All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
It's not the same guy. I was watching live that night. The naked guy was an innocent man arrested nearby then later let go. He was forced to strip in case he had explosives.
As far as the motive, there really is no confusion. Jihad is not a new concept.
Is it rational? No. But people from all socio-economic classes fall under its sway. Look at Dr. Hassan who attacked his fellow soldiers. Or the 9/11 bombers, most who were upper middle class. Or the numerous other failed attempts over the last decade, usually people that were economically privileged and well educated.
These kids had a lot going for them. The older brother had a beautiful wife and a 3 year old kid. The younger was in college and popular. They were treated extremely generously in this country and by the government. They drove around in BMWs and Mercedes.
Actually, Kev, "Jihad" is entirely rational. Greater jihad is an internal struggle for goodness and is non-violent. Lesser jihad is an external struggle against the enemies of Islam, and can be violent. While it's certainly evil to use violence and force to assert your view of the world, however, it's not at all irrational, at least in a pragmatic sense. With your knowledge of history, I'm sure you're well aware of the way violence has historically been used for political gain by almost every institution, secular and not.
Islam and jihad, as problematic as I believe they are (I'm not much for organized religion), are not primary causes that create evil out of nothing. People don't "fall under the sway" of jihad as they would some manipulative evil mastermind.
You yourself point out that many attacks were carried out by the privileged and educated. You honestly characterize these people as otherwise intelligent, rational, comfortable people who fall under some sort of spell and become evil? People ain't always the brightest, but they tend to act in ways that make sense, and secular sense at that, if their environments are considered sufficiently. It's finger-pointing superficialities like yours under which people fall sway.
I mean, what's your point? That the religion primarily affiliated with the area that the West has spent decades bombing, occupying, freeing, whatever, is the religion most closely associated with violent attacks on the United States? That U.S. bombs (we'll call 'em Christian bombs, since y'all a "Christian nation") in the Middle East have resulted in Middle Eastern bombs (we'll call 'em Muslim bombs, by the same useless rationale) in the U.S.? Maybe that's not a fair way to put it...perhaps you'd prefer, "That Middle Eastern bombs in the U.S. have resulted in U.S. bombs in the Middle East." Either way, revenge and violence against innocents are well within the purview of the idiot, religious or secular, but they are neither exclusive to, nor motivated by, nor inherent in the purview of the mujahid. Revenge for it's own sake, right or wrong, misinformed or not, makes a lot more sense as a motive than jihad.
I think it is a disservice to humanity to leave one's analysis of a tragic event at "they did it because of jihad." It misrepresents an ideology, oversimplifies an impossibly complex problem, and in doing so dehumanizes Muslims and demonizes a religion that is no more or less nonsensical, and no more or less worthwhile, than any other religion (Bill Maher notwithstanding).
"Why'd they horribly torture and burn all those innocent women as witches?" "Oh, 'cuz they were Christian."
"How could the Khmer Rouge-" "-oh, y'know, they Buddhist."
"Why'd they horribly torture and burn all those innocent women as witches?" "Oh, 'cuz they were Christian."
No 'witches' were burned at the stake in the New World. And only a handful were actually burned in Europe. They either died of sickness in prison or they were hung.
No 'witches' were burned at the stake in the New World. And only a handful were actually burned in Europe. They either died of sickness in prison or they were hung.
Religion wasn't the only causative factor with past witch hunts. In Salem for example, there were other political factors to consider, not just because they were Christian. Jealousy had a big part to play in Salem and inter-church debates.
I don't think any attack such as the bombings in Boston comes down to one single religion being the only cause. There has to be other factors involved. You're only promoting more hatred towards a group where the majority are innocent if you believe otherwise.
No 'witches' were burned at the stake in the New World. And only a handful were actually burned in Europe. They either died of sickness in prison or they were hung.
A historical nugget for all you's.
I agree! Except for the "handful" part. A lot of people probably burned. But totally, many more hanged. And lots of those burned were probably burned after death.
Don't forget my favorite. Tie them up and toss them into the ocean. If they sank, they were witches... We haven't exactly evolved a whole lot since then, if at all.
Actually, if they were tossed in water and were witches, the water would reject them and let them float. The innocent drowned.
I heard the opposite, Phil. The way I heard, witches were dragged down to hell whereas, if they weren't, God would pull them into the sky and untie them. Interesting.
A common witch-hunting method was “swimming” or “ducking” (based on the ancient “ordeal by water”) whereby the accused was tied hand and foot and immersed in deep water. If the accused witch floated, the water (God’s creature) had rejected her and she was deemed guilty; if she sank (and drowned), she was deemed innocent.
Chris, Jihad can be perfectly rational. Islam was established through Jihad. Starting with a few early military missions by the Prophet himself, within a hundred years a gigantic empire had been carved out entirely by the sword.
Exploding bombs at marathons is not rational. It does not serve Islam.
Though there seems to be no shortage of Muslims who think it somehow serves Allah. And revenge is not quite the motive you think it is. Not usually. It's not usually the case that the terrorist has experienced some personal attack that justifies revenge. Are you going to argue that because a drone missile struck someone in Pakistan that a Chechnyan is moved to revenge against civilians?
You seem, as are most liberals, eager to equate collateral damage in other wars to purposely targeting innocent civilians. I wish liberals could reason out the difference.
I did not try to make a larger case about Islam. What I was referring to was the liberal need to ignore facts that make them uncomfortable. The simple fact is these two bombers were motivated by their interpretation of Jihad. Common sense told normal people this was so. This was then confirmed by the suspect's statement. And their interpretation of jihad is shared by a great many people, though obviously a minority.
We can have a debate about religion if you like. But unless you want to begin by recognizing facts which are fundamental, what's the point?
I appreciate that you are a good man. An intelligent and educated man. Fear of being perceived or even self perceived as a bigot causes you to ignore plain facts you are uncomfortable with. This is where the problem begins: ignoring facts that are plainly evident.
Is this just a phase of Islam, as other religions have had? Is it an extreme minority that has perverted the religion? All possible. But not possible to discuss fruitfully as long as people are performing mental gymnastics to avoid obvious truths.
A religion is a set of ideas and beliefs. Just like a political ideology. Would you take this same position if the bombers had turned out to be tea party sympathizers?
And do you want to equate all belief systems with precisely the same value? That's a moral relativism that might make you feel good about yourself. But some belief systems, such as Nazism, can be destructive.
I am not comparing Islam to Nazism. What I am saying is we have a right to look at belief systems in comparative ways and make value determinations. Islam is oppressive to gays and women, much much more so than Christianity. Or do you ignore that reality as well?
And Islam is producing violent fanaticism all over the world. Not just terrorism, but genocide and revolution from Africa to the Philipines.
Am I a bigot for merely pointing out facts? And do you wish to bring up Christian similarities from centuries ago?
I think there is much beauty to Islam. And I think it served a civilizing purpose in the harsh environment it was conceived.
But it is a religion that from the outset used conquest. The word itself means "submission". And there are words in the Koran which have incited violence for centuries. It's time for a reform or evolution of the religion.
Now I don't care how people worship. I can respect that, completely. But when a set of ideas is used to suppress and to kill innocents, it's not time to close our eyes just so one can feel superior in our "tolerance".
Honestly, Chris, the only thing I have ever looked for, and maybe it's a fault, is truth. I have always been that way. Idea systems matter. They are not all the same. They have different effects on human behavior. The Norse religion glorified battle. These marathon attacks were motivated by jihad. That's where all honest discussion begins. Anyone who doesn't begin there is living in a world of their own creation.
His motivations were crystal clear to everyone except those who filter out reality.(MSNBC, CNN, the Networks, the governor of Ma, the President, the FBI)
The mosques he attended in the US are well stocked from the board down with radical sympathizers. Note I said the mosques, not some political meeting hall.
It takes an act of willful denial to separate religion from terrorism, both as a motivator and as an organizing facilitator.
I noticed Bill Maher got your attention. That's good. How many religions issue fatwahs against cartoonists? How many religions preach "death to (fill in the nation)"? And while few among them would actually kill a cartoonist, there will be widespread sympathy and support for whoever does.
We can't hide from reality just so we can fulfill our own self images. Hiding from reality is dangerous.
Awful lot of waffling there, Kevin, but at no point have you even considered the reality that US foreign policy, like it or not, is contentious throughout the world and cannot be separated from these acts of terror - that, my friend, is the reality. Does that mean I somehow let these murderers off the hook and try and turn the screw of blame? No, it's called taking an adult view of the world, you know, shades of grey - something that the far right seem incapable of doing. Btw, I'm adopting your style now... massively generalising a whole group in a term: the Right.
You take the default right wing position that it's their fault, cos they're Muslim and Islam is so darned backwards. That their religion's going through a growing phase, as if it's a couple of hundred years old. Kevin Lenihan knows best. As ever. It's galling to see you patronise Chris in your reply when it's so incredibly weighted in one direction. Oblivious to the facts and history of the debate, and as to the current situation and its complexities. You know the Right's position, and thus it must be true. 'Cos they say so.
And, please, spare me the lecture that to criticise US foreign policy is a liberal disease. It's such an incredibly weak argument, and merely serves to highlight the amusing irony that it's YOU refusing to see the truth, and thus "hiding from reality".
Am I a bigot for merely pointing out facts? And do you wish to bring up Christian similarities from centuries ago?
Big difference between today's terrorist attacks and what the Christians did centuries ago. The Islamic terrorists do not represent their faith. The persecution during the Crusades and Inquisition were ordered by the Vatican.
I am curious what truth I am refusing to see. The only thing I asserted in my original statement was that Jihad was the motivation of the marathon bombers. But let's come back to that.
First a word on generalization. I realize that in today's school system that's been turned into a dirty word, almost an evil one. So it's adopted and thrown out there by many without any rigorous thought.
The fact is that generalization is an essential tool for analysis. Science itself was built on it: observe, formulate general theory, test, formulate more specific theory, test again.
The problem is not generalization, but poor generalization. If I meet a Mexican who does not like spicy food, and I assert therefore that Mexicans don't like spicy food, that's poor.
Furthermore, if I assert based on observation that Mexicans like spicy food, this generalization does not require that ALL Mexicans like spicy food for it to be useful.
The generalizations I use that bother Andrew are usually about liberals. It should be noted that there is no such thing as a pure liberal or conservative. Everyone has a mix of beliefs. Nonetheless, the generalizations can be useful, and even essential in discussing contrasting world views.
In 2000, I had a college student work for me. She was very intelligent, a straight A student, very well educated. And very liberal. After work one night, thinking she would tweak me, she made the statement "I f@cking hate Catholics". Now I want to note that I was raised Catholic, my pother is Protestant, and I am not religious. I have no inclination to defend the Catholic Church, or even Christianity.
The general understanding of how the liberal mind thinks served me well in my response. I asked her why she hated Catholics, knowing full well why of course. She said because they didn't allow abortions, or women priests, and they called homosexuality a sin.
Next I asked her a simple question: how do you feel about Islam?
Keep in mind this girl is intelligent and educated. She would have known full well that Islam held the same position as Catholics on these issues, only FAR more rigorously to say the least. Her response?
Word for word: "Oh, I'm ok with them."
There was no discomfort at all. It was as though she was completely unaware of the contradiction. Her face brightened at mention of Islam.
How do we explain this? How do YOU explain it? I'll get back to that question later.
My preference is truth and honesty, wherever it happens to lead. My college student had a block that prevented her from even perceiving basic contradictions. I prefer to avoid those with rigorous thought.
For days I watched almost every news report tell us we knew nothing about the marathon bombers motives. A big mystery to them. Even after suspect number two told us why: for Islam.
Now, does this fact in itself mean Islam in any way causes terrorism? No! But it does lead me to wonder: why can't we be honest about what caused THIS terrorism? Have some people erected blocks, just like my college employee, just so they can avoid things that make them uncomfortable? Anyone that prefers truth and honesty will want to avoid those kind of blocks. IF one places more of a premium on feeling "tolerant", then maybe blocks are desirable, I guess. I prefer honesty and truth.
If only a handful of liberals were erecting such blocks, my generalization would be poor. However, this was the dominant approach on every channel except Fox. It was the approach of the governor and the President, all well known liberals. So my generalization is fair and accurate: liberals simply refused to even consider religion as a possible motive...even after the statements of the terrorists confirmed! US Foreign Policy
When my parents went to school, in the 50s, it was unheard of to talk about wrongs committed by the American government. This was the wrong approach to education. Starting in the 60s, we went the opposite way. Now schools talk about American atrocities so much that kids grow up thinking this the most evil nation ever. When I was in college, we learned of American wrong doings in WWII, but nothing of Japanese atrocities. At the very least, human rights abuses by both side were treated as equal(they were not, do your homework if you doubt be), and often the Japanese were portrayed as victims.
This is liberalism in a nutshell: distortion.
And that's how we end up with blocks. That also, frankly, contributes to terrorism, because these kids, like the marathon bombers, were fed this unbalanced approach.
I am all for an honest accounting of American mistakes or abuses. As long as it is balanced. Are you capable of that Andrew?
As the major superpower in the world, there are big responsibilities. Obama, a very liberal Senator and "scholar", has found this out. No one wants to remain in Afghanistan. There is not one thing to be gained from it. But to leave would mean a human disaster. Tens of thousands of young girls and women are in school right now, hoping for a bright future. If the Taliban returns, they will be severely punished...and I mean severely...for the audacity of wanting to learn. Does the left care about that? Or have they erected yet another mental blockage in order to allow themselves the delight of sitting in their coffee shops and Bohemian clubs and criticizing US foreign policy?
I was myself against the Iraq War. But it was not a war of expansion or a war against Islam, and anyone who argues that lives in a dream world. And the only people who argue it are liberals and Islamists.
The US, under Clinton, went to war to save the Bosnians...who are Muslim. Our only motivation was human rights. The Europeans did their usual bickering in their cafes.
Iraq was an attempt to bring democracy and modern freedom to the middle east. There are casualties in war, including civilian. It stinks. That's war.
But where are the liberals? They gave Obama a nobel peace prize merely for being elected. But Gitmo is open, and drones are striking targets in multiple nations. He also intervened in Libya without permission from the UN or our government. So is Obama a "war criminal"? Come on, where are the libs? Is there a big sale at the hemp store and none of them are home?
Jihad vs Crusade:
I won't defend crusade. Or even Christianity. Or Buddhism, or taoism. But it should be noted: the crusades were a thousand years ago!!
Look, in the early centuries of Islam, Islamic countries were light years ahead of Christian Europe in terms of culture and civilization. The library in Cordoba, Spain had more books than all of Europe combined. The Muslim world excelled at mathematics, architecture, etc.
But let me ask people this: if Europe were 60% Islamic, which it will be in a matter of decades, will people enjoy the same human rights? Will women? Will gays? Don't you owe it to future generations to ask those questions now? Or is your desire to think of yourself as tolerant more important?
Bill Maher, an obnoxious liberal, admitted it very eloquently this week, and the video is online. There simply is a problem. Only one religion issues fatwahs against cartoonists. Only one religions inspires people to target innocent children with bombs. Only one religions does not allow women to drive. Only one religion puts women in a second legal class. Only one religion has produced female castration in the millions.
Do people want to block themselves from seeing these things just so they can have the luxury of thinking how wonderfully tolerant they are?
I'll conclude by going back to the girl that worked for me. The answer is, yes, the only possible explanation for her behavior exists in the psychology of the liberal mind. She was more than smart enough to see the contradiction, and yet she could not. So intelligence or education were not the barrier. That only leaves something deep within the psyche. It goes to the most intrinsic part of us: our sense of self.
This young woman had a set of assumptions about the world that were so deeply ingrained that they could not be challenged without threatening her sense of who she was. Being "tolerant" and "non-judgmental" and concerned about the "less privileged" was what made her who she was. Made her feel good about herself. Any information that threatened this threatened her identity and was blocked. It was not even allowed access to her conscious mind.
Maybe that's good. I myself prefer to seek the truth. Even when it leads places I don't like.
Pages: 
Author
Boston Marathon Bombings
Logged
Locked Board