Boston bombing: the real problem

Can you provide an example of this "state sanctioned terrorism"? I fear you're getting the terms confused.

The Guardian - a rush to exonerate Muslims.

The Guardian - rushes to blame Israel for everything and anything.

I did see that part but statistics means little at the moment. Also it rather depends on the source of the stats. You are at best using the stats to mask your beliefs and prejudices to blame one group before any proof or indication has revealed members of that group are to blame so what I said sticks. Tough titties if you don't like it.

I did see that part but statistics means little at the moment. Also it rather depends on the source of the stats. You are at best using the stats to mask your beliefs and prejudices to blame one group before any proof or indication has revealed members of that group are to blame so what I said sticks. Tough titties if you don't like it.

See point 2, paragraph 1 of the article for evidence. Everyone is speaking up when its possibly Muslims because the media is heavily focused on it. What comparative groups were you thinking of?


Yes, I don't expect Americans and the media to acquiesce to these attacks. But as above, see point 2, para 1, their claims are disgusting and completely unprofessional. The media whatever their stance, should remain impartial until the facts are out, until then it's all speculation. Once the facts are out, and maybe the attackers turn out to be Muslim then propound your right wing views to the readership of their respective newspaper.

statistics mean little at the moment? ok, i'd like you to implement that theory for everything.

if a guy at college was known to steal bags from the changing rooms, got caught several times, and then after a while bags went missing from the changing rooms, we would be right in saying it is likely to be him. This is not scaremongering or scapegoating. same applied to muslims, but they dont steal bags.

Uhhum...

Can you give statistics of "attacks" in US soil and who did it?
One or two Muslim attacks are not enough to justify ....or you might know more of stats. Its not the magnitude but the frequency.

If it was the magnitude then you should consider USA as the biggest threat (they called it Satan in Iran) in the world. They killed almost thousand times more civilians than 9/11 in a decade (yes 3 million).

But wait a min. What about the drones?

How the hell is 'right-wing' to be angry at a group who committed an atrocity? Maybe you're hung up on some hippy-BS about how we should turn the other cheek and what not but if someone blew up your mother or father I'm sure you wouldn't be very quick to be forgiving. Until the time that we find out who or what committed the attacks people can only presume through intuition, and right now I'd put my money on a radical religious group. Does that mean I hate muslims? No. Does that mean I am rationally thinking from prior information from a history of attacks? Yes.

How the hell is 'right-wing' to be angry at a group who committed an atrocity? Maybe you're hung up on some hippy-BS about how we should turn the other cheek and what not but if someone blew up your mother or father I'm sure you wouldn't be very quick to be forgiving. Until the time that we find out who or what committed the attacks people can only presume through intuition, and right now I'd put my money on a radical religious group. Does that mean I hate muslims? No. Does that mean I am rationally thinking from prior information from a history of attacks? Yes.

Unmanned air-to-surface Hellfire missiles surgically striking terrorist training camps and centres of operational significance to further de-stabilize and eradicate any prospect of an organized terrorist network? Seems fair game in my view. Terrorism is an operational level of choice to accomplish a strategic goal and I emphasize, using unsanctioned violence (that is, an entity that does not possess the legitimacy of force i.e. a non-state actor). It is generally to create a state of fear within the citizenry by indiscriminate, tactical attacks. The case of UAV attacks does not fit the parameters within the confides of terrorism. UAV attacks are surgical attacks with the purpose of destroying non-uniformed combatants, not civilians, which terrorism asserts.

whats wrong with thinking it was muslims? statistically they are the most likely to do this

Terrorists in the conventional sense (extremist Islamists) and states have something in common. They want to further a political goal, and I feel this is what underlies terrorism. The implication of this is that states can commit terrorism.

Not the world's best resource but all the information you need to find is right there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

I have increasingly noticed this PC hysteria around the bombings. They're hijacking this story to try and prove racism against Muslims, or that everybody is blaming Muslims.

Just because somebody may also believe they were Muslims or A Muslim, doesn't mean they're hating on muslims. Some people susepct North Korea & Far-right groups as well. It's not the first time we've seen fabrications such as this before though. The Western world seems to take every opportunity it can to create this racism narrative. I am sure that if a veiled, Muslim woman was randomly assaulted in an unprovoked attack, People would jump to 'Racism' or 'Islamophobia'... Which has been much more common in our society.

Would you like to be unfairly blamed for a crime against which there is no evidence for?

Would it be "PC hysteria" to be upset to be blamed for something that you didn't do?

Rushing to blame someone without knowing the facts, and without having ANY evidence for such blame is not even just wrong, but fear mongering.

All I'm saying is, until SOLID information is gathered as to the culprit, there shouldn't be a rush to place blame on ANYONE.

46 people die in a bombing in Afghanistan and the news has a tiny coverage on it, 3 people die in a bombing in America and the world stops.