bombs in Boston ... and now in Texas???

Perhaps the commentator has forgotten about (or perhaps never heard of, it was 17 years ago) Eric Rudolph, the man who plead guilty to bombing the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and who hid out in the North Carolina mountains.

I understand that. My point is that the very little of the speculation is worthwhile. Well, today's word seems to be that no other bombs were found.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You've made a series of posts which stop just short of saying that you can envision some set of circumstances under which blowing off children's legs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon might be a logical and correct act.Could you stop being coy and give us some examples of circumstances you think would fit the bill?

Thank you for that. So when people say that there are no reasons they, as you just did, are expressing their own opinions. There is no need to annouce such posts with 'In my opinion', because that should be the default case for every post.Such expressions of what is reasonable are not challengable on the basis that someone else might think differently. And that's particularly so when you don't even disagree with the opinion expressed. Right. We should accept that attacking a concept by maiming children is just incidental damage? Well, no, we shouldn't. Yes, that's certainly possible. It's also something you never actually got around to clearly expressing until I called you on what you actually did say. Sometimes your 'It's just that simple' minimalist method of posting doesn't effectively communicate with others. I don't expect you to change your posting style. But understand that in this case, being cryptic was earning you an odious reputation that you don't deserve.

As a matter of fact, it well might. I can envision at least some scenarios which don't make sense for an American that might make sense for a native of For example, someone in Yemen might feel that his country should be in a state of war with the US because of drone strikes. I wouldn't expect a cowboy from Wyoming to be able to make that same call.And in any event, the fact that the Yemen or whoever thinks his position is rational does not mean I have to agree with him or that the attacker is not disturbe. I'm not bound to adopt the same view as the attacker.

You suggested that having a target of 'Gay Marriage' might make some difference. It is perfectly correct for those of us who aren't the attacker to not accept that targetting a concept, or an institution, or a person unlikely to even be present, or an entire City or State is justification. I think that covers most of the example 'targets' you proposed. You'll let me know if I missed something. I was pretty sure you didn't think of your posts as cryptic; I would have expressed myself more directly had I thought so. But I did make an unwarranted assumption that you were actually trying to communicate something and that you cared about others understanding you.ABE:Here is a difference between a drone strike and bombing the Boston Marathon to get at Obama. A drone strike involes targetting some person who is at least believed to be present. Obama was not at the Boston Marathon, and there was no reason to expect him to be there.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So a single person can be at war? I'm pretty sure I can find an example of you suggesting the opposite.

This sentiment makes no sense to me. We ought to do what's right regardless of whether a terrorist agrees or disagrees.Let's not spend money on detecting guns on planes because that's what the terrorists want us to do? Does that make sense to you?

Is this the best response to the issues raised in my post? Seriously, this is the best you can do?

But he couldn't think he or his country was at war with the US, now could he? We can eliminate at least one possible rationalization from the list, can we not?But I've made my point, I think. Since we aren't required to adopt the rationalizations of the target, we are still free to believe that there is no state of war with the citizen in Wyoming and that even a war rationalization for targetting marathoners and marathon attendees is completely bogus.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

By your own admission, such rationalizations are wrong. He cannot be at war with the US.

I agree, for some definition of the word 'ideology'. But some policies we might have are clearly counterproductive, and one of the factors that makes them counterproductive is the expectation of a terrorist response. I know the neo-cons tell us not to think like that, but I think that advice is foolhardy.

Jar says not quite.Perhaps if you ask jar a dozen more questions or if I continue interrogating him in my own testy style we can find out what he really thinks. Is getting jar 'right' really worth that level of effort?

I read on CNN that Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were asking for the surviving bomber to be held as an enemy combatant. Reports are that Dzhokar is a naturalized American citizen.I've tried to research the current definition of enemy combatant, and it seems that it can apply to American citizens acting for a foreign interest. Not sure how we get there with a couple of an expat Russian.Any opinions about what the executive branch will do in this regard? Seems like we'll get another test case for our post 9/11 constitution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think Manning has at least been charged an indicted and was given Maranda rights. The rest of his treatment can be blamed on preventing release of classified info.ABE: Isn't he still under military jurisdiction as well?No such excuse for treating the bomber differently from say the DC sniper, unless they can classify him as an enemy combatant. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.