldn't you ban the churches and religion outright?

Absolutely not.  I just hope people would be educated enough not to fall for any of that bullshit.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #155 of 255

lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #156 of 255

The radical left in this country is really getting out of control. 

 

Leftists, the left-wing media and groups like the SPLC are busy, constantly blabbering about mythical right wing extremists, while real left wing extremists are out and about, blowing real people and children up. Meanwhile, this evil leftist cabal is also trying to take guns out of the hands of law abiding American citizens.

 

The mother was a thief and a burka wearing, 9/11 truther and conspiracy theorist. Sounds like a real nice family. And at least one of the terrorist sons was of course an admirer of Obama.

 

And then you have leftist propaganda outlets such as the New York Times showing sympathy for the terrorist killers. I'm pretty sure that all of the people who have died and the many others who have lost limbs appreciates the New York Times showing where their priorities and sympathies lie.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/new-york-times-sympathy-for-the-devil/

 

And if this last piece is true, then this is pretty bad news for the left, Obama and the other incompetents in Washington. They can forget about their anti-American immigration nonsense that they've been pushing lately.

 

Apparently, one of the bombers, in addition to being a fanatical Muslim terrorist, was also a wife beater who could have and should have been deported.

 

 

Report: ‘Boston bomber could have been deported’

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-boston-bomber-could-have-been-deported/article/2527666

 

Leftists aren't too worried about immigrants who break the rules. As a matter of fact, they're hard at work trying to reward criminals and people who break the rules. The Obama administration labelled the Fort Hood terrorist attack as "work place violence". I wonder what they'll end up labeling this Boston terrorist attack as, an unfortunate marathon incident? 1oyvey.gif

post #157 of 255

He has been arrested and was read his Miranda rights..  (edit: he has not been read his rights; I had seen a report on  a local Boston news channel site that said he had been)

 

Public safety exception or something has been invoked to get info on possible other devices that may be out there.

 

Republicans are suggesting that he be tried as an enemy combatant.  Seriously.  What about his Constitutional rights?  What about getting facts first?

 

There will be many questions about the events and the process leading up to this point.  Hopefully all will be answered.

 

May level heads prevail.


Edited by Bergermeister - 4/19/13 at 11:30pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #158 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

He has been arrested and was read his Miranda rights.

 

 

Hats off to LEO and Boston, and to level heads prevailing (a powerful Republican suggested that he be held as an enemy combatant).

 

 

There will be many questions about the events and the process leading up to this point.  Hopefully all will be answered.

 

This says different.

 

Tsarnaev Not Read Miranda Rights Under 'Public Safety Exception'

 

Obama's Amerikkka. :p

post #159 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

 

This says different.

 

Tsarnaev Not Read Miranda Rights Under 'Public Safety Exception'

 

Obama's Amerikkka. :p

 

 
 

 

Quote:

ORIGIN OF THE RULE

The origin of the public safety exception to Miranda, the case of New York v. Quarles, began in the early morning hours of September 11, 1980. While on routine patrol in Queens, New York, two New York City police officers were approached by a young woman who told them that she had just been raped. She described the assailant as a black male, approximately 6 feet tall, wearing a leather jacket with "Big Ben" printed in yellow letters on the back. The woman told the officers that the man had just entered a nearby supermarket and that he was carrying a gun.

The officers drove to the supermarket, and one entered the store while the other radioed for assistance. A man matching the description was near a checkout counter, but upon seeing the officer, ran to the back of the store. The officer pursued the subject, but lost sight of him for several seconds as the individual turned a corner at the end of an aisle. Upon finding the subject, the officer ordered him to stop and to put his hands over his head. As backup personnel arrived, the officer frisked the man and discovered he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing him, the officer asked where the gun was. The man gestured toward empty milk cartons and said, "The gun is over there." The officer found and removed a loaded handgun from a carton, formally placed the man under arrest, and then read the Miranda rights to him. The man waived his rights and answered questions about the ownership of the gun and where it was purchased.7

The state of New York charged the man, identified as Benjamin Quarles, for criminal possession of a weapon.8 The trial court excluded the statement "The gun is over there," as well as the handgun, on the grounds that the officer did not give Quarles the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. 9 After an appellate court affirmed the decision, the case was appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.

The New York Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision by a 4 to 3 vote.10 According to the New York Court of Appeals, because Quarles responded "to the police interrogation while he was in custody, [and] before he had been given the preinterrogation warnings…," the lower courts properly suppressed the statement and the gun.11 The court refused to recognize an emergency exception to Miranda and noted that even if there were such an exception, there was "no evidence in the record before us that there were exigent circumstances posing a risk to the public safety or that the police interrogation was prompted by such concern."12 In dissent, Judge Watchler believed that there was a public safety exception to Miranda and that the facts presented such a situation. Judge Watchler noted that "Miranda was never intended to enable a criminal defendant to thwart official attempts to protect the general public against an imminent, immediate and grave risk of serious physical harm reasonably perceived."13 He also believed there was "a very real threat of possible physical harm which could result from a weapon being at large."14 The state of New York appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The Quarles case provides a framework that police officers can use to assess a particular situation, determine whether the exception is available, and ensure that their questioning remains within the scope of the rule.The Supreme Court ruled on these facts that a public safety exception to Miranda existed. To understand how the Court reached this conclusion and the implications of this exception on the admissibility of the statement and the handgun, a consideration of a summary of the steps used by the Court is important.

The first step toward this conclusion was a discussion by the Court of the relationship between the Miranda requirements and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."15 The Fifth Amendment "does not prohibit all incriminating admissions," only those that are "officially coerced selfaccusations…." 16 In Miranda, the Supreme Court "for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police."17 Thus, Miranda created a presumption that "interrogation in custodial circumstances is inherently coercive" and that statements obtained under those circumstances "are inadmissible unless the subject is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights."18 Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. 19

After providing this explanation of the relationship between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, the Court explained that Quarles did not claim that his statements were "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist."20 Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed. 21 And, in this regard, the Court explained that the failure to administer Miranda warnings does not, standing alone, make a confession involuntary in violation of the Constitution. 22

person being placed under arrestThe Supreme Court then proceeded to determine whether the Miranda rule was implicated in this case and agreed with the New York Court of Appeals that it was. The Court agreed with the New York courts that Quarles was in custody. As the Court noted, "Quarles was surrounded by at least four police officers and was handcuffed when the questioning at issue took place."23 Therefore, on the facts of the case, the Court found that the Miranda decision was clearly implicated. The Court then referred to the determination by the New York courts that there was nothing in the record indicating that any of the police officers were concerned with their safety when they questioned Quarles. The Supreme Court noted that the New York Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether there was an exception to Miranda in cases that involve a danger to the public "because the lower courts in New York made no factual determination that the police had acted with that motive."24

The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved."25 Thus, according to the Court, without regard to the actual motivation of the individual officers, Miranda need not be strictly followed in situations "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."26

The Court then applied the facts to the situation confronting them when Quarles was arrested. In the course of arresting Quarles, it became apparent that Quarles had removed the handgun and discarded it within the store. While the location of the handgun remained undetermined, it posed a danger to public safety.27 In this case, the officer needed an answer to the question about the location of the gun to ensure that its concealment in a public location would not endanger the public. The immediate questioning of Quarles was directed specifically at resolving this emergency. Since the questioning of Quarles was prompted by concern for public safety, the officers were not required to provide Miranda warnings to Quarles first. Therefore, the statement made by Quarles about the location of the handgun was admissible.28 In addition, because the Court found there was no violation of Miranda, the handgun also was admissible. The Court declined to address whether the handgun would have been suppressed if the statements were found to be inadmissible.29

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #160 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

He has been arrested and was read his Miranda rights..  (edit: he has not been read his rights; I had seen a report on  a local Boston news channel site that said he had been)

 

Public safety exception or something has been invoked to get info on possible other devices that may be out there.

 

There will be many questions about the events and the process leading up to this point.  Hopefully all will be answered.

 

Since your post edit, may I presume that level heads are no longer prevailing? lol.gif

 

Also why no mention of Republicans in your newly revised post? lol.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Boston Marathon Bombing.