• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Boston Explosions.

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,107
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
Upvote 0
Jan 25, 2013
3,501
476
✟66,240.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private

Me too. What particularly resonated with me was this part of the article. In fact, this part almost made me cry because it's like....wow....finally, a white non-Muslim sees how we feel in these moments and put it so eloquently:

(3) One continually encountered yesterday expressions of dread and fear from Arabs and Muslims around the world that the attacker would be either or both. That's because they know that all members of their religious or ethnic group will be blamed, or worse, if that turns out to be the case. That's true even though leading Muslim-American groups such as CAIR harshly condemned the attack (as they always do) and urged support for the victims, including blood donations. One tweeter, referencing the earthquake that hit Iran this morning, satirized this collective mindset by writing:

"Please don't be a Muslim plate tectonic activity."

As understandable as it is, that's just sad to witness. No other group reacts with that level of fear to these kinds of incidents, because no other group has similar cause to fear that they will all be hated or targeted for the acts of isolated, unrepresentative individuals. A similar dynamic has long prevailed in the domestic crime context: when the perpetrators of notorious crimes turned out to be African-American, the entire community usually paid a collective price. But the unique and well-grounded dread that hundreds of millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslims and Arabs around the world have about the prospect that this attack in Boston was perpetrated by a Muslim highlights the climate of fear that has been created for and imposed on them over the last decade.

The Boston bombing produces familiar and revealing reactions | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk


To illustrate this point, when we first saw the news, I was like, "Oh no, people at a marathon of all places were hit." But right away or maybe even before that, I had a slight knot in my stomach and I was thinking, "Oh God, please don't let it be a Muslim. Please, please, please God."

I didn't say it out loud, but family members did. I looked at them and said, "Isn't it sad that this is what we have to think about? That we can't JUST think about the victims, we have to be scared of the public and how they react towards us? When we should be concerned for the victims, we also become concerned for us (and for good reason)."

It's sad that we hold a collective breath during tragedies until it finally comes out that (more often than not) it was some white Christian guy. But then ethnicity or religion don't matter...they had only mattered when people thought the person COULD be a Muslim and/or foreign.

I remember when the Aurora shooting happened, we breathed a sigh of relief when it was discovered that it was a non-Muslim. Same with the Sikh temple shooting. Same with Sandy Hook. I almost feel guilty that this is our reaction, but there is a reason that this is how we react. I wish that the only emotions we felt were horror at the acts and sadness over what took place and the damage inflicted, but the public reaction towards us has made us into this.

I mean, look at how the Saudi national was treated even though he was among the injured. Imagine the outrage if any of the other injured had the same treatment that he got just because they didn't look the right way and were running away (which many were!). He was interrogated for 5 hours as if he's a suspect, the feds raided his room with a dog, and THEN say that he's a witness not a suspect. I'm guessing they will treat all witnesses this way, then?
 
Upvote 0

BlandOatmeal

Regular Member
Jan 13, 2006
2,183
63
Oregon, ИSA
✟2,769.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Pressure-cooker bombs suspected in Boston blast, Obama calls it act of terrorism

Investigators said they have not yet determined what was used to set off the explosives.
Pressure-cooker explosives have been used in international terrorism, and have been recommended for lone-wolf operatives by Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.
But information on how to make the bombs is readily found online, and US officials said Americans should not rush to judgment in linking the attack to overseas terrorists.

-- Pressure-cooker bombs suspected in Boston blast, Obama calls it act of terrorism

The FBI, meanwhile, is

movies-alicia-silverstone-clueless-stacey-dash.jpg


clueless

No doubt, a disgruntled postal worker -- or perhaps an elderly grandmother from Arkansas. TSA is hot on this one, conducting body searches...
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,692
15,145
Seattle
✟1,172,042.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
A just society doesn't reward proven (beyond doubt) murder with free room and board.
Agreed: Justice must be done, that means that guilt must be proven.

A just society does exactly that (and jail is not free room and board. Jail is imprisonment and is in no way comparable to getting a free place to stay). Just like free speech must apply to the most egregious and vile of speech to be a valid protection, so must the rule and process of law apply to to those who have obviously committed the most heinous of crimes. Our protections must protect all of us or they are guarantees for none of us.
 
Upvote 0

ChristOurCaptain

Augsburgian Catholic
Feb 14, 2013
1,111
49
✟1,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
A just society does exactly that (and jail is not free room and board. Jail is imprisonment and is in no way comparable to getting a free place to stay).

No, in a just society, the punishment fits the crime, and society stands up for the victims of crime, protecting THEM, instead of the criminals.

Just like free speech must apply to the most egregious and vile of speech to be a valid protection, so must the rule and process of law apply to to those who have obviously committed the most heinous of crimes.

Where did I say anything else? I actually specified that guilt MUST be proven.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,692
15,145
Seattle
✟1,172,042.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, in a just society, the punishment fits the crime, and society stands up for the victims of crime, protecting THEM, instead of the criminals.

And until guilt is established we should protect both, no? Otherwise we run the risk of persecuting the innocent.


Where did I say anything else? I actually specified that guilt MUST be proven.

Ah, I misunderstood the thrust of your post then. Apologies.
 
Upvote 0

psalms 91

Legend
Dec 27, 2004
71,903
13,538
✟134,786.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
A just society does exactly that (and jail is not free room and board. Jail is imprisonment and is in no way comparable to getting a free place to stay). Just like free speech must apply to the most egregious and vile of speech to be a valid protection, so must the rule and process of law apply to to those who have obviously committed the most heinous of crimes. Our protections must protect all of us or they are guarantees for none of us.
Personally, if they are guilty then justice would be to turn them over to the families that were hurt and killed.
 
Upvote 0

ChristOurCaptain

Augsburgian Catholic
Feb 14, 2013
1,111
49
✟1,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Personally, if they are guilty then justice would be to turn them over to the families that were hurt and killed.

IF they're guilty, yes, and IF the state won't live up to its responsibility.

Really? seem to recall something about no trials for animals a day back. Must have been someone else.

Please provide proof that I said that! Because I can't remember doing so!
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,620
4,181
51
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟106,590.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I said they should get a fair trial.
Well, no, actually what you said was
You want to give this animal a trial? >.>
then you said
Once you decide to kill people, you don't deserve any more rights.

It was only after a bit of badgering that you amended that you said you're okay with them getting a trial. I think we've pretty much figured out your actual stance on the matter. You'd play judge, jury and executioner with someone if YOU thought they were guilty.
 
Upvote 0

Darkhorse

just horsing around
Aug 10, 2005
10,078
4,001
mid-Atlantic
Visit site
✟303,401.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Again, 8th ammendment whuh?

We may not always agree with the Constitution, especially in certain cases, but it's much better than mob rule - or governmental tyranny.
 
Upvote 0