sorry i read it aong the lines of you first blaming dark skinned guys just because they are dark skinned guys The chinese girl killed was also in America on a student visa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes is a good example of a dark skinned guy running away from police. Absolutely let's discuss it - my problem we have covered already - racial profiling, stereotyping on skin colour - lets explore all possibilities but without the mudslinging It's on CNN now - they are showing two guys, the black cap guy looks Indian, white cap looks arab-ish. Still doesnt mean these are the guys...
And it still doesn't mean they weren't Americans. Thoughtful response, T. But we don't even have these sorts of requirements in most states here.
if the white cap has a bomb in his backpack, why is his baseball cap on backwards? Wouldn't he try to cover his face as much as possible? If he wants the publicity why hasn't he come forward and taken responsability?
Cog made the same false charge. That's one of the problems interpreting what a person thinks from the little bits we write. That's not me at all. I'm an old hippie, not an old redneck. And while I did march against the Vietnam War and didn't walk in any civil rights marches, it was only a matter of geography. It's not just the visa, it's young men from the Middle East on student visas that are factors associated with the current FBI terrorist profile. Obviously there are many more Saudi students here on visas that aren't terrorists. Profiling should not be used by itself, in my opinion. But neither should we be ignoring things that might be useful to prevent terrorist attacks. You are choir preaching. The police in this country screw up much much too often on things like this. That's what I was referring to when I made the comments about the Saudi student. I'm pretty sure I didn't sling any mud. But I did foolishly accept CNN describing the two men in the images I linked to as the one's the FBI had ID'ed. In another forum they posted an apt description, the men's race is "rorschach". I still can't think of any domestic groups these two guys would fit in. Someone suggested maybe the Occupy Wall St movement, but the target is just not consistent with that movement. I get it we shouldn't be assuming foreign terrorists, but when you see more than one person and they aren't clearly two white guys, there just aren't any domestic groups that top the list of suspects. That only leaves foreign terrorists. Maybe someone angry that Boston has donated a fair bit to the IRA? You are expecting these people to be rational?
These days it's very possible you have three pissed off guys sitting in a coffee shop who decide to do this -- easy to get info on the internet to make these sorts of bombs, and not especially difficult to obtain the materials. Even though we've always had three pissed off guys sitting in a booth in a coffee shop, it's so easy now for them to actually act on it, and to get immense world-wide news coverage for at least their act, if not for their own personal fame. We really can't rule anything out at this point.
Occupy Wall Street? You get better odds on Occupy Sesame Street Protesters! Oh wait... Romey was gonna kill Big Bird If they're not white, they're foreign? I'm sure my Cherokee wife may have something to say about that. It's a long time since the IRA's bank accounts have been topped up. They disbanded in 2005. Those two capped "suspects" look about 20 - I'm quite sure they have never even heard of the IRA anyway. Yeah, at one point one of them planned a bombing. He discussed it only with one person (or prevented others that didn't like his plan from speaking). Between them they planned it to a t, went through umpteen dry runs, bought the ingredients without detection, planted the bombs, got away safely. There's a lot of intelligence in there, a lot of rational too. Call them what you want but they weren't stupid. CNN are right now saying they waited, within 50feet, till the bombs went off then calmly walked away. These guys just seem too cool, brazenly showing their faces when all it took was to turn there rims around. If they wanted attention why not come up with a reason? A target? Some warped ideal? Even the caps they wore are easily identifiable. One thing though, if it's not them, they need to turn up at a police station and clear themselves.
It wasn't my suggestion, I merely mentioned it as someone's hypothesis. Stop completely distorting what I've posted. Your logic fail: GC: There are a cluster of things that point toward foreign Misinterpretation: Not white, aka one thing, says foreign. Why do people do that? Cherry pick a post and claim, "aha"? I was trying to be thorough in looking at possibilities. Rachel Maddow brings up another one that is worth considering. There were two guys who conspired to kill at Columbine High School. Two guys does not always mean a group cause. I agree. Believe it or not I am trying to look at the actual evidence here. Yes, I should wait for more confirmation before saying anything at all. But my emotional brain has wanted to over-discuss this matter since I looked at the bloody dead woman and the guy with half a bone for one leg and a knee joint open to the air for the other. I shouldn't have looked. Now I see a whole new subject worth discussing but not so much in this forum. That is the rush to identify people in pictures that the Net facilitated. The changing social landscape fascinates me. Here's the guy in the white cap walking away. You grew up with the IRA. We've had not only 911, but before that multiple embassy bombings, the attack on the Cole, the failed invasion in Mogadishu, the bombed barracks in Lebanon, the Iraq war and more. Along with all that the public has had a steady diet of "terrorism" news saturation, all focused on the Middle East's beef with us and we with them. They cancelled Seattle's millennium celebration because someone crossed the border into our state with a car full of explosives. The entire world celebrated Y2K except my city! You can't live that reality for the last several decades and just brush off an attack like this as, "Well, we better not think Mideast terror, that wouldn't be PC." And before you cherry pick something of that, I'm not convinced of anything here. It's all about probabilities at this point. Probable in order of likelihood: Some Mideast cause. Two nut-jobs conspiring together. A mistake and only suspect #2 was involved (he's the one seen leaving the pack), he's a lone nut-job. Some other group cause. As for, why did they make no effort to hide from the gazillion cameras? In the following order: Very stupid. Already left the country and weren't worried. Don't care if they get caught, they want the publicity. Something I've not thought of.
I think armchair detective work by people that only have scraps of information fed to them by a media network that reports anything they can find without checking the authenticity, while the details useful to the police investigation remain restricted, is futile. That said ^ -- My gut still says Domestic. Another Timothy McVeigh. This is based on nothing but instinct. Besides, Jihadists always claim responsibility immediatly after. This seems like an attack by people that have a grudge against Boston's leadership or council or whatever, attacking the city's pride and joy, or even just to see if they could get away with it. One looks Indian while the other looks Italian. They're probably MIT students. But I'm most likely way off the mark. Luckily my opinion has no impact on anything.
It's just a mental exercise, it's part of how people process some things. It's only harmful if you let it grow hatred instead of defuse it.
It is very much the same issue as shooters like Adam Lanza and the rest. I still have a hard time believing that a lot of people haven't put together the rash of shootings with the fact that each shooting gets more exposure than the one before it. Right up until there's a climax of news coverage. Thus, for anyone who is seeking to "leave their mark," a bombing or mass shooting is the perfect vehicle in their twisted mind. Then, they get to sit back and wait for the 24 hour news coverage and American government all focus on them and their actions. Then it doubles when echoes come back from the foreign press, and doubles again when a new factoid is brought out. It's why some psychologists have come out and said to stop running coverage of these events, except for one informative broadcast. Then move on. It denies what they want the most, notoriety. This statement, of course, is invalid in the case of actual terrorism—by that I mean terrorists who are using violence to initiate political/society change. I agree with the sentiment this is not the thread for this discussion. But I would love to see your facts on a number of your assertions, because from where I sit, they just aren't true. Clarification—I'm not calling you a liar or saying you're distorting facts, but instead, that your assertions may be based on what I believe to be faulty information (I wanted to clarify, since this is a topic of intense emotions and the last thing I wanted to do was come across as pointing a finger and yelling "Liar!" Our politicians [both sides of the isle] may get away with it, but it's still wrong).
Except that, there is a fair amount of evidence that Timothy McVeigh wasn't just a domestic terrorist. According to the Indianapolis Star, Sept. 7, 2002: And again in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on July 7, 2002. While these may look corollary at first, it begins to look a lot more suspicious when we remember that Stephen Johns, McVeigh's lawyer, was introducing evidence (video tape confession of a man named Angeles who was a penetration agent for the Philippine government into a terrorist group known as Abu Sayyaf) concerning Terry Nichols's association with Abu Sayyaf. One of the heads of that group is Ramzi Yousef, we know that name from the attacks on the World Trade Center. What is not as reported, is that he also is linked to Iraq and Saddam Hussein—whether he was an agent, or it was just a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," is up for serious debate. (BTW - the links between Nazi/Neo-Nazi/white separatist/etc movements and their cozy ties with more radical parts of Islam are well documented. And no, I am not referencing the political slogan, "islamofascist" here, but rather talking about a known connection between those to ideologies that goes back to the late 1930s.) Even the Southern Poverty Law Center has made that connection, and they are far on the left side of American politics. All of that to say, I seriously doubt McVeigh was "domestic terrorism."
I'm not sure which assertions you believe are untrue. Do you really need me to prove that it is easier to kill someone with a gun than with other weapons? Or that many unlawful uses of guns involve guns that are obtained legally -- first example that comes to mind is Lanza. That leaves only the assertion that defensive use of a gun is not the most common usage. I hear offensive uses every night on the news. Please show me your statistics that prove that incorrect.
white cap was lonely? He had no friends? Didn't understand Americans? or why they wouldn't befriend him? according to his website/facebook page, from CNN... I'm lonely, lets blow up the marathon...
I'll take a poke at those questions: if we're talking about ease of killing, I believe bombs take the cake as the easiest because unlike with guns, you don't even need to be present during the kill. Also, as long as you can actually build the bomb, you need zero skill to use it lethally whereas anyone who has ever fired a handgun in 9mm or higher caliber (you know, calibers that start to be practical for the purpose of killing humans) knows it's actually pretty damn difficult to hit anything accurately with it (esp.moving targets) unless you're a prodigy or practice a lot. Rifles are much easier to shoot with (as are shotguns), but lugging either to a public place without being spotted might prove tricky (same goes for automatic weapons which are pretty much useless for most purposes anyway). As for the percentages you asked about, I'm absolutely certain statistics show guns are used illegally in violent incidents more than legally, but here we'd again have to take a step back from the statistics for a moment and take a look at the context: what constitutes as use of a gun? Does it mean firing one? Brandishing it? Merely allowing your shirt to print a little so the other guy knows you're packing and backs off? Carrying a concealed gun while outside your home? If it's just, say, incidents where shots have been fired, then undoubtedly people do more harm than good with guns (that is, if you exclude cops and the military, at least), but I would argue that ignoring all the other ways to "use" a gun in a defensive context is, again, a way to manipulate the truth by omitting facts that do not support one's chosen agenda. Also take into consideration the fact that we're talking about crimes. Some statistics show only crimes committed with guns. In that case it automatically means the use of the gun was illegal (be the gun legally or illegally owned/carried) and again twists the truth when we exclude lawful uses. Likewise, since most statistics show criminal acts involving guns, the base assumption is that there's a criminal involved and, well, they're cowards, aren't they? Hence they look for easy targets, people who don't look like Travis Bickle, who would have a small armory under their M65s. I believe that affects the numbers as well: the crooks carry guns so regardless whether the (intended) victim carried/used one legally or not, the incident is jotted down as a violent incident involving illegal use of firearms. These are just a few reasons why statistics should be taken with more than one grain of salt and to use them only as one tool of many to find the truth. In any case, although mass murders/acts of terrorism do happen, they are still exceptional circumstances and here I'd like to quote Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Oh, and about the courses and tests I mentioned earlier: I know most states don't have those, they are just something I think every shall issue state should have since people who don't know how to handle a firearm safely shouldn't be allowed to own one, because guns are like cars in that respect: if you give one to some jerk who doesn't put in the practice hours to become proficient in the use of said item, you're asking for trouble. Just like bad drivers who fail to better their driving skills should have their cars taken away from them (yeah, I've had a few oh-ohs with sucky drivers).
T, your last paragraph is key -- there are huge uproars whenever any kind of restriction is suggested, including safety classes, etc. Re: bombs, I may grant you that, although you have to be knowledgable enough not to get blown up yourself, but I don't really see guns and bombs as interchangeable. There are far more gun related deaths here than bomb-related deaths. A lot of gun murders are also drug related, which is an entirely separate issue. What I'm most concerned about are murders committed with guns, not so much the showing of a gun for some sort of robbery (i.e. where the gun is actually used to kill, rather than merely to intimidate). erebh: I haven't seen the facebook page you're referencing, but just saw a slate article about the other brother, that indicates something similar. I'm sure there's a lot more psychological complexity here than mere loneliness. Apparently the older brother (black hat) was a boxer, and wanted to make the Olympic team, at least at some point, and he seemed to indicate he hated Russia. That makes me think these guys probably just hated everyone, and would have done this wherever they lived. I suspect it's less likely that their act falls within most definitions of "terrorism" but rather just as a horrific, spectacular crime cooked up by these two brothers. Of course, more information is still coming out, so we'll have to see. (The Columbine shooters were not terrorists -- and they tried to use bombs also, they just weren't successful.)
Probably why the authorities were at pains to word it as an act of terror - rather than terrorism Seems like they had no ideals to fight, just a random act of barbaric savagery - them against the world. I really hope they get the other fella alive!
I also hope they get him alive. In reference to some of the earlier points on this thread, I found my 8 year old's comment interesting this morning. Seeing the perpetrators on television, his comment was "Maybe it was just a joke. They look like Americans." i found it interesting that even at first glance, his take is that they look American. Also, I don't know what to make of his joke idea -- maybe he somehow thinks Americans would not be capable of coming up with such a heinous plan? His connection to them being American, with the idea that somehow they therefore must not have meant their actions to have the results it did is interesting to me. I'll have to explore it further. Given that he's only eight, I don't know that I want to emphasize the idea that of course Americans would be capable of such things. Maybe it's better to allow him, on some level, to feel safe.
https://www.facebook.com/missy.willson.33/favorites He is still on facebook - this page was created sometime 2012 - have a look at the pages he 'likes' - seems to be quite christian for a muslim.... interesting reading...
This is a writing site. You carry some responsibility for what you communicate. Blaming the reader for misunderstanding you is also an indictment of your communication skills. I've re-read what you posted, and my reaction remains the same. You were making, and propagating, assumptions that were not based on facts. Assumptions that show prejudice which I find extremely inappropriate. Regarding the current situation, my company is within the area the governor has requested closures for the day, and they have complied with the request. I had a suspicion last night that the gunshots in Cambridge last night might have been related to the bombing, especially when I saw the heavy initial law enforcement response. It was disproportionate to other crime incidents I have seen over the years. Even the media are speculating pretty wildly about details. I am waiting for more facts.
Muslims are just as socially and culturally varied as Christians. You would not say a person of the Dutch reformed church, a Greek Orthodox and a Mexican Catholic are the same, would you? Cechnya is a secular, Western-style country dominated by Russia. It seems to me more like a sociopathic kids meltdown than anything to do with religion although I guess it didn't help if the brother didn't integrate at all. Once again, sympathies to the victims and citizens like Cog who are prevented from going about their ordinary business. Hope things return to something approaching normal soon, and they get the guy before he tops himself.
I think erebh was referring to the particular "likes" on the page. They're so varied, as to be truly bizarre, and that makes me think the page is fake. The page showed "likes" for a lot of evangelical and television-based Christian groups. That seems like an unusual group of "likes" for someone who is not an evangelical Christian, which if he is Muslim, presumably he is not. It has nothing to do with whether people of different religions are similar to each other. At this point, this seems correct. It doesn't appear that the act had anything to do with religious beliefs. Again, of course, more information could come out that would change this assessment.
