JFC if he's innocent theyre gonna need to put him in witness protection. No chance some nutjob wont think Obama got him off and try and take him out.


Fordham, i dont think those suicide bombers are gonna be too worried about the US coming after them. Or going after the government of the country they were born in which they prob also hate.

What's the intent of firing a second missile once the first responders arrive? http://www.businessinsider.com/drone...ponders-2012-9

You can read the entire report here http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-...DER-DRONES.pdf

Guys like raradevils and leoslayer don't understand that they support terrorists, if acts of terror are defined as mass murder efforts motivated by ideology. They support one terrorist group over another. Many in this thread are more circumspect but the reality is that we could actually halter the world's largest terrorist organization by recognizing it as such. There are lots of groups we can't control but if we focus on the ones we can, the societies that we terrorize will be in better position to focus on their sociopaths, and likely to produce less of them. A lot of privilege would go away, though...

When it's brown people killing brown people and you can't get mad about teh dronez no1curr, sadly.

Rough decade for Arab kids named Abdulrahman

Of course the suicide bombers dont care but the cowards that did the planning and made the orders sure do. I am not saying this will deter everyone but it puts the U.S. on record and is made a fact. You mess with us, and we will hunt you down. Plus for those that are in the military they can have pride in knowing that regardless of if they personally lose their life, the U.S. government will not stop until our enemy is destroyed.

Terrorism isn't a vague word, it specifically requires a political motivation. It's our insistence that everyone be the first to shout terrorism!! that has muddied the waters.

The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street brought to you by Right Wing Blogs

I'm shocked, I mean really shocked at folks not being outraged by that apparent assignment of guilt to the tea party. I mean one poster claims that it is likely an Islamic radical and posters get bent out of shape. Another states its likely some Tea Party member and all we get that it's hard to make that determination. How many terrorist incidents have been perpetrated by Tea Party members anyway? Where is the high and mighty rhetoric about innocent until proven guilty? No doubt General Tsao had a point but then again there could be/has been worse

I've seen hot Muslim chicks but no hot Tea Party chicks. I think that explains it imo.

http://www.holytaco.com/you-cant-spe...ty-without-ta/

If not for the fact that most of those egg heads are pinko America hating pussies that would never try to promote their own agenda right?

That was disappointing. Not sure what I was expecting though.

That's cause most of the people here are 19-27yo liberals pretty simple.

I learned that that standard picture of Obama smoking is actually fake. Which doesn't even make sense since he smokes or used to.

At times like these I think it is important to consider that just because some Muslims have been trained to commit acts of terror and violence, deep down they still have the potential to change their ways and possibly become some dimwitted rube.

You can get your jimmies rustled when multiple posters go HAM over Tea Party speculation for several pages with willful ignorance of facts. All you have so far is a couple people mentioning that it is plausible that right wing extremists were involved.

I don't remember anybody saying it was a Muslim but the reaction has been quite different. Wookie did at least try and keep it fair.

Search for Greenwald yielded no results, so not sure if late to the game w/this good read:

he Boston bombing produces familiar and revealing reactions

Could be the New Black panther party. Maybe the weather underground is back in action. Occupy Wall Street.

That is different point. I think we could have handled the aftermath of 9/11 very differently and I believe Bush is a torturer; but the idea that we should not go after and if necessary invade a country in order to hunt them down is ridiculous. I dont care what the reason was, if George Bush would have said anything other than we are going to invade in order to get the 9/11 attackers he would have been insta-impeached.

A guy got banned when he was vocally hoping it was a right winger. Your charges of moderator bias have no teeth.

C'mon man.

Yes. There's a reason the NY Post was the only one to do it. It's no different than reporting the name of a rape victim or or wild speculation as "some are saying...". Yes it's technically true, but it's reckless journalism given the gravity of the situation and the potential for harm.

Personally I'm hoping it's a lone nutjob associated with nobody and indicative of nothing. Anybody wishing for a different culprit probably needs to seriously reevaluate their priorities.

Meh, Wookie said something right away. Some of the general reaction might be political leanings, a lot is because the posters that suggested it made one comment and let it go rather than repeatedly doubling down.