One Boston terrorist dead and one to go. (UPDATE: Suspect Captured)

Darla said:
I was having some fun at a con's expense. I do not condone much of our foreign policy. I do not condone the Boston bombings. I do not condone the Sept 11th attacks. I do not condone violent responses we make to terrorist attacks. I do not condone righties advocting nuclear attacks on Muslim countries because they are 'all animals". I do not condone smug leftists, who are always white dudes (actually I should edit this, because it's not true, they're not always white, they are always dudes though), jumping up to mansplain why we had it coming.

I do not condone violence, period. I do not seek justification for violence on anyone's account.
Click to expand...

Nicely stated, thanks.
 
Superfreak said:
WTC 93, WTC 2011, USS Cole in 2000, Two US Embassies in 1998... all are very recent

Add in the numerous IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan and this IS what the Islamic terrorists there do.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about bombings on American soil and the WTC bombings are covered in the link. Still only 5 out of 23 Muslim-related.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm talking about bombings on American soil and the WTC bombings are covered in the link. Still only 5 out of 23 Muslim-related.
Click to expand...

The Embassies ARE American soil... as is the USS Cole.

That said, going back to 1800 is a bit ridiculous... it is recent memory that people are going to relate to. What has happened in the past ten to twenty years?

Ignoring what people know about Iraq and Afghanistan and the methods of terrorists there is also a bit ridiculous.
 
christiefan915 said:
If you believe this picture as much as the FB page, he's giving a thumb's-up to Christianity. Check out my Faux News link. Eighteen out of 23 major bombings in the US were by non-Muslims.
Click to expand...

Cool, you've shown at least that he is a Christian... now which post of his was the one that showed he was doing it because he was a Christian?

We tend to report people who bomb as belonging to the group which they give as a reason for their bombing.

I'll again direct your attention to the Christian Bomber in Atlanta, the one you conveniently "forget" because it doesn't fit into your "Don't call them Muslims!" rubbish. If they are doing it because they are Muslims we will continue to report that they bombed us because of that. Back in the day in England how many reports had Catholics bombing people?
 
Superfreak said:
The Embassies ARE American soil... as is the USS Cole.

That said, going back to 1800 is a bit ridiculous... it is recent memory that people are going to relate to. What has happened in the past ten to twenty years?

Ignoring what people know about Iraq and Afghanistan and the methods of terrorists there is also a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...

How explicit do I have to be? This is entirely about attacks on mainland America, not embassies, ships, etc. Also, the article went back to the late 1800s, not 1800, and it was about the history of bombings here. I guess you don't want to accept that most bombings here were done by Americans to Americans because it's so much easier to displace the anxiety on outsiders, specifically Muslims.

I think we'd all be a lot better off if we considered these acts as terrorism without a religious designation attached to them. Find the perps and get them into the justice system. It's not helpful to continue stirring up bigotry and revenge fantasies by focusing on religion.
 
Damocles said:
Cool, you've shown at least that he is a Christian... now which post of his was the one that showed he was doing it because he was a Christian?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone's FB site. Does Tsarnaev actually say he planned and carried out the bombing in the name of Islam?

We tend to report people who bomb as belonging to the group which they give as a reason for their bombing.

I'll again direct your attention to the Christian Bomber in Atlanta, the one you conveniently "forget" because it doesn't fit into your "Don't call them Muslims!" rubbish. If they are doing it because they are Muslims we will continue to report that they bombed us because of that. Back in the day in England how many reports had Catholics bombing people?
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Eric Rudolph, I covered him in posts 150 and 155. What I recall is that the focus on Rudolph was his anti-abortion stance, not his religion. Even if we add in that he was anti-abortion because he was a strict Christian, the media and the people did not put the appellation Christian terrorist to his name.

I really don't understand why you and the others think it's okay to label terrorists by their religion. Terror is terror, period. We don't use the term "Christian" to describe any horrific acts in this country, whether it's bombing, mass gun murder, mass stabbing, serial killing etc. Religion only factors in if it's Muslim and you know that's true.
 
christiefan915 said:
How explicit do I have to be? This is entirely about attacks on mainland America, not embassies, ships, etc. Also, the article went back to the late 1800s, not 1800, and it was about the history of bombings here. I guess you don't want to accept that most bombings here were done by Americans to Americans because it's so much easier to displace the anxiety on outsiders, specifically Muslims.
Click to expand...

We have access to 24/7 news. We have access to what happens around the world, especially to US citizens around the world. Why not limit it to just bombings in OKC? Then you could say it is just white guys. I have no problem saying most bombings in the continental US were done by Americans. But that is not what we were discussing. You were asking why people think 'Muslim' when they hear about a 'bomb'. Looking back to the late 1800's and focusing solely on the continental US is a foolish thing to do if you want that question answered.

Take a look at the past 20 years and an entirely different picture appears. The 2 embassies, the 2 WTC bombins, the USS Cole, Afghanistan, Iraq... all of that occuring in the past 20 years. IED's talked about repeatedly in the mid 2000's as terrorists (muslim) were using them to kill our troops. It was nightly news. It was pounded into our psyche.

Pretending that didn't happen is not going to change reality.

I think we'd all be a lot better off if we considered these acts as terrorism without a religious designation attached to them. Find the perps and get them into the justice system. It's not helpful to continue stirring up bigotry and revenge fantasies by focusing on religion.
Click to expand...

This part I agree with. Obviously a description of the suspects is necessary to apprehend, but a focus on what religion (if any) they are a part of is irrelevant and should not happen.
 
Superfreak said:
We have access to 24/7 news. We have access to what happens around the world, especially to US citizens around the world. Why not limit it to just bombings in OKC? Then you could say it is just white guys. I have no problem saying most bombings in the continental US were done by Americans. But that is not what we were discussing. You were asking why people think 'Muslim' when they hear about a 'bomb'. Looking back to the late 1800's and focusing solely on the continental US is a foolish thing to do if you want that question answered.

Take a look at the past 20 years and an entirely different picture appears. The 2 embassies, the 2 WTC bombins, the USS Cole, Afghanistan, Iraq... all of that occuring in the past 20 years. IED's talked about repeatedly in the mid 2000's as terrorists (muslim) were using them to kill our troops. It was nightly news. It was pounded into our psyche.

Pretending that didn't happen is not going to change reality.



This part I agree with. Obviously a description of the suspects is necessary to apprehend, but a focus on what religion (if any) they are a part of is irrelevant and should not happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending anything. The thread was about a specific terrorist act on American soil, not the history of terrorism across the world. That's for another thread. Your last sentence was exactly what I've been saying all along.
 
christiefan915 said:
I haven't seen anyone's FB site. Does Tsarnaev actually say he planned and carried out the bombing in the name of Islam?



If you're talking about Eric Rudolph, I covered him in posts 150 and 155. What I recall is that the focus on Rudolph was his anti-abortion stance, not his religion. Even if we add in that he was anti-abortion because he was a strict Christian, the media and the people did not put the appellation Christian terrorist to his name.

I really don't understand why you and the others think it's okay to label terrorists by their religion. Terror is terror, period. We don't use the term "Christian" to describe any horrific acts in this country, whether it's bombing, mass gun murder, mass stabbing, serial killing etc. Religion only factors in if it's Muslim and you know that's true.
Click to expand...

You don't remember it because it is inconvenient to your hope to make other people bad as they actually speak about the motivation behind an attack. I remember my mother pissed as hell that all Christians were being "painted" by the guy and that he was doing damage to the pro-life movement... Since she is Christian but I am not, this is something that I notice.

Again, it would be reported, just as it is when Christians attack people in Africa, if it was the motivation of the "Christian" to do that. It has been in the past, it will be in the future.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not pretending anything. The thread was about a specific terrorist act on American soil, not the history of terrorism across the world. That's for another thread. Your last sentence was exactly what I've been saying all along.
Click to expand...

yes... but then you and others questioned why it was that people associated Muslims with bombs.
 
Damocles said:
You don't remember it because it is inconvenient to your hope to make other people bad as they actually speak about the motivation behind an attack. I remember my mother pissed as hell that all Christians were being "painted" by the guy and that he was doing damage to the pro-life movement... Since she is Christian but I am not, this is something that I notice.

Again, it would be reported, just as it is when Christians attack people in Africa, if it was the motivation of the "Christian" to do that. It has been in the past, it will be in the future.
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about? I don't remember what? I already referred to Rudolph in previous posts and I'm talking about how the media represented him, not random people. Have a cigarette, maybe it'll help your reading comprehension.
 
Re: One Boston terrorist dead and one to go.

Damocles said:
You don't remember it because it is inconvenient to your hope to make other people bad as they actually speak about the motivation behind an attack. I remember my mother pissed as hell that all Christians were being "painted" by the guy and that he was doing damage to the pro-life movement... Since she is Christian but I am not, this is something that I notice.

Again, it would be reported, just as it is when Christians attack people in Africa, if it was the motivation of the "Christian" to do that. It has been in the past, it will be in the future.
Click to expand...

I do remember....and there was NOTHING in the National Media painting all Christians with Rudolph. Only the most rabid of radicals painted him with the pro-life movement. The Topeka shooting too.

You are trying to justify hatred with lies.
 
Skeleton Jelly said:
not in a general sense retard, I am talking about specific individuals. The people that knew these people apparently are shocked, and they described this second suspect as an angel. he also went to boston latin i think. really good school.
Click to expand...

I speculate for the younger brother it was big brother worship, except for the fact that big brother literally took a hit so little brother could escape, so I m very perplexed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top