When a ‘stockpile of homemade bombs’ is ho-hum and ha-ha

on 13 Comments
This undated photo provided by the Livingston County

Thought experiment.

New Yorker Joseph Martino was arrested Thursday night after the neighbors called 911 because they heard an explosion coming from his apartment in a community near Rochester. Allegedly, things went haywire when Martino was trying to dry bomb making materials in his oven.

Police said that bomb-making was Martino’s hobby. And though they found several jars of a chemical generally associated with terror groups, according to an official with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there is no evidence he had any “ill intent” according to police. This headline reflects the tone of coverage: “Police: NY man with homemade bomb stockpile blew up his oven while trying to dry explosives”

Oh and Martino has some type of criminal history, and the police allegedly found an arsenal of weapons (30-40 pipe bombs and other explosive devices, including firearms) at his home. They also found another storage site of his in the area and they’re not saying what was uncovered there. 

But the police did some helpful profiling of Martino:

Police don’t believe Martino is affiliated with any groups…

So: no national headlines. No statement from homeland security or the White House.

Thought experiment: imagine if Martino were a Muslim. 

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .

Posted In:

13 Responses

  1. Dutch
    June 16, 2013, 7:46 pm

    Well, the most logical reaction would be to invade Pakistan.

  2. Mayhem
    June 16, 2013, 9:18 pm

    @Annie, you live in a country where citizens are entitled by law to have weapons stashed in their dwellings.
    I would suggest that the tendency is rather to hide cases involving Muslims, because it tends to drive fear into the hearts of the poor infidels, who, as you aware, tend to then lash out with fits of rational Islamophobia.
    You just have to listen whenever there is an instance of a major crime involving Muslims – the media try everything possible to disguise the fact until it becomes too bleedingly obvious to do so.

    • miriam6
      June 16, 2013, 10:07 pm


      How do I do/ use blockquote in context of posting comments?

      I have a windows 8.

      its got the notebook thing word excel blah blah etc .the whole caboodle.

      cant find ANYTHING on how to blockquote!?

      if you could offer advice I would be thankful

      • Annie Robbins
        June 17, 2013, 12:25 am

        if you google ‘html blockquote’ there are multiple examples like this:

        scroll to ‘example’ and try replicating. in the future please use comment policy thread for instruction, thanks.

      • miriam6
        June 17, 2013, 1:11 am

        Thanks for your reply and advice Annie.

        Will try the link and also google for further examples.

      • piotr
        June 17, 2013, 8:32 am

        I think that the cited advise is wrong.

        I says that the text enclosed by blockquote and blockquote (enclose them with angle brackets and put backslash before the second) has to contain at least one tag, like , but it is not the case. Simply enclose the text like that and it will be displayed as a block quote after posting.

        Does it look like that on your screen?

    • Blank State
      June 16, 2013, 11:50 pm

      Actually, in this case, (were this wackjob a muslim), the media would be tripping over themselves to sensationalize his arrest. After all, this survellience, this steady erosion of our rights to privacy, is paying dividends, doncha know!

      We need to be careful, (as if anything “we” do will affect the downward spiral towards facism our nation is currently experiencing). We have reached the point where the mere allocation of a label can render you devoid of any legal rights. All they need do now is point and mumble the word “terrorist”, and your rights are forfeit. Warrants enabling wiretaps and intrusions into your email accounts are issued by a secret court, merely by attaching that handy catch-all label to you.

      Yes, any muslims engaged in any activity that may be suspect should be very careful right now, as these fascist lying elitists in DC are looking for justification, a rationale they can peddle to the masses. They’re only doin’ it to keep you safe, you know. Never mind that their foreign policies, meddling, and murderous military adventures are serving the exact opposite purpose.

      Don’t they get it? Don’t they realize we are hated because we deserve to be hated? And these slimey little Washington fascists and spooks, hiding under our beds, listening to our phones, and reading our emails do nothing to change that irrefutable fact. Stop earning hatred, and people will stop hating you.

      • Mayhem
        June 17, 2013, 5:06 am

        I don’t know why the US would be necessarily different from my part of the world (Australia). When the Boston bombing was announced here you could suspect that it had been committed by Muslims by the way the news media dealt with the news, hedging to say anything definitive for fear of stirring up Islamophobia. The politicians and media here are steeped in political correctness and moral relativism; anybody who inadvertently spruiks a hint of racism or religious vilification can find him or herself out of a job quick smart.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 17, 2013, 9:57 am

        hedging to say anything definitive for fear of stirring up Islamophobia. The politicians and media here are steeped in political correctness and moral relativism

        really, because my impression was the media steered pretty clear of expanding on the brothers contacts with the cia. given the recent history of spying on muslims and efforts of entrapment (and some might even claim ‘assistance’ with encouragement, instruction, procurement of explosives) the press dropped the ball where segments of social media didn’t.

    • Ecru
      June 17, 2013, 3:07 am

      Rational Islamophobia. What an interesting turn of phrase Mayhem. So the Palestinians who hate Jews because it’s Jews destroying their lives are merely expressing “rational anti-semitism?”

    • DICKERSON3870
      June 18, 2013, 5:43 am

      RE: “@Annie, you live in a country where citizens are entitled by law to have weapons stashed in their dwellings. I would suggest that the tendency is rather to hide cases involving Muslims . . .” ~ Mayhem

      MY REPLY: I’m guessing that Mayhem will also insist that Jews were made into soap!

      SEE: “New Israeli film debunks myth that Nazis made soap from Jews”, By Roy (Chicky) Arad, Haaretz, 6/04/13
      Legend was spread by guards as psychological torture of Jewish inmates, as director Eyal Ballas’ movie shows.

      [EXCERPTS] “Soaps,” a new film by director Eyal Ballas, searches for the root of the myth that Germans used the bodies of Jews to manufacture soap. Contemporary historians think the Nazis did not produce soap on an industrial scale using dead human bodies, a position shared by Yad Vashem. But the myth continues to hold sway with the big segments of the public.
      The movie shows that in many places in Israel and the world, people light memorial candles beside soaps they believe were created from the bodies of Jews. Chemical analyses show they are actually made of vegetable materials.
      The soap myth dates all the way back to World War I, when Germans were first rumored to be turning bodies into the stuff. During World War II, SS guards often tormented concentration camp prisoners by threatening to turn them into soap.
      At least 10 cemeteries and memorial centers in Israel have graves containing soap either believed to have been made from Jews or used as symbols of Jewish communities ravaged by the Nazis. . . .
      . . . “Soaps” shows that one thing that contributed to the myth was confusion over the markings on some bars of soap. Certain German soaps produced in the Third Reich had the initial “RIF” imprinted on them, which was thought to stand for “Reichs Juden Fett,” which means “State Jewish Fat.” In fact, RIF stands for “Reichsstelle fur industrielle Fettversorgung, or “National Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning,” the German government agency responsible for the wartime production and distribution of soap and washing products. RIF soap contained no fat at all, human or vegetable. The Holocaust Museum in Bat Yam exhibits an RIF soap bar donated by a Holocaust survivor, though the museum’s director, Prof. Yuri Lyakhovitsky, does not claim to be sure it is made from Jewish fat. He says the charismatic personality of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal influenced the development of the myth. . .
      . . . At the climax of the film, people who have believed for their entire lives that the soaps are made of Jewish fat are confronted with the overwhelming historiographic consensus that they are not. Even when the believers are told that Yad Vashem has declared the soap myth baseless, they stubbornly refuse to change their minds, arguing that the studies which disprove it were paid for by Germans. Israeli poet Yisrael Har, who is interviewed in the film, says the refutations of the soap myth come from Holocaust deniers and Wikipedia.

      SOURCE – http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/new-israeli-film-debunks-myth-that-nazis-made-soap-from-jews.premium-1.527623

      P.S. Mayhem seems to be an excellent example of “White Australia”*! ! ! I wonder if he’s a “monarchist” like former Australian prime minister John Howard (whose father had been a New Guinea plantation owner, an admirer of Winston Churchill, and a supporter of Australia’s New Guard fascist movement).
      * White Australia policy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

    • DICKERSON3870
      June 18, 2013, 7:33 pm

      RE: “@Annie, you live in a country where citizens are entitled by law to have weapons stashed in their dwellings.” ~ Mayhem

      FROM WIKIPEDIA [Nuisance]:

      Nuisance (also spelled nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, “to hurt”) is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also “common”) or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as,

      “an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects”.[1]

      Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the “right of quiet enjoyment” is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed.
      Under the common law, land owners are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands.
      However this doesn’t include visitors or those who aren’t considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance. . .
      Legally, the term nuisance is traditionally used in three ways:

      1. to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (e.g., indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney)
      2. to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (e.g., loud noises or objectionable odors)
      3. to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two.[2] However, the “interference” was not the result of a neighbor stealing land or trespassing on the land. Instead, it arose from activities taking place on another person’s land that affected the enjoyment of that land.[3]

      The law of nuisance was created to stop such bothersome activities or conduct when they unreasonably interfered either with the rights of other private landowners (i.e., private nuisance) or with the rights of the general public (i.e., public nuisance).
      A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the public’s right to property. It includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience. The unreasonableness may be evidenced by statute, or by the nature of the act, including how long, and how bad, the effects of the activity may be.[4]
      A private nuisance is simply a violation of one’s use of quiet enjoyment of land. . .

      SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance

  3. Sycamores
    June 17, 2013, 9:43 am

    the link you supply to the piece published by Associated Press on fox news dot com has to be the most sloppiest journalism i seen in a long time. they seem more interested in the pronouciation of the name for the”Undersheriff James Szczesniak (SEHZ’-nee-ak)” rather then getting Martino age right.
    now, if he was a Muslim ……………………………………

Leave a Reply