If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Time asks: Why did the Tsarnaevs let their carjacking victim live? Answer: Terrorists are frequently dumb, like the Palestinian bombers who forgot to account for Daylight Savings Time and blew themselves up before they could deliver the bomb   (swampland.time.com) divider line 330
    More: Followup, Palestinians, Tsarnaev, Mercedes SUV, Tamerlan, Downtown Oklahoma City, World Trade Center bombing, cash machines, home runs  
•       •       •

12058 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2013 at 12:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-22 01:27:30 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Except triggering an IED and shooting at police while yards away are notexactly personal like shooting a car jacking victim would be.


It is when you literally drop the IED next to an 8 year old boy while looking at him and smiling, then stick around to see people writhe in pain from having lost their limbs.
 
2013-04-22 01:29:01 PM

JohnBigBootay: The fault lies with the reader there, not the writer, who explained himself clearly.


When you write six lines that sound like apology, then six words that say this is not in fact an apology, most people will kind of overlook the six words.

Why even write that shiat in the first place if it's not to somewhat excuse him? That's why we thought it was apologia.
 
2013-04-22 01:29:10 PM

StaleCoffee: Then what was the point of trotting it out at all? He says it doesn't pardon the actions but helps to understand "why" but understanding the "why" there because of the brain failing to reach full maturity implies a lack of reasoning ability somehow. Otherwise understanding the "why" would follow the same causal pattern of anyone else, which makes the whole "brain not fully developed at 19" utterly irrelevant.


Maybe he's just making the point that younger people are mores susceptible to suggestion. I have no idea.
 
2013-04-22 01:31:08 PM

Tatsuma: He who is merciful to the cruel will one day be cruel to those who deserve mercy.


Well, that bit of nonsense a is splendid example of the bullshiate that proves the old saying that just because a thing is said cleverly it is not necessarily valid.

Seriously, would you care to elucidate how the conclusion follows from the premise?

(Hint: it doesn't.)
 
2013-04-22 01:31:12 PM

brap: YOU DIDN'T KILL THE HOSTAGE?  WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

What sort of psycho even asks this question?


Obviously, Time is advocating that anyone committing this type of attack in the future murder every possible witness whenever possible.
 
2013-04-22 01:32:45 PM

Tatsuma: hy even write that shiat in the first place if it's not to somewhat excuse him? That's why we thought it was apologia.


Like he said, maybe he just wants to understand the guy. Not sure why any of this matters all that much. I bet you two cents he thinks he's guilty and if he was on the jury he'd vote to convict. Who care what questions he has along the way - he's hardly advocating trying him as a minor or suggesting rehabilitation and release. He thinks the guy is guilty and he wonders how the fark and why he got to the place where he thought this would be a good idea and I think that's a fine question to ask.
 
2013-04-22 01:32:55 PM
Two things are really bothering me about this case:

1) Calling the youngest brother a "kid" who must have been corrupted and manipulated by his older brother. This might be true, it might also be bullshiat. Here in Canada, police and prosecutors assumed Karla Homolka was manipulated by her husband Paul Bernardo to help him kidnap, rape, and murder three young women, one of them her own sister. Turns out she was just as sick and twisted as he was. Jokes on them. She ended up plea bargaining, getting a light sentence, and is now free.

2) Assuming that everything we've been told by investigators is the gospel vetted truth. We haven't seen the video evidence of the bag being planted, yet everyone keeps saying "he planted the bomb right by a child", etc. They provide a narrative, the media repeats it, and the public seems to blindly accept it. We have to stop doing this and wait for the evidence to be presented.
 
2013-04-22 01:33:33 PM

Firethorn: Nana's Vibrator: I'd be certain there are enough photgraphs, videos, and witnesses to every event  that, even without a confession, a fair trial should be simple and therefore should not require any shortcuts or rule bending.

/how do you tell a guy who can't speak that he has the right to remain silent?  It almost sounds like a mean joke.

Given my experience, the photographs and videos are more damning than an outright confession.  Far too many people have been pressured into making a fake one.

For the 'right to remain silent', it's a 'right not to communicate', whether that's by speech, written statement, sign language, or even tapping.

Personally, I wanted both of them to be caught alive, for the evidence value alone - I want the contacts that encouraged the older brother to embark on this course arrested and prosecuted as well.  Or shot by the Russians...


Its all a Russian setup, Pooty already poisoned those that needed it.
 
2013-04-22 01:35:54 PM

Deucednuisance: Well, that bit of nonsense a is splendid example of the bullshiate that proves the old saying that just because a thing is said cleverly it is not necessarily valid.

Seriously, would you care to elucidate how the conclusion follows from the premise?


It comes from the Talmud, and here's a story to illustrate it:

A farmer once came upon a baby wolf who was dying of thirst. Clearly abandoned by its mother, he decided to bring it home and nurse it back to health. His neighbor said 'You crazy! This be a wolf! He gon' kill all your sheeps!' to which the merciful farmer said 'No, tis but a baby! Shut your whore mouth' and brought it back into his pen. He nursed it up to health. A few years later, the wolf picked up an AK and shot all the sheeps'.

Seriously, there are so many situations where having mercy on people who are cruel would lead as a consequence to cruelty on those who deserve mercy. That doesn't mean that you're the one who will be doing it yourself.
 
2013-04-22 01:36:01 PM
while I wholeheartedly agree with the point you are TRYING to make regarding the impropriety of the revenge fantasy advocacy that seems to be rearing it's head from SOME otherwise relatively respectable sources, I find your insistence on painting these prolific and accomplished killers, who's act of cold-blooded, wanton murderer of innocent human beings to be wildly misguided in it's own right.

Was the younger tsarnaev under the undue influence of his elder, and perhaps more disaffected brother? possibly. Were they confused and alone? It certainly seems that way. but these are two confused and angry kids that, despite the resources available to them, made the choice to express this anger by destroying the lives of many individuals and their families and loved ones. To refute the label of blood thirsty killers is, in this case, to confuse the very meaning of the language. Perhaps they were confused and angry blood thirsty killers. Perhaps they lacked the resources or the wherewithal to identify any better outlets for their confusion and anger. I feel for such confused humans, and wish, with all my heart that they'd stumbled across a single opportunity to derail their plans.. and that we had, as a society, a support mechanism, or perhaps a series of support mechanisms that would enable us to do a better job of identifying such issues before they manifest in murderous rage.. let us work towards this.

but that does not change the fact that these were two confused and angry young men who apparently could find no other outlet for their rage than the bloody and terrible destruction of the lives of as many innocents as they could.. this is the very definition of blood thirst.

Yes, public, and more worryingly, governmental bloodlust is just plain wrong. Wrong headed, morally wrong.. and likely a contributor to the greater problems that led us here. We should console ourselves and each other until that bloodlust becomes compassion and forgiveness, if not for the tsarnaevs, then for ourselves, and for the other angry, disaffected youth who have a hard time understanding our dysfunctional society and our unjust world, so that they may find better outlet then these brothers did.

Part of that process requires coming to terms with our own feelings.. and in many cases this may start with rage at the nearly unforgivable, bloodthirsty acts of wanton murder committed by these two angry, confused young men.

Voiceofreason01: Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: or maybe they were confused and angry kids and not the blood thirsty killers that most of you are portraying them as.

/I find this bloodlust from the media, the public and (more worryingly) the government.....distastful


Blood thirsty? Maybe not. But they are killers. They killed people. So I think the term applies here. Blood thirsty may even be appropriate here as well, as there is evidence that they were planning out several more attacks. Sounds a bit 'blood thirsty' to me.

The point I was getting at is that even if they were evil bloodthirsty killers they would still deserve a just and fair trial as well as a basic level of respect as human beings while the one kid is being held. I find the level of hate and bloodlust from many of you in these threads to be wholly inappropriate and more than a little offensive. Be better than that.

 
2013-04-22 01:39:05 PM

JohnBigBootay: StaleCoffee: Then what was the point of trotting it out at all? He says it doesn't pardon the actions but helps to understand "why" but understanding the "why" there because of the brain failing to reach full maturity implies a lack of reasoning ability somehow. Otherwise understanding the "why" would follow the same causal pattern of anyone else, which makes the whole "brain not fully developed at 19" utterly irrelevant.

Maybe he's just making the point that younger people are mores susceptible to suggestion. I have no idea.


So you're guessing at his point and have no real idea, but I'm the one who is at fault because rather than inject my own assumptions into a confusing jumble of irrelevant data I called it out in question? Okay then.

Even if that is the point, still, so what? Does that mean because he's young and stupid we should view what he did in a different perspective?

How does that still somehow not imply his age shouldn't be taken into consideration when it comes to responsibility for his actions?
 
2013-04-22 01:40:14 PM

Tatsuma: Deucednuisance: Well, that bit of nonsense a is splendid example of the bullshiate that proves the old saying that just because a thing is said cleverly it is not necessarily valid.

Seriously, would you care to elucidate how the conclusion follows from the premise?

It comes from the Talmud, and here's a story to illustrate it:

A farmer once came upon a baby wolf who was dying of thirst. Clearly abandoned by its mother, he decided to bring it home and nurse it back to health. His neighbor said 'You crazy! This be a wolf! He gon' kill all your sheeps!' to which the merciful farmer said 'No, tis but a baby! Shut your whore mouth' and brought it back into his pen. He nursed it up to health. A few years later, the wolf picked up an AK and shot all the sheeps'.

Seriously, there are so many situations where having mercy on people who are cruel would lead as a consequence to cruelty on those who deserve mercy. That doesn't mean that you're the one who will be doing it yourself.


Incidentally, the above story also condones killing babies since they may turn out to be Hitler.
 
2013-04-22 01:40:43 PM

Voiceofreason01: Something terrible happened and this kid should face the consequences


The problem is they way you seem to see this. Something terrible didn't just "happen". This isn't a "mistakes were made" event. These two grown adults decided, planned, committed and executed a deliberate series of murders of complete strangers. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't a misunderstanding, they weren't confused about what the results of their actions would be.

They fully INTENDED to murder as many people as possible, and went to significantg lengths to do so.

You seem to want to treat this as if a teenager accidentaly hit the wrong pedel and ran over some people.
 
2013-04-22 01:42:16 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Watch it again.


For the hundredth time?

My point is that there are no monsters.

Frightened foolish people, yes, but no monsters.  Not even the aliens at the end.

And if the idea is "we are all potential monsters" then the concept "Monster" loses all meaning.

They are "due" on Maple Street, in the same way that Vladimir and Estragon "wait" for Godot.
 
2013-04-22 01:43:59 PM

StaleCoffee: JohnBigBootay: StaleCoffee: Then what was the point of trotting it out at all? He says it doesn't pardon the actions but helps to understand "why" but understanding the "why" there because of the brain failing to reach full maturity implies a lack of reasoning ability somehow. Otherwise understanding the "why" would follow the same causal pattern of anyone else, which makes the whole "brain not fully developed at 19" utterly irrelevant.

Maybe he's just making the point that younger people are mores susceptible to suggestion. I have no idea.

So you're guessing at his point and have no real idea, but I'm the one who is at fault because rather than inject my own assumptions into a confusing jumble of irrelevant data I called it out in question? Okay then.

Even if that is the point, still, so what? Does that mean because he's young and stupid we should view what he did in a different perspective?

How does that still somehow not imply his age shouldn't be taken into consideration when it comes to responsibility for his actions?


Because another valid explanation is not "let's treat them lightly" but "let's figure out the various factors that led to this, such that we can profile and find other potential bombers ahead of time."
Ignoring the kid's age out of some righteous sense of anger just impairs your own ability to prevent this type of thing.
 
2013-04-22 01:44:07 PM

Tatsuma: EdNortonsTwin: Except triggering an IED and shooting at police while yards away are notexactly personal like shooting a car jacking victim would be.

It is when you literally drop the IED next to an 8 year old boy while looking at him and smiling, then stick around to see people writhe in pain from having lost their limbs.



Except it's not the same level of "personal" as shooting a car jacking victim would be..  The point I am making is that they are cowards.  What's your point, Tats?
 
2013-04-22 01:44:07 PM

Big John's Breakfast Log: 1) Calling the youngest brother a "kid" who must have been corrupted and manipulated by his older brother. This might be true, it might also be bullshiat.


Right. We just don't know yet. Maybe the old guy was the passion and the kid was the brains and technical know how who told him to stfu with the screaming at the wind and DO something already. We'll find out. He was still a "kid" in that people my age refer to people his age and older "kids" all the farking time. It has no legal bearing on anything and he is absolutely responsible for his actions whether or not his older brother influenced or browbeat him into it. I'm nearly 50 - if you can't legally buy a beer yet, and hell, for several years after even, I may at times refer to you as a kid even if only in my own mind. Doesn't change a damn thing but there's nothing inherently wrong with the nomenclature and does not in and of itself grant any special immunity from charges. Guilty, murderous, evil...kid.
 
2013-04-22 01:44:54 PM

scottydoesntknow: Tatsuma: scottydoesntknow: It was random. They were robbing a convenience store for money,

No they weren't. They went to the convenience store and soon afterwards someone unrelated robbed it. It wasn't them.

Ok, but they only killed the cop because they thought he had spotted them, they weren't just indiscriminately killing at that point.

Otherwise, why did they let the carjacking victim in the story live?


So he could mail the videotapes back to Killian from a different location.
 
2013-04-22 01:44:58 PM

Theaetetus: Tatsuma: Deucednuisance: Well, that bit of nonsense a is splendid example of the bullshiate that proves the old saying that just because a thing is said cleverly it is not necessarily valid.

Seriously, would you care to elucidate how the conclusion follows from the premise?

It comes from the Talmud, and here's a story to illustrate it:

A farmer once came upon a baby wolf who was dying of thirst. Clearly abandoned by its mother, he decided to bring it home and nurse it back to health. His neighbor said 'You crazy! This be a wolf! He gon' kill all your sheeps!' to which the merciful farmer said 'No, tis but a baby! Shut your whore mouth' and brought it back into his pen. He nursed it up to health. A few years later, the wolf picked up an AK and shot all the sheeps'.

Seriously, there are so many situations where having mercy on people who are cruel would lead as a consequence to cruelty on those who deserve mercy. That doesn't mean that you're the one who will be doing it yourself.

Incidentally, the above story also condones killing babies since they may turn out to be Hitler.


While I want to rant about religion, I have to disagree. We know a wolf pup will grow to be a wolf and shoot sheepies with machine guns, or automatic weapons or whatever the media is raving about right now. We don't know which babies will grow up to be fascist dictators. It's more along the lines of if Hitler was hanging off the edge of a cliff by his fingers, you pull him up and hug him instead of stomping his nazi farking fingers. So after you pull Hitler from the cliff edge and give him a hug, he shoves a gas bomb in your crotch and shoves you over the side of the cliff, so your dick is coated in mustard gas for the entire fall. It's a pretty good lesson IMO. Even if it is religious.
 
2013-04-22 01:45:33 PM

Voiceofreason01: or maybe they were confused and angry kids and not the blood thirsty killers that most of you are portraying them as.

/I find this bloodlust from the media, the public and (more worryingly) the government.....distastful


There's really nothing else to say except that you're a farking moron and this is the dumbest statement ever posted on the internet.
 
2013-04-22 01:46:12 PM

Theaetetus: StaleCoffee: JohnBigBootay: StaleCoffee: Then what was the point of trotting it out at all? He says it doesn't pardon the actions but helps to understand "why" but understanding the "why" there because of the brain failing to reach full maturity implies a lack of reasoning ability somehow. Otherwise understanding the "why" would follow the same causal pattern of anyone else, which makes the whole "brain not fully developed at 19" utterly irrelevant.

Maybe he's just making the point that younger people are mores susceptible to suggestion. I have no idea.

So you're guessing at his point and have no real idea, but I'm the one who is at fault because rather than inject my own assumptions into a confusing jumble of irrelevant data I called it out in question? Okay then.

Even if that is the point, still, so what? Does that mean because he's young and stupid we should view what he did in a different perspective?

How does that still somehow not imply his age shouldn't be taken into consideration when it comes to responsibility for his actions?

Because another valid explanation is not "let's treat them lightly" but "let's figure out the various factors that led to this, such that we can profile and find other potential bombers ahead of time."
Ignoring the kid's age out of some righteous sense of anger just impairs your own ability to prevent this type of thing.


Yeah, okay. Lets go profile teenage muslims, that will help.
 
2013-04-22 01:46:50 PM
He was just charged by the white house so get your freedom panties out of your ass.
 
2013-04-22 01:49:07 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Except it's not the same level of "personal" as shooting a car jacking victim would be.. The point I am making is that they are cowards. What's your point, Tats?


They walked up to a cop and shot him in cold blood

How hard is it to understand? They said they were not going to kill the hostage because he wasn't American. That's farking it, stop looking for conspiracies everywhere people, damn.
 
2013-04-22 01:51:19 PM

StaleCoffee: Theaetetus: Tatsuma: Deucednuisance: Well, that bit of nonsense a is splendid example of the bullshiate that proves the old saying that just because a thing is said cleverly it is not necessarily valid.

Seriously, would you care to elucidate how the conclusion follows from the premise?

It comes from the Talmud, and here's a story to illustrate it:

A farmer once came upon a baby wolf who was dying of thirst. Clearly abandoned by its mother, he decided to bring it home and nurse it back to health. His neighbor said 'You crazy! This be a wolf! He gon' kill all your sheeps!' to which the merciful farmer said 'No, tis but a baby! Shut your whore mouth' and brought it back into his pen. He nursed it up to health. A few years later, the wolf picked up an AK and shot all the sheeps'.

Seriously, there are so many situations where having mercy on people who are cruel would lead as a consequence to cruelty on those who deserve mercy. That doesn't mean that you're the one who will be doing it yourself.

Incidentally, the above story also condones killing babies since they may turn out to be Hitler.

While I want to rant about religion, I have to disagree. We know a wolf pup will grow to be a wolf and shoot sheepies with machine guns, or automatic weapons or whatever the media is raving about right now.


Ah, but what about Androcles and the lion? We can't know that the proverbial lion or wolf pup is evil until it does an evil act, just like the baby Hitler. In other words, the Talmudic saying only makes sense if evil is predestined and apparent... by way of one's parents.

It's more along the lines of if Hitler was hanging off the edge of a cliff by his fingers, you pull him up and hug him instead of stomping his nazi farking fingers.

But the story has a wolf  pup. If the story were about the farmer finding a full grown wolf, with fresh sheep blood on his pelt, caught in a trap and freeing it, you'd be right. But that's not the story. Instead, it's saying that if your parents are evil, then you're predestined to do evil, so we should stamp out the bloodline of anyone who does evil, including babies.
 
2013-04-22 01:51:33 PM

The Bruce Dickinson: You are all equally pathetic...Jews, Muslims and of course the equally blood thirsty Christians.

All of you personify what is wrong with the Human race.

What else would one expect from simple minds...religion


I'm only saying this once.

If you must come here to post this by itself, not an afterthought or a continuing thought from a relevant post, then you must not be as smart as you think you are.

If you truly believe that all people on these boards and on this planet are so simple that they would never understand their folly, then why do you waste words on those you know can never understand?  It's like being angry at a dog because he doesn't understand particle physics.

Seems to me your journey continues...lose the hate, the anger; focus on helping them learn instead of condemning them to ignorance.
 
2013-04-22 01:52:02 PM

Tatsuma: scottydoesntknow: All I'm finding is that they had planned to carry out more attacks, which would go in line with them returning to everyday activities so as not to look suspicious. You can't really conduct more planned attacks when there's a nationwide manhunt and everyone knows exactly what you look like.

They had no idea that there were so many cameras watching them and it all fell to shiat the second it went national.

Here's how they basically wanted it to come down, all the way in terms of code.

[1] if bombing goes well then
verify if police unto us
if positive goto 4 if negative goto 2
[2] return to normal life then
plan a new bombing then goto 1
[3] if cover is blown
go out in a blaze of glory goto 4
[4] VIRGINS
bone them


I just thought I'd point out that line [3] is dead code.  The if statement on line [2] either loops back to [1] or jumps to [4].  There is no logical sequence that'll take you to line [3].

/ really that pedantic
// go to statements?  You ought to be ashamed
///
 
2013-04-22 01:52:28 PM

StaleCoffee: While I want to rant about religion, I have to disagree. We know a wolf pup will grow to be a wolf and shoot sheepies with machine guns, or automatic weapons or whatever the media is raving about right now. We don't know which babies will grow up to be fascist dictators. It's more along the lines of if Hitler was hanging off the edge of a cliff by his fingers, you pull him up and hug him instead of stomping his nazi farking fingers. So after you pull Hitler from the cliff edge and give him a hug, he shoves a gas bomb in your crotch and shoves you over the side of the cliff, so your dick is coated in mustard gas for the entire fall. It's a pretty good lesson IMO. Even if it is religious.


Yup.

I mean an example of giving mercy to those who don't deserve it and ending up being cruel to those who deserve mercy: The Libyan bomber who was released because he had 'a couple of weeks to live' and ended up living three more years in freedom and in luxury while the victims suffered from seeing him alive and free while he murdered more than 200 people.
 
2013-04-22 01:52:49 PM

Tatsuma: That doesn't mean that you're the one who will be doing it yourself.


Then why did you say that it did?

He who is merciful to the cruel will one day be cruel to those who deserve mercy.

"He who is... will... be..."

Still nonsense, and I don't see how a made-up story in a made-up book has anything to do with the validity of the argument, either way you frame it.

Not to mention that extending mercy to those deserving it doesn't really tax one's mercy-giving capacity, does it?  The only mercy that actually IS mercy is that which is extended to the undeserving.  That's kind of what makes "mercy" merciful, yanno?
 
2013-04-22 01:52:51 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-22 01:52:59 PM
ts4.mm.bing.net

The exception is the norm.
 
2013-04-22 01:53:40 PM

StaleCoffee: How does that still somehow not imply his age shouldn't be taken into consideration when it comes to responsibility for his actions?


You can draw from it whatever you'd like. Meanwhile each and every person I recall saying anything remotely similar (including myself) has stated that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In fact, the weakest punishment I have seen ANYONE mention specifically in any thread on the topic is life in prison. I see a lot of bloviating about 'apologists' but I've yet to see a single actual apologist or advocate for the guy (kid). everyone thinks he's guilty. Everyone thinks he should serve life in prison (at least). But it's not very interesting to fight with people who actually agree with you on the most important matters of the case so we squabble about nothing.
 
2013-04-22 01:53:42 PM

steve_wmn: I just thought I'd point out that line [3] is dead code. The if statement on line [2] either loops back to [1] or jumps to [4]. There is no logical sequence that'll take you to line [3].

/ really that pedantic
// go to statements? You ought to be ashamed
///


I didn't code when I was in highschool, I played in a band, smoked drugs and got off with girls.

Nerd.
 
2013-04-22 01:54:29 PM

StaleCoffee: Theaetetus: StaleCoffee: JohnBigBootay: StaleCoffee: Then what was the point of trotting it out at all? He says it doesn't pardon the actions but helps to understand "why" but understanding the "why" there because of the brain failing to reach full maturity implies a lack of reasoning ability somehow. Otherwise understanding the "why" would follow the same causal pattern of anyone else, which makes the whole "brain not fully developed at 19" utterly irrelevant.

Maybe he's just making the point that younger people are mores susceptible to suggestion. I have no idea.

So you're guessing at his point and have no real idea, but I'm the one who is at fault because rather than inject my own assumptions into a confusing jumble of irrelevant data I called it out in question? Okay then.

Even if that is the point, still, so what? Does that mean because he's young and stupid we should view what he did in a different perspective?

How does that still somehow not imply his age shouldn't be taken into consideration when it comes to responsibility for his actions?

Because another valid explanation is not "let's treat them lightly" but "let's figure out the various factors that led to this, such that we can profile and find other potential bombers ahead of time."
Ignoring the kid's age out of some righteous sense of anger just impairs your own ability to prevent this type of thing.

Yeah, okay. Lets go profile teenage muslims, that will help.


Yes, and let's work on getting them better educations, branching out their worldview beyond religious fundamentalism, removing things that isolate them or lead them to join extremist groups, and countering people who try to whip them into murderous rages.

Or we could do it your way and ignore them until they kill people, 'cause that'll help.
 
2013-04-22 01:55:41 PM

Voiceofreason01: or maybe they were confused and angry kids and not the blood thirsty killers that most of you are portraying them as.

/I find this bloodlust from the media, the public and (more worryingly) the government.....distastful


something something bombs and gun arsenals are pre-meditated something something
 
2013-04-22 01:55:52 PM

Deucednuisance: Still nonsense, and I don't see how a made-up story in a made-up book has anything to do with the validity of the argument, either way you frame it.


It's a very real book, I own multiple tractates from it, thank you.

Deucednuisance: Not to mention that extending mercy to those deserving it doesn't really tax one's mercy-giving capacity, does it? The only mercy that actually IS mercy is that which is extended to the undeserving. That's kind of what makes "mercy" merciful, yanno?


No, there are people who did bad things but deserve mercy, and others who don't.

Do you think Hitler deserved mercy? What about Saddam? Gaddafi? Ted Bundy?
 
2013-04-22 01:57:18 PM

Deucednuisance: My point is that there are no monsters.


There absolutely are. But not in the sense that. like frankenstein's monster and the Minotaur, they are poor tortured sould abandoned and mistrusted by society and the world, doomed to lash out in frustrated alienated rage.

No, the real monsters aren't misunderstood by the world, they misunderstand the world themselves*. Their worldview has become so distorted and twisted, that they can no longer relate to the world as it is. And when they act, they act in a way that may make sense to them, but is monstrous exactly becasue it is so at odds with humanity. They become monsters by removing themselves from the rest of humanity.
/* with thanks to Eddie Campbell

These two men ARE monsters. Their worldview became so broken and distorted that they saw the intentional murder of complete strangers (many running to raise money for charity) as a GOOD thing, worthy of doing. And that is what is monstrous, and that is why these men are monsters.

It is not only foolish, but dangerous to assert that men cannot become monsters, or that there is no such things as "evil". It is a curious and wrongheaded perspective that would absolve even the most heanious motivations and actions as being some sort of fatherless "happening" for which no one is really to blame, no one chose, and no one is really accountable. Or even worse that somehow everyone is.

No. Men become monsters. Men commit evil. And the root and branch of all evil springs directly from the heart of these men. No one is accidentlay evil - it is a choice.

All that being said, this man deserves a fair trial, and the best defense possible. Because, monstrous though he may have become, he is nonetheless a human being and a citizen, and while he may have abandoned his humanity, we have not abandonded him. We are not monsters.
 
2013-04-22 01:58:45 PM

Tatsuma: Deucednuisance: Still nonsense, and I don't see how a made-up story in a made-up book has anything to do with the validity of the argument, either way you frame it.

It's a very real book, I own multiple tractates from it, thank you.

Deucednuisance: Not to mention that extending mercy to those deserving it doesn't really tax one's mercy-giving capacity, does it? The only mercy that actually IS mercy is that which is extended to the undeserving. That's kind of what makes "mercy" merciful, yanno?

No, there are people who did bad things but deserve mercy, and others who don't.

Do you think Hitler deserved mercy? What about Saddam? Gaddafi? Ted Bundy?


One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same...
Hitler;
Saddam;
Gaddafi;
Bundy; and
baby pup dying of thirst.
 
2013-04-22 01:59:10 PM
Because to look a person in the eye and execute him takes a certain amount of courage, a bombing doesnt
 
2013-04-22 01:59:13 PM
You can kill people and do plenty of evil things and not be a sociopath. They probably thought they were going to get away with it which is the only reason I can think of to explain why they stayed in the area. Once their pictures were released by the FBI and everyone in America was on the lookout for them they went into "oh shiat" mode which brought them down. If they had fled the country or at least the damn state they would probably still be on the run now.

Also, people who act like they're so above everyone because we want people who do terrible things to suffer can EABOD. You are incredibly douchey and nobody likes you
 
2013-04-22 02:01:40 PM

bikkurikun: Because to look a person in the eye and execute him takes a certain amount of courage, a bombing doesnt


Except that they literally did that minutes after they let him go

But thank you for being the 50th person to make that point and be very wrong.
 
2013-04-22 02:01:40 PM

Tatsuma: EdNortonsTwin: Except it's not the same level of "personal" as shooting a car jacking victim would be.. The point I am making is that they are cowards. What's your point, Tats?

They walked up to a cop and shot him in cold blood

How hard is it to understand? They said they were not going to kill the hostage because he wasn't American. That's farking it, stop looking for conspiracies everywhere people, damn.


Conspiracy as in tin-hat?  Where did I say there was a conspiracy?  The article asks why they didnt kill the taxi driver.  Taxi driver said it was because he wasn't American (like they were?).  I state it's because riding in a car with someone and talking to them, then letting them out of the car and shooting them is a personal killing - it's up close and personal.  Planting bombs and waylaying cops is not so personal.  My arguement is that they are cowards, the same as those pukes that blow up a bus in your country.

Anyway, I'd like to know more accurately how the MIT officer was killed.  From what I read they snuck up on him and shot him while he was in his car.  That also seems pretty cowardly to me.
 
2013-04-22 02:01:41 PM

Voiceofreason01: Uncle Pooky:
maybe you're a confused kid. Making explosive devices designed to cause a lot of damage and placing them in a heavily populated area = bloodthirsty. shooting and throwing grenades at cops = bloodthirsty. trying to run over cops = bloodthirsty. shooting a security guard in the head = bloodthirsty killer.

you sounds scared. Better kill that scary brown kid quick. Hell why don't you go ahead and skip the trial....it's just a waste of time anyway.


I know I'm joining this party late but it's just bizarre watching you double down on unsupportable positions because you've backed yourself into a corner.  I think you were initially trying to espouse the idea that those calling for brutal retribution rather than justice are misguided.  But in doing so you made the mistake of indicating these two individuals might not be bloodthirsty killers.  This is not a supportable statement.  An irrefutable amount of evidence from a broad variety of sources indicates these two are the very definition of bloodthirsty killers.  Throwing around vague accusations of racism doesn't change that and makes you look foolish.
 
2013-04-22 02:01:42 PM

Voiceofreason01: you sounds scared. Better kill that scary brown kid quick.


Dude, dude dude...these pricks were white as hell.  They come from the region where the term 'caucasian' comes from, you can argue they are foreign or something, but brown? 

You are either trollin' hard or really just so open minded that we could use your skull as a gotdamn punch bowl.
 
2013-04-22 02:03:27 PM

asmodeus224: Voiceofreason01: you sounds scared. Better kill that scary brown kid quick.

Dude, dude dude...these pricks were white as hell.  They come from the region where the term 'caucasian' comes from, you can argue they are foreign or something, but brown? 

You are either trollin' hard or really just so open minded that we could use your skull as a gotdamn punch bowl.


punch bowl
 
2013-04-22 02:09:23 PM

Theaetetus: Ah, but what about Androcles and the lion? We can't know that the proverbial lion or wolf pup is evil until it does an evil act, just like the baby Hitler. In other words, the Talmudic saying only makes sense if evil is predestined and apparent... by way of one's parents.


Only, the thing is, science will go to the mat on the whole "raising a feral wolf pup will get you a feral wolf that wants to kill you" thing too. So you're over-complicating this for the sake of idealism.

Theaetetus: But the story has a wolf pup. If the story were about the farmer finding a full grown wolf, with fresh sheep blood on his pelt, caught in a trap and freeing it, you'd be right. But that's not the story. Instead, it's saying that if your parents are evil, then you're predestined to do evil, so we should stamp out the bloodline of anyone who does evil, including babies.


Again, the operative word here is wolf. Not pup. It's already defined its nature, as would an adult Hitler. The nature of a feral animal is that it is feral. That's pretty solidly established scientifically. It's not saying a human baby is destined for anything, it's talking about showing mercy to something that is known to be evil. It's a pretty straightforward anecdote, not Planescape: Torment.

Theaetetus: Yes, and let's work on getting them better educations, branching out their worldview beyond religious fundamentalism, removing things that isolate them or lead them to join extremist groups, and countering people who try to whip them into murderous rages.

Or we could do it your way and ignore them until they kill people, 'cause that'll help.


Because we do such a wonderful job of that with our homegrown fundies I have complete and total faith that we can educate the foreign crazies!

Look, you're just trying to find shiat to argue about. I don't want to ignore that shiat, but I don't want to chase chimeras either.
 
2013-04-22 02:09:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: These two men ARE monsters. Their worldview became so broken and distorted that they saw the intentional murder of complete strangers (many running to raise money for charity) as a GOOD thing, worthy of doing. And that is what is monstrous, and that is why these men are monsters.

It is not only foolish, but dangerous to assert that men cannot become monsters, or that there is no such things as "evil". It is a curious and wrongheaded perspective that would absolve even the most heanious motivations and actions as being some sort of fatherless "happening" for which no one is really to blame, no one chose, and no one is really accountable. Or even worse that somehow everyone is.


I believe you're misunderstanding his statement, or are using a different definition of "monsters" (note his statement about how if we are all potential monsters, then the term loses any meaning). His statement was meant to say that there are no* pure evil killers whose motivations are so alien that we cannot comprehend them - no* monsters who exist only to kill, even within their own understanding.
The totally insane aside**, most killers still have reasons and motivations that they believe are rational: as you admit, they have a broken and distorted worldview such that they saw the intentional murder of strangers as a good thing, worthy of doing. That's not a monster, that's a deranged person. A monster would either see it as a bad thing, unworthy of doing and do it anyway, or (more likely), not understand any difference between worthy or unworthy.

With this in mind, the statement doesn't absolve anyone of blame or accountability. Society disagrees with their rationale or that this was a worthy action, and will punish them accordingly. But that doesn't mean they are automatically irrational bloodthirsty monsters. That's just a fairy tale to help people sleep better by ignoring the fact that it's men who do evil, not monsters.

*hyperbole aside, I'm sure it's possible to find an example of someone who is totally and completely insane, but this is more about the 99.9999% of humanity.**
**and even then, most totally insane people still have an internally consistent worldview that can be comprehended, so even they likely wouldn't count as "monsters" under the earlier definition.
 
2013-04-22 02:10:20 PM

Tatsuma: EdNortonsTwin: Except it's not the same level of "personal" as shooting a car jacking victim would be.. The point I am making is that they are cowards. What's your point, Tats?

They walked up to a cop and shot him in cold blood

How hard is it to understand? They said they were not going to kill the hostage because he wasn't American. That's farking it, stop looking for conspiracies everywhere people, damn.


That report of course coming from the carjacking victim. The same one who couldn't decide if he had escaped, or was let go, so he told both stories. The same one who said that they said they were headed to Manhattan but then said that he thought he heard "Manhattan" when they were speaking Russian or Chechen. That guy. When they had already demonstrated that they didn't give a flying rat's ass what nationality were the people they blew up, and in fact, targeted an INTERNATIONAL event.

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that you at least try to discuss things rationally. But lately it really looks like you have a script in your head and ignore everything that doesn't directly fit your script.
 
2013-04-22 02:12:59 PM

JohnBigBootay: StaleCoffee: How does that still somehow not imply his age shouldn't be taken into consideration when it comes to responsibility for his actions?

You can draw from it whatever you'd like. Meanwhile each and every person I recall saying anything remotely similar (including myself) has stated that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In fact, the weakest punishment I have seen ANYONE mention specifically in any thread on the topic is life in prison. I see a lot of bloviating about 'apologists' but I've yet to see a single actual apologist or advocate for the guy (kid). everyone thinks he's guilty. Everyone thinks he should serve life in prison (at least). But it's not very interesting to fight with people who actually agree with you on the most important matters of the case so we squabble about nothing.


Then I'm with you, lets stop arguing and drop the "He was 19" thing and get back to agreeing that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
 
2013-04-22 02:13:03 PM

Tatsuma: Do you think Hitler deserved mercy? What about Saddam? Gaddafi? Ted Bundy?


Good lord.

Either you are thick, or cannot read.

Where on earth would you get the idea that I wrote anything that remotely suggested such a thing?

Seriously, reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy for a reason, Tats.

For an Armchair Theologian you sure have a messed up sense of Ethics.

Jean Valjean "deserved" mercy.  Giving it to him would not have (as I said before) "taxed one's mercy-giving capacity".  That he did not get mercy was effed up, we can all agree?  (But there would be no novel without that, right?)

So, given the fact that you still cannot parse the sentence I objected to in any meaningful way, I feel completely justified in supporting my argument via a work of fiction.

Just as you have done.
 
2013-04-22 02:15:41 PM

Deucednuisance: Where on earth would you get the idea that I wrote anything that remotely suggested such a thing?


Deucednuisance: The only mercy that actually IS mercy is that which is extended to the undeserving. That's kind of what makes "mercy" merciful, yanno?
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report