Chris Matthews On Bombers: "What Difference Does It Make Why They Did It?"

Hey Goldie! (I posted a thread in "economics" at PH yesterday lol....first in years)

to your comment.... are gleaning motivations important or unimportant to successfully prosecute a "hate crime" case? ....or determining whether or not someone pulls a 1st degree murder rap or negligent homicide?

 

I dunno Web....they guy is as good as dead, even if the prosecutor is me, and I'm not a lawyer.

What I am sure of....is we don't need to use this court case to benefit national security. You can be sure we have every assett working with Russian intel, and even the Georgians, to find out what is up over there.

I think this whole kerfuffle is just the righty media doing it's predictable duty trying to make Obama look soft on terror

 

"Man caused disasters" and "workplace violence", you mean. It's not as if ObamaCo has given any prior indications to being a little squeemish in confronting Islamic terrorism head on, or anything.

 

Terrorism does not have to be politically motivated. If I start leaving bombs in random places and they go off hurting and killing people would it matter why?

You say yes I say no.

I might just want to hurt random people.

Terrorism has been linked to political goals of the terrorist. We as a society do that because people who kill always must have a justification. Some folks don't have any justification they just hurt others.

 

Pitiful equivocation. Pitiful defense of Matthew's blatant attempt to shield Obama from having to answer for an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil during his watch.

Pitiful.

 

It could be legitimately argued that there is never any justification for terrorism and murder, but that's a whole different matter from motivation.

The fact is, it does matter what motivates people to kill. It matters to the prosecution, it matters to the judges and juries and it matters to a society that wants to prevent the repetition of these acts.

 

But fighting terror is not the job of the courts, it's the job of the miltary and intel, and intel doesn't need the courts to do it's job.

You don't need to stick your chest out to fight terror. Obama's administration has obviously done a pretty good job of fighting terror with a minimal loss of life, compared to the Bush admin's shock and awe approach.

Having said that...now that I think a little more...the guys who trained that idiot in Chechnya are probably in hiding now, and if our intel can't get them on thier own...at that point I can see taking him out of the court system, and making him an enemy combatant,

But if you just want to saddle this guy with the death penalty.....just watch how easy that's gonna be. Nobody needs to be all fragile because Mathews said something didn't matter

 

I think what Matthews said does matter...I think it speaks to yet another attempt....a SYSTEMIC attempt....by the progressive lie machine to shield Obama from answering for anything perceived as negative happening on his watch.

I think, in their eyes, Obama MUST ONLY be seen as THE RIGHTEOUS FIGHTER against all the mysterious forces out there that are trying to harm the ever ungrateful unwashed proles...and when he fails to protect them...when he fails to protect ambassadors and staff in Benghazi....when he fails to protect soldiers at Ft. Hood....

the rules must be changed...language and definitions must be altered and revised....video producers must be blamed..."painful" sequester deals and consulate security budget cuts must be laid off on Republicans......and, of course, the motivations behind this latest Islamic terrorist attack must be hidden, minimized or "nuanced" in such ways that deflect any real culpability away from Obama.

and I think.............no, I KNOW.......... I'm 100% correct.

 

Considering his answers yesterday point to being a radical Islamist, like everyone suspected, what argument is left?

 

Its not Chris Matthews job to see that this guy is punished. As a journalist its supposed to be his job to find the truth. He seems very unwilling to do his job on this case. Nice try but both of you blew it.

 

The Boston Bombers along with every Islamic terrorist in the world buy into a belief of an Islamic Caliphate. This means by either killing every Jew and Infidel on the planet or converting the ones they don't kill to the Islamic faith and Sharia law. There is no half-way solution to these people.

The world needs to understand this. Wise up Americans.

 

Just keep repeating it pal...just keep repeating it.

Remember when Hillary made Republicans furious by stating their fussing about who did what during Bhengazi didn't make a difference when they were worried more about the murdered Americans and the next of kin.

You guys just hate it when lefties minimize your panties bunching up

 

That's been a big puzzler for me. Islamic radicals are not exactly drawing a line between Liberal and Conservative Americans. They want both types dead. So it's hard to fathom how Liberals think they can make common cause with them. Unless he converts, Chris Matthew's headless body would end up in the same ditch as mine.

 

As Pilate asked, what is truth? Matthews was looking for the truth as to the suspect's actual guilt. Van Zandt was looking for the truth as to the suspect's possible connections. These are different truths. Since both of them came out, it looks like good journalism. But nice try.

- - - Updated - - -

??? Who wants to make common cause with Islamic radicals? If anything, those guys have found one of the only ways I've ever seen to unite liberals and conservatives in a common cause - to stamp out Islamic radicals.

 

He was sure interested in motivation last week. I wonder what happened since then?

 

But they don't Mike.....you guys just run away with stuff in your minds and create all these unsupported conclusions.

Do you see what you just did? Mathews asks if something is neccessary for the prosecution of the case...and you call him a terrorist lover.

Do you read what you write?

 

Every time I listen to Chrissie, I feel a thrill go up my stomach, spurting in excitement through my esophagus until it comes out my mouth as vomit.

 

That's what I always thought should have happened. That's why it's such a puzzler for me. A radical interpretation of Islam and the type of society it supports is the polar opposite of the type of society that liberals would want. It seems common sense that conservatives and liberals should be on the same side on this. But as you must have seen last week, the default guilty party for liberals was not the common sense answer, but some fantasy right wing Palinite. No that we know who the real terrorists are, suddenly there is a lack of interest on the case by the left. That is what this thread is about. The left would rather blame conservatives for terrorism than the groups that are actually committing terrorism on a world wide scale.

Like I said, it's a puzzler.

 

What's really ironic is that Islamic radicals are probably going to despise liberals more than conservatives. Homosexuality? Drug use? Debauched Sandra Fluke types? Atheism? None of these things are going to fly with hard-lined followers of Islam. At least Muslims give Christians and Jews the choice to live as 2nd class citizens in their society if they won't convert, assuming they pay their jizya taxes for protection and follow a laundry list of draconian laws designed to keep them in a perpetual state of decline. With pagans, they either convert or they die. No other option exists.

Progressives see Muslims as just another disenfranchised minority group who they can cull into voting Democrat. It's been working. They were the 2nd most loyal group in 2012 to the Democrat party, behind only blacks. There's a couple other reasons as well: Muslims usually have dark skin, so they tug at the heart strings of self-loathing whites who just can't wait to apologize to them and make them feel good. Progressives also see Muslims as having the same enemy that they do, the white Christian majority, so there's a natural alliance there, as well.

They'll eventually learn that carrying the water for the Islamization of the West is not going to spare them. This will happen in Europe before it happens here.

 

Thank goodness.

I had thought maybe I had missed the daily conservative cluster (*)(*)(*)(*) (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about Obama and liberals thread.

 

exactly!.....when uncertainty made "right-wing extremist, tax day, patriots day" easy to insinuate into the conversation, motivation was all the rage....

now that the "fog of controversy" (thanks, Nan) has been lifted, motivation is no longer a factor.

 

If you think I'm just making it all up in my head I suggest you go back and read the threads that were created starting the day of the bombing up until we we knew who the suspects were.

As for Matthew's statement, I think we're just reading it differently. "Why is that important to -- is that important to prosecuting?"

The way I read that, he seems to be saying it's only important if it's needed as part of building a case.




Lefties Get it Wrong Again

 

No, not if charged in State Court. Same with our terrorist suspect. There is no death penalty in Mass.

For the death penalty they will have to go federal.

 

I'm too lazy to post a "head in sand" picture right now....so do me a solid, and visualize one for me.

thnxsomuch.

 

It has happened

In general, Middle Eastern cultures are less violent than the US. Certainly they have jailed far fewer of their citizens. It seems likely that Islam lends itself to extremists, but it's not clear that even Islamic terrorism is primarily religious.

Sorry, but I was looking and that's not what I saw at all. One editorial expressed a hope that some already-feared minority group wasn't behind it, because the US is already TOO polarized by ideology and religion, and that would only make the polarization worse. So the writer hoped the criminal(s) wouldn't be polarizing. Polarization is bad, it leads to more violence.

I have to ask who "the left" is now, since all the major networks continued giving the case 24/7 coverage well after the real terrorists were dead or captured. Which makes since, given the enormity of the crime. But even so, MOST crimes stop getting front-page coverage after they're solved and the danger is over.

It's only puzzling because you have completely mischaracterized what is happening, and then you can't understand why reality won't fit your fantasy. The desire to reduce hostility and polarization isn't necessarily a left-wing desire. Nobody has even suggested leniency for this whacko.