What the hell did you do to get the FBI to pay you a visit at home?
The Boston Marathon Bombing
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
What the hell did you do to get the FBI to pay you a visit at home?
Bells
Staff member
Ease up champ.
The FBI aren't after you.
The CIA, however, are.
Your secrets amounted to nothing more than a Nigella cookbook.Captain Kremmen said:
And you were not cast aside. You were simply handcuffed to the bedpost for later use...
Oh wait, we aren't supposed to discuss this.
Nonsense.
What about when I told you the secret of how to make Chocolate Guinness Cake?
Mmmmmh......that may have been from Nigella's book, come to think of it.
@eram
How to get the FBI to visit your house.
Every night, tune your radio to Infowars, and play it through 100 amp speakers, full blast.
"Watch out. They're cumming to take our Gurns"
@andy
You have had 21 years of ill health, and unnecessary suffering.
You need to see a doctor, and tell him about these delusions.
Lots of Americans don't like those wars either, but the only reason Tsarnaev decided to do some terrorism was that as a Muslim, he felt personally at war with the US. Even though, as a US citizen, he was as much responsible for the wars as any other American.
And you were not cast aside. You were simply handcuffed to the bedpost for later use...
Oh wait, we aren't supposed to discuss this.
Haha, you're so horny.
No his comment was comparing the rates suggesting Muslims terrorism is the most prevalent go reread the original post of his if you even read it in the first place.
And indeed who cares, it's all the same disease, different flavors. Judaism makes American Jews unable to see things from the Palestinian's point of view, because they don't care, God gave Israel to the Jews, end of discussion.
Clearly you do or else you wouldn't have tried to compare the actions of the different faiths.
There are subtle differences, Judaism has the experience of the diaspora which might have tempered it's fanaticism. Christianity went through the protestant reformation and modern secularism. Islam also doesn't differentiate religion from politics. I'm not going to say they are all equal.
Bells
Staff member
That's interesting. So you believe the only reason they went on to bomb the Boston Marathon was because they were Muslim?
McVeigh was not a Muslim. And yet, he went on to blow up a whole building because of the war and Waco and Ruby Ridge. So why did he do it?
How is it that when Tsarnaev's use two bombs to protest against the war, it is deemed, 'because they are Muslim'..
McVeigh blew up a whole building and wrote an essay about why he did it and why he was protesting the first Iraq War and he was not a Muslim, so he must be "insane".
So why did he do it? After all, he was not a Muslim. We have seen Balerion dismiss him as being "insane", giving him an out, because the white non-Muslim guy who uses a bomb has to be crazy while the Muslim that does it is just doing it because he is a Muslim. Do you see the hypocrisy here?
Perhaps you don't.
Revolutionary Fashion
I guess more what I'm after is that we don't hear suggestions that these Christian, American nationalist, white supremacist, and other such acts should somehow weaken the Constitution or constitute enemy combat. I don't think I ever hear politicians or news media discussing whether Christianity should be a marker of suspicion.
Oh, wait, I do, but it's always some sort of conspiracy theory like the current argument against gun safety legislation suggesting that this is all to disarm evangelical Christians.
It is perhaps relevant to their neuroses; not that I can reasonably expect that it wouldn't be. But in the end, the bottom line is killing is just killing, and if a killer can't dress his crimes in one style, he will simply dress them up in another.
If the logical chain had somehow informed Eric Rudolph that killing people probably wasn't the best demonstration of faith in God's Will and Justice, he would have found another reason to justify killing someone.
As it was, he picked a pretty good reason; after his arrest, many in the community where he had been hiding supported him. A woman who lived near where Rudolph camped out explained that, now that she knew, no, she wasn't unsettled by the fact: "He hadn't ever hurt anyone around here," she explained. "Pray for Eric Rudolph," read a sign that appeared shortly after his capture. He even autographed wanted posters for the deputies. Some locals even believed Rudolph was innocent.
How much would people be freaking out if a string of hits like Rudolph achieved turned up a suspect within sight of the Murfreesboro Muslim community, and local Muslims were saying and doing the things that went on in North Carolina?
And where was the string of conservative politicians clamoring to have Rudolph held as an enemy combatant, that the American civilian justice system was incapable of coping with him? Where was FOX News questioning whether the Constitution applied to people like Rudolph?
Or consider Kevin Harpham, who attempted to bomb the MLK Day parade in Spokane, Washington. Given his lack of a criminal record and service in the U.S. Army, would his associations with the National Alliance and Vanguard News Network—white supremacist organizations—have been enough to interfere with his ability to travel?
Joe Stack? Should that put anti-tax political organizations and sentiments on the watch list?
In the end, killing is just killing. How one dresses it up is its own question. Was a time when it was Communism, Anarchism, or even peace.
What is the difference in American culture in the nineteenth century, when it was last recorded that a cow was hanged for sorcery, and today? What is the difference between the time when Christianity was invoked to justify killing, and now, when to do so is somewhat controversial?
The context in which the identity politic exists has changed. Affluence, technology, the very dimensions of society. We've seen what outright revolution does. We're not leveling Pittsburgh anytime soon. Or Chicago. Or Washington. Or Dallas. Or ...? We aren't doing to ourselves what we've seen done in Sarajevo and Grozny. We've done it before, and we do not intend to ever do so again. We have a magnificent empire to enjoy; or intentions toward civility might well be our downfall, but that is yet to be resolved.
The difference between the nineteenth century and today is that, while we have not removed every damoclean threat, we have disarmed so many of the swords hanging delicately over our souls. Many people may be hanging on by mere threads, but there is a difference between hard times and erasure. We think Detroit is bad; well, it is comforting that we can have such standards.
Not Detroit: Grozny, Checnya, 1995.
Tornadoes do that sort of stuff to Oklahoma, sure, but we're not about to rocket and mortar our cities like that. As I have noted before: What elevated Christianity out of barbarism was a sense of having something to lose.
I mean, compared to Grozny? Sarajevo? Well, let us be glad Detroit is our problem, as such. We still have the luxury of fretting about having to share world dominance with China and India.
Many people around the world have never had such luxury. Indeed, many can only imagine such luxury in wondering how the Americans and British and French can screw things up so badly.
That luxury, though—or, at least, the processes that make it possible—is insustainable insofar as not everybody can play the role. And here I don't mean Monaco or Equatorial Guinea because they haven't the resources to simply administrate such an endeavor; rather, I mean that Americans have "civilized" themselves as they have in such a manner that only a few nations can join the club. Furthermore, we have "civilized" ourselves in such a manner that demands incivility somewhere in the world.
That incivility occurs in diverse contexts. Where deprivation coincides with particular social and political values, the values shape the expression of the reaction. And, in truth, if Burmese Buddhists aren't hitting embassies with suicide bombers, well, it might have as much to do with being Burmese, and thus not proximal to a specific American foreign policy gambit reinforcing deprivation, as it does with Buddhism.
Then again, last month's violence in Myanmar, when Buddhists descended on Muslims in religious clashes that left over a hundred dead, started with a dispute, quite literally, over a hairpin. The whole situation is a mess, but one thing for certain, I'm not adding Buddhists to any watch lists.
Notes:
Jonsson, Patrik. "How did Eric Rudolph survive?" The Christian Science Monitor. June 4, 2003. CSMonitor.com. April 26, 2013. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0604/p01s02-usju.html
Kuhn, Anthony. "As Myanmar Reforms, Old Tensions Rise To The Surface". All Things Considered. April 24, 2013. NPR.org. April 26, 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/04/24/178806312/as-myanmar-reforms-old-tensions-rise-to-the-surface
GeoffP said:
I guess more what I'm after is that we don't hear suggestions that these Christian, American nationalist, white supremacist, and other such acts should somehow weaken the Constitution or constitute enemy combat. I don't think I ever hear politicians or news media discussing whether Christianity should be a marker of suspicion.
Oh, wait, I do, but it's always some sort of conspiracy theory like the current argument against gun safety legislation suggesting that this is all to disarm evangelical Christians.
It is perhaps relevant to their neuroses; not that I can reasonably expect that it wouldn't be. But in the end, the bottom line is killing is just killing, and if a killer can't dress his crimes in one style, he will simply dress them up in another.
If the logical chain had somehow informed Eric Rudolph that killing people probably wasn't the best demonstration of faith in God's Will and Justice, he would have found another reason to justify killing someone.
As it was, he picked a pretty good reason; after his arrest, many in the community where he had been hiding supported him. A woman who lived near where Rudolph camped out explained that, now that she knew, no, she wasn't unsettled by the fact: "He hadn't ever hurt anyone around here," she explained. "Pray for Eric Rudolph," read a sign that appeared shortly after his capture. He even autographed wanted posters for the deputies. Some locals even believed Rudolph was innocent.
How much would people be freaking out if a string of hits like Rudolph achieved turned up a suspect within sight of the Murfreesboro Muslim community, and local Muslims were saying and doing the things that went on in North Carolina?
And where was the string of conservative politicians clamoring to have Rudolph held as an enemy combatant, that the American civilian justice system was incapable of coping with him? Where was FOX News questioning whether the Constitution applied to people like Rudolph?
Or consider Kevin Harpham, who attempted to bomb the MLK Day parade in Spokane, Washington. Given his lack of a criminal record and service in the U.S. Army, would his associations with the National Alliance and Vanguard News Network—white supremacist organizations—have been enough to interfere with his ability to travel?
Joe Stack? Should that put anti-tax political organizations and sentiments on the watch list?
In the end, killing is just killing. How one dresses it up is its own question. Was a time when it was Communism, Anarchism, or even peace.
What is the difference in American culture in the nineteenth century, when it was last recorded that a cow was hanged for sorcery, and today? What is the difference between the time when Christianity was invoked to justify killing, and now, when to do so is somewhat controversial?
The context in which the identity politic exists has changed. Affluence, technology, the very dimensions of society. We've seen what outright revolution does. We're not leveling Pittsburgh anytime soon. Or Chicago. Or Washington. Or Dallas. Or ...? We aren't doing to ourselves what we've seen done in Sarajevo and Grozny. We've done it before, and we do not intend to ever do so again. We have a magnificent empire to enjoy; or intentions toward civility might well be our downfall, but that is yet to be resolved.
The difference between the nineteenth century and today is that, while we have not removed every damoclean threat, we have disarmed so many of the swords hanging delicately over our souls. Many people may be hanging on by mere threads, but there is a difference between hard times and erasure. We think Detroit is bad; well, it is comforting that we can have such standards.
Not Detroit: Grozny, Checnya, 1995.
Tornadoes do that sort of stuff to Oklahoma, sure, but we're not about to rocket and mortar our cities like that. As I have noted before: What elevated Christianity out of barbarism was a sense of having something to lose.
I mean, compared to Grozny? Sarajevo? Well, let us be glad Detroit is our problem, as such. We still have the luxury of fretting about having to share world dominance with China and India.
Many people around the world have never had such luxury. Indeed, many can only imagine such luxury in wondering how the Americans and British and French can screw things up so badly.
That luxury, though—or, at least, the processes that make it possible—is insustainable insofar as not everybody can play the role. And here I don't mean Monaco or Equatorial Guinea because they haven't the resources to simply administrate such an endeavor; rather, I mean that Americans have "civilized" themselves as they have in such a manner that only a few nations can join the club. Furthermore, we have "civilized" ourselves in such a manner that demands incivility somewhere in the world.
That incivility occurs in diverse contexts. Where deprivation coincides with particular social and political values, the values shape the expression of the reaction. And, in truth, if Burmese Buddhists aren't hitting embassies with suicide bombers, well, it might have as much to do with being Burmese, and thus not proximal to a specific American foreign policy gambit reinforcing deprivation, as it does with Buddhism.
Then again, last month's violence in Myanmar, when Buddhists descended on Muslims in religious clashes that left over a hundred dead, started with a dispute, quite literally, over a hairpin. The whole situation is a mess, but one thing for certain, I'm not adding Buddhists to any watch lists.
At a Buddhist temple near the center of town, vendor Sharif is collecting a sack of food and medicine from civil society groups. Like many Muslims in Meiktila, he is the descendant of Indian immigrants to then-Burma. He says he trusts his Buddhist neighbors. That's why he's staying at home, and not in the stadium with other refugees. And that's why he believes the violence was instigated by outsiders.
"I have lived here since I was born," Sharif says. "Muslims and Buddhists have been living together and there have never been any problems, so I feel that someone's manipulating things behind the scenes."
Veteran pro-democracy activist Min Ko Naing, who was in Meiktila during the violence, says he saw people he believed to be professional "terrorists," who were clearly organized and wearing matching wristbands. But he declines to say who these people might be.
Some reports blame Buddhist extremists for inciting the riots with anti-Muslim hate speech. They point to a Mandalay-based monk named U Wirathu. He leads a Buddhist group known as 969 that discourages Buddhists from intermarrying or doing business with Muslims.
But many Buddhists reject that interpretation of their religion. Sharif's neighbor is a Buddhist man whose first name is Min Tun.
"This violence," he says, "is a failure of Buddhist mindfulness, wisdom and lovingkindness."
Min Tun asked that we not reveal his family name. That's because he is sheltering a Muslim friend in his home.
(Kuhn)
____________________"I have lived here since I was born," Sharif says. "Muslims and Buddhists have been living together and there have never been any problems, so I feel that someone's manipulating things behind the scenes."
Veteran pro-democracy activist Min Ko Naing, who was in Meiktila during the violence, says he saw people he believed to be professional "terrorists," who were clearly organized and wearing matching wristbands. But he declines to say who these people might be.
Some reports blame Buddhist extremists for inciting the riots with anti-Muslim hate speech. They point to a Mandalay-based monk named U Wirathu. He leads a Buddhist group known as 969 that discourages Buddhists from intermarrying or doing business with Muslims.
But many Buddhists reject that interpretation of their religion. Sharif's neighbor is a Buddhist man whose first name is Min Tun.
"This violence," he says, "is a failure of Buddhist mindfulness, wisdom and lovingkindness."
Min Tun asked that we not reveal his family name. That's because he is sheltering a Muslim friend in his home.
(Kuhn)
Notes:
Jonsson, Patrik. "How did Eric Rudolph survive?" The Christian Science Monitor. June 4, 2003. CSMonitor.com. April 26, 2013. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0604/p01s02-usju.html
Kuhn, Anthony. "As Myanmar Reforms, Old Tensions Rise To The Surface". All Things Considered. April 24, 2013. NPR.org. April 26, 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/04/24/178806312/as-myanmar-reforms-old-tensions-rise-to-the-surface
I hear talk about the risk of militias plenty on the news. Militias are a topic of concern in FBI training also, along with various conservative theists (including American Catholics, apparently: who knew?). It's a not-infrequent topic, down my way. But let me ask you this: imagine for a moment that there were no Islamists, no Salafi reactionaries, so that, say, white supremacists dominated the terrorism news. Would you still make such pleas for equivocation?
That one I've never heard.
No. Not all killing is the result of some empirical need to kill others. Different societies throughout history have greatly reduced or increased rates of murder and violence: Quebec on one hand, say, and the Vikings on the other. There is no 'dressing', no abandonment of religio-political imperative just because an unestablished impression of human neurosis says so. There are reasons behind the various philosophies of violence. Pretending otherwise is a plea to ignorance.
You also draw no distinction between domestic and international violence: Philadelphia is indeed not Grozno, nor Lebanon. Object to the peacekeeping in those places, if you like, or to the not-peacekeeping. But don't conflate them into the same dynamic. The world is a bit more patchy, a bit more contextualized than that. And religious violence much predates offensive Americans; nor do the latter excuse vicious religious repression. It is entirely possible for people anywhere to be actors in their own right rather than waiting for excuses to react against Yankee hegemony. (Also the bombers were raised here: I could go on.)
It's fine to wax poetic, but not in lieu of logic.
That and the global jihad movement. I don't accept your moral equivalency between WWII and Saddam Hussein. WWII was obviously a world war, to not prevent it by the most expedient means would have been to accept global slavery under the Nazis, who by the way were murdering millions of innocent people in death and labor camps. Saddam was merely threatened politically and financially by the Kurds.
As far as McVeigh, I never asserted that Islam was the ONLY reason people could commit terrorism. I don't know about all his reasoning, but in this case, I do think Islam was a major contributing factor. Materially, they may have gotten the instructions on how to make their bombs from an Al Quida website. And it is such radical Islamic groups who portray the US as engaged in a religious war from which good Muslims may not abstain.
The fbi statistics are readily available
Then provide them.
The Arab Kevin Bacon
If it was the white supremacists, dark skin and Islamic faith wouldn't be cause for suspicion. Would pale skin and Christian supremacism get people harassed in the airport?
Consider, for a moment, a proposition:
I know, crazy, right?
But do you think you'll ever hear Bob Beckel of FOX News say it? He did say it in response to the Boston Marathon bombing.
Where is this animus, allegedly derived logically from cause and effect, toward other groups whose memberships include terrorists?
Oh, it's way fun:
But, you know, it's not quite the same thing as a real marker of suspicion.
I disagree with the word "empirical", insofar as we cannot presume that the killing urge is necessarily observable as such. It is a result. Proximate influences shape its expression.
And it's fine to take the haughty road once in a while, but not when you're missing the point:
How you got to the need to lecture me on not conflating two situations into the same dynamic in response to a consideration of the differing dynamics is, well, something in lieu of logic, to be sure.
To reiterate, the context in which the identity politic exists has changed. That's why Americans have achieved what "civility" we have.
To blame Islam for these acts the way people do suggests that no change of context will ever see Muslims conducting themselves respectably in society, a proposition dead before its corpse thumps down on the table because it is observably untrue.
Islam might not be a good mix with certain communities in the twenty-first century, but the general problem is found not in Islam, or any other religious or philosophical imprimateur; when the context in which diverse identity politics changes for the better, so will the results we see in individuals and subcommunities within those societies.
The more people feel they have to protect, the less likely they are to raze their cities in warfare. Or blow up their children. Or throw acid in their daughters' faces.
Someday we might actually see, coming to a theater near you, Footloose: Inshallah!
No, really, who's the Arab Kevin Bacon?
____________________
Notes:
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, New York. April 24, 2013. TheDailyShow.com. April 26, 2013. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-24-2013-bassem-youssef
Benen, Steve. "This Week in God". The Maddow Blog. April 13, 2013. MaddowBlog.com. April 26, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/13/17733740-this-week-in-god
GeoffP said:
If it was the white supremacists, dark skin and Islamic faith wouldn't be cause for suspicion. Would pale skin and Christian supremacism get people harassed in the airport?
Consider, for a moment, a proposition:
"We really have to consider, given the fact that so many people hate us, that we're going to have to cut off Christian students from coming to this country for some period of time."
I know, crazy, right?
But do you think you'll ever hear Bob Beckel of FOX News say it? He did say it in response to the Boston Marathon bombing.
Where is this animus, allegedly derived logically from cause and effect, toward other groups whose memberships include terrorists?
Oh, it's way fun:
While many faith leaders from a wide variety of traditions support new proposals to reduce gun violence, many leading evangelical Christians are doing the opposite, aligning themselves with the National Rifle Association (because nothing reinforces fealty to Jesus like opposing background checks on gun purchases). Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, went so far as to embrace a truly bizarre conspiracy theory.
So, to recap, in Perkins' mind, the military is hostile to Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians (a ridiculous claim); Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians have been deemed a potential threat to national security (an equally ridiculous claim); the federal government may be inclined to put these Christians on a watch list (still ridiculous); leading to laws that prevent Christians from buying firearms (you see where I'm going with this).
This nonsense was then picked up by World Net Daily, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) favorite conspiracy theory website, which never saw a nutty idea it didn't want to publish.
(Benen)
"I'm very concerned about this measure; I am concerned about where it may go once it gets to the Senate floor and what might happen in the House. This idea of background checks is very concerning given the fact that the United States military has been increasingly showing hostility toward evangelicals and Catholics as being somehow threats to national security and people that need to be watched.
"Well, what does that have to do with gun control? Well, what happens if all the sudden you are identified as an evangelical, bible-believing fundamentalist and the government decides you've got to be put on a watch list? Part of the provisions of this background check is kind of a system where if a caution comes up when they put your name in, you don't get a chance to buy a gun."
"Well, what does that have to do with gun control? Well, what happens if all the sudden you are identified as an evangelical, bible-believing fundamentalist and the government decides you've got to be put on a watch list? Part of the provisions of this background check is kind of a system where if a caution comes up when they put your name in, you don't get a chance to buy a gun."
So, to recap, in Perkins' mind, the military is hostile to Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians (a ridiculous claim); Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians have been deemed a potential threat to national security (an equally ridiculous claim); the federal government may be inclined to put these Christians on a watch list (still ridiculous); leading to laws that prevent Christians from buying firearms (you see where I'm going with this).
This nonsense was then picked up by World Net Daily, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) favorite conspiracy theory website, which never saw a nutty idea it didn't want to publish.
(Benen)
But, you know, it's not quite the same thing as a real marker of suspicion.
I disagree with the word "empirical", insofar as we cannot presume that the killing urge is necessarily observable as such. It is a result. Proximate influences shape its expression.
And it's fine to take the haughty road once in a while, but not when you're missing the point:
I mean, compared to Grozny? Sarajevo? Well, let us be glad Detroit is our problem, as such. We still have the luxury of fretting about having to share world dominance with China and India.
Many people around the world have never had such luxury. Indeed, many can only imagine such luxury in wondering how the Americans and British and French can screw things up so badly.
That luxury, though—or, at least, the processes that make it possible—is insustainable insofar as not everybody can play the role. And here I don't mean Monaco or Equatorial Guinea because they haven't the resources to simply administrate such an endeavor; rather, I mean that Americans have "civilized" themselves as they have in such a manner that only a few nations can join the club. Furthermore, we have "civilized" ourselves in such a manner that demands incivility somewhere in the world.
That incivility occurs in diverse contexts. Where deprivation coincides with particular social and political values, the values shape the expression of the reaction. And, in truth, if Burmese Buddhists aren't hitting embassies with suicide bombers, well, it might have as much to do with being Burmese, and thus not proximal to a specific American foreign policy gambit reinforcing deprivation, as it does with Buddhism.
Many people around the world have never had such luxury. Indeed, many can only imagine such luxury in wondering how the Americans and British and French can screw things up so badly.
That luxury, though—or, at least, the processes that make it possible—is insustainable insofar as not everybody can play the role. And here I don't mean Monaco or Equatorial Guinea because they haven't the resources to simply administrate such an endeavor; rather, I mean that Americans have "civilized" themselves as they have in such a manner that only a few nations can join the club. Furthermore, we have "civilized" ourselves in such a manner that demands incivility somewhere in the world.
That incivility occurs in diverse contexts. Where deprivation coincides with particular social and political values, the values shape the expression of the reaction. And, in truth, if Burmese Buddhists aren't hitting embassies with suicide bombers, well, it might have as much to do with being Burmese, and thus not proximal to a specific American foreign policy gambit reinforcing deprivation, as it does with Buddhism.
How you got to the need to lecture me on not conflating two situations into the same dynamic in response to a consideration of the differing dynamics is, well, something in lieu of logic, to be sure.
To reiterate, the context in which the identity politic exists has changed. That's why Americans have achieved what "civility" we have.
To blame Islam for these acts the way people do suggests that no change of context will ever see Muslims conducting themselves respectably in society, a proposition dead before its corpse thumps down on the table because it is observably untrue.
Islam might not be a good mix with certain communities in the twenty-first century, but the general problem is found not in Islam, or any other religious or philosophical imprimateur; when the context in which diverse identity politics changes for the better, so will the results we see in individuals and subcommunities within those societies.
The more people feel they have to protect, the less likely they are to raze their cities in warfare. Or blow up their children. Or throw acid in their daughters' faces.
Someday we might actually see, coming to a theater near you, Footloose: Inshallah!
No, really, who's the Arab Kevin Bacon?
____________________
Notes:
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, New York. April 24, 2013. TheDailyShow.com. April 26, 2013. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-24-2013-bassem-youssef
Benen, Steve. "This Week in God". The Maddow Blog. April 13, 2013. MaddowBlog.com. April 26, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/13/17733740-this-week-in-god
Those don't indicate, as pjdude stated, that there have been more Jewish terrorist attacks in the United States. I suspect that he was talking without bothering to check out the facts.