keystonecops
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since October 2010
Posts: 957
|
Post by keystonecops on Apr 16, 2013 12:57:31 GMT -5
I say when they catch the SOBS, we need to have a public neck tie party. A clear message needs to be sent. Later Clyde
|
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,709
|
Post by Fossilman on Apr 16, 2013 14:29:47 GMT -5
The bad thing about this terror crap is its going to get worse before it gets better!They told us that many times!!! Time to listen! Sad situation,but this is reality and its spreading!!
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 16, 2013 14:52:10 GMT -5
I like the neck tie party idea for the people who did this.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 17, 2013 10:39:38 GMT -5
Well, I sure hope some clarity is soon found. As of now, I know of no credible information to suggest who was the perpetrator(s) of this mayhem. I stumbled across this interview that is insightful in regards to how this is seen by a very "connected" Egyptian cleric, and presumably many of his constituents. I do not believe he speaks for a majority, but that does not lessen the impact of his message. You won't see this on American television. Egyptian Cleric "Boston Bombs a message" www.liveleak.com/view?i=130_1366197841
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 17, 2013 14:11:11 GMT -5
All that video said was "IF the blah blah did this, they did it because blah blah...". One thing I've noticed about terrorists who do horrible things to make a point is that they are very proud of what they did, and brag about it everywhere. Their MESSAGE is always... TAKE US SERIOUSLY, WE"RE DANGEROUS. What for? So they can gain whatever political advantage they can, notify their followers that they are effective and recruit new terrorists... give us <blank>.
When they don't come forward to admit what they did, then they can't publicize their cause. It makes no sense. There is a chance it was like the OK Bomber... a crazy American(s) too.
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Apr 17, 2013 14:55:49 GMT -5
When they don't come forward to admit what they did, then they can't publicize their cause. It makes no sense. There is a chance it was like the OK Bomber... a crazy American(s) too. That's what all the Lefties are hoping for (Please let it be a right-wing radical). There must be a faculty position open at Columbia University... Oh wait, they only hire left wing terrorists.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 17, 2013 15:30:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 17, 2013 17:32:02 GMT -5
From your Salon article Bill: If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties Great, so you guys WANT it to be a bunch of muslim terrorists so we can expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties? You don't think the Gov't is intrusive enough? How Republican.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 9:45:07 GMT -5
I think you got it backwards Helen. The way I read it is that if it is a white person it will not lead to more encroachment on our civil liberties. When the terrorism is done by a race other than white (9-11) we get the establishment of Homeland Security which has the power to do anything it wants to any citizen for any reason without repercussions of any kind. They are the ones that will attempt to turn this country into a police state and I hope we the people have enough weapons to stop that encroachment of our freedoms. The mainstream media won't even post anything against them but there are a few senators that are crying foul and I hope they can get a following. If they don't there is a good chance there will be a war at home that will make Boston's bombings look like tea time. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 9:49:36 GMT -5
BTW Just for posting what I did I very well could end up on their list of people to take down first. The veterans with guns are their biggest worry because they know we will be the first ones to use those guns to protect our country and our way of life. Jim
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 18, 2013 10:07:56 GMT -5
its going to be a long hot summer mohs
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 18, 2013 12:01:09 GMT -5
From your Salon article Bill: If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties Great, so you guys WANT it to be a bunch of muslim terrorists so we can expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties? You don't think the Gov't is intrusive enough? How Republican. Helen, I waited to reply to this so as to allow myself to not simply attack you for implying things that are not true. Your attempts to twist my words can provoke. . . the less tolerant side of me. For me to point out the left wasting no time in trying to use this as a means to their 'Blame America First' agenda does not mean that I automatically take the opposite position, that I hope it is Muslim terrorists. Actually, I do not care who did this as much as I care that they are caught and brought to justice, whatever that is. I suppose I should say that perhaps you do have a point though, I imagine that any patriotic American would find it easier to believe that a foreign enemy would inflict this carnage on innocents than to think someone who is an American could maim and kill women and children. Bill
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 18, 2013 12:30:26 GMT -5
I should have done a better job of explaining that this post was directed not just at your article, but at the previous response, which was to blame Democrats for WANTING it to be an American. People who commit crimes like this are sick. WANTING an evil person to be of a particular group is sick. That made ME mad.
It's hard to believe that animals like this walk among us, no matter who they are. And whoever did it did it, WANTING it to be a stereotype group or person changes nothing.
To you, I was saying that Salon's article was an insightful look into our psyche. We are prepared to level neighborhoods, kill women and children who have never heard of the Boston Marathon, or perhaps even the city of Boston, because a member of their 'group' did something like this. What makes us better when we do that to their innocents? Yet that's what we did and continue to do in many places.
The flip side is, if an American did it, no one would go to his hometown to kill his neighbors. In that sense, yes, it would be better if the person was American, because if they were non-American, the price that will be paid by people just as innocent as the victims in Boston will make the Bombing seem inconsequential. That is my sole opinion, one from a position of sympathy for innocents anywhere. But whoever did it is who did it, and they should and will pay the price.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 18, 2013 12:50:13 GMT -5
I think you got it backwards Helen. The way I read it is that if it is a white person it will not lead to more encroachment on our civil liberties. When the terrorism is done by a race other than white (9-11) we get the establishment of Homeland Security which has the power to do anything it wants to any citizen for any reason without repercussions of any kind. They are the ones that will attempt to turn this country into a police state and I hope we the people have enough weapons to stop that encroachment of our freedoms. The mainstream media won't even post anything against them but there are a few senators that are crying foul and I hope they can get a following. If they don't there is a good chance there will be a war at home that will make Boston's bombings look like tea time. Jim That's what the article and I said. You didn't read it wrong, Jim, you got it. Democrats are not the ones who WANTED a Homeland Security, Republicans did. If our rights are being encroached on, it's the Republicans doing the encroaching. HOWEVER, anyone with any sense must agree that while being searched at the airport is not fun, having your plane blown up or rammed into a bldg. full of people would be even less fun, because if they don't search you, they aren't searching crazies either. If it were a crazy American, our liberties will not be further curtailed. If it wasn't, we can look forward to more restrictions of individual freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. The whole thing goes right back to Benghazi. 4 Americans died, and it wasn't called Terrorism in the first hour, and a huge deal was made because it WAS terrorism. Now, anything that happens must be looked at as terrorism as a response. Well, terrorism is a form of war, that allows martial law. Martial law is the ultimate restriction of personal freedoms short of jail. Those Republicans knew what they were doing when they made the big deal out of Benghazi (despite that 53 Americans were killed under Bush in Embassy attacks and no one made any deal at all). That's the result of Benghazi, it's what Republicans wanted, right? Well this is called terrorism til proven otherwise now.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 18, 2013 12:52:52 GMT -5
A new twist to the story.
The Saudi “person of interest” suspected of being involved in the Boston Marathon bombings is being deported from the United States next week on “national security grounds,” according to a terrorism expert, who notes that the move is “very unusual,” especially given an unscheduled meeting yesterday between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.
CNN also had to backtrack after they announced that a suspect had been arrested, a report that was subsequently denied by authorities. Reports of a “dark skinned man” being arrested were later mothballed. According to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi national first suspected of being involved in Monday’s twin bomb attack, is being hastily deported. Alharbi was put under armed guard in hospital after the bombing, was visited by Saudi diplomat Azzam bin Abdel Karim, and later had his apartment raided by federal and state law enforcement agents. “I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Emerson told Fox News last night. The news follows an unscheduled meeting between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House yesterday afternoon. “The meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule,” reports Reuters. “That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them,”
As World Net Daily’s Joe Kovacs documents, “Saudi student Alharbi shares the same last name as a major Saudi clan that includes scores of al-Qaida operatives.” The Alharbi clan has long been active in al-Qaida. Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi, for example, is a Saudi national who joined Osama bin Laden’s mujahadeen group in the 1980s. He reportedly became an al-Qaida member in the mid-1990s. He turned himself in to Saudi authorities in 2004 as part of an amnesty deal. The BBC reported Khaled Alharbi was married to the daughter of al-Qaida’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahri. He reportedly appeared with bin Laden in a video praising the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Another top al-Qaida operative is Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi, a Saudi national identified by the State Department as “a key member of an al-Qaida network operating in Iran.”
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 18, 2013 12:56:53 GMT -5
What it SOUNDS LIKE is they arrested the guy for being Saudi, in the ongoing anti-muslim prejudice in the USA, and they are shipping him home for his own safety before someone kills him here.
I'm 100% certain that if they knew he was involved, he wouldn't be going ANYWHERE.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 18, 2013 13:02:06 GMT -5
Anyway, it's all over the news that they have 'very clear' video of 2 suspects who dropped the backpacks off. We just don't know what they look like yet.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 18, 2013 13:26:29 GMT -5
I hope they do catch them. This crap has to stop. Just wish the western governments US and Canada would stop with the political correct bull$h^t and call a spade a spade. It would not surprise me if it is linked back to the extremist group out of London Ontario. This vid has an interesting side to it. www.local15tv.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4018846
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 18, 2013 13:36:22 GMT -5
They probably have additional security at any MAJOR event... the Boston marathon is a HUGE event that people go to from all over the world. If nothing had happened, no one would have been talking about added security on the news.
What if there were some news of a potential threat that could not be substantiated? Should they have canceled the marathon? Should we cancel all major concerts, events, parades, gatherings for the next 50 years out of fear, JUST IN CASE?
Isn't that why 'terrorists' are called 'terrorists'? Their objective of causing people fear and anxiety is a far greater goal than killing a few people. Should they gain 'victory' by causing us all to stop living our lives normally to succumb to 'terror'?
What can we do? What should we do?
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Apr 18, 2013 13:57:15 GMT -5
I think you got it backwards Helen. The way I read it is that if it is a white person it will not lead to more encroachment on our civil liberties. When the terrorism is done by a race other than white (9-11) we get the establishment of Homeland Security which has the power to do anything it wants to any citizen for any reason without repercussions of any kind. They are the ones that will attempt to turn this country into a police state and I hope we the people have enough weapons to stop that encroachment of our freedoms. The mainstream media won't even post anything against them but there are a few senators that are crying foul and I hope they can get a following. If they don't there is a good chance there will be a war at home that will make Boston's bombings look like tea time. Jim That's what the article and I said. You didn't read it wrong, Jim, you got it. Democrats are not the ones who WANTED a Homeland Security, Republicans did. If our rights are being encroached on, it's the Republicans doing the encroaching. Sure the Democrats made a lot of noise about not wanting it, but they certainly didn't do anything to get rid of it and if anything expanded the use and powers that Bush set up.
|
|