phewww, its all over. can we go back to arguing again and caturdays.
Everytime I log on this thread is 4 pages longer
Waiting for the gun debate fallout
If this happened in Texas they would have been dead as soon as the pictures came out. 
And so would anyone else who slightly resembled them.
You’re confused with LA and the LAPD.
that dude who lost his legs is going to be a bit richer when he’s out of hospital. I’ll be sending some $$$ his way. That site doesnt take paypal… might wait for one that does.
apparently when he woke up the first thing he said in hospital was something along the lines of: “saw the guy, he dropped the bag at my feet…” and tried to help identify the bombers.
Shouldn’t the authorities be looking for more suspects? I thought there were 2 other unexploded bombs destroyed.
The was so much bullshit put out there, we will never know. See my first post, number 15.
The day of the actual bombing there were only 2 bombs.
The EOD teams blew up a bunch of backpacks and other suspicious looking items none of which turned out to be bombs.
I’m curious however to find out what the cops were shooting at during the day on Friday…You could hear gun fire go off on the video in the morning between the shoot out and when they actually found him in the boat.
When he was in the boat it was a mixture of tear gas, flash bangs, and dummy rounds according to the scanner.
I wasn’t talking about that…I think the cops let a few fly by accident during the day and the news isn’t mentioning it.
Earlier in the day like 9-10am
And for future reference if you’re running from the cops the video feed from the police helicopter isn’t encrypted.
just donated to the bucks for bauman thing.
The most interesting things I have seen from this is CNN/MSNBC hoping it was some crazy right wing NRA person.
Not that I agree with either of these statements but its a funny observation.
Some kid shoots up a school = Blame every gun owner in America
Islamic terrorist blows up people = We can’t blame Islamic extremists
National registry all of religions the US decides are extreme? I mean if we can save just 1 child???
This is an interesting article that better articulates the motive behind the CNN / MSNBC ‘hopes’
Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American
There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats
BY DAVID SIROTA
Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden(Credit: AP/David Longstreath)
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.
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.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
From the same TV stations that said “Hey a white suburban kid shot up a school” lets try and take away guns from everyone…
The issue we currently have is the US is involved in wars against “terrorists” that is deeply rooted in religious beliefs…You can’t go around the world blowing up countries, and people with drones and expect no fall out…It’s the same thing we have to deal with for backing Israel.
Now we are faced with the issue of people in other countries view it as the US attacking their religion and whole new generations growing up hating America.
Historically white domestic terrorists were not affiliated with other groups its just the way it works…or if they’re affiliated they usually don’t do random acts of terror its usually racially or government targeted.
White supremacist shot up a Sikh temple…
The guy who crashed his plane into the IRS building had government issues…
The number of attacks on doctors who perform abortions.
Compare those to both the world trade center attacks, beltway shooter, fort hood shooter, attempted time square bombing, etc
This is a fairly new book that looks interesting. I’d bet the author has an interesting point of view on the subject.
I heard there were drones flying over WNY this weekend.
probably CBP’s drones… monitoring the border.