I told you that our politicians would in essence probably bend over backwards to avoid linking the bombing attempt in Times Square this past weekend to any Muslim Extremist groups. I did not mean they would avoid linking it to such groups if there was no evidence of a connection either, I meant they would avoid it even if there was such evidence. I also told you they would be sure to get their man, without any pushing from the public, if he was a U.S. Citizen like a militia type - you know - like a white guy from the rural areas of our nation. So how have they actually reacted to this bombing? I will not say it is just as I said, I will report and let you decide:
They have released a video of a "white" man walking down the street away from the area of the vehicle, who stops, turns around, takes of his shirt and puts it into a bag he is carrying and then continues on his way a few steps and looks to the right over his right shoulder. They say they are focusing on this man but readily admit he might not be involved - yet according to some reports - the police commissioner says the man "furtively" put the shirt into the bag. I watched the video, available here:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Police-Release-Video-of-Potential-Bomb-Suspect-92645799.html
I certainly can only see what you can see in it, maybe the police have a bigger and better copy, I am sure they have one that they have enhanced and probably have at least a few others since this is the area with the most video surveillance in NYC. Even with only this one to view, I must say, yes it looks as if he took something off like a shirt or sweater and put it into his bag. It also looks as if he was wearing another shirt under that one. Maybe he was being evasive or maybe he was hot. Taking off a shirt is not much to go on, since there were so many others in the area too but the way he turned around when he did it makes me also think he may have been looking for something behind him. Could be something, could be nothing. Tell me though, did that man do anything furtively - again - maybe or maybe not.
Note though they stress he is a white man. What does that connotate (or connote if you like the more modern word) in the minds of most Americans in a situation like this - I would think either a homegrown terrorist or a psycho. They must have a really good view on their tape to know he is not Asian (as in from places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and so forth where many people are white but their race is still Asian) or that he is not Hispanic. Of course, many Hispanics are white but their use of white here was purposefully done, I think, to take the heat off of certain groups because most people do not readily associate white men with those certain groups. That is just my personal opinion, what do you think?
As I move along, and get back to reporting and letting you decide, here is a bit of news about some evidence that has come up since the bombing. Yes, I am referring to the taped message claiming to be from the Taliban which claims responsibility for the bombing attempt. How did the politicians react to it? Here is a quote from mayor Bloomberg of NYC:
"So far, there is no evidence that any of this has anything to do with one of the recognized terrorist organizations."
No evidence! I suppose a message from the Taliban is not considered evidence because somehow the whole concept of evidence has changed under the watch of this ultra-liberal mayor. Now mind you, the way the report is written one would think the mayor said this after the message came out and I base what I am writing on that presumption. Of course, there is evidence, it is the message itself. There may be no other evidence to support that message, there may be other evidence to cast doubt on the message making it doubtful evidence, but it is evidence even if weak at best. What kind of a putz would say that this message, one claiming responsibility for the bombing is not evidence? Would it be one who does not understand the difference between the words evidence and proof (and Mayor Bloomberg most assuredly understands the difference) or would it be the kind who is a politician and who is trying to avoid having to say this may be connected to a certain group of terrorists? You decide.
Now sure, this all could change at the drop of a hat. The guy in the video could come forward to identify himself to police and tell them his legitimate reason for having been there - like maybe he just got off work. Then something else could come up to further implicate certain terror groups and the politicos could turn toward other suspects. Then again, the 'white man' in the video could be a home grown kook of the anti-everything right or left wing extremist types and they could have something really good on the video (of course he could also be a light skinned Pakistani and the tape could be real) but tell me, as it stands now, does it seem Mayor Bloomberg - for one - is bending over backwards to avoid saying this may have had something to do with Muslim extremism.
Before I close, let me make something clear. I am not bending over backwards to implicate Muslim Terrorists in this attempted bombing. I am not implicating any group. I believe we have to wait for the evidence to be in and analyzed with objective standards used to do so before anyone should make claims as to who did this. By the same token though, I am also saying that we should not eliminate any group before the same is accomplished. Too bad the politicians seemingly don't think likewise.
All the best,
Glenn B
No comments:
Post a Comment