Here is the link
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"
Posted on 04/16/2013 2:49:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Make no mistake about it, yesterday’s bombing in Boston was a cowardly terrorist act. We don’t know yet who is responsible; all we know is that someone, or some group, targeted innocent civilians at an iconic American sporting event. Without getting into complex discussions about definitions, this is terrorism, plain and simple.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to those killed or injured near the marathon finish line on Boylston Street. Their prayers, and those of their family and friends, are our prayers. And to those who ran toward the explosions to aid the wounded — runners, spectators, first responders, security officers, etc. — we commend your bravery and resiliancy. You represent the best of the American spirit.
The next question naturally becomes: Who did this? And, for now, that is precisely where the conversation should stay. Investigators are hard at work, and hopefully soon we’ll know who was responsible. Once we know who committed this dastardly act, it’s then time to hold that person, or those people, accountable. That could mean the domestic justice system, an international manhunt, targeted military action, or anything in between. It could take hours, days, or weeks. But once we identify those responsible, our response, tailored to the perpetrator(s), should be strong, swift, and strategic. How we respond will send important signals to anyone who wishes our people harm.
What we should not do is start asking “why?” It’s not the time to try to “understand” why someone would intentionally target innocent civilians at a sporting event. Of course the perpetrators of a bombing like this have motives — ideological, political, religious, or otherwise — but those are of no consequence right now. We’ll all eventually find out why they did what they did, yet there will not be a moment where we say “Ah ha, now I know why they planted bombs at the Boston marathon . . . sounds reasonable.” Why the attacker killed innocent civilians matters very little right now.
That’s why I winced a bit while watching the president speak last night. His words were somber and appropriate, but missed in two subtle ways. First, the president did not use the word “terror” or “terrorism.” While I don’t (yet) fully begrudge the president for this, it would have been nice to hear him acknowledge what we all know (and which the White House quickly clarified, calling it “an act of terror”). Second, and more subtly, the president immediately coupled the “who?” with the “why?” when he said:
"We still do not know who did this or why. And people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. But make no mistake — we will get to the bottom of this. And we will find out who did this; we’ll find out why they did this. Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice."
I am not casting aspersions on the president. At this critical moment, we stand fully united with him and those in Boston (where I am proud to currently hang my hat). But it’s also important that we don’t get distracted by the “why” and stay focused on finding, and bringing to justice, the “who.”
To ask “why” implies that it may have been deserved.
It also suggests that some change of policy or behaviour might be in order....also known as appeasement. Bad idea.
Yeah, it was that nut, Rudolph, that set bombs at the abortion clinic, then lived in the hills for a year or two. Sawed off hs arm with a table saw. Then caught sneaking into town foraging for food.
Serving four life sentences for the murders. He confessed to the Olympic park bombing.
9/11 had some pretty big fingerprints, all over the country. If this is a small op, it may take a while.
Hijackings are innately easier to “solve” because the bad guys had to be on the planes, it’s a self limiting suspect list. Even if they had fake IDs that’s what facial recognition software is for, that pings the people then you get the organization. Bombings can be much more anonymous, somebody clever can even get innocent bystanders to deliver the bombs, somebody really clever doesn’t even have to be in the state or country.
The only reason the MSM would ask "why" is if one of their favored groups was behind this crime.
If the killer is a Muslim or a black panther group - the MSM will ask 'WHY' - meaning it's somehow the fault of ALL Americans or Whites or Conservatives... whatever.
But if the killer is an Right Winger they won't ask why... because they hate us - and they'll have thousands of suggestions - - all of them blaming us...
If the killer is gay or liberal - then he's mentally ill and needs our understanding. That's AP style book, right? /s
Well, John Doe #2 sure wasn’t Ramsey Yousef. Some claim Terry Nichols met him in the Philipines.
Someone with a microphone should ask where Zero’s buddy Bill Ayers was yesterday and if he’s using his unique expertise to aid in the investigation.
Good article, but you know the media’s going straight for the “why” angle. It’s a great opportunity to show off the Sociology classes they had to take in J-school.
“What about Oklahoma City?”
Yea verily!! Who was that black-haired man of swarthy complexion, seen accompanying McVeigh when renting a Ryder truck, and again with McV walking away from the truck they had parked beneath the Murrah building; the subject of diligent FBI search for about two days, a search abruptly terminated by Pres. Bubba Clinton without public explanation? Successful apprehension of this man could have brought our C-in-C into confrontation with an adversary with whom he preferred not to deal. 9/11 lurked in the future. IMHO.
If I may be ‘au courant,’ Obama’s gonna be sweating political bullets every day that the perp goes missing.
The fact that she is addressed with the title “Honorable” already gives me the jitters.
You might want to avoid pairing "Obama" with "bullets" in the same sentence. Even though any sensible reader will understand the context, if you give the secret service enough rope, they won't defer to common sense, not when a statement can be stretched to a possible threat. Your comment will bomb with them, and they will go nuclear over your choice of words. It's just nice to be careful because a couple of careless key words can invite unwanted attention and poison the whole discussion.
I'm pretty in tune with implied threats, and the poster's comment didn't give me any impression of that at all. "Sweating bullets" is a longstanding phrase well understood to have ZERO to do with violence.
True, but it was fun to throw "nuclear" and "bomb" in there with "rope", "poison", and "threat". If I was serious, I would have reported it as abuse rather than posted with other sensitive words.
I saw the recommendation of a book on FR and followed through and bought it.
The Third Terrorist.
The Middle East Connection To The Oklahoma City Bombing.
Jayna Davis.
Nelson Current
2004
What interested me was the meticulous approach to the subject by the author. The number of so-called refugees from Iraq in Oklahoma City. Some openly supported Saddam Hussein. A follow up was that the man who was with McVeigh, attacked a homeless man with a bottle. He was an Al Husseni. The author identified him.
The strange thing is of the complete and absolute (apparently) interest of the law enforcement and support groups in the Jayna Davis theories and research.
I smile sadly when I remember Bin Laden being held in Africa. President Clinton said it was against international law to get him extradited. The Africans wanted to get rid of him anyway they could. We all know what followed.
Whoops. Sorry. My bad.
The strange thing is of the complete and absolute (apparently) LACK of interest of the law enforcement.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.