Remember when someone said this:
And this:
And this:
And why not this:
Well, it turns out that the bombers were Tamerlane Tsarnaev and his brother, Dzhokhar, Chechen immigrants to the US. Tamerlane was shot and killed by police after a car-jacking and the killing of an MIT police officer while his younger brother is still at large as of this writing. Dzhokhar, described as personable, posted links to pro-Chechnyan and Islamic sites on his social media page. His family are both baffled and angry at their actions.
One must also recall the hostage-taking and massacre at Beslan in September 2004.
Now, at what point does one understand the tensions that would cause two people to devise, plant and detonate bombs that killed three people, including a child, and lacerate hundreds more? Do children who have had their legs blown off really need to understand the motivations or emotions of a terrorist whose cause could not be any further away from them? Does one really need to examine alleged racial privilege when the motive may be sectarian or political? If a holy book instructs millions of its followers to dominate the globe, is that a no-brainer or is further examination warranted?
The statements regarding understanding motives or racial privilege are distractions at best and insulting at worst. A terrorist act is a terrorist act. Do we forgive the wife beater because he has had a troubled life/long day/bad temper or do we right ourselves with the moral compass we are supposed to possess and stamp out transgression wherever we see it? One doesn't need to further comment on Ayers' or Redford's disgusting support of violent acts. What needs to be done is to have one's head screwed on straight. Morality is not a relative thing. It was once carved in stone. We should start acting like that again.
(Merci)
"But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?"
And this:
If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
And this:
The Chicago Sun-Times has compiled a list of domestic bombings since 1886. Included in the list are two by Bill Ayers' former group, the Weather Underground. Ayers and his fellow former terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, are close friends of President Obama, who did not call yesterday's Boston Marathon bombings as acts of terror.
And why not this:
"ALL OF IT,” said Robert Redford, when asked if he supported the bombings by The Weather Underground.
Well, it turns out that the bombers were Tamerlane Tsarnaev and his brother, Dzhokhar, Chechen immigrants to the US. Tamerlane was shot and killed by police after a car-jacking and the killing of an MIT police officer while his younger brother is still at large as of this writing. Dzhokhar, described as personable, posted links to pro-Chechnyan and Islamic sites on his social media page. His family are both baffled and angry at their actions.
One must also recall the hostage-taking and massacre at Beslan in September 2004.
Now, at what point does one understand the tensions that would cause two people to devise, plant and detonate bombs that killed three people, including a child, and lacerate hundreds more? Do children who have had their legs blown off really need to understand the motivations or emotions of a terrorist whose cause could not be any further away from them? Does one really need to examine alleged racial privilege when the motive may be sectarian or political? If a holy book instructs millions of its followers to dominate the globe, is that a no-brainer or is further examination warranted?
The statements regarding understanding motives or racial privilege are distractions at best and insulting at worst. A terrorist act is a terrorist act. Do we forgive the wife beater because he has had a troubled life/long day/bad temper or do we right ourselves with the moral compass we are supposed to possess and stamp out transgression wherever we see it? One doesn't need to further comment on Ayers' or Redford's disgusting support of violent acts. What needs to be done is to have one's head screwed on straight. Morality is not a relative thing. It was once carved in stone. We should start acting like that again.
(Merci)
No comments:
Post a Comment