Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no idea who this guy is, I really don't want to know and I have no idea if he is left or right (I can pretty well guess) buy anyone that would bring gun control into this issue has no clue and can possibly be taken seriously.
Read Pamela Gellar or Robert Spencer and follow their links and get into a whole world of hate towards Muslims.
Well known conservative Michelle Malkin wrote a book that Defended the interment of the Japanese and was specifically saying the same should be done to Muslims. It was right there in her title. Many, many, many conservatives agreed with her.
For this to be relevant to what was claimed you would have to follow it up with showing where people who argue this, argue that white's who commit crimes shouldn't be held accountable.
I think he is living in that La-La Land where no one on the left can ever be accused of being a bad person. The left is one giant Care Bear club with hugs and kisses, with nothing but good intentions towards all. <hug>
Who are you referring to? If it was me (and I'm a woman, not a man) I prefer to deal in facts, rather than hysteria. ELF has never killed anyone--they destroy property and release animals--and they always take credit for what they do. They're criminals, but not murderers. None of the other Leftist groups have been active for 30 years. If we're talking logically and rationally about who would be willing to murder innocent people in this country for political purposes, Al Qaeda and the radical right are the two groups who committed those acts here in the past.
You need to settle down. You're freaking out based on sheer emotion vs. looking at any of this logically.
Exactly. My husband is a former prosecutor. If the police think you might be a criminal, they don't go out of their way to be "nice." Their job is to intimidate you so you aren't a threat, and to investigate. That poor Saudi student was probably scared witless, and I'm glad his name has been kept out of the media for the most part.
Yes and add to that the fact that he isn't originally from this country. I think being questioned by police in a foreign country is even more scary because you aren't as familiar with the laws, customs, etc. And then add the fact that this was a bombing and that other Muslims have committed terror attacks here. Plus the possibility of Gitmo.
We had some Italian police give us a really hard time about our passports on the Eurorail one time. They were yelling at us in Italian, and a passenger started translating for us. They were threatening to keep our passports, telling us we needed to pay them $100 a person, etc. We were scared but didn't back down, and eventually they gave us back our passports and left us alone. But that was scary, and it was a small thing.
I can't imagine being questioned for a bombing in a foreign country.
For this to be relevant to what was claimed you would have to follow it up with showing where people who argue this, argue that white's who commit crimes shouldn't be held accountable.
That's not what anyone said. What was said and what is true is that white people who commit heinous crimes are not used to tarnish white people.
We don't enact laws targeting white people. We do enact laws that target non white people based on the criminal actions of members of their group.
Nice diversion tactic, but it is irrelevant to the points being made.
What in hell does gun control have to do with a bombing of a public event?
BTW - I am a Leftist, way left of our President, and I am way right of most of the posters on gun control issues. IMHO owning and carrying weapons is a fundamental right of being alive let alone being a US citizen. Gun control is selecting a legitimate target and hitting it with your first shot. I think we should start with repealing the 1934 Federal Firearms Act. The government has no right telling me what sort of guns I may have or having any knowlege of weather I have any guns at all.
So what were the motives behind the bomber, who did he target and why?
He targeted an event in public place and random victims. He didn't target the government, he didn't target any specific religious group or organization.
The motives don't point in any one direction. Not a right wing extremist, not islamic militants. It seemed well planned and coordinated. But it was a low tech and yet awfully well designed device. DHS is left scratching their heads( and other body parts) while the talking heads point to the usual suspects and try to tell us who we need to blame and hate. Nobody takes credit.
If it were islamists they'd be taking credit, probably. Or we'd have heard some background noise about it. So if it was them, we completley dropped the ball and now we're left scrambling to cover up the failure. But it doesn't seem that way.
If it was some anti government kook or militant group, they chose a target that wasn't their enemy. That makes no sense. It would only weaken their cause and strengthen the government which is the exact opposite of what they want. Given the planning involved, that looks to be very unlikely. The least likely.
So we're left with two possibilities. One is a psycho or psychos who just wanted to kill people.
Or we've got a group whose goal was to instill fear in the american people and force them into adopting a new way of living. If its never solved or continues unsolved, thats the most likely answer.
Watch the reaction of the media and the feds if you want the truth.
That's not what anyone said. What was said and what is true is that white people who commit heinous crimes are not used to tarnish white people.
That isn't what was said.
Why are whites allowed to hide behind "insanity" but others are not afforded the same opportunity?
Quote:
We don't enact laws targeting white people. We do enact laws that target non white people based on the criminal actions of members of their group.
Nice diversion tactic, but it is irrelevant to the points being made.
Indeed you will find the occasional nut case like Mayor Bloomberg wanting to target entire groups of people but you will also finding people like myself (I am white) complaining about that and how wrong it is.
Also, I showed where your separate point was wrong also as people condemn entire areas like "the south" over the actions of a few.
I have a question. If the National Review came out with an article the day after the bombing titled,
"Let's Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is an Egytian Muslim"
And then went on to make the point that maybe that would have our government rethinking giving so much money to the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, and that having the bomber not be an American would help unite the American people they way 9/11 did.
Would you defend that? Tell everyone they should read the article, that the writer makes some good points?
My experience here says that article would evoke immediate "Racist" and "Bigot" screeches, and no one would go past the title.
This article was incredibly irresponsible. Coming out with an article "hoping" for a specific side/stereotype to be the bomber a day after the bombing is sad. And I wouldn't defend an article hoping for a Muslim bomber either.
If we are going to hope for something, why not hope for an end to all terrorist attacks? Or hope for the victims to recover quickly? Those seem like things worthy of our hopes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
