It’s the “Hey Ma! Ah’m own thu tee-vee!” phenomenon. Some people would say anything to see their names in print or faces on television. The reporters sought these people out. Most people down here realize that there’s a little thing called “aiding and abetting a fugitive from the law” which is “illegal.” These are the people who live lives of blissful anonymity.
If you ever watch the movie Gummo you’ll see the kind of people who’d gladly help a bombing suspect hide out for five years.
Yeah, and they wouldn’t let poor Rudolph play in any Reindeer Games too.
FRY 'IM.
…and then shoot the mourners too.
My feeling was that folks kept assuming that there had to be colusion at the highest level since folks weren’t turning him in. I believe that all it would take is (as demonstrated here) a few people wanting to help, a few more not wanting to get involved, and a whole lotta territory to cover. In addition, I don’t think we’re really able to assess the level of sympathy/support Randolph has here, (evidence of SDMB should be considered atypical imho); nor are we really able to assess the level of sympathy/support terrorists have in MENA. Folks aren’t always able to/intersted in giving their opinions to the media.
Diving into dumpsters doesn’t preclude lots of help from folks. Reportedly, he was clean, well fed, had new shoes etc.
There’s been a long tradition in this country (and elsewhere) of some people romanticizing and helping out bad guys, partly out of an urge to stick it to the government.
When it comes to mass murder and attempts to commit same, our sympathy level drops to near zero.
John Dillinger never targeted medical workers or set bombs to kill innocent people in a park.
“our sympathy drops to zero” ?? then who the fuck are the people being interviewed?
Evidence against Rudolph
Basically steel plates all cut from the same plant where a friend of Rudolph’s was employed.
Also, matching nails, that is nails produced in the same small batch, were found in all the bombs, as well as in a garage rented by Rudolph.
I believe that investigators also have some testimony from family and associates of Rudolph, but I’m not positive about that.
Thanks!
I said “near zero” - which I think reflects the actual percentage of Americans who think Rudolph is a misunderstood hero.
I just can’t recall any celebrations in the streets when the clinic or Olympic bombings hit the news - no newspapers condoning his actions - no denial that the events had taken place. And as for government action/inaction, I’d dearly love to hear what evidence there is of any official coverup/protection of Rudolph existing “on the highest levels”. Since Rudolph’s fugitive career began in '98, I assume believers in that theory think that the Clinton Administration must have been involved in the conspiracy. I know Bill is regarded as the fount of all evil, and while I don’t think he was a good president, I can’t quite get myself to believe that he and/or his appointees were shielding Rudolph.
jar - his [url=“http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/02/rudolph.court/index.html”]truck was also seen near one of the bombings
near/whatever. neither of us would be able to substantiate the claim.
I’d tend to nudge the number up from the percentage of ijiots who’re willing to be interviewed w/that sentiment, though, rather than assuming that’s most of 'em or whatever.
jack - folks were claiming that the Taliban was in cahoots w/OBL, since they didn’t turn him over. IOW, their evidence was mainly the failure to turn him in. I suggested that failure to be able to lay your hands on him may not be the conclusive evidence that was suggested.
re: the dancing in the streets etc. IIRC, several of those who are familiar w/MENA suggested that the dancing in the streets wasn’t nearly as widespread as was touted.
However - I’m not at all going to get into a pissing match about which group is more vile. levels of the same sort of thing. YOu wish to believe that it’s a rarity in the US, but widespread in the MENA. I’m not certain that you’re correct.
(damn coding here’s the link
Has anybody seen mention of the security guard who spotted the bomb and got railroaded for reporting it? I didn’t see anything in the articles I read on this.
Remember, it takes a whole village to raise an idiot.
Richard Jewel. I heard him mentioned on the Today show, but only in passing.
I think they should give Richard Jewel ten minutes alone with Eric Rudolph . . .
Ok, to play devil’s advocate, because the government saw a way to get rid of a man of God who was standing up for babies and against the homosexuals and the liberal atheists who control this country.
Yeah, Richard Jewell’s been mentioned a few times. His lawsuit is still pending, I think.
This is an interesting theory - the Taliban just couldn’t find bin Laden.
Of course, it’s nonsense. The Taliban kept close track of bin Laden, shielded him and supported him.
Our government did no such favors for Rudolph.
Mentioning Rudolph and bin Laden in the same breath goes beyond weird, by the way. In terms of homicidal capacity, that’s like comparing Ted Bundy and Stalin.
Not comparing them, thanks all the same. I am (and was) saying that to claim that the Taliban’s failure to turn him over to the US was proof that they were working closely together isn’t enough.
your first link (from the BBC) doesn’t seem to demonstrate what you claim. It reiterates the Taliban position that they didn’t believe that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks (I believe they were wrong), and that they wanted proof before they’d cooperate w/the US about it. I don’t see any reason to believe that OBL trusted the Taliban w/direct information about where he was located at any particular point in time. I don’t dispute that there were connections between the organization of AQ and the Taliban, that they at times worked together, had some similar goals, maybe even played golf together.
What I did dispute (and still do) is that such connections rose to the level of the Taliban being able to locate and turn over OBL at any given point in time, to the US.
To spell it out simply for you:
A. at the time, “Some” folks contended that the Taliban’s failure to turn over OBL upon demand to the US was ‘proof’ all by itself that the two were completely linked, working together completely etc etc.
B. I suggested that there was possability B: that the Taliban was sympathetic to OBL, anti-US, willing to let him stay in their country etc, but not necessarily in possession of his whereabouts at any given time. That similar to the Olympic bomber case that failure to locate a single suspect in a rough, sparesly populated large track of real estate was not all by itself significant of anything more than the fact that it’s difficult to locate a single human being in a large tract of land.
the other ‘similarity’ that comes to my mind here, is that there exist, in both cases local people who are sympathetic to the cause of the fugative and may in fact have been helping the fugative to successfully hide.
rather than make assumptions about what I believe(d), could you perhaps ask the question instead? thanks ever so. I’ve tried to make my thoughts clear. I’d be willing to clarify them further if necessary. I’d much prefer that to having to dislodge words crammed into my mouth. 
From the BBC link that does not impress you:
"*The Taleban has denied reports that Mr Bin Laden is under house arrest, but said it had restricted his contact with the outside world, thus making it difficult for him to run any kind of global network.
The Taleban representative in Pakistan said Mr Bin Laden had no fax, internet connection or satellite phones."*
Riiiight. “We’ve kept him under wraps, we know he has no fax service and can’t surf the web, but we haven’t the foggiest idea where he might be.” That’s a hot one.**
I don’t believe I’ve misrepresented you, wring. In any case, your complaint would have more resonance had you not misquoted me earlier.
“know he doesn’t have fax” etc. He was reportedly hiding in the mountains, much like Randolph. I’d have bet that Randolph didn’t have access to stuff like that.
No, it didn’t impress me. and, no, it doesn’t say what you claim it did. You infer from their statements that your position is substantiated, but it’s still your interpretation of what’s stated. Like I said, they don’t claim they know where he was. They claim to know that he doesn’t have access to stuff. not the same thing at all. Even if they had a ‘general’ idea where he was, kinda like the authorities had a ‘general idea’ where Randolph was, didn’t mean they could pinpoint his exact location and grab him, which was my point.
The misquote you’re talking about is ? that one where I didn’t care if you meant zero or ‘few’? Yea, I didn’t bother scrolling up to get the exact wording, sorry 'bout that. But the difference in quotes wasn’t relevant to my point, so I hardly thought it was worth the effort.
Apparently it should have been 'cause it allowed you to misstate my position, then get snippy about it when I asked you nicely to simply ask.
got it.
Okay, wasn’t there some guy back in the 1980s, who was wanted for murdering two police officers or game commissioners, and the people in his hometown tried to make him a hero?
I think I saw it on Unsolved Mysteries-he was supposedly charged with poaching, hunting without a license, some minor thing-but when they went to issue him his arrest or whatever, he just shot them and then he was a fugitive? And everyone thought he was a hero? (I mean, the people in his area.)