Skip to main content

View Diary: Things I don't understand (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why did the Maryland authorities (11+ / 0-)

    have everyone looking for white box trucks in 2002? (If your answer is: "Because they secretly wanted to give the 'D.C. snipers' time to kill more people, because they wanted the population scared so they could ... something something something," then there's really no point to a discussion. You already have your framework; you're just looking for factoids to hang on it.)

    Questions are good, but because several of your questions rest on premises I don't share based on the coverage I've seen or read, I'm not going point by point. We're still in the first rough draft of history stage, and will be better able to frame policy questions -- e.g., about the FBI -- when the dust settles.

    However, for most of your questions, the answer is probably some variation/combination of bad luck, fog of war, and "telephone." For others, the answer is probably "Because they could." And for still others, it's probably "that'll come out in the hearings ... or not."

    What's your theory? Mistaken ID? Sting gone wrong? False flag? Sleeper cell?

    On another note,

    He is a US citizen which means he is considered innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
    please be aware that the presumption of innocence does not derive from citizenship. It applies to persons.
    •  I don't have a theory (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Havoth, Nattiq

      I just know the current story doesn't work for me and your answers are cliches

      •  There's a reasonable chance that (8+ / 0-)

        "working for you" isn't the authorities' criterion for either their release of information during the event or their after-action reports.

        •  I'm sure that's true (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          footNmouth, hdbooth, Havoth

          But of course I didn't write this on behalf of the authorities or their criterion.

          I wrote this for me, from me, and for some others who were wondering similar things and probably afraid to ask it aloud) because people like you are so quick to swoop in and try to shut it down.

          I often wonder where in history people like you get your unending faith in the veracity of the authoritative version of events. I can't find it.

      •  Cliches? (5+ / 0-)

        VR just gave you a reasonable  answer AND was gracious in explaining to you how Constitutional rights are extended all persons, and all you can to is scoff, admit you have nothing, but deride an answer you don't like as cliches?

        There seems to be a lack of good faith here. As I mentioned to Pluto,  I don't mind diaries that ask questions, but if the diarist offers no answers of his own and instantly rejects answers he doesn't like without providing substantive basis for doing so, then there's a serious lack of good faith.

        In other words, it feels like you didn't really write the diary to explore your questions as you say but to propound a certain viewpoint.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:12:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, that's not what happened (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Havoth

          The VR comment starts with a non sequitur that puts words / thoughts into my mind that I never uttered. Then it moved into projecting my premises of which I wrote none. Then it moved to answering my list of questions with "variation/combination of bad luck, fog of war, and "telephone." - which is not an answer to anything.

          This is an example of an answer.

          That sentence he/ she points to is poorly written, and technically wrong. Just like you are wrong that Presumption of Innocence is in the Constitution.

          But thanks for your review of my case, your highness. Now I remember why I stopped coming here.

        •  So why is it all about how it's asked, huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Not the question itself? That's funny, because with that you admit that you bring presupposition to your reading of a mere question, that you assume is guilty of presupposing something. Truthers always think everybody is truthful. Liars always think everybody else is lying. Cheaters think everybody else is cheating. But is it possible that a questioner is just asking a question in your world-view?

          Sometimes questions are just questions. It works in the same way that presumed innocence does. I asked mine because I couldn't possibly watch/read 100% of the coverage to any of the events this past week. You presupposed I had a theory, because of my questions. I repeated not a theory, and you thrashed ME for asking some of the same questions I asked in a more informal, conversational and somewhat tongue-in-cheeky fashion. You said "It stinks of CT".  For asking questions. For asking for answers, opinions or examples from my fellow readers.

          And I'm here to tell you what VR and Tony Situ wrote above are theories. What I wrote and what Debagger wrote are questions. And VR derides the diarist for asking and answers with the vague answers that are a given ("variation/combination") AND a question ("what's your theory") AND a presupposition on the premise of the question.

          At best, my only predisposition theory is that the press is actively trying to lead the public to a specific opinion rather sticking to reporting facts. Why? Because it's more patriotic to do so? To control the narrative? That is the only theory/presupposition I might have.  

          I like your posts in general. But you can't take your subjective judgements into reading a objective question and provide an objective answer to it. Now you'll probably go HR mine after all. And that's your prerogative. "Send your hate mail to Brian Williams c/o 30 Rock Center" - Jon Stewart  ;-)

          When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.-Mark Twain

          by Havoth on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 12:46:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? What's my theory, Havoth? (0+ / 0-)

            I did restate Tony Situ's theory, and identified it as such, to clarify why your question did not point out an inconsistency. I offered no theory of my own, just observation, based on experience, about the changing nature of reports during and immediately after major incidents. (Had I known the diarist was unfamiliar with the concept of analogy or the meaning of "IF" I wouldn't have bothered.) The diarist finds that to be cliche, yet cannot deny either the truth of the observation or the pertinence to the questions raised in the diary. It simply did not please him or her. (Little here did, apparently, given the obnoxious responses to several commenters.)

            Nothwithstanding the wounded animal style response by you and the diarist, virtually every comment I've made on this matter since it began has either questioned or left open the matter of whether this event even constituted terrorism under the legal definition of the term. I certainly never concluded that the two were guilty of the bombing, though there seems to be little doubt of their involvement in the later events. I'm not sure what your beef is here, since I never even saw your diary, let alone commented in it, but the two of you could not be more wrong.

            Perhaps deriders always think people are deriding them.

            •  OK - IMHO, your 'restating' Tony's theory IMPLIED (0+ / 0-)

              your agreement with it. I inferred this from your inserted editorial comments "(My own hunch: their own accounts, if they had them, were already frozen.)...There's no inconsistency between Tony Situ's theory and the carjacking/robbery element."  - You restated the theory as if this was consistent with your own ideas of the series of events. Guilt of the suspects wasn't in discussion at that point. I do feel pretty strongly that you were derisive of debagger even asking questions (at which point I always wonder why some feel compelled to comment at all if they disagree with questions being asked in print) by saying this:

              "(If your answers [to a hypothetical question]...there's really no point to a discussion. You already have your framework; you're just looking for factoids to hang on it.)...Questions are good, but because several of your questions rest on premises I don't share..."
              Other than that, I didn't have a problem with your comments. I was actually responding to someone else anyway.
              I don't appreciate the "wounded animal" remark, but that's your opinion. I don't feel wounded at all. Not by you or anyone else on the Interwebs that disagree with My Basic Idea:
              1. Questions are OK.
              2. There Are no Stupid Questions, Only Unasked ones.  
              3. Answering any question by implying the question demonstrates predispositions of a conspiracy theory or bad thinking on the Questioner's part is bad form in general, impolite at best and does nothing to expand/explore knowledge in general.
              4. And Finally, Questions do not equal a Theory and some folk on here should not equate the two.
              That's pretty all I'm saying and now that I've tried to write it several times in several ways, I'm down to this edited bit. So thank you again for the opportunity to split hairs with you.  

              When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.-Mark Twain

              by Havoth on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:13:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry Havoth. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Villanova Rhodes, Havoth

            I have a nod to VR because his summary of Situ's theory was concise. My comment was to the effect that if only CNN could distill information that concisely.

            It was a quip between two people who pass each other in these orange halls a lot. Don't read more into it than is there.

            As for HR's, I checked. I've lobbed exactly two since the Boston bombing. One was for nasty anti-Muslim racism. The other was to someone who dragged politics into a diary a diary while the West,TX disaster was unfolding. As human beings were dying, it felt like a hijacking of a live blog. And hijacking is uncool; hijacking a live blog is really not permitted.

            Nope, I haven't HR'd you or anyone else for asking questions, not even ones that, as I said in that comment you reference, I didn't like. I specifically and intentionally used the phrase "I think." I didn't state any absolutes like others in that thread.

            I'm allowed to have my thoughts and express them, and I did. I said you're allowed to have questions and you have.

            I tossed no HRs.

            You can be offended all you want. But Jeff in NYC said he didn't "get that" CT vibe in your diary. I was responding to him and saying that I did. But I didn't HR you because folks (including me, myself in another comment) were methodically answering your questions.

            Context matters.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:43:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By the way, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Villanova Rhodes

              I hope you realize that when I answered your question, I did so with a link that was a pain in the neck to track to hunt down from a story I had read earlier. I post from a phone, so locating links isn't an easy process (I had to page thru my stupid Slate app, find the story, save the link to a notes page, clean it up, then copy that to a comment here).

              That's what I mean when I sat that I don't have a problem with people asking questions. Questions should be answered if possible, even if its a pain in the rear to do so.

              © grover


              So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

              by grover on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:59:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  To Grover (0+ / 0-)

                With much respect. I took a lot of heat. 1st time. Got a tad defensive, admittedly, after a day of being bombarded... Felt that accusing the questions of anyone was the wrong way to go. I think you did too. I can't see well enough to type from a phone either but I pretty much live at my desktop @ home. I can relate. Still gonna follow you. I can disagree and not take it too personally. And again, with much respect for your commentary in general.

                When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.-Mark Twain

                by Havoth on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 11:00:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Sometimes things are cliches because they're true (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo, denise b, Villanova Rhodes

        The real story when it emerges will contradict some of the reports we've seen so far, will be mostly internally consistent, and will seem weird (because any non-weird story doesn't involve bombing a marathon).

        I wouldn't dignify the reports we've got now as "the current story". Stories have beginnings, ends, and plots. We've got raw data at best.

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:44:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Politics (15)
  • Science (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Police Brutality (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site