I hope the nation avoids rushes to judgement about Muslims, right-wingers and everyone else

[Armstead]

At times like this, it is natural to want to find out who is responsible for the terrible and evil act, as soon as possible. It also triggers many of our worst instincts and personal prejudices in terms of speculation about likely perpetrators.

Until the facts have been sorted out, and there is a much clearer picture as to who is actually responsible, my own hope is that we all (here on DU and as a nation) do our best to restrain the instinct to indulge in premature speculative anger and blame at specific groups.

Just my two cents.

[loyalsister]

1. +1

Assumptions based in pain and fear without facts can be dangerous. Vent at the horror and sadness, but wait for the villain whose guilt is supported by facts.

[WinkyDink]

2. I'll continue to loathe and abominate Right-Wingers regardless, TYVM. (Concern duly noted.)

[sadbear]

3. +1

[joeglow3]

6. Me too. But I won't throw my convictions out the window due to my emotions.

I'll wait for the facts to come in. I really don't like forming an opinion with zero facts (call it the wanna-be scientist in me).

[WinkyDink]

15. For a "scientist," you must not believe in "theories," then.

[joeglow3]

17. Those that are based on some type of fact

Not those that are just pulled out of someone's ass.

You realize there is a difference between acknowledging a possibility and supporting a position with no facts, right?

Of course, this could be any group (right wing nut jobs, middle easterners, etc.). However, to claim to "know" it is one group at this point is ignorant and VERY un-scientific.

[el_bryanto]

8. It's good that you've duly noted that concern

And good that you frankly admit that your loathing trumps your rationality. Best to be honest about that sort of thing.

Bryant

[WinkyDink]

9. (Duplicate.)

[el_bryanto]

11. It's convenient that we know each other so well, almost immediately

I don't think a plea to wait until we get the facts before we start condemning people is particularly controversial. You apparently do. I don't know which of us is letting their emotions run away with them.

Bryant

[WinkyDink]

14. You misread. I wasn't condemning anyone re: Boston. I was speaking in a historical context.

And I deleted the "male" part.

[el_bryanto]

18. Well that's either comforting or insulting depending on how you look at it

The deleting the male part bit.

The historical context is that there is precedent for several that have done bombings to be involved - and of course it's possible that it was a lone nut. We'll find out - hopefully soon, when whoever is guilty is led away by police.

Bryant

[WinkyDink]

10. I'm quite rational. I can cite chapter and verse of R-W actions and words in support of my loathing.

YOU, OTOH, are reacting emotionally from an assumed superiority. Sad.

[cali]

4. me too Armstead. And many thanks for the op.

k&r

[NewJeffCT]

5. While I agree with your sentiment

This is the internet - it's founded on baseless speculation that brings out the worst in people. (and, porn)

Until we get an internet like China or similar, it will continue with every tragedy and near tragedy out there.

[Armstead]

12. I know that...Just expressing my opinion on it

[Javaman]

7. You mean like we always do?

"We", in that general use of the word.

[Johnny2X2X]

13. not that big a deal

People are going to speculate and that speculation is going to based upon political leanings often times. It really is not harmful at this time and it's only going to make the speculator look like a fool when proven wrong.

I want it to be a lone nut, because that makes the threat less severe and further attacks less likely, that's my only reason.

[WinkyDink]

16. Speculation is just that. Why would anyone need to look foolish for having A THOUGHT OR TWO?

[Armstead]

21. Speculation and assumptions are two different things

[get the red out]

19. Media not individuals

I think speculation on the part of the news media would be the potential problem, individuals always have thoughts, it's just what people do. I hope the media stays professional.

[Johnny2X2X]

20. Already haven't

The RW media has been reporting unsibstantiated claims from the get go about a Saudi national in custody, about a black guy with a black hoodie, really just running with anything that fits their narrative. Seen some of the same thing on the left, MSNBC was speculating about domestic terorism right away.

All the false information was people jumping the gun. Now we know there were only 2 explosive devices, no unexploded ones were found. Now we know the explosions were on the same side of the street. That's about it.

[get the red out]

25. That's what worries me

Individuals having opinions is one thing, but the media has a massive voice where we post online or chat by the "water cooler" at work. We don't need a misinformed media narrative and I think that is the biggest problem we face, rather than individuals jumping to conclusions.

[denverbill]

22. It may not be a right-winger or Muslim, but I'll give you 10 to 1 if you want to bet it's 'other'.

And frankly, I could just say right-winger, since all Muslim terrorists are extreme right-wing fundamentalists as well.

Olympics bombing.
OKC
9-11
Hundreds of bombings in Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan
Mumbai

Having a hard time coming up with any examples of terrorism that don't involve right-wingers.

[LeftInTX]

23. The Unabomber comes to mind

[denverbill]

24. I don't know where anarcho-primitivists sit on the left-right scale, but I'll give you that one.

I don't exactly equate Kaczynski to these mass attacks though. He targeted individuals, not masses.

I'm also not sure about the IRA and Basque separatists. And I don't know where to put 'freedom fighters'.

I'd still give 10-1 on 'other' though.

[yurbud]

26. you're right. The person's race and religion don't matter. But it was definitely done by a

post-partisan.