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

The Boston Marathon Bombing. - Page 3

post #81 of 255

The suspect in the white hat looks middle eastern. I haven't seen a good enough picture of the other suspect yet.

 

It'll be interesting to see if this attack was the work of Islamic terrorists or if it was the work of somebody else. I'm not counting anything out yet. 

post #82 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - that's clearly put. You don't condone "whites only" signs, you simply don't believe that anyone has the right to impose restrictions on them.

 

Exactly.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So is it not inconsistent with that view for you to demand that Hands apologize for racial profiling? Does that not constitute you imposing your values on him?

 

Well, I wouldn't say that I demanded he do anything. It was simply a friendly suggestion. He's free to do it or not. If I wanted to truly impose my values on him, I'd grab him, hold him even use some kind of threat to life and limb until he complied with my "suggestion."

 

I simply pointed out the prejudicial nature of his statements and suggested he might want to re-think them and apologize for making them instead of trying to rationalize them.

 

Is the difference clear?

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 #83 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...because you're not making any sense...

 

Indeed, I'm sure I'm not (to you.)

 

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 #84 of 255

And just for the record. I do support racial profiling, religious profiling and other types of profiling. To not profile is an assault against science IMO.

post #85 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - that's clearly put. You don't condone "whites only" signs, you simply don't believe that anyone has the right to impose restrictions on them.

 

Exactly.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So is it not inconsistent with that view for you to demand that Hands apologize for racial profiling? Does that not constitute you imposing your values on him?

 

Well, I wouldn't say that I demanded he do anything. It was simply a friendly suggestion. He's free to do it or not. If I wanted to truly impose my values on him, I'd grab him, hold him even use some kind of threat to life and limb until he complied with my "suggestion."

 

I simply pointed out the prejudicial nature of his statements and suggested he might want to re-think them and apologize for making them instead of trying to rationalize them.

 

Is the difference clear?

 

Your statements are clear - the problem is that I find them contradictory. The logical conclusion of your philosophy is the one I mentioned earlier - anything goes except for telling someone else what they can or cannot do. Clearly the goal is total individual freedom, and yet by the simple act of exercising complete individual freedom one can significantly affect the freedom of others, positively and negatively. This concept only works in an explicitly non-interactive system of individuals - with any interaction it becomes self-defeating.

 

Discrimination is a good example. In a simple, non-cooperative model, individual discrimination matters little - no more than simply choosing your friends. But when cooperation is included, factions arise, and majorities and minorities form, and discrimination can go beyond individual interaction. If majorities (loosely defined by simple numbers, wealth or influence of any kind) begin to discriminate against minorities (because they have the buying power, hiring power, more firearms or whatever) then individual freedoms are being infringed in a similar way that you object to a majority of the electorate being able to dictate the lawmaking process. Except in your model there seem to be no values in place to limit the damage, because imposing values is not allowed.

post #86 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Indeed, I'm sure I'm not (to you.)

 

lol.gif

You'll get an even bigger laugh from the following. There are a lot of things I like about Ron Paul, but this one, well, lets just say it keeps him firmly in the minority club lol.gif

 

"“If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” Paul explained. “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”

TheGrio notes that the Civil Rights Act “repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination.”"

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-tells-cnns-candy-crowley-civil-rights-act-destroyed-privacy/

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #87 of 255
Thread Starter 

MJ, given you're against telling people that they can't discriminate based on race, how do you feel about racial profiling by the police? Why does it bother you our private press describes someone as dark skinned? Where are you coming from here MJ?

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #88 of 255
Thread Starter 

Deleted. 


Edited by Hands Sandon - 4/19/13 at 5:01am
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #89 of 255
Thread Starter 

Deleted. It wasn't him.


Edited by Hands Sandon - 4/19/13 at 5:01am
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #90 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You'll get an even bigger laugh from the following. There are a lot of things I like about Ron Paul, but this one, well, lets just say it keeps him firmly in the minority club lol.gif

 

"“If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” Paul explained. “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”

TheGrio notes that the Civil Rights Act “repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination.”"

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-tells-cnns-candy-crowley-civil-rights-act-destroyed-privacy/

 

You've stated he's "in the minority" and added the laughing smiley, but you haven't told us if he's wrong and, if so, how and why.

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 #91 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

MJ, given you're against telling people that they can't discriminate based on race, how do you feel about racial profiling by the police?

 

I'm opposed to it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Why does it bother you our private press describes someone as dark skinned?

 

Where did I say that it bothers me? If someone is describing someone or something, I don't see any problem with this. If someone started making a variety of assumptions about a person based on their skin color, that would bother me similar to the way that a business establishment with a sign saying "Whites Only" would bother me.

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 #92 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I'm opposed to it.

 

 

 

Where did I say that it bothers me? If someone is describing someone or something, I don't see any problem with this. If someone started making a variety of assumptions about a person based on their skin color, that would bother me similar to the way that a business establishment with a sign saying "Whites Only" would bother me.

Yeah right. How many blonde muslim terrorists have there been? This games over. It's a waste of time, and frankly you know it. You've repeatedly called my posts racist and it's annoying. You used to post with a whole lot more integrity. 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #93 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Your statements are clear - the problem is that I find them contradictory.

 

I don't. And so far you've not convinced me they are.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The logical conclusion of your philosophy is the one I mentioned earlier - anything goes except for telling someone else what they can or cannot do.

 

The thing that doesn't go is forcing someone to do (or not do) what you want them to do (or not do.) Telling people what you think they should or shouldn't do is just fine. Do you truly fail to see a distinction here?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Clearly the goal is total individual freedom, and yet by the simple act of exercising complete individual freedom one can significantly affect the freedom of others, positively and negatively.

 

Well, that depends. The most succinct way to put is that old saying that your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

 

I feel I've been fairly clear and consistent on my basic position here and feel it is the one with the greatest degree of consistency. It goes basically like this:

 

1. Each of us as human being essentially "owns" ourselves as well as the product of our labor (property rights.)

2. Because of 1, We have the right of liberty, association (or not), speech, thought, action, etc. up to the point where that right trespasses onto another person and their property.

3. Each person has a right of liberty as well as self-defense. Each person has right to not have their person or property infringed upon by another person or group.

 

This is basically a negative rights doctrine/philosophy vs. a positive "rights" doctrine/philosophy (which I consider to be inherently contradictory.)

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 #94 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I would have thought the FBI would have, or are, looking into the possibility of him being one of the bombers. If it's not, I hope he's safe somewhere.

 

That guy has been missing for a while, so not very likely IMO. And doesn't he belong to the wrong religion?

 

He does seem like an extreme leftist though, one who admires violence and glorifies killing and mass murderers, based on his Che Guevara shirt, but I'd say that it's not likely that he had anything to do with the Boston bombing, IMO. Of course, that is for the FBI to eventually figure out.1smile.gif

post #95 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah right. How many blonde muslim terrorists have there been?

 

What are you talking about?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

This games over. It's a waste of time, and frankly you know it. You've repeatedly called my posts racist and it's annoying. You used to post with a whole lot more integrity. 

 

Actually, I called it prejudice (which it was), not specifically racist. I called it that because you clearly were pre-judging people and their attitudes and motivations based simply on skin and hair color.

 

You also notably excluded any possibility of someone of your political (left/liberal) leaning from the list of options. You basically said it was either a dark haired and dark skinned person and thus (likely) a muslim extremist/terrorist or a light haired, white-skinned person and thus a right-wing terrorist.

 

Characterizations of that kind are prejudicial in their very nature.

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 #96 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 You basically said it was either a dark haired and dark skinned person and thus (likely) a muslim extremist/terrorist or a light haired, white-skinned person and thus a right-wing terrorist.

 

 

White skinned doesn't automatically have to mean right-wing terrorist. Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers, who was white and definitely left-wing, co-founded a group which was responsible for many bombs.

post #97 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

White skinned doesn't automatically have to mean right-wing terrorist. Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers, who was white and definitely left-wing, co-founded a group which was responsible for many bombs.

 

I'm aware of that, but old Hands doesn't seem to be.

 

Interestingly he, along with others, seem intent on ascribing a political ideology to the criminal(s) who did this when it may just be some nut who wanted to kill people for no particularly discernible reason.

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

 

White skinned doesn't automatically have to mean right-wing terrorist. Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers, who was white and definitely left-wing, co-founded a group which was responsible for many bombs.

Sure, it's possible to have white left wing terrorists.  The odds are just very much stacked against it.

 

“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 #99 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

That guy has been missing for a while, so not very likely IMO. And doesn't he belong to the wrong religion?

He's only been missing for a month. That would give him time to train, prepare and plan the finer details. He's Indian I think, that would mean he could well be Muslim.

 

"Islam is the second-most practised religion in the Republic of India afterHinduism, encompasing 13.4% of the country's population (over 160 million as per 2001 census." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India

 

And please leave your hateful over the top statements out of this forum. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who finds them childish, petty, immature and vile.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #100 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Your statements are clear - the problem is that I find them contradictory.

 

I don't. And so far you've not convinced me they are.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The logical conclusion of your philosophy is the one I mentioned earlier - anything goes except for telling someone else what they can or cannot do.

 

The thing that doesn't go is forcing someone to do (or not do) what you want them to do (or not do.) Telling people what you think they should or shouldn't do is just fine. Do you truly fail to see a distinction here?

 

No - I understand that distinction. I wrote ambiguously - I meant to imply forcing.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Clearly the goal is total individual freedom, and yet by the simple act of exercising complete individual freedom one can significantly affect the freedom of others, positively and negatively.

 

Well, that depends. The most succinct way to put is that old saying that your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

 

I feel I've been fairly clear and consistent on my basic position here and feel it is the one with the greatest degree of consistency. It goes basically like this:

 

1. Each of us as human being essentially "owns" ourselves as well as the product of our labor (property rights.)

2. Because of 1, We have the right of liberty, association (or not), speech, thought, action, etc. up to the point where that right trespasses onto another person and their property.

3. Each person has a right of liberty as well as self-defense. Each person has right to not have their person or property infringed upon by another person or group.

 

This is basically a negative rights doctrine/philosophy vs. a positive "rights" doctrine/philosophy (which I consider to be inherently contradictory.)

 

As stated, I have little problem with those ideals and taken in isolation they are consistent. You did not comment on the remainder of my objection though - that they permit classes to act cooperatively and discriminatively against other classes, and that in doing so they infringe the liberties of those individuals. History is replete with examples of that happening in the absence of any kind of imposed societal framework of values. Just as a side note, the Bible itself represented an example of such a set of values, and did not come with the caveat that those values were optional. So I still fail to see how your philosophy deals with the problem of concerted discriminatory action.

post #101 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I'm aware of that, but old Hands doesn't seem to be.

 

Interestingly he, along with others, seem intent on ascribing a political ideology to the criminal(s) who did this when it may just be some nut who wanted to kill people for no particularly discernible reason.

Like I said earlier, until they're tried and found guilty in court we won't know. My list is in order of likelihood, 1- muslim. 2- right wing extremist. 3- no agenda.

 

A left wing attack of this kind I see as about 10,000 on the list. Bill Ayers was a long time ago.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #102 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Like I said earlier, until they're tried and found guilty in court we won't know. My list is in order of likelihood, 1- muslim. 2- right wing extremist. 3- no agenda.

 

A left wing attack of this kind I see as about 10,000 on the list. Bill Ayers was a long time ago.

 

Your biases are showing.

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 #103 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post
And please leave your hateful over the top statements out of this forum. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who finds them childish, petty, immature and vile.

 

Shouldn't you wait until I make any, before you go around pre-judging the future? lol.gif

post #104 of 255
Thread Starter 

Deleted.


Edited by Hands Sandon - 4/19/13 at 5:00am
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #105 of 255

The FBI has a long history of taking part, or even orchestrating terror attacks in which they blame a patsy, and then claim the case is "solved", closing off all other areas of inquiry. Many times, the "attacks" are designed not to endanger anyone, in which someone is framed and apprehended in a tightly controlled situation, with the purpose of garnering media attention: There are ongoing threats and the "Feds are doing a great job at stopping terrorist attacks".

 

The  so-called "war on terrorism" has seen a vast influx of taxpayer funds diverted towards law enforcement, security/surveillance and intelligence organizations, both governmental and privately owned, and the shocked and awed public have, to date, barely raised an eyebrow. If real terror attacks dry up, then at some point the legitimacy of the huge investment in "counter terrorism" programs will be challenged...in other words, a big $$$problem for investors in this sector who are profiting from the copious and ongoing flow of corporate welfare. The corporate mainstream (weasel) media, which should be our watchdogs, have morphed into big-government propaganda lapdogs, not unlike the tightly controlled media in the old Soviet Union, and refuse to ask questions, or challenge the authorities, no matter how untenable their claims; the alternative media are taking up the slack. The standard defense of those who defer to authority opinion, by default, is to spew out the old "conspiracy theory" chestnut... its starting to wear thin, and people are wising up.

 

I am not having a go at the entire Bureau - there are many good officers within the FBI, at "boots" level.  But in cases like this, in which the fox is likely investigating the henhouse, we the public will never get get to hear the real story. The corruption happens at high levels, as it does in almost all official bodies and agencies: Scum tends to rises to the top, and our system unfortunately seems to operate so as to ensure that sociopaths end up behind the wheel.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #106 of 255

Right wing extremist groups have absolutely proliferated during the Obama administration.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/home/splc-report-antigovernment-patriot-movement-continues-explosive-growth-poses-rising-threat-of-v#.UXC-t7Wsh8E

 

http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism#.UXC_GLWsh8E

 

PATRIOT-MILITIA-GRAPH.jpg

 

 

 

Quote:

Conspiracies and Terror
Another factor driving the expansion of the radical right over the last decade or so has been the mainstreaming of formerly marginal conspiracy theories. The latest and most dramatic example of that may be the completely baseless claim that Agenda 21 — a United Nations sustainability plan that was signed by President George H.W. Bush but has no mandatory provisions whatsoever — is part of a plan to impose socialism on America and strip away private property rights.

That claim has been pushed heavily by, among others, the John Birch Society, a conspiracist Patriot organization that was exiled from the conservative movement a half century ago after claiming President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist agent (see story, p. 24)."Last year, the Republican National Committee passed a plank opposing Agenda 21 and describing it as a “destructive and insidious scheme” to impose “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.” The state of Alabama passed a law barring any policies traceable to Agenda 21 without “due process.”

The radical right last year produced more than its fair share of political violence. Most dramatically, a neo-Nazi gunman stormed into a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, murdering six people before killing himself. In Georgia, meanwhile, officials arrested 10 people, most of them active-duty military, who were allegedly part of a plot to take over the Army’s Fort Stewart, among many other things. The group is accused of murdering two former members suspected of talking.

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.

These were only the latest incidents of just over 100 domestic radical-right plots, conspiracies and racist rampages that the SPLC has counted since the Oklahoma City bombing left 168 men, women and children dead in 1995.

Now, it seems likely that the radical right’s growth will continue. In 2012, before Obama’s re-election and the Newtown, Conn., massacre, the rate of Patriot growth had slackened somewhat, although it remained significant. Anger over the idea of four more years under a black, Democratic president — and, even more explosively, the same kinds of gun control efforts that fueled the militia movement of the 1990s — seems already to be fomenting another Patriot spurt.

Even before the election last year, self-described Patriots sounded ready for action. “Our Federal Government is just a tool of International Socialism now, operating under UN Agendas not our American agenda,” the United States Patriots Union wrote last year in a letter “sent to ALL conservative state legislators, all states.” “This means that freedom and liberty must be defended by the states under their Constitutional Balance of Power, or we are headed to Civil War wherein the people will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.”

 

“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 #107 of 255

 

SPLC is not a valid source as they are merely a left-wing political group which is motivated by pushing left-wing causes.

 

Any group that SPLC disagrees with can be labelled a hate group by them. It need not be violent or even extremist.

 

In fact, I would call SPLC an extremist, far left hate group, since all they do is go around labeling other groups extremists, even when it's not true. They are merely far left people doing what the far left does best, attempting to silence people while getting their censorship fetish on.

 

 

O’Reilly Panelist Bashes Southern Poverty Law Center: ‘They Would Label A Ham And Cheese Sandwich As An Extremist Threat’

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-panelist-bashes-southern-poverty-law-center-they-would-label-a-ham-and-cheese-sandwich-as-an-extremist-threat/

post #108 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

SPLC is not a valid source as they are merely a left-wing political group which is motivated by pushing left-wing causes.

 

Any group that SPLC disagrees with can be labelled a hate group by them. It need not be violent or even extremist.

 

In fact, I would call SPLC an extremist, far left hate group, since all they do is go around labeling other groups extremists, even when it's not true. They are merely far left people doing what the far left does best, attempting to silence people while getting their censorship fetish on.

 

Exactly.

 

No doubt they are hoping this is a right-winger (even if only by implication and spurious characterization) so they can send out their next fund-raising letter.

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 #109 of 255
CNN reports an IPHONE photo taken at the marathon is the BEST picture yet of the suspects....Pic was taken by a clothing company exec who was in Boston for the Marathon expo-- he was from Florida. - the pic is pretty amazing..."David Green snapped an iPhone photo shortly after the Boston Marathon bombings Monday. When the FBI released images of two suspects Thursday, Green, with the help of a friend, noticed something towards the lower portion of his own image. It was Suspect Two, in a white cap.

Green’s photo shows the suspect at a side angle leaving the bombing scene.

“I spoke to the FBI and it may be the best photo they have,” the Jacksonville native posted on Facebook...
Edited by gijoeinla - 4/18/13 at 9:29pm
post #110 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/156989/the-boston-marathon-bombing/80#post_2313428"]
SPLC is not a valid source as they are merely a left-wing political group which is motivated by pushing left-wing causes.

Any group that SPLC disagrees with can be labelled a hate group by them. It need not be violent or even extremist.

In fact, I would call SPLC an extremist, far left hate group, since all they do is go around labeling other groups extremists, even when it's not true. They are merely far left people doing what the far left does best, attempting to silence people while getting their censorship fetish on.

Exactly.

No doubt they are hoping this is a right-winger (even if only by implication and spurious characterization) so they can send out their next fund-raising letter.

I'm doubtful that there are many people actively hoping that this is domestic terrorism, but I suspect there are many hoping that it was not Islamic-inspired due to fear of the likely resulting backlash.
post #111 of 255

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.  

 

“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 #112 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I'm doubtful that there are many people actively hoping that this is domestic terrorism, but I suspect there are many hoping that it was not Islamic-inspired due to fear of the likely resulting backlash.

White people weren't racially profiled after that dumbfuck, unable to distinguish different non-white cultures, killed several folks in that Sikh temple.  There would be less collateral damage against the race of the bombers if those bombers were right-wing white loons.  Remember, it's generally not the liberals that go out and seek vengeance against random brown people.  Liberals and ethnic minorities in this country would be much safer if the bombers were right-wing nuts.

 

So yes, for the safety of innocent people who share the ethnicity or are on the same side of the ideological spectrum, I hope that it was right-wing terror.  I just don't see random right-wing folks being targeted and attacked if it comes out that the bombers were conservative nutjobs.

 

“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 #113 of 255
Thread Starter 

Deleted- it wasn't him.


Edited by Hands Sandon - 4/19/13 at 4:59am
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #114 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I'm doubtful that there are many people actively hoping that this is domestic terrorism, but I suspect there are many hoping that it was not Islamic-inspired due to fear of the likely resulting backlash.

 

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

 

 

It'll play out like this:

 

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. Anybody who disagrees with this hates brown people etc.

 

If the terrorists are found to be some kind of white extremists, like a Timothy McVeigh type, then remember people, this is what the conservative movement in the USA today has come to. This will also coincide with an extra push from the left-wing media in their anti-gun and anti-second amendment agenda.

post #115 of 255
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #116 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Near Brown University, where Sunil Tripathi went, two bombs were exploded, just a day and four days, before Tripathi went missing-

 

That is the suspect!1eek.gif

 

So, definitely not a right-winger. 

 

I'm reading this on a few other sites now.

 

Suspect 1: Mike Mulugeta Suspect 2: Sunil Tripathi.

 

They were named on the police scanner.

post #117 of 255

It's late, time to go to bed for me.

 

Suspect #1 = Dead. 

 

Suspect #2 = Still on the run.

 

So,  right-wing terrorism can be ruled out it looks like, so that leaves us with left-wing terrorists? Islamic terrorists?

post #118 of 255

Have been watching a lot this afternoon but switched to local TV stations from Boston on the net as I only get CNN TV and they are literally unwatchable.  

 

Boston stations  WCVB  and  WHDH.

 

Are both doing pretty well.  WHDH is better, maybe.

 

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 #119 of 255

Info coming out now:

 

The two guys are brothers from Chechnya. 

 

Can only imagine what conclusions will be leapt to by some Americans...


Edited by Bergermeister - 4/19/13 at 8:33am

 

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 #120 of 255

As long as he is caught that is what is important .Not his skin color!
 

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