Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Arcade22 said:
Isn't that what people always say? "He was always so normal". "He was always so nice, I'm shocked". Religious extremists and terrorists in general don't have "terrorist" written on their forehead.

It's especially silly to make in-depth comments on what kind of person they are without any information by the people that stood him close.
Click to expand...

I don't think Timothy McVeigh was described as "always so normal", but I could be wrong.
 
Arcade22 said:
Isn't that what people always say? "He was always so normal". "He was always so nice, I'm shocked". Religious extremists and terrorists in general don't have "terrorist" written on their forehead.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The activism of activists is generally pretty public. Political and religious extremists don't often hide their viewpoints. The "He was always so normal" usually pertains to someone living a secret life (serial killers and the like).

Assuming there was a cause connected to this at this point is an assumption for which I see no evidence.
 
Redtail said:
Their uncle just called them losers, hating everyone because they couldn't settle themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't know why he'd have said that. Reading what's been said about the younger brother, to all outward appearances he seemed like a model student and a very likable kid. Obviously there was something else going on in his head that whole time, but he doesn't sound like someone who would have been described as a "loser" before becoming a murderer.
 
Spindrift said:
I don't think Timothy McVeigh was described as "always so normal", but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Or the 9-11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber, or the Unabomber, or David Koresh, or many of the others with fundamentalist religious or political motives. The closest parallel in my mind to a motive is Columbine. But this is based on what scant evidence I have right now and looking to learn more.
 
grunion said:
Or the 9-11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber, or the Unabomber, or David Koresh, or many of the others with fundamentalist religious or political motives. The closest parallel in my mind to a motive is Columbine. But this is based on what scant evidence I have right now and looking to learn more.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The possibility that this might have no political or religious motivation definitely exists.

I certainly wouldn't take people saying, "He seemed so normal" to be evidence of terrorism. I think assuming there was a cause is still an unfounded and premature assumption at this point.
 
Wow, there are some serious douchebag questioners at that conference with the uncle.

"Are you ashamed?"

"How do you feel about America?"

Seriously?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Again, for it to be "radical" don't you have to assume a motive?

A radical usually means an advocate of extreme or fundamental change--(from the word for "root").


So what else do you suppose "radicalized" means? Learning how to make bombs? I'm not sure what you mean by the word if you're not assuming some view or issue or political/religious cause.
Click to expand...

Pedantry? Really? We on the night shift have been pretty colloquial without any problems, even Simon who only came in a couple hours ago. But bring in the morning shift... :boggled:

Here, for the first use...
"3a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme"

And yes, I meant "some view or issue or political/religious cause" for the use of radicalized

Thought I would only have to explain that to non native English speakers. :(

Here's what you said in the poll thread...

Do we even know their action was motivated by the Chechen separatists? With no public statement made, no one associated the bombing with any such movement.

I go back to my first post in this thread. I'm not sure this was necessarily terrorism at all. It could have been more like the Columbine massacre: just a couple of screwed up, criminally violent kids.
Click to expand...

Since I had said similar several times through the night, maybe you caught me when I had stopped repeating myself. Or, like a couple others, you just woke up, came in and picked up where you left off last night.
 
Last edited:
Normal Dude said:
Wow, there are some serious douchebag questioners at that conference with the uncle.

"Are you ashamed?"

"How do you feel about America?"

Seriously?
Click to expand...

God, the reporters are total douchbags in this interview.
My respect for the "Fourth Estate" is now at an all time low.
 
grunion said:
Or the 9-11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber, or the Unabomber, or David Koresh, or many of the others with fundamentalist religious or political motives. The closest parallel in my mind to a motive is Columbine. But this is based on what scant evidence I have right now and looking to learn more.
Click to expand...

I was thinking DC sniper.
 
Jim_MDP said:
And yes, I meant "some view or issue or political/religious cause" for the use of radicalized
Thought I would only have to explain that to non native English speakers. :(
Click to expand...

When I pointed out that you assumed they have been radicalized, you contradicted the conventional meaning of the word by saying:

Well, it's pretty radical to bomb a crowd.

But if you mean radicalized to some view or issue, than [sic] no.
Click to expand...


It's not me who needs help with the English language here.

ETA: To clarify, I have highlighted two statements of yours that are in contradiction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom