Boston Marathon Explosion(s) — Page 6

FanFiltration said:

 

 

What Alex Jones is doing is truly disturbing! 

 

Seriously. I blame any website or mainstream media outlet that gives even a nanosecond of time to that kook. He belongs on late night AM radio, easily ignored.

What are the police supposed to do, arrest the suspects with harsh language?

Looks like "horribly racist" Warbler and all the "non-judgmental" libs got their way at the same time!  The guilty are Caucasian Muslims!

The whole racism debate here was ridiculous.  Of course Warbler was rushing to conclusions with little evidence, but I get annoyed when others are so quick to condemn, then honestly make the same errors themselves.  You who said this was a homegrown terrorist attack should be just as ashamed of yourselves as you believe Warbler should feel.  If you feel no shame, neither should he.  If you feel your own hasty judgments merit heavy guilt, then perhaps you are justified in your swift "corrections" of his statement.  Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, even if it's intended to make you feel like a tolerant, slow-to-judge, non-accusatory liberal.  I get tired of the excuse that we can blame whites, males, and Americans because, well, you know they're all just so well off that it's okay.  Prejudice is never okay.

For the sheltered, the guilty men are ethnic Chechen Muslims who immigrated 11 years ago.  At present there is no known connection to an actual terrorist group, though that could change.  This of course does not justify the condemnation of other Muslims or any other form of bigotry.

Oh, and Warbler, while I despise conspiracy theories, I think jumping all over Fan was a poor choice as well.  Better to shut down conspiracy theories with rational discussion than fiery but ultimately pointless words.  There is a benefit to asking questions rather than just assuming the official story is 100% accurate, though I think those conspiracy theorists take it way too far.

I've decided to come back in here due to the fact that the news about the events has changed and one suspect has been killed and the other is one the run

darth_ender said:  Of course Warbler was rushing to conclusions with little evidence,

this is what I originally said:

Warbler said:

If I had one guess, I'd guess Al Qaeda did this. 

is that really a rush to a conclusion?  I wasn't saying we shouldn't investigate further.  I wasn't saying we should conclude Al Qaeda did this and that we should just go after them.   I WAS MAKING A GUESS!!!!!

I will admit to making one mistake,  I should have added the following to that original post: "But it is entirely possible that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with this, and of course this should be fully investigated"   

If I had added that, the original post would have more accurately reflected my thoughts and feelings at that point.

But still, I think it was complete wrong to jump all over me and accuse me of racism, when all I did was guess that a terrorist organization(that had previously attacked American and had threatened to so again) was responsible for this terrorist attack. 

darth_ender said:

Oh, and Warbler, while I despise conspiracy theories, I think jumping all over Fan was a poor choice as well.  Better to shut down conspiracy theories with rational discussion than fiery but ultimately pointless words.

no matter how rational you try to be  with conspiracy nuts, and not matter how logical your argument are,  there is no way to shut him down.    And in the immediate aftermath of something like the Boston Bombing, I really don't feel like rationally arguing with a conspiracy nut. 

darth_ender said:

 There is a benefit to asking questions rather than just assuming the official story is 100% accurate, though I think those conspiracy theorists take it way too far.

Asking reasonable questions is one thing,  but that is not was these conspiracy nuts do.    They find out something like the Boston bombing happens and they go "Yippy! another chance a conspiracy theory, lies and false accusations!  Hmm,  how can I make this look like the government did this?"    

There is nothing reasonable or beneficial to what they do.     

Warbler said:

I've decided to come back in here due to the fact that the news about the events has changed and one suspect has been killed and the other is one the run

Now that you are back perhaps you can explain the difference between a conspiracy nut and a wild speculator?

Oh... I'm still on ignore.

xhonzi said:

Warbler said:

Ask reasonable questions is one thing,  but that is not was these conspiracy nuts do.    They find out something like the Boston bombing happens and they go "Yippy! another chance to spread a conspiracy theory, lies and false accusations!  Hmm,  how can I make this look like the government did this?"    

There is nothing reasonable or beneficial to what they do.     

I hope to offer a reasonable dispute.

Some of them may be saying "Yippy!" but I think more are saying, "What if this isn't what it appears to be?  If it's not, then it's probably someone trying to manipulte my actions.  What reaction are they looking for?  That's the one I don't want to give."

They don't ask "What if this isn't what it appears to be", they assume it and go from there.   And before anyone says it, it was not my intent to assume that Al-Qaeda did the Boston Bombing.  It as my intent that a compete, exhaustive and thorough investigation be done. 

xhonzi said:

Do you like being manipulated?  Do you like someone trying to control your actions?

no.

xhonzi said:

Let's have an example- Have you heard of the Trolley Problem?  Basically, would you sacrifice the life of a few innocents to save a larger number of people in peril?  Could you push a man, not in any immediate danger, in front of a trolley if it would save the lives of 50 people?  Not many people think they could, because the idea of sacrificing an innocent life is so repulsive... even though the economical answer is quite clear.  If we value human life, then we should consider more human lives to be of more value than fewer lives.

However, I think you have to be a certain kind of person to go through with it.  Studies show us not only that, but that the more distance between you and the victim, the easier it becomes.  Having to shove the guy with your hands VS pushing him with a pole vs pushing a button vs telling someone else to do it.  And whether you have to see it with your own eyes or not.

So, let's get crazy for a minute here... What if you're one of those people and you believe that poor gun laws in the USA are killing so many thousands of people annually... that even if it took the death of hundreds of innocents to create a swell of support for changing gun laws, that it would still save millions of lives in the not too distant future.  Is that hard to imagine that someone could believe that?  Now, if you wanted to turn popular support in favour of stricter gun laws, and you weren't afraid to get your hands a little bloody... what would you do?

I think for every sicko gun-nut that wants to shoot up a theatre or a school, there's a anti-gun-nut who is willing to help them if it means furthering the cause of "peace".

PETA poisons animals in captivity.  To prove their point that animals shouldn't be in captivity.  Because it kills them.

Am I crazy?

not really sure what any of that has to do with the Boston bombing or conspiracy theories of it and other things like it.        And don't think the nuts that shot up Columbine, VT, Fort Hood, Tucson, the theater in Colorado,  and Sandy Hook, were anti-gun-nuts attempting to get more gun control legislation passed nor do I think anti-gun-nuts helped them pull off these sick crimes. 

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:  Of course Warbler was rushing to conclusions with little evidence,

this is what I originally said:

Warbler said:

If I had one guess, I'd guess Al Qaeda did this. 

is that really a rush to a conclusion? 

I just wanna say this, and keep in mind that I'm not a terribly well informed person. Is the Boston Marathon a political target, like the WTC? Or the Pentagon? If it is (and I'm not feigning ignorance, I really do not know) than to utter "Al Qaeda" immediately after the event would be justified. Otherwise you're just burping "terrorism". Though I understand where you come from, fear is a very powerful enemy, and once you have fear in your mind, rational thought will leave room for knee-jerk reactions.

can we really conclude that Al Qaeda would only go after political targets?  That they wouldn't go after targets where there are many Americans gathered together for them to murder? 

xhonzi said:

Warbler said:

And I don't think the nuts that shot up Columbine, VT, Fort Hood, Tucson, the theater in Colorado,  and Sandy Hook, were anti-gun-nuts attempting to get more gun control legislation passed.   

 Why not?

You have to be a sick psychopath to do what they did.  Why would any motivation be any more likely/unlikely than any other?

I have never once heard of any evidence that shows gun control was the motivation for anything of these nuts to do their shootings.  If you have some, please show it.

It is possible in the future that some nut might it into his head to do one of these shootings in an effort to get gun control legislation passed?  It is.   But was that the motivation for the people that did the shootings I mentioned?  I haven't heard that it was. 

xhonzi said:

Warbler said:

xhonzi said:

...I think more are saying, "What if this isn't what it appears to be?  If it's not, then it's probably someone trying to manipulte my actions.  What reaction are they looking for?  That's the one I don't want to give."

not really sure what any of that has to do with the Boston bombing or conspiracy theories of it and other things like it.  

If the intended reaction is that people get mad (or scared, or whatever), and pass all sorts of new freedom-limiting laws (or whatever)... then that's the reaction we must not give.  If we do, then we have been manipulated to give these sickos just what they want.

So, we should not pass stricter anti-gun legislation on the small chance that someone who wants stricter anti-gun legislation is the one who let these lions loose in our village?

That's quite a stretch.

Why would a terrorist's end goal be to have safer gun regulation and not allowing us to bring fluids on airplanes? That's a pretty lame terrorist. I think their ambitions are a bit loftier than causing mild but necessary inconveniences for us a few times a year.

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

can we really conclude that Al Qaeda would only go after political targets?

Why waste good money and explosive on targets that don't interest them? They are a political organization, they go where the money is. They hit the WTC because, guess what, there was money there, World TRADE CENTER! It was a huge kick in the nuts not just to american economy, but to world economy!

I have news for you, Leo.  The general public is a political target.  Why do you think Al-Qaeda in Iraq blew up every marketplace and public location they could reach with their zealots from 2004 till now?  There wasn't a lot of money there.  Instead, it created a feeling of "terror," leading people to be afraid to go outside, to believe that the US and Iraqi gov'ts couldn't provide them safety.  That is a political motive, as it undermines the authority of the regime and the Americans.  The same is easily said of the Boston bombing.  It was terrorism, as it was intended to strike terror into the hearts of the American people for political reasons.

That they wouldn't go after targets where there are many Americans gathered together for them to murder? 

If you're going by that reasoning they should've done that during the Super Bowl. Juiciest occasion right there!!
I don't think they're concerned with just killing people for the heck of it. If you really think that the baddies want you dead just because they're bad, I'm sorry but you're naive.

They are concerned with killing people for the heck of it, and they don't care whom they harm!  Why do you think they pay security guards at the superdome?  Just to keep out the white rednecks with guns?  I guarantee you terrorists would love to get in there and harm as many people as possible.  They don't limit themselves to what we consider military targets.

They don't want us dead just because they're bad.  Don't get me wrong, they are very evil, but obviously they see themselves as good people fighting for some cause, in the case of Islamic terrorism, the cause of Allah.  But they want Americans dead, regardless of their race, sex, age, or involvement in the military, because they genuinely believe all Americans are evil.  They are the very definition of ethnocentrism.  Do you believe these Chechen young men feel guilt that they harmed an 8 year-old child?  Their motives are more complex, and if you read the manifestos and statements of these jihadists, you'd see that they don't value the lives of their enemies the way we do.  If you think they hold to the same values you and I do, then I'm sorry but you're naive.

Warbler said:

I've decided to come back in here due to the fact that the news about the events has changed and one suspect has been killed and the other is one the run

darth_ender said:  Of course Warbler was rushing to conclusions with little evidence,

this is what I originally said:

Warbler said:

If I had one guess, I'd guess Al Qaeda did this. 

is that really a rush to a conclusion?  I wasn't saying we shouldn't investigate further.  I wasn't saying we should conclude Al Qaeda did this and that we should just go after them.   I WAS MAKING A GUESS!!!!!

I will admit to making one mistake,  I should have added the following to that original post: "But it is entirely possible that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with this, and of course this should be fully investigated"   

If I had added that, the original post would have more accurately reflected my thoughts and feelings at that point.

But still, I think it was complete wrong to jump all over me and accuse me of racism, when all I did was guess that a terrorist organization(that had previously attacked American and had threatened to so again) was responsible for this terrorist attack. 

darth_ender said:

Oh, and Warbler, while I despise conspiracy theories, I think jumping all over Fan was a poor choice as well.  Better to shut down conspiracy theories with rational discussion than fiery but ultimately pointless words.

no matter how rational you try to be  with conspiracy nuts, and not matter how logical your argument are,  there is no way to shut him down.    And in the immediate aftermath of something like the Boston Bombing, I really don't feel like rationally arguing with a conspiracy nut. 

darth_ender said:

 There is a benefit to asking questions rather than just assuming the official story is 100% accurate, though I think those conspiracy theorists take it way too far.

Asking reasonable questions is one thing,  but that is not was these conspiracy nuts do.    They find out something like the Boston bombing happens and they go "Yippy! another chance a conspiracy theory, lies and false accusations!  Hmm,  how can I make this look like the government did this?"    

There is nothing reasonable or beneficial to what they do.     

I hope you realized that my post was actually defending you, regardless of any misstatements in that defense.

As for conspiracy theory nuts, they are not trying to spread lies.  They are extremely skeptical of information from mainstream sources, while extremely gullible to information from other sources.  They believe they are pursuing truth, though their methods are very flawed.  They are the opposite extreme of most of the American public, who in general are too trusting of official information without being willing to examine other sources.  I'm not a fan either, and I probably err on the side of trusting my government, but it is wise to question.