A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

what do you think it means?

 

what exactly are your credentials for analyzing crime scenes/bombings and determining what social category the perp might belong to?

i present opinions yeah, but i try not to make statements of things as if i know them when i can't possibly know them. i try to make sure that if i'm stating an opinion on something i don't know, that i present it that way, instead of acting like i'm a main character on a show like Criminal Minds-

'profile tells us we're looking for a white male lives in a basement'

you never had a hunch about something?

  On 4/18/2013 at 6:12 AM, MisterE said:

what do you think it means?

 

what exactly are your credentials for analyzing crime scenes/bombings and determining what social category the perp might belong to?

I don't need credentials to know what social category you belong to... Edited April 18, 2013 by jules

wait, Mister E is the bomber?

wat a mystery

here's my point that you are apparently not quick enough to pick up on usagi- having a hunch is fine. feeling the need to go and assert your hunch into a forum is another thing, and that can be ok too. except that it just so happens that at this forum, if anyone had a 'hunch' that it was a muslim terrorist, all you children would be going into nuclear meltdowns. it's OK for you guys to say things like 'i even heard some people say that it might be right wing extremists' - and no shit? thats what liberals do every time something like this happens now. was it you who you heard say that? or someone else on watmm maybe? you say it yourself, or say 'duuuh i heard someone else say this' so its not QUITE you saying it, even though it is, then you comment that we shouldn't politicize. that's how you guys operate.

 

when exactly did you left wing types just say 'fuck it, we will use tragedies to score political points by placing blame on ppl we don't agree with ideologically, and we will accept it as a tactic (as long as it's us doing it)'? it's funny that all of your 'hunches' point to white, right leaning males. grow the fuck up, children.

and lets talk about 'hunches'. a good hunch is actually going to be based on some kind of facts or logic. you can come in here and provide your hunches all day long, but i can ask what it's based on. that's how the internet works, usagi. and i'm not at all suprised that none of you can provide any basis for your 'hunches'. and so that leaves me thinking 'well the hunch must be based on SOMETHING, so if it's not facts, it must be something else. perhaps some kind of brainwashing?'

are the hunches you guys get which consistently point towards neocon/rightwing/tea party types, could they be based on your soaking up of shows like family guy, the simpsons, american dad, the daily show, bill maher, chris matthews, msnbc in general, and/or cnn in general? could it be due to cnn's eagerness to 'inform' everyone that these bombs bear the hallmarks of extreme right wing bombers, that the pressure cooker bombs are a 'signature' of right wing extremists, regardless of the fact that you won't be able to find an example of a pressure cooker bomb made by a right wing extremist. for something to be called a 'signature', shouldn't there have to at least be ONE example of it? actually multiple examples of it? instead of... none? (a different group has used them before though) this is how left wing operates.

 

or maybe you are projecting? Bill Ayers, Kathy Boudin, ring any bells? Members of an actual domestic terrorist group, who were making bombs (which Bill Ayers claims to this day were not meant to injure/maim/kill humans, which is funny since the one that went off in the house boudin was at had shrapnel like nails packed into it). There are sources that say that Boudin argued within the group for the bombs to be designed to maim/kill. Boudin served 20yrs in prison for murder charges, Ayers got off the hook scott free, undoubtedly because he had a lot of hippy friends hide him out until the statute of limitations for being a domestic terrorist ran out. So where are these two now? Boudin teaches. Ayers is over education in Chicago. See, your end of the ideological spectrum REWARDS the domestic terrorists within your ranks by giving them positions of power/influence over the youth of the country. so maybe u guys are projecting a bit?

Edited April 18, 2013 by MisterE

Wow

i swear i heard almost this exact same rant on a co-worker's audio stream of the rush limbaugh show. needs more obama though.

lol american partisan politics. gracias - is most amusing!

I'm glad someone has already filled the generic right wing surrogate spot after Compson's absence

WATMM's IDMness is at an all-time low

it's hilarious how you guys just absolutely refuse to tackle even one point i've made, but jump in to create your circle-jerk of 'we are right, and you are a wacko' comments. what's even more hilarious is that you might actually expect these comments, which lack any intelligence whatsoever, to have any modicum of impact on me.

 

i don't know how many 'debates' i've seen in this place that go the same way. i know guys, facts hurt sometimes.

 

lets just go one at a time. give me one example of a right wing domestic terrorist/rich kid/yuppy white fuck who made bombs, blew things up, plotted and had intentions of setting bombs that would maim (but only failed to because of their own retardedness/blowing themselves up instead, and unfortunately not their entire group), robbed bankrolls, killed people, just did terroristy type shit, then got to be high ranking political figures over something like education.

 

one example.

 

or option b) defend your own, or CNN's 'hunches' that this is the work of a right winger. give some FACTS to support those hunches. or defend why it was ok of CNN to call the bomb a signature of right wing groups, who have never used a pressure cooker bomb before.

 

or just keep circle jerkin.

CNN also made the hunch that it was a muslim, so what's your point really? That this shows some kind of 'liberal media bias' through the selective taking of false reporting from CNN? If i could undertand your point in a framework of existing reality i would counter it, but so far that seems to be where you're coming from. So what somebody had a hunch on here it was a white basement dweller? Did that poster also say the bomber was a tea partier or a republican? Absolutely not, but for some reason you jumped after him as if he did and used it to make a meta point that wasn't really appropriate as a response to that. Also not really sure why Bill Ayers plays into this conversation at all, it seems like you're trying to frame the debate yourself into some false LEft VS Right context, which again seems pretty meaningless and forced. Nobody here besides you seems to be doing that. Are you expecting all the liberals here to jump up and defend Bill Ayers or something? Because i guarantee you it's not going to happen.

Greenwald had this to say about the term today

  Quote

 

Obviously, it's possible that the perpetrator(s) will turn out to be Muslim, just like it's possible they will turn out to be extremist right-wing activists, or left-wing agitators, or Muslim-fearing Anders-Breivik types, or lone individuals driven by apolitical mental illness. But the rush to proclaim the guilty party to be Muslim is seen in particular over and over with such events. Recall that on the day of the 2011 Oslo massacre by a right-wing, Muslim-hating extremist, the New York Times spent virtually the entire day strongly suggesting in its headlines that an Islamic extremist group was responsible, a claim other major news outlets (including the BBC and Washington Post) then repeated as fact. The same thing happened with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, when most major US media outlets strongly suggested that the perpetrators were Muslims. As FAIR documented back then:

 

  Quote

(4) The reaction to the Boston attack underscored, yet again, the utter meaninglessness of the word "terrorism". News outlets were seemingly scandalized that President Obama, in his initial remarks, did not use the words "terrorist attack" to describe the bombing. In response, the White House ran to the media to assure them that they considered it "terrorism". Fox News' Ed Henry quoted a "senior administration official" as saying this: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism."

Is that what "terrorism" is? "When multiple (explosive) devices go off"? If so, that encompasses a great many things, including what the US does in the world on a very regular basis. Of course, the quest to know whether this was "terrorism" is really code for: "was this done by Muslims"? That's because, in US political discourse, "terrorism" has no real meaning other than: violence perpetrated by Muslims against the west. The reason there was such confusion and uncertainty about whether this was "terrorism" is because there is no clear and consistently applied definition of the term. At this point, it's little more than a term of emotionally manipulative propaganda. That's been proven over and over, and it was again yesterday.

 

Edited April 18, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

  On 4/18/2013 at 9:54 PM, MisterE said:

 

lets just go one at a time. give me one example of a right wing domestic terrorist/rich kid/yuppy white fuck who made bombs, blew things up, plotted and had intentions of setting bombs that would maim (but only failed to because of their own retardedness/blowing themselves up instead, and unfortunately not their entire group), robbed bankrolls, killed people, just did terroristy type shit, then got to be high ranking political figures over something like education.

 

one example.

 

 

Neither Ayers nor Boudin became political figures - they worked in academia, which is actually quite different from political office.

 

edit: not to defend them or anything, just to clarify.

edit: nevermind

Edited April 18, 2013 by jules

  On 4/18/2013 at 9:58 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

Are you expecting all the liberals here to jump up and defend Bill Ayers or something? Because i guarantee you it's not going to happen.

maybe not, but i would be surprised if a fair amount of people jumped up to criticize someone who made comments in support of their careers as terrorists. all throughout this thread there have been people saying things about how they just knew it was some white basement dwellers, hinting that it might be right wingers, or an inside job just like 9/11 obviously was, or as chunky does, just cuts straight to the heart of it and says it's some old white republican who's trying to conduct an overthrow of the country. few of these comments were called into question (and never by you). if someone had said any of those comments but replace 'white' with 'black'/'muslim' or neocon with 'liberal' or 'right-wing' with 'left-wing' you'd be crying like a little baby. a hunch is a hunch, but i can ask for supporting facts. and i absolutely do not expect to get them, ever or very rarely, in this place. so really it's become rhetorical for me to even bother asking. if there are no supporting FACTS, then it must be based on EMOTIONS. and now here you are trying to act like i'm just hallucinating all these comments about it being white/rightwing/republican/neocon/etc. typical.

  On 4/18/2013 at 10:03 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/18/2013 at 9:54 PM, MisterE said:

lets just go one at a time. give me one example of a right wing domestic terrorist/rich kid/yuppy white fuck who made bombs, blew things up, plotted and had intentions of setting bombs that would maim (but only failed to because of their own retardedness/blowing themselves up instead, and unfortunately not their entire group), robbed bankrolls, killed people, just did terroristy type shit, then got to be high ranking political figures over something like education.

 

one example.

Neither Ayers nor Boudin became political figures - they worked in academia, which is actually quite different from political office.

 

edit: not to defend them or anything, just to clarify.

 

i'm really not trying to be compared to compson (although i understand how he got frustrated and pushed into more and more copy pasting when he had almost the entire forum jumping on him after he posted anything, holding him to standards that nobody else is held to), but a quick glance at ayers' wiki says this:

"Ayers worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city's school reform program"

now i don't know to what capacity he was involved in that, but i think that alone makes him a political figure. i'm sure that out of all the committees and orgs that he was chairman or member of, some of those also had some element of politics involved (which is probably an understatement), even if it was related to academia (or trying to secure funds from the government). he had a lot of power over education in that state. seems to me he was very much doing things within the realm of politics.

Edited April 18, 2013 by MisterE

Being a consultant does not make one a political figure. It often means (not always rightly) that one is knowledgeable in the field and thus one's opinion/expertise is worthy of consideration.

one who was a domestic terrorist. who's group was making bombs clearly intended to maim and kill.

 

he was clearly involved in what can be called politics, but if you want to play your little word game fine, because it's really beside my point, which was that he was a powerful figure, who made decisions that altered the course of education for thousands (or millions) of kids in illinois. i can't possibly imagine an extreme right-wing terrorist ever getting to be in control of anything like that. literally having power over the minds of the youth. imagine if academia was ran by the right wing, and after breivik gets out of jail they import him over here and he's justa workin' with the mayor somewhere to reform education. fucking imagine that. you can't because it would/will never happen, but just try anyway. its very fortunate for ayers/boudin/the rest of them from their little group of spoiled, rich yuppies, that they were trying to blow things up to create a communist revolution, instead of oh say, nazism (which their own personal tactics seemed on par with).

 

and i get to come here and see all this baseless talk of how it's prob some white basement dwellers (how about a white rich kid yuppie like ayers who thinks he/she has the right to dictate how everyone else lives?), possibly right-wing extremist, likely a plot by a rich old white republican to take over the planet, neocons, etc. and there's barely anyone saying 'hey maybe we should wait until we have some facts' to those people. but i point that out, and my pointing it out gets plenty of replies.

Edited April 18, 2013 by MisterE

"Well...I don't wanna blame it all on 9/11, but it certainly didn't help!"

  On 4/18/2013 at 11:19 PM, MisterE said:

and i get to come here and see all this baseless talk of how it's prob some white basement dwellers (how about a white rich kid yuppie like ayers who thinks he/she has the right to dictate how everyone else lives?), possibly right-wing extremist, likely a plot by a rich old white republican to take over the planet, neocons, etc. and there's barely anyone saying 'hey maybe we should wait until we have some facts' to those people. but i point that out, and my pointing it out gets plenty of replies.

you didn't just point it out though, it seemed like you were accusing Jules(?) without evidence that he was suggesting it was some sort of right-wing terrorist attack. All he said was 'white basement dweller'. You seem to be the one making the connection, and in a way you're replying/responding to your own projection of what actually took place in this thread.

Most of the 'terrorist' attacks (this time im using the definition of bombings or attacks meant to harm crowds of innocent people) in the united states have been by white people, so I honestly don't get your frustration.

And in part i agree with you that if Bill Ayers was a 'right winger' as opposed to being a heavily anti war liberal militant guy he probably wouldn't have a spot in academic culture. All one needs to do is go back in american history to see why people like Bill Ayers existed. The draft in Vietnam and things like Kent State propelled anti war activism into acts like bombings and other things that would be virtually unheard of today. If Bill Ayers was actually a dude who supported Vietnam and hated hippies you're probably right, he wouldn't have been able to redeem himself in the way that he did.

But again I don't see how that has any connection whatsoever to what's going on now, there is virtually no large protest ground swell of anti war or anti US government right wing policies right now.

Edited April 18, 2013 by John Ehrlichman

fbi released a video of the suspect bombers

 

 

 

 

more than one apparently

 

 

more pictures => http://www.fbi.gov/news/updates-on-investigation-into-multiple-explosions-in-boston

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

i didn't know people still wear baseballcaps backwards

Edited April 18, 2013 by triachus

  On 4/18/2013 at 11:19 PM, MisterE said:

 

he was clearly involved in what can be called politics, but if you want to play your little word game fine, because it's really beside my point, which was that he was a powerful figure, who made decisions that altered the course of education for thousands (or millions) of kids in illinois. i can't possibly imagine an extreme right-wing terrorist ever getting to be in control of anything like that. literally having power over the minds of the youth.

 

Plenty of right wing actors with extreme views have made decisions that had significant impact on the education of the youth of their states (for example the consistent attack on teaching evolution by right-wing states).

 

Anyways, I'm not gonna bother arguing this anymore, because there is plenty of crazy on both sides of the political fence in the US (Canada too, but since we have so little international sway it's just sad, not really funny).

  On 4/19/2013 at 1:09 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 4/18/2013 at 8:50 PM, MisterE said:

here's my point that you are apparently not quick enough to pick up on usagi- ...

  On 4/18/2013 at 9:16 PM, MisterE said:

and lets talk about 'hunches'. a good hunch is actually going to be based on some kind of facts or logic. you can come in here and provide your hunches all day long, but i can ask what it's based on. that's how the internet works, usagi. ...

I didn't even say anything about hunches that was keltoi. I'm sure you enjoyed the rants though.

 

oops, sorry. heh Edited April 19, 2013 by MisterE