Craig's theory (Boston) - post removed from OT.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
My suspicion of the most likely motivation was right-wing tax protest because of the day.

It didn't make a ton of sense - those people would tend to attack some government site like McVeigh did over innocent civilians, but quite a coincidence.

Second most likely wasn' as clear, but I leaned towards 'random violence', Colombine type act. Small group who went on a rampage for no good reason.

Then when they said these were people who had emigrated (first reports said a year ago), it seemed likely that was wrong, that there was likely some terrorist cause.

Now it's seeming more likely. It's not clear they were much involved in the politics of the region they came from, or had reason to blame the US for issues with those regions.

We don't know why they did this, but 'random violence' seems to be a leading guess.

With two brothers and the older killed, he may have been the instigator; it's not clear whether the younger brother might have just 'gone along'.

Is there a bit of irony if this was 'random violence' at the same time stronger gun control was voted down? Yes, though it's not clear the measures would help in this case.

Years ago, I made a comment that got some controversy here, I stand by it:

I said that we need to accept some level of violent acts, handled by law enforcement, as the price for freedoms, because the only ways to try to prevent the possibility of some random person shooting up innocent people just isn't practical and would invollve huge reductions in freedom and rights.

Maybe these guys could have been prevented, if some element of their bombs could be better restricted, with more police surveillance at the event, but even then they could have gotten ahold of guns and just shot a bunch of people. We just can't stop that type of event - but we can not let them be used for bad policies of overreacting to fit someone's agenda, like 'spend billions more on military weapons'. (Or 'invade Iraq').

Just treat them as what they are, acts of violence, police matters, and don't demand huge reactions that will only do harm.

One comment I've been meaning to make before we had any idea who they are is, no matter who they are, they don't condemn any group - they're a few people.

If they are anti-tax protestors, it doesn't condemn all anti-tax protestors. If they were radical Muslims, it doesn't condemn all radical Muslims. If they were Americans like Colombine, it doesn't condemn all Americans. To try to remind people not to rush to blame everyone who shares other traits with them for the violence these people did.

We've talked about the 'bad apple' fallacy - that when someone in a group does something you don't like, you tend to blame the group, while when someone in a group you do like does the same thing, you tend to say 'that was a bad apple, don't blame the group'. Unless this is found to be a huge consipiracy - very unlikely - we should not 'blame some group', just blame the people who did violence.

Mod note in the other thread said to keep P&N out of the thread & in P&N. Some stuff in the thread is in a little gray area, but this post isn't. -DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
They had at least one gun that they used on the officer.

Good point, they had at least one - but might have been able to get it anyway.

The good news is, if the younger brother gets out of jail later, as an ex-felon convicted of terrorism, he can move to Louisiana and buy more guns legally.

Even resell them to, say, cartels, since straw purchase laws were defeated.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Really?

Straw purchases have been illegal since 1968 or something.

Fern
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
But if a certain tree keeps dropping a lot of bad apples, you just pretend it's a non-issue and we shouldn't judge the tree, right?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,667
9,967
136
but we can not let them be used for bad policies of overreacting to fit someone's agenda, like 'spend billions more on military weapons'. (Or 'invade Iraq').

Agreed.

Just treat them as what they are, acts of violence, police matters, and don't demand huge reactions that will only do harm.
If that "huge reaction" were the call for peace?

One comment I've been meaning to make before we had any idea who they are is, no matter who they are, they don't condemn any group - they're a few people.
They are not a "few people". These brothers joined a global identity of Islam that is fueled by terrorism. Though potentially isolated in organization they are still legion in association.

The huge reaction I propose is to foster an alternative Islamic identity. What does that mean? Imagine if, instead of an Iraq war, we spent a trillion dollars empowering peaceful members of Islam. That to defeat Islamic terrorism we help support Islamic people who would work against them. To support Muslims who would forge a global Islamic authority, to reinforce a global Islamic identity for its followers. An identity not driven by terrorists. Who, when one joins Islam, they have inspiration from peaceful teachings of coexistence.

An Islamic identity to tell those seeking violence to look elsewhere.

This is the sort of campaign that is long overdue, but first we must come to grips with and realize the nature of the problem we face. To call it for what it is, and then to address it in the best way possible. The "few bad apples" thinking is counter productive. It belies the nature of Islamic terrorism and the global identity used as a calling card to the weak, the young, and the impressionable. It does not tell you why these brothers, or Major Nidal Hasan acted in violence the way they did.

They are connected not by organization but by associative identity. It is time to work with Muslims to challenge that identity. To free Islam from the terrorists who would hold it hostage. To protect the good men and women of the faith who would support us in opposing violence.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
Years ago, I made a comment that got some controversy here, I stand by it:

I said that we need to accept some level of violent acts, handled by law enforcement, as the price for freedoms, because the only ways to try to prevent the possibility of some random person shooting up innocent people just isn't practical and would invollve huge reductions in freedom and rights.

Maybe these guys could have been prevented, if some element of their bombs could be better restricted, with more police surveillance at the event, but even then they could have gotten ahold of guns and just shot a bunch of people. We just can't stop that type of event - but we can not let them be used for bad policies of overreacting to fit someone's agenda, like 'spend billions more on military weapons'. (Or 'invade Iraq').

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLSHCuc2p8
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Really?

Straw purchases have been illegal since 1968 or something.

Fern
Doesn't matter. The glorious progressive flag must be carried even if one sometimes looks like a lying buffoon when doing so.

But if a certain tree keeps dropping a lot of bad apples, you just pretend it's a non-issue and we shouldn't judge the tree, right?
Exactly.

Agreed.

If that "huge reaction" were the call for peace?

They are not a "few people". These brothers joined a global identity of Islam that is fueled by terrorism. Though potentially isolated in organization they are still legion in association.

The huge reaction I propose is to foster an alternative Islamic identity. What does that mean? Imagine if, instead of an Iraq war, we spent a trillion dollars empowering peaceful members of Islam. That to defeat Islamic terrorism we help support Islamic people who would work against them. To support Muslims who would forge a global Islamic authority, to reinforce a global Islamic identity for its followers. An identity not driven by terrorists. Who, when one joins Islam, they have inspiration from peaceful teachings of coexistence.

An Islamic identity to tell those seeking violence to look elsewhere.

This is the sort of campaign that is long overdue, but first we must come to grips with and realize the nature of the problem we face. To call it for what it is, and then to address it in the best way possible. The "few bad apples" thinking is counter productive. It belies the nature of Islamic terrorism and the global identity used as a calling card to the weak, the young, and the impressionable. It does not tell you why these brothers, or Major Nidal Hasan acted in violence the way they did.

They are connected not by organization but by associative identity. It is time to work with Muslims to challenge that identity. To free Islam from the terrorists who would hold it hostage. To protect the good men and women of the faith who would support us in opposing violence.
Well said.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Craig could have saved himself a lot of typing by simply saying he's an idiot.
LOL

Actually, although he as always strongly colored his remarks as seen through the red lens of progressive Marxism (thus my earlier comments), I thought Craig made some good points here. A certain amount of random or semi-random violence is inherent in a free society. The right to the tools necessary for self defense also grants to the evil those same tools to use for evil purposes.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Taking it for what it's worth the local news here is claiming they may have been upset over the alliance between Russia and the US following the 9/11 attacks.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
LOL

Actually, although he as always strongly colored his remarks as seen through the red lens of progressive Marxism (thus my earlier comments), I thought Craig made some good points here. A certain amount of random or semi-random violence is inherent in a free society. The right to the tools necessary for self defense also grants to the evil those same tools to use for evil purposes.

Craig the Marxist? This is pretty funny.

Craig, you are failing, you don't even have a bushy beard!
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Craig is back in P&N gracing us with his wisdom again? :awe:

Seriously Craig, I had wondered where you went. Just taking a break or did you find another forum or ???
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
... If they were radical Muslims, it doesn't condemn all radical Muslims...
It sounds like someone doesn't know the meaning of "radical" in the term "radical muslim." The term is a condemnation in itself in that it implies an attempt to overthrow by force in the name of their beliefs. I think you mean "If they were radical Muslims, it doesn't condemn all radical Muslims."
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,235
12,760
136
am i agreeing with craig on something? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

i always feel that people overreact on these types of things (and by that i mean trying to enact some sort of national policy "to make sure this type of thing never happens again")

also i hate the absolute media fetish
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
But if a certain tree keeps dropping a lot of bad apples, you just pretend it's a non-issue and we shouldn't judge the tree, right?

Bingo. Someone is once again in denial about the danger that Islam poses.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Agreed.

If that "huge reaction" were the call for peace?

They are not a "few people". These brothers joined a global identity of Islam that is fueled by terrorism. Though potentially isolated in organization they are still legion in association.

The huge reaction I propose is to foster an alternative Islamic identity. What does that mean? Imagine if, instead of an Iraq war, we spent a trillion dollars empowering peaceful members of Islam. That to defeat Islamic terrorism we help support Islamic people who would work against them. To support Muslims who would forge a global Islamic authority, to reinforce a global Islamic identity for its followers. An identity not driven by terrorists. Who, when one joins Islam, they have inspiration from peaceful teachings of coexistence.

An Islamic identity to tell those seeking violence to look elsewhere.

This is the sort of campaign that is long overdue, but first we must come to grips with and realize the nature of the problem we face. To call it for what it is, and then to address it in the best way possible. The "few bad apples" thinking is counter productive. It belies the nature of Islamic terrorism and the global identity used as a calling card to the weak, the young, and the impressionable. It does not tell you why these brothers, or Major Nidal Hasan acted in violence the way they did.

They are connected not by organization but by associative identity. It is time to work with Muslims to challenge that identity. To free Islam from the terrorists who would hold it hostage. To protect the good men and women of the faith who would support us in opposing violence.

No need to reinvent the wheel, the answer is and has always been separation of religion from state along with freedom of speech (no blasphemy laws).

As long as Muslims are afraid to question Islam in the same manner other people are able to question the predominant religion in their region of the world without worrying about cartoon riots, having to hide out like Salmun Rushdie or end up dead like Theo Van Gogh,

they will never be free of the radical Islamists among them, who while being small in number are able to keep the rest in line with fear.