D&D Politicized Boston Explosion Thread

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=FLZ1qJ5n7yLpsza2h79lSL3Q

Should give you a clue about his motive.

 

it's against FB's bias and internal world view, so he won't believe it.

 

I need to point out the unbelievable arrogance in this statement, and in this often-repeated "logic".

In this logic, Muslims are always better people than everyone else, because they never do such bad things.

Easy to deflect blame when you can always just say - oh, they aren't Muslim. That also means Islam has nothing to do with it.

Same excuse for 9/11, Atocha, London bombings, Fort Hood shooting, Boston Marathon, etc. etc. etc.

Very convenient, isn't it.

 

Whoops! Somebody didn't read my post and made a fool of themselves.

 

I went back and saw it, and adjusted my post accordingly. Thanks for the link.

 

is anyone else surprised that it was men who committed this crime?

forget any of the other labels attached to the men. it was men again.

 

So you think that it is likely that he would create a playlist with angry songs about terrorism and make a statement against terrorism, then, 2 months later, become a terrorist? Yes?

The videos seem to have been deleted, but my guess would be that it is likelier to be something about the USA being a terrorist country.

Why would you have an interest in that?

 

I think people like this find justifications for their desire to be violent (religion, anti-gov't, race, etc) rather then the other way around.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>.@<a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan">piersmorgan</a> True or False: John Q Boston resident would be safer right now if he was in lockdown mode WITH a gun &amp; a large magazine.</p>&mdash; Garrett Hall (@Garrett_R_Hall) <a href="https://twitter.com/Garrett_R_Hall/status/325375418230251520" data-datetime="2013-04-19T22:28:39+00:00">April 19, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

You could be right, and what you say makes sense. I never said it was likely that was case. I simply said that we don't know. Rushing to judgements without the facts isn't wise. I'll wait and see what facts come out.

I'm not saying that anything you've said doesn't make sense though.

 

Garrett Hall would be shocked to know that the answer to his question would be false.

There is almost zero chance that the suspect will come to John Q Boston's residence and the only danger they would be in would be an accidental discharge from the gun and large magazine, or would be injured if law enforcement saw someone with the gun and large magazine and believed it was the suspect and then killed or injured the armed John Q Boston.

Garrett Hall sounds like he didn't really think his question through.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>After spending 4 days speculating about Tea Party tax day terrorism, the media will now switch to "we can never know his motive" mode.</p>&mdash; David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/325215643299360768">April 19, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

To follow up on this I am going to say "false" too but for two more reasons. The motives of these guys are still not totally clear and I find it odd that they let go of the guy they carjacked. That part doesn't make much sense with ruthless murderer terrorists. It's possible the suspect might not shoot a civilian unless he feels directly threatened.

Another factor is with the police and everyone on edge that an accident could happen between a heavily armed civilian and police. [edit] I see FB said basically the same thing.

 

You think it is an accident that they shot the cop? Really?

 

Gotta love the paternalism in this post.

"You'll shoot your eye out!"

 

Some people love to try and be the victims. The media I've been watching has always said that nobody knows why he did it and that it was irresponsible of other media to try and create the idea that people knew for sure.

Another case of a conservative trying to play the victim even though it doesn't really apply.

 

I am not sure where you are getting that in my post.

I said there is a danger of an accident between a heavily armed civilian and police. I wasn't referring to the suspects.

 

If you and Garrett don't like the answer then don't ask a question that will have that as the most logical answer.

 

He can't mean that. But otherwise his entire "motives of these guys are still not totally clear " premise is a little odd. I mean shooting a cop in cold blood who is just sitting in his squad car leaves little leeway. alliteration