I'm talking about a larger context than Zimmerman and even the US, based on about 25 yeas of being aware of how arguments and statements are presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
I'm talking about a larger context than Zimmerman and even the US, based on about 25 yeas of being aware of how arguments and statements are presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Come on Rudy......What will happen if every pretty face we see becomes a role model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Nah...Most people are too rudimentary for this....If I think twice, I wouldn't mind if a certain guy kidnapped me. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Why would it be sick?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Would it be more comforting if he was more obviously 'evil' or fell into an easily stereotyped beardy Muslim fanatic living in the desert counting his camels?
The fact is that this character was complicated but seemed pretty normal until the terrorist attacks. He wasn't an attention seeker, a loser who had no other way of being successful except by plastering himself over the newspapers by killing thousands. He was successful by any measure, popular and intelligent with a place at medical school, yet he threw it away by choosing to kill as many civilians as possible. Yet here you are, joined by several other people who notably are all American in saying you do not wish to try to understand how it is that he could do what he did. So how does sticking your fingers into your ears and saying that you don't want to hear or understand help you exactly?
You might not be interested in these details but for organisations like the CIA and FBI who are in the business of identifying future terrorists how this kid went from someone who was Westernised (which is after all the point of the cover photo, he was taking self-portraits having preened himself which is what a lot of well adjusted kids do), at ease in his new host country, popular and successful to someone who wanted to hurt his host nation as much as he possibly could is of great importance, and as someone who doesn't care for knee-jerk responses nor simple one word explanations of why things happen, I'm interested too.
Its definitely not easy or comfortable finding out more about home-grown terrorists, after all their actions are suggestive that your cultural values are so flawed that someone completely immersed in it can hate it so much that they will be willing to give their lives to destroy it. It is even more difficult when you realise that they are not mentally ill but are indeed quite rational and sometimes well respected members of the community (like some of the 7/7 bombers were in the UK). The alternative however is simply to not try to understand which to put it mildly is intellectual laziness and complacent. I simply do not understand your lack of willingness to try and figure out why things happened a certain way.
If you don't give "give a rats ass" then why are you posting?Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Oh, and just so that you don't mangle and cluster f### anymore with your inaccurate, self aggrandizing attempts at grammatical 'explanation' , if that is what you were trying to do, the name of the Magazine is Rolling Stone. Not THE Rolling Stone.
"Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had" Post # 36<<<< Now, you try to explain with gibberish how this is correct and the way that it should be written or used in conversation. If it were Time magazine would you have said, the Time magazine or the Newsweek Magazine? You would. Educated people would not.
So, when you argue about issues stop trying to be the know-it-all when in fact you are very ill informed. Just sayin, irony etc. ;)
I wasn't suggesting either photo is the right way to portray such a person, but to show one side without the other clearly does not show the character of such a person. Hiding in a boat while police laser sights tag your head isn't normal by any means, but that is also part of his history now, the same as the "nice" photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
And I agree people like to know about even the most evil in other humans. But I personally think some of these people want this... fame through evil acts. He could have just as easily used smoke bombs, came forward and admitted to it, and told his story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
You've taken what I've said and read a lot into it that wasn't said. See above for the basics, and you must know full well that my point on either photo being judged a "sick" is entirely up to the person viewing the photo. Both his normal and abnormal life are part of his history now, so to portray either one or the other isn't really proper IMO.
As for the story, details, motivations, etc, you'll notice that I said I would not care. I'm not a medical expert that can properly assess his mental state or upbringing, nor am I trained in interrogation that might lead to his motivations and real reasons behind his actions. I didn't suggest or imply that nobody should know, but the trained professionals can figure it all out as far as I'm concerned.
What I oppose is the "fame" he will get surrounding his actions. Regardless of motivations I personally think that blatant, indiscriminate terrorism that takes human life without regard should be met with harsh punishment, to include not giving such people the satisfaction of any acknowledgement of who they are. I personally think that is what many of them seek.
Terrorist attacks are so few that I don't think any expert would consider any culture that a person lives in by their own free will a justification of the actions, nor a rational decision. There is no lack of willingness on my part to understand why people do such things, it has taken place in many forms for centuries. The same as with politics, the greatest deep rooted motivations are most often a quest for power, or a feeling of being powerless. Neither IMO justifies intentionally killing other humans that had no first hand involvement, even if the terrorists deep rooted motivations are legitimate.
WTF are you talking about? you started the whole Nazi grammarian nonsense. I just made you look stupid for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Matt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
"ill-informed" morons working there can't even get it straight, apparently.
All you need to do is go search google for "the rolling stone" and you will see it's commonly used. Hey, just pretend it's a thesaurus and you are trying to look smart.
1. The other side of his person was already well known and debated on tones of papers.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
2. I think you're wrong. Tsarnaev wasn't looking for fame. Otherwise he wouldn't have run and hide after the incident. If fame was in his cards he would have stayed and shout ''hey guys, it's me who did this carnage''. But after the way he acted it's obvious he hoped he'll never be recognized and caught.
I am reminded of a certain other American on these forums who was more than happy to state that there is no need to see 'shades of grey' when assessing an issue, only 'black and white'. There is no other nation in the world, it seems to me, where public displays of ignorance — worse, of revelling in ignorance and berating those they consider 'intellectual' (which generally, in these terms, just means 'able to write in proper English') — are met with so little of the derision they deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
You do not have the capabilities to make anyone else look stupid. That you believe you do is an example of sheer delusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Not every depiction of such an individual has also to stress how bad/evil/appalling/sick they are. This can be taken as read from the actions that caused discussion of them in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
To take this a stage further, you clearly do not believe in freedom of the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter