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

What is with progressives and facing harsh reality? When they fail or their ideology is shown to be defective, they act like Jr. High School kids and say "what difference does it make?" as if that changes anything.

If the Boston Bombers had been Tea Party members or even tax protesters, Matthews would be trying to connect them to Rush, Beck, Fox News, Ronald Reagan, and the NRA.
But, now that we find out that they were Muslim terrorists who hate our guts for being outside of the "House of Peace" (Islam) and in the fair game "House of War" (non-Muslims), Chris doesn't want to talk about motivations.

These progressives have made it abundantly clear who they see as the real enemy- non-progressives Americans. They have much in common with Islamists. They too have their Houses of Peace and War. Bill Clinton (House of Peace) can disgrace his office and commit perjury and the Left will defend him against the infidels. But, Trent Lott or Newt (non-progressives so fair game in the House of War) make a mistake or say something deemed insensitive by the progressive mainstream media, and they must be destroyed politically. Such is the way it goes with our homegrown progressive-ists.

Chris Matthews on Boston Bombings: 'Domestic Terrorists...Tend to Be on the Far Right'
[video=youtube;9XCqv8sUoog]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XCqv8sUoog[/video]

 

Playing the Hillary game.

 

Like I correctly predicted, progressives are not going to want to talk about Islamic extremism because they have allied themselves with Muslims. They have the same enemies here in America, so they share common interests with each other. Focusing on this highlights the failures of the left's experiment of multiculturalism, and they must protect that with every weak fiber in their body.

 

I can see where someone like myself would say "who cares why", but someone like him? No. He wanted it to be a right wing terrorist so badly he was drooling.

 

I agree. At best, the fact that the bombers were hate-filled Muslims willing to kill even American children after being in America for many years as teens, calls into question their multiculturalism dogma.

At worst, the Hard Left identifies with any group attacking the United States in a form of self-loathing, white, colonial guilt, and totalitarian socialist zeal.

 

If only there were a contest for the most nonsensical political persuasion on the planet and a decent prize to whoever correctly identified it.

 

They are clearly talking past one another. Matthews is looking at the evidence against the remaining suspect and finding it so overwhelming that no extenuating circumstances could make any difference. He wants to see the guilty guy punished, and from that perspective, the motivation is irrelevant. If you kill someone, you killed someone. What was going on in your head doesn't much matter.

Van Zandt is not really concerned with punishing the perp, because that's not his job. The legal process will take care of that. Instead, Van Zandt is concerned about whether others are involved, directly or indirectly. And if so, how can they be identified and neutralized. I wouldn't be surprised if Van Zandt might wish to let Tsarnaev go free, if he thought following him might lead to someone higher in a possible organization.

So this isn't a contrast between airheaded "progressives" and realist "conservatives". Rather, it's a contrast between two entirely different jobs - seeing that the guy is punished, and seeing if there's undiscovered danger still out there.

 

what's worse is have you seen the photos on-line taken with an IPhone by one witness during the shootout? If he had a rifle, he could have ended the drama right then and there. Why aren't progressives talking about that?

 

As country we need to know why so we might be able to protect ourseleves in the future
As for me I could careless why they. did it They hurt and killed a large number of people. If you focus on the why you are giving the bombers and their cause more airtime, neither of which deserves it.

 

As usual Glock, you have completely misunderstood what someone was asking....

Mathews said "Why is that important to -- is that important to prosecuting?"

He wasn't saying it's not important in general...righties like you made that inaccurate leap

Quite typical, why am I surprised....

 

Matthews is going out of his way to say that because it clearly makes him uncomfortable. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is charged with terrorism (and there is no reason not to) then his motivation will be a key part of the prosecution.

If the Obama admin refuses to charge him with terrorism, then it would be likely to avoid bringing up his Islamist motivations which are political as well as religious as Islam itself is.

 

They aren't talking about it because it doesn't help them advance the left wing agenda.

 

Many progressives told us here at PF that AR-15's weren't needed to stop deadly threats. But, I sure saw a lot of police officers with them? Now, why would they carry AR-15's with 30 round magazines, if they didn't work or if handguns with only seven rounds allowed in the hand gun were just as effective?

 

Mod edit>>>metapost/PA
you don't have to post in the thread

So what...he's guilty...and why even waste tax payer dollars introducing motivation?....do you think that'll make the death sentence he definitly has coming any different?

 

I'm sure Mr.Legthrill Swallows a Lot would be saying that , if the attack was by "right wing militia members", instead of ISLAMIST TERRORISTS, wouldn't he?

 

Oh Jesus, must I explain the criminal system???

They want as many indictment counts as possible. Motivations opens up additional charges and counts that can be applied to the prosecution.

 

Matthews would be salaciously presenting ALL MANNER of prognostications to the motivations had "right-wing extremists" been involved.....as would the entire progressive media lie machine

 

I know that I've heard motive mentioned on TV court shows.

 

If it was a "right-wing extremist" Tea Party member, MSNBC would have fodder for months. Now that it's just another Islamic terror attack, they want the story to go away as soon as possible.

 

The prosecution has way more then enough potent points to justify the death penalty....what are you after?....you want them to kill him harder?....or somehow with more intensity?

Do you think they need motivation to get the death penalty?

 

Why wouldn't motivation be important in a terrorism case? How do you prove terrorism without a political component?

Chris just doens't want to talk about his Muslim motivation. We too bad. They are both Muslim terrorists. The progressive multicultural fantasy isn't working again.

 

I think the people who lost their limbs deserve to know why this happened, don't you? Even if it's not endorsed by the politically correct left?

- - - Updated - - -

If wonder if Goldwater would be arguing against motivation in a "hate crime" case involving a white perp and a black victim?

 

Just like Kermit Gosnell. God forbid any hot lights be shed on the underbelly of their happy, empowering
"womens' right to choose" dogma

 

"What Difference Does It Make Why They Did It?"

When you do not know who they are it makes no difference, they are Al Quacka, it quacks like a duck, go out and kill some (any known) terrorists just for good measure. When you know who they are it is considerably important to know who (which you now have some ideal), what, when, where, why, and how; still go out and kill some (any known) terrorists just for good measure. So Chris Matthews is what now?

“Have IQ's Dropped Sharply While I Was Away?” (Ripley)

 

If someone killed two people with a gun in a drug gang shoot out and insured 20 others, would that person, in your opinion, get the death penalty in Boston?

--be honest.

Motive allows you to apply terrorism charges that will pretty much ensure the death penalty, yes.