Should forum posters who sympathize with islamic terrorists be on the watch list?

[Truthmatters]

What I notice here is a wide difference between people claiming to be right versus those claiming to be left

It appears to me that right-identifying people have far less empathic understanding than lefties.

So when, as one example, a Lefty says something like

"The reason the terrorists attacked WTC on 911 was because they saw that structure as being the capital of the West."

The leftie is trying to put themselves in the mindspace of the terrorist to understand who they are what motives them, etc.

But to those lacking empathic abilites, the ONLY WAY a person can think LIKE a terrorist is if that person IS a terrorist or terrorist SYMPATHizer.

Empathy is, incidently one of the FORMS of intelligence that are inate in the species (It's more typically called interpersonal intelligence)

But if one is deficient of that kind if intelligence, when other people use it to intuit what motivates others, one isn't likely to get their point.




Basically, its like one group can see in color and the other group doesn't believe its even possible.

yes without the full range of human emotion one is an incomplete human.

such as sociopaths

 

[LoudMcCloud]

We are all on the watch list. Were have you been since 2001!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I mean, really. Should they? I have often wondered how they fit into the puzzle, apologizing constantly for American and sticking up for islamists who murder Americans. I ask the question without knowing whether they are already there or not.

Did the op ever actually name names?

If you agree with her, who do you believe is "sticking up for Islamists who murder Americans"?

I ask because I have yet to read any poster who has done that.

Thanks.

 

[emilynghiem]

If these posters are sympathetic with attacks on innocent civilians, ask them if they are willing to help the attackers pay the restitution costs. Marla Rusicka of CIVIC worked WITH the military and Congress to make sure part of US funds went to help innocent civilians hurt by collateral damage by US war actions; so there was responsibility taken where people asked and pushed for it.

So if these people truly BELIEVE what they are saying, ask them if they will come out and join people like the Uncle in asking forgiveness and making amends to the victims. If they are serious, they will. If not, they will probably shut up quickly, as it will be obvious they are just mouthing off and not really willing to take responsibility for their views. So how real are those convictions?

I mean, really. Should they? I have often wondered how they fit into the puzzle, apologizing constantly for American and sticking up for islamists who murder Americans. I ask the question without knowing whether they are already there or not.

I know of two posters on a Muslim forum I believe are dangerous people and probably are being watched by the UK government. But, in general, no.

How about the posters that support US government drone murders of Americans abroad; shoulf they be watched?

I believe we should ALL watch out constantly for people who may be a danger to themselves or others. Not to judge or reject, but to make sure ALL people get help. Not just for possible predators or terrorists online, but anyone who exhibits abusive behavior and needs help to be more productive and not a risk of inflicting abuse on themselves or others.

If we develop a no-tolerance standard to nip any abuse or bullying at the onset, then people like these bombers could get help before they go too far. The older brother was already acting abusive and criminal toward other people before the attacks were carried out.

This seems like a broad task, but if you think about it, how many more acts of crime abuse or violence could be stopped if we all do a little more outreach to make sure each person gets help. If everyone told them that, and refused to participate in enabling negative bullying or abusive behavior, then we would enforce a consistent msg in society. It would get easier and easier to spot the problem people in the crowd.

And yes, for extremely sick and dangeous people, these should be reported to authorities to make sure there is intervention where the problem is beyond counseling or personal help.

I have friends who can help just about anyone, or refer them to get help, and I posted their # on a website for other people to call in if they know someone in trouble:
freespiritualhealing | Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

If we respond with fear rejection and division, it stirs more negative energy from different people and masks where the problems are coming from; but if we focus on forgiveness and correction, like the Uncle who spoke out on behalf of the family, the more people do that, it is clear who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution. So it will be easier to pinpoint and address. If all communities do this, on a level we can each reach out one on one personally within our network, then collectively we can cover a lot of ground.

 

[Jos]

It has been an interesting phenomenon to watch. Those who feel a deep combination of grief, anger, revulsion, and violation that any human could do such a thing to other humans in a most intentional and deliberate way vs those who are relating to the bombers and feeling compassion for them. Trying to explain them. Trying to excuse them for what they did.

Terrorism is different than artillery or bombs in time of war. When we Americans fight war, the intent is not to harm innocents but to end the danger, end aggression, stop killing and mayhem. There is no intent to harm innocents even when we know that is an unfortunate probability. In war we can and do pull our punches in an effort to minimalize danger and harm to innocent civilians as much as possible. And as Americans, we feel remorse and grief when innocents do suffer.

But we all saw the video of the bomber putting down the bag, intentionally, on purpose, near the kids, their moms, their dads who were guilty of nothing other than joyously enjoying a holiday. The intent was to hurt, kill, maim as many such people as possible.

Imagine the father finishing the race, hugging his kids, and then being just far enough away to see his son killed, his wife gravely injured, his daughter's leg blown off. This is where our sympathy and concern and focus belongs. I'm sorry but I can find no justification for such an act in my heart, and I honestly don't care why somebody would do it, who recruited him, who inspired him. I cannot see such an act as anything other than pure evil to be condemned.

Where did you see that video? do you have a link?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It has been an interesting phenomenon to watch. Those who feel a deep combination of grief, anger, revulsion, and violation that any human could do such a thing to other humans in a most intentional and deliberate way vs those who are relating to the bombers and feeling compassion for them. Trying to explain them. Trying to excuse them for what they did.

Terrorism is different than artillery or bombs in time of war. When we Americans fight war, the intent is not to harm innocents but to end the danger, end aggression, stop killing and mayhem. There is no intent to harm innocents even when we know that is an unfortunate probability. In war we can and do pull our punches in an effort to minimalize danger and harm to innocent civilians as much as possible. And as Americans, we feel remorse and grief when innocents do suffer.

But we all saw the video of the bomber putting down the bag, intentionally, on purpose, near the kids, their moms, their dads who were guilty of nothing other than joyously enjoying a holiday. The intent was to hurt, kill, maim as many such people as possible.

Imagine the father finishing the race, hugging his kids, and then being just far enough away to see his son killed, his wife gravely injured, his daughter's leg blown off. This is where our sympathy and concern and focus belongs. I'm sorry but I can find no justification for such an act in my heart, and I honestly don't care why somebody would do it, who recruited him, who inspired him. I cannot see such an act as anything other than pure evil to be condemned.

Where did you see that video? do you have a link?

It has been shown a gazillion times on the news. As TM said, it was right in back of where the little boy who was killed was standing. Just horrible, incredible lack of feeling that anyone could do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Luddly and Editec: Very thoughtful observations.
1. I find that the left/liberals/Democrats tend to focus more on "inclusion/diversity"
(but to the expense of enforcing rule of law, where social justice is often promoted in ways that
conflict with equal justice because it excludes the opposing objections needed to balance the scales)
2. I find that the right/conservatives/Republicans tend to focus more on "rule of law"
(but often at the expense of accounting for mitigating circumstances so it's truly equal and not imposed from a limited viewpoint)

So the two need to balance each other; we need BOTH inclusion AND consistent enforcement of laws. (and BOTH fail to uphold their own principles perfectly either: such as liberals EXCLUDING the views of prolife or other opponents and not being universally inclusive of all groups equally; and radical conservatives EXCLUDING free exercise of Islam under religious freedom, but some getting caught contradicting themselves pushing laws against Shariah)

3. as for "punishment," you may blame the rightwing more, but if you consider the "punishment" on taxpayers for being "too liberal" and not policing the costs
of some of the programs but dumping responsibility on others to fix, this is
indirectly "punishing" people collectively by not fixing those problems directly.

And you can also say that liberals seek to "judge and punish" corporations while the
rightwing are more willing to forgive and tolerate problems there, thus
causing taxpayers to be "punished" if these aren't resolved either.

In both cases, I notice that left and right will seek to "judge and punish"
the group they hold responsible for causing problems, and will "forgive and tolerate"
the other. And if they do not correct the problems they are "forgiving and tolerating"
this is seen as "punishment" on the taxpayers to pay for the costs in the meantime.

for example:
The liberals blame corporate welfare, while the right sees more good than harm in capitalism, and more financial benefit than losses, which they justify because the corporations generate jobs and revenue.
the rightwing blame social welfare, while the left sees more good than harm
and less cost compared with the corporate loss, waste or abuse of taxmoney.

the greens are probably the most fair in pointing out the waste on both sides
and working toward sustainable environmental solutions using the free enterprise system.

and the moderate or centrist Constitutionalists who try to enforce rule of law consistently while including the best of all groups, and not rejecting by party or position, are
probably the most fair approach and the key to pulling the resources and groups together

I see it will take a combination of left and right to include everyone but also enforce
laws and not let abuses or unresolved conflicts "punish" the taxpayers collectively

What I notice here is a wide difference between people claiming to be right versus those claiming to be left

It appears to me that right-identifying people have far less empathic understanding than lefties.

So when, as one example, a Lefty says something like

"The reason the terrorists attacked WTC on 911 was because they saw that structure as being the capital of the West."

The leftie is trying to put themselves in the mindspace of the terrorist to understand who they are what motives them, etc.

But to those lacking empathic abilites, the ONLY WAY a person can think LIKE a terrorist is if that person IS a terrorist or terrorist SYMPATHizer.

Empathy is, incidently one of the FORMS of intelligence that are inate in the species (It's more typically called interpersonal intelligence)

But if one is deficient of that kind if intelligence, when other people use it to intuit what motivates others, one isn't likely to get their point.




Basically, its like one group can see in color and the other group doesn't believe its even possible.

Very well put.

You would never see a lib/leftie suggest that people be watched or punished for what they might be thinking but its very common from the right.

Beck, Limbaugh and the other rw nutter media make an excellent living telling people to hate and be afraid of nonexistent bogey men hiding behind every bush.

There are people on the left who do the same thing.
Maybe you don't include them as part of the left,
the same way Muslims don't recognize extreme Jihadists as anything to do with them either!

 

[Jos]

It has been shown a gazillion times on the news. As TM said, it was right in back of where the little boy who was killed was standing. Just horrible, incredible lack of feeling that anyone could do that.

there is a video of the bomber putting down the bag?

What color was the bag he was "seen" putting down?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It has been shown a gazillion times on the news. As TM said, it was right in back of where the little boy who was killed was standing. Just horrible, incredible lack of feeling that anyone could do that.

there is a video of the bomber putting down the bag?

What color was the bag he was "seen" putting down?

If only you had access to the interwebs ...

Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover

Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover | Video | TheBlaze.com

Surveillance video shows bombing suspect putting bag down, walking away: Mass. gov - NYPOST.com

Note that I included links from garbage can Blaze and lying Murdoch's Post so the usual suspects can't bitch about the source.

Also note that there are other articles that are more up to date. Perhaps someone else can find those for you.

- - and, finally, I'm leaving so I won't be able to click on each one and read it aloud to you.

 

[Jos]

Patrick said he hasn't actually viewed the videotape
Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover

Patrick said he hasn’t actually viewed the videotape
Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover | Video | TheBlaze.com

Patrick said he hadn't viewed the videotape but had been briefed by law enforcement officials about it.
Surveillance video shows bombing suspect putting bag down, walking away: Mass. gov - NYPOST.com
click on each one and read it aloud to youself
So where's this video that shows the backpacks being left behind and the perps walking away? That was the big "yessir, it's them!" moment for the media and authorities - does it exist?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Patrick said he hasn't actually viewed the videotape
Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover

Patrick said he hasn’t actually viewed the videotape
Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover | Video | TheBlaze.com

Patrick said he hadn't viewed the videotape but had been briefed by law enforcement officials about it.
Surveillance video shows bombing suspect putting bag down, walking away: Mass. gov - NYPOST.com
click on each one and read it aloud to youself
So where's this video that shows the backpacks being left behind and the perps walking away? That was the big "yessir, it's them!" moment for the media and authorities - does it exist?

If you have proof that it does not exist, why don't you post it instead of doing the usual rw asshole stuff?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/fbi-releases-video-of-boston-bombing-suspects.html?hp&_r=0

Officials said they have images of one of the men putting a black backpack on the ground just minutes before two near-simultaneous blasts went off near the finish line of the marathon at 2:50 p.m. on Monday.

FBI releases video of 2 Boston bombing suspects - CBS News

The man in the white hat was seen setting down a backpack at the site of the second explosion, said Richard DesLauriers, FBI agent in charge in Boston.

Since you know so much more than the FBI, post it. Better yet, tell it to the feds.

BTW, this color is known as MORAN red.

 

[Jos]

Patrick said he hasn't actually viewed the videotape
Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover

Patrick said he hasn’t actually viewed the videotape
Gov. Patrick: ?Chilling? Video Shows Bombing Suspect Drop His Bag & Take Cover | Video | TheBlaze.com

Patrick said he hadn't viewed the videotape but had been briefed by law enforcement officials about it.
Surveillance video shows bombing suspect putting bag down, walking away: Mass. gov - NYPOST.com
click on each one and read it aloud to youself
So where's this video that shows the backpacks being left behind and the perps walking away? That was the big "yessir, it's them!" moment for the media and authorities - does it exist?

If you have proof that it does not exist, why don't you post it instead of doing the usual rw asshole stuff?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/fbi-releases-video-of-boston-bombing-suspects.html?hp&_r=0

Officials said they have images of one of the men putting a black backpack on the ground just minutes before two near-simultaneous blasts went off near the finish line of the marathon at 2:50 p.m. on Monday.

FBI releases video of 2 Boston bombing suspects - CBS News

The man in the white hat was seen setting down a backpack at the site of the second explosion, said Richard DesLauriers, FBI agent in charge in Boston.

Since you know so much more than the FBI, post it. Better yet, tell it to the feds.

BTW, this color is known as MORAN red.

The planting of the backpack, as described by authorities, was not part of the footage made public.[/QUOTE]
from your link
(darkred suits you)

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I mean, really. Should they? I have often wondered how they fit into the puzzle, apologizing constantly for American and sticking up for islamists who murder Americans. I ask the question without knowing whether they are already there or not.

Hmmm, interesting question. Perhaps they should. But if so, so should people who make malicious, hateful statements about the President of the United States and his family. I'm mean any hint of a threat to our President is a threat to our country. The majority elected him and he must be protected...no matter who he is.

I've seen some people exhibit rage against the president that is strong enough I could imagine them taking action, if you know what I mean. So, yes, maybe they should be watched.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Now, if the fact that I am a woman who cannot help but be dismayed that this 19-year-old boy has so destroyed his life and the lives of others and I want to understand "why" makes me suspicious to the FBI and puts me on a watch list..well, I think that's out of line and a waste of their time. I don't defend this kid, but I have compassion for him. And that's my RIGHT as a citizen of this country. When the government starts intruding on our rights without sufficient cause...THAT'S a problem.

 

[SAYIT]

Now, if the fact that I am a woman who cannot help but be dismayed that this 19-year-old boy has so destroyed his life and the lives of others and I want to understand "why" makes me suspicious to the FBI and puts me on a watch list..well, I think that's out of line and a waste of their time. I don't defend this kid, but I have compassion for him. And that's my RIGHT as a citizen of this country. When the government starts intruding on our rights without sufficient cause...THAT'S a problem.

Uh-huh.
It's waaay better that we allow the bleeding hearts to tempt us to shrug our collective shoulders and accept the inevitability of the next attack because, rest assured, it is being planned as we speak. Whose kids will be the next victims? Mine? Yours?
You are correct that we should not waste our resources watching those bleeding hearts but watching only those who actually pose a threat is "profiling."

 

[Pogo]

I mean, really. Should they? I have often wondered how they fit into the puzzle, apologizing constantly for American and sticking up for islamists who murder Americans. I ask the question without knowing whether they are already there or not.

Did the op ever actually name names?

If you agree with her, who do you believe is "sticking up for Islamists who murder Americans"?

I ask because I have yet to read any poster who has done that.

Thanks.

I've been asking that same question of both this and the other wacko thread saying the same thing. The absolute best answer I've gotten so far as been "well I'm sure I saw those posts but I'm not going to look them up" -- the old "my dog ate my homework" line.

But actually there is such a poster who is exactly what this thread is about.
We all know him.
Here's his picture:

 

[SAYIT]

I mean, really. Should they? I have often wondered how they fit into the puzzle, apologizing constantly for American and sticking up for islamists who murder Americans. I ask the question without knowing whether they are already there or not.

Nah. Most are just half-baked ideologues in desperate need of a dose of reality. Once they are impacted directly by one of these terror attacks most will sober up.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Now, if the fact that I am a woman who cannot help but be dismayed that this 19-year-old boy has so destroyed his life and the lives of others and I want to understand "why" makes me suspicious to the FBI and puts me on a watch list..well, I think that's out of line and a waste of their time. I don't defend this kid, but I have compassion for him. And that's my RIGHT as a citizen of this country. When the government starts intruding on our rights without sufficient cause...THAT'S a problem.

Uh-huh.
It's waaay better that we allow the bleeding hearts to tempt us to shrug our collective shoulders and accept the inevitability of the next attack because, rest assured, it is being planned as we speak. Whose kids will be the next victims? Mine? Yours?
You are correct that we should not waste our resources watching those bleeding hearts but watching only those who actually pose a threat is "profiling."

Have you ever heard the saying "Freedom isn't free?"

Well, this is part of what that saying means. There is a price for freedom. And having some bad guys get away or being able to plot their crimes because the authorities aren't allowed to just go around kicking in people's doors in this country...well, that's part of the price.

If there is reasonable cause to kick down someone's door, fine. But we have to be very, very careful about taking those kinds of intrusive government actions so far that they start infringing on our rights.

That would be much worse, MUCH, MUCH worse than the occasional terrorist attack.

Remember also, America is the land of the free and home of the BRAVE. Sometimes maintaining that freedom requires us to be brave. Such as taking certain chances in order to maintain our freedom and our rights.

 

[SAYIT]

I mean, really. Should they? I have often wondered how they fit into the puzzle, apologizing constantly for American and sticking up for islamists who murder Americans. I ask the question without knowing whether they are already there or not.

Hmmm, interesting question. Perhaps they should. But if so, so should people who make malicious, hateful statements about the President of the United States and his family. I'm mean any hint of a threat to our President is a threat to our country. The majority elected him and he must be protected...no matter who he is.

I've seen some people exhibit rage against the president that is strong enough I could imagine them taking action, if you know what I mean. So, yes, maybe they should be watched.

There is some sort of irrationality some suffer when the name Obama is spoken that reminds me of the response of the "truthers" when 9/11 is mentioned. The man is our President and needs our support, not mindless enmity.