• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Suspect: Boston bombing was payback for hits on Muslims

aseidner

aseidner

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
132
Reaction score
111
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Boston Marathon bombing victims were collateral damage in a strike meant as payback for U.S. wars in Muslim lands, the surviving suspect wrote in a message scribbled on the boat where he was found hiding, a law enforcement source told CNN Thursday.

In the message, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev also proclaimed that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all and said he would not miss older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- who died after a firefight with police three days after the bombing -- because he would soon be joining him, according to the source.
Click to expand...

Suspect: Boston attack was payback for hits on Muslims - CNN.com

What a jerk.
 
I hope he's on suicide watch then. I want him to have a very long and very healthy life just like Dr. Hasan.
 
aseidner said:
Suspect: Boston attack was payback for hits on Muslims - CNN.com

What a jerk.
Click to expand...

If Saudi Arabia were ordering airstrikes on Americans, I suspect you'd be a bit upset.

When you bomb someone's country and kill innocent people, some of them are going to hate you. Even if the bombings came with "good intentions" like killing terrorists or insurgents. It just doesn't matter to the parents of dead children, or their neighbors, or their friends.

He'll be joining his brother. After a nice long stay in a maximum security prison. I'm sure he'll have a wonderful time with the inmates there.
 
Well, now he'll get raped, abused, and disrespected like so many women in the culture he loves so much in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Deuce said:
If Saudi Arabia were ordering airstrikes on Americans, I suspect you'd be a bit upset.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was calling him a jerk for being upset.
 
He needs to spend his life in the hole with nothing but food and those little poppers you get in the box...you know, those things in white paper you throw at the ground and other people that let out a teeny little "pop". He can declare jihad on the prison floor.
 
Deuce said:
If Saudi Arabia were ordering airstrikes on Americans, I suspect you'd be a bit upset.

When you bomb someone's country and kill innocent people, some of them are going to hate you. Even if the bombings came with "good intentions" like killing terrorists or insurgents. It just doesn't matter to the parents of dead children, or their neighbors, or their friends.

He'll be joining his brother. After a nice long stay in a maximum security prison. I'm sure he'll have a wonderful time with the inmates there.
Click to expand...

It would be a bit more understandable if he actually had any sort of connection to those who have been killed in our wars in the middle east. However, with these two bombers I'm just not buying it. With both of them I see two individuals who struggled to integrate into American society, decided to blame their failure to do so on the very country that took them in and found the radical Islam cause to validate their position.
 
Deuce said:
If Saudi Arabia were ordering airstrikes on Americans, I suspect you'd be a bit upset.
Click to expand...

I also suspect he wouldn't respond to his upset state of mind by attempting to murder random Saudi civilians either.

Regardless of whether or not you view the United States the same way people view women who "have it coming" with regards to rape, the reality is that "A jerk" is a perfectly okay term to label someone who attempted to indiscriminately kill civilians no matter the intent.
 
Deuce said:
If Saudi Arabia were ordering airstrikes on Americans, I suspect you'd be a bit upset.

When you bomb someone's country and kill innocent people, some of them are going to hate you. Even if the bombings came with "good intentions" like killing terrorists or insurgents. It just doesn't matter to the parents of dead children, or their neighbors, or their friends.

He'll be joining his brother. After a nice long stay in a maximum security prison. I'm sure he'll have a wonderful time with the inmates there.
Click to expand...

True. But my response would not be bombings that targeted mostly unrelated civilians and definitely not targets with a high probability of killing children. I use unrelated in this case to indicate they are mostly have little to do with policy. Little being that other than being of a group the supports or votes for the officials who order the bombings, they have no other relationship to the officials.

If someone bombed a gathering of a group that supports Obama, who, as commander and chief is responsible for the strikes, then it would at least have some, maybe not much, validity, as long as the possibility of children being collateral damage was minimal. It would certainly be more understandable than something like the Boston bombing.

Casualty numbers just to make the media wouldn't be one of my considerations. It is not the number of casualties that matters but the quality of the casualties. Using your theoretical example, adult members of the Royal Family there and adults that influence the government, sure. Some construction workers out for a day in the park with their families, never.
 
Zyphlin said:
I also suspect he wouldn't respond to his upset state of mind by attempting to murder random Saudi civilians either.

Regardless of whether or not you view the United States the same way people view women who "have it coming" with regards to rape, the reality is that "A jerk" is a perfectly okay term to label someone who attempted to indiscriminately kill civilians no matter the intent.
Click to expand...

Yes, but just labeling someone a jerk and ending the discussion at that is a failure on our part to even bother attempting to address why these things happen. And if we never bother to understand why, how are we ever going to stop this kind of behavior before it happens?

"Welp, guys just a crazy murderer" isn't going to save Americans in the future.
 
There really isn't much to discuss. HS logic is flawed and his action undefendable. As for he comparison with the US earlier, some of our logic was also flawed. And we did cause unnecessary harm. However, that in no way excuses a terrorist act.
 
From the OP link
"In the message, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev also proclaimed that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all "

Wonder how he reconciles the bombings going on in the middle east where muslims are killing each other?
 
mike2810 said:
From the OP link
"In the message, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev also proclaimed that an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all "

Wonder how he reconciles the bombings going on in the middle east where muslims are killing each other?
Click to expand...

you think his handlers gave him the full picture?
 
aseidner said:
It would be a bit more understandable if he actually had any sort of connection to those who have been killed in our wars in the middle east.
Click to expand...

They have as much connection as the average American did to 9/11 victims.
 
Gipper said:
He needs to spend his life in the hole with nothing but food and those little poppers you get in the box...you know, those things in white paper you throw at the ground and other people that let out a teeny little "pop". He can declare jihad on the prison floor.
Click to expand...

Nah. He should spend a lifetime in a cell with a very large fascist who hasn't seen a woman in 20 years.
 
Quik said:
This is identical to the logic that our nation used in response to 9/11.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain your reasoning. That idiot couldn't even properly use the term "collateral damage". It is a term used to indicate killing of non-targeted people when striking a target. Clearly the people at the Marathon were the target, not collateral damage of striking another target.
 
 
Utility Man said:
Click to expand...


Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts of it.

The key to stopping them is not understanding their motivations. It is understanding their belief system and using it against them. Also, they are an enemy, treat them as such and don't ***** foot around. Do an indepth study of their burial rituals and their beliefs on what is required for them to enter "heaven" and receive their rewards. If this leads to knowledge that certain rituals/rights must be observed, then deny those rights to anyone killed as an insurgent. Castrate all insurgent bodies. Douse our bullets in pig or other unclean animal blood so that they die unclean and cannot enter heaven. Show tolerance, understanding and help those who don't fight against us and treat those who become an enemy with utter and total disdain. If they want to do suicide bombings, make sure that when they do, parts of their bodies will always become unclean. Learn their ways and beliefs, then use it against them.
 
DVSentinel said:
Perhaps you can explain your reasoning. That idiot couldn't even properly use the term "collateral damage". It is a term used to indicate killing of non-targeted people when striking a target. Clearly the people at the Marathon were the target, not collateral damage of striking another target.
Click to expand...

Americans approved of the wholesale slaughter of Muslims after 9/11. The "targeting" logic doesn't hold up when we take a closer look.

Imagine a high ranking general were in the twin towers on 9/11. Now imagine Osama Bin Laden states that this person was his target, and that the other victims were "collateral damage." 9/11 now becomes justified and is no longer terrorism, under this absurd logic.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Bomber assholes. What the hell were they thinking? Killing American because American were killing Muslims? Why couldn't they kill American "because they hate our freedoms and our way of life" like all the other terrorists? :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, why couldn't they just not indiscriminately kill American civilians. I know that may seem crazy.
 
Quik said:
Americans approved of the wholesale slaughter of Muslims after 9/11. The "targeting" logic doesn't hold up when we take a closer look.

Imagine a high ranking general were in the twin towers on 9/11. Now imagine Osama Bin Laden states that this person was his target, and that the other victims were "collateral damage." 9/11 now becomes justified and is no longer terrorism, under this absurd logic.
Click to expand...

Ok, your opinion is the US engaged in "wholesale slaughter of Muslims after 9/11", have any proof of that?

False argument. First, if it were unlawful combatants doing the targeting, then the act is also unlawful. You cannot have legitimate "collateral damage" when done by unlawful combatants and further, you must also have a legitimate target. You might also consider that a member of a terrorist group in a compound surrounded by his supporters does not make those supporters/guards "collateral damage" as many of them are legitimate targets also, just not high priority ones. I cannot think of the actual term used for them, but "collateral damage" is the accidental killing of innocents while striking a legitimate target using legally defined combatants.

Has the US leadership played "fast and loose" with the rules sometimes, yes imo.

Have they violated the rules of war, no.

Have they taken legal actions against people who did violate the rules of war, yes, however, I do think they sacrificed the lowest believable lamb instead of always the real person behind some of the atrocities.

I do think there are some cases where the actions of commanders really do need to be investigated. But comparing the actual targeting of innocents to collateral damage is ridiculous. Also, at least for the US Military, your 9/11 dream scenario would also still of ended up as illegal, even if legitimate forces were used. There are, believe it or not, rules about such things and potentially killing thousands of innocents to kill a single target would be still get the person who ordered it prosecuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom