Kevin, I will come back to respond to this at the weekend. Have a good Friday.

Heya Kev! Sorry, hectic last couple days as it turned out. Finally have a moment here with my morning coffee to respond.

I don't know if I've ever specifically said this, but I'm not a liberal. I don't vote Liberal or NDP and I never have. In a black/white left/right worldview, I am of course on the "left," though.

Quoted Text Chris, Jihad can be perfectly rational. [...] Exploding bombs at marathons is not rational. It does not serve Islam.

I agree. To me this would suggest either that Tsarnaev has misinterpreted Islam unintentionally, and therefore his actions should not be said to represent Islam; or that Tsarnaev has misinterpreted Islam intentionally to serve other goals, and therefore his actions should not be said to represent Islam; or that Tsarnaev is basely insane, and therefore his actions should not be said to represent Islam. Did the brothers' interpretation of Islam contribute to their violence? Obviously. Was their interpretation valid? Obviously not. Do invalid interpretations suggest something about the interpreter or the source? Probably both. But we don't blame the Beatles and the Bible for Manson, and I'm not gonna blame Islam and Allah for a couple of repugnant idiots like the Tsarnaevs.

Quoted Text You seem, as are most liberals, eager to equate collateral damage in other wars to purposely targeting innocent civilians.

There's a significant difference between collateral damage in a just war and collateral damage in an unjust war. I don't personally believe the US has been involved in a just war since WWII, though my understanding of some wars since then is definitely less than complete.

Furthermore, it's an interesting divide between the characterization of the deaths of U.S. civilians as the result of intentional targeting and the deaths of, say, Afghan civilians as collateral damage. One view might hold that civilian deaths on either side are similarly "collateral" to the aggressor's main aim and therefore not particularly unalike. I'm not sure if this is my view. The intentional targeting of a civilian area does seem and feel absolutely horrible, but I'm not sure there's any less horror in bombs dropped from planes that hopefully hit mostly military targets. "Objectively" speaking.

Quoted Text I did not try to make a larger case about Islam.

Your "Jihad; it happened before...it will happen again" (wait, that's Charlton Heston in Armageddon...anyway ) sounds like implicit condemnation. Maybe not. But my point, I think, is about analysis, and a willingness to accept one factor as overwhelmingly causative which I find dangerous.

Quoted Text Is it an extreme minority that has perverted the religion?

Yes, it is an extreme minority. Otherwise we would presumably see more organized and widespread attacks. The fact that other people support their actions is not particularly moving to me. Lots of people I know supported the attack on Iraq, and that was thuggish garbage too.

Quoted Text Am I a bigot for merely pointing out facts? And do you wish to bring up Christian similarities from centuries ago?

No, and no. I didn't call you a bigot, I suggested that your analysis was incomplete. And no, I'm not interested in similarities between religions at all; I'm interested in similarities of analysis. What I'm suggesting is that the same unserviceably simply analysis that people apply to the massacres of "witches" -- "They did it because of their religion" -- is being applied now, to the marathon bombings, by you.

Quoted Text 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.

Submission to the total power of a god, yes. Something common to many religions. In fact, your description above sounds to me like that of almost any religion with a holy book. Time for an evolution of the religion, yes. This is true of all the religions of which I am aware.

--

I don't think that Islam is unproblematic. But I do think that it's only one of many, many factors which need to be addressed and changed. Christianity didn't "evolve" to what it is today in a vacuum or of itself; neither did Islam.

--

Quoted from The Daily Mail article Little is known about Tamerlan in the months before the attacks, but his brother has confessed that they were self-radicalized and angry over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fox News reported that in 2011, he sent text messages to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, indicating that he was willing to die for Islam.

So...he was willing to die for Islam...because he was angry about the wars. I don't think this supports your contention that "jihad" was in and of itself a prime motivator. I think it supports my contention that revenge was a prime motivator. Boring ol' religiously-unaffiliated revenge.

Quoted Text 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.

It is objectively true that all people suffer from such blocks. Core beliefs of individual world views that are also common to an individual's social support network are almost entirely intractable. That's why it was such a tremendous feat for those Phelpses to leave Westboro, for example, even though that shit's bananas. Or, to choose a more basic example, those raised as theists have such a block where God is concerned. And for the theists, those raised atheist have such a block where God where God is concerned.

One more.

Quoted Text 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?

Yes. Obama is a criminal.

But yo, I gotta go. I just heard there's a big sale at the hemp store!

Phil, I am well aware of when the Crusades ended. I referred to when they began. I've actually read several books on the crusades, I enjoy medieval history. I particularly recommend Barbara Tuchman's book on the fourteenth century, which touches on the end of the crusade period.

None of which changes the point even a tiny bit. If Christianity launches a new crusade, I'll be happy to stand with the Muslims.

The Inquisition dealt with Islam in Spain, but it also dealt with heresies within Christian western Europe. The Church was trying to consolidate control over the continent. And it, by the way, over, and has been for centuries.

Again, I am not going to defend any brand of religion. I talked with a fellow we know recently as part of some research, and he told me that anyone who did not believe Jesus was God will be consigned to hell. No exceptions. I asked him what about those born before Christ, and he told me Jesus visited hell, stole the key from Satan, and visited the prisoners. He gave them the chance to believe and those that did were freed. Sounds like a bad Tom Cruise movie to me. Mission Impossible: Hell.

According to this person I am certainly going to hell. As they said on Seinfeld, "gonna be rough".

But here's the thing: his beliefs don't threaten any of my liberties or limbs. So I am happy to talk about them with him.

Do the beliefs of Muslims threaten life, liberty or limb? Maybe not. But when people begin by not even recognizing the motives of these bombers, that willful blindness is dangerous. As willful blindness always is.

I just watched some great reporting from CNN(yes, it's true!). They are at least starting to look into the Boston mosques these two attended. There is indeed a history of radicalism, and even some serious terror related stuff.

The problem with willful blindness is when people are afraid to even look into those kinds of things, for fear of offending, or even worse because it disturbs their view of the world. Most networks and also many law enforcement agencies are afraid to do this honest investigation because of the kind of politically correct mental blocks they have in place. There can be severe consequences for that.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Again, I am not going to defend any brand of religion. I talked with a fellow we know recently as part of some research, and he told me that anyone who did not believe Jesus was God will be consigned to hell. No exceptions. I asked him what about those born before Christ, and he told me Jesus visited hell, stole the key from Satan, and visited the prisoners. He gave them the chance to believe and those that did were freed. Sounds like a bad Tom Cruise movie to me. Mission Impossible: Hell.

Boy did you ever botch that interpretation, Kevin.  I've still got our emails.  Should I resend them to you?  But while we're on the subject just read, Luke 4:18, John 10:10, John 3:16-18, Romans 6:23, 2 Peter 3:9, and Revelation 20:15.  

Also on CNN last night, an expert on the middle east who was advising against using drone attacks the way we are. He was saying that you just create more terrorists that way.

But he said something else. He said the only way to stop terrorism is to begin winning the narrative. This goes to Andrew's point, that US foreign policy is fueling the terror.

The problem he said is that only one half of the story is out there. The terrorists are fully aware of the Muslims killed in Afghanistan by American bombs. But they are not aware that this is dwarfed by the number of Muslims killed by the Taliban, and by the great numbers who will be killed if we leave.

This goes to what I said yesterday. And frankly, this is how left wingism contributes directly to terror.

The problem isn't that American policy causes anger. The problem is that the narrative causes anger. Between Islamicists and far left liberals, the narrative is completely unbalanced. And therefore false.

It's been like this for decades. When I was in college, we heard often about American mistakes or wrong doings, but the Soviet Union was benignly portrayed. No professors talked about the Stalin purges of millions, or the oppression of human rights there.

This is what the Left does. Call it a generalization, Andrew, but it's a fair one.

After the bombings last week but before the suspects were revealed, liberals all over facebook were already posting about past US atrocities. I even had a friend posting about Mei Lei and all the way back to Wounded Knee!

This is the first instinct of the Left. It's what they do. And there is no balance to it. Which feeds terror.

Chris

Yes, of course. Mark David Chapman killed Lennon because of Catcher in the Rye, but that does not mean Sallinger was to blame.  

However, that guy in Norway killed all those kids because he was a fascist, and no one does or should hesitate to cite his motives. And that is properly a beginning point for discussion of that mass murder.

Same here. The discussion begins in recognizing that jihad was the motive, and that these guys are far from the first to share that motive.

Comparing collateral deaths to intentionally targeting innocent families...what can I say? At least your view is on record. Look, I am not arguing that the collateral deaths in Afghanistan are or are not acceptable. And determining a "just" war is no easy thing. Had the Allies invaded Germany in 1938 you would have called that unjust, but it would have saved millions of lives.

Intentionally targeting families...and to no purpose, for it achieves nothing policy waise...is not comparable. I'm sorry, only a left winger would say that, and that's the problem. That's how the Left contributes heavily to Islamic terror.

As far as causation, I am not saying there is only one cause. What I have said clearly is that it makes NO SENSE to willfully ignore that one thing that is obvious and established. Do you really suggest willfully ignoring pieces of the puzzle because they make you uncomfortable is a good thing? Frankly, it's self serving because the main purpose is to allow you to comfortably maintain a precept that makes you feel good.

Of Witches and Men: if Christians start burning witches again, I will not bury my head in PC sand, put my hands over my ears and scream "all religions are the same". I will come down hard on that set of beliefs. Let me know if starts happening. Especially since I live in a town that was part of the Salem witch hunt!

Chris, you know I respect your opinions. If I play a bit rough, it's because I know you are more than tough enough!

Again, all discussions should begin with honesty. That's my position. That was the point of my original post. That was the point of Bill Maher, of all people, when he chastised a liberal professor on his show. We can't run from reality. What's the best and fairest way to deal with it is the question. But without an honest and balanced approach, what chance is there of concluding anything useful?

Michael, I meant no offense and did not mention your name. My point is that your version of religion does not threaten anyone. I don't agree with it. But it is not inciting anyone to violence in recent centuries.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Michael, I meant no offense and did not mention your name. My point is that your version of religion does not threaten anyone. I don't agree with it. But it is not inciting anyone to violence in recent centuries.

I'm not offended and the Holy Bible isn't meant to be threat.  It's a promise.  "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of God endures forever."  Isaiah 40: 8

Have a good weekend.  

"Anyone who died before Jesus time, well as far as I understand it,  once he died on the cross, he went down to Hell, took the key of Death, hell and the Grave, off Satan's neck, then he set the captives free."

Since you have brought it up, I figure you are ok with me copying your words. I don't think I was very far off in my describing them. I mean taking the key of Death off Satan's neck, that does sound kind of like a cool movie!

Quoted from KevinLenihan "Anyone who died before Jesus time, well as far as I understand it,  once he died on the cross, he went down to Hell, took the key of Death, hell and the Grave, off Satan's neck, then he set the captives free." Since you have brought it up, I figure you are ok with me copying your words. I don't think I was very far off in my describing them. I mean taking the key of Death off Satan's neck, that does sound kind of like a cool movie!

Yes, starring Tom Cruise as Jesus.  I'd buy tickets to that.   Hopefully this link will clarify what I was trying to say to explain to you.  http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer17.htm

Heya Kev. I'll respond and then probably have to bow out of this one. The weekend cometh, and the IPAs in the fridge grow cold  

Quoted Text The discussion begins in recognizing that jihad was the motive, and that these guys are far from the first to share that motive.

I think we just disagree about motive. You read the Daily Mail article and see admission of motive in their willingness to "die for jihad"; I read the same article and see admission of motive in the brother's anger over perceived past injustices. It's not that I don't think that Islam is divisive; any religion which claims to hold absolute truth must be. It's not that I don't see how that sort of artificial division can lead to violence; history shows that it tends to. I just don't believe that Islam contains some unique and inherit evil that other belief systems don't. And I don't believe that if there wasn't a long history of non-religious violence between the United States and Muslim countries, that Muslims would arbitrarily decide to attack U.S. infidels simply because they believed their religion demanded it.

Quoted Text Had the Allies invaded Germany in 1938 you would have called that unjust, but it would have saved millions of lives.

I'm not so good with hypotheticals on my own opinion, but I think I'll disagree. I'm probably slick enough to catch the differences between German fascism in 1938 and the Arab "socialism"  in 2003. Not that Hussein wasn't scum, but despite the best wishes of Fox Entertainment, he didn't pose any sort of threat as a military aggressor.

Quoted Text Comparing collateral deaths to intentionally targeting innocent families...what can I say? At least your view is on record.

I quite clearly said that I wasn't sure if this was my view. I try to speak directly -- when I say I'm not sure, I mean I'm not sure.

Your claim is that the Tsarnaevs intentionally targeted families with no purpose, but what I think you mean is no purpose that you accept as valid. Fair enough. But I suspect that those killed by U.S. bombs are similarly baffled as to the U.S.' purpose. I wouldn't be thrilled, for example, to hear that my family members had been killed in carpet bombings because of Hussein's secret stockpile of WMDs.

Here are the similarities I see between attacks by and on the U.S.. Both result in the deaths of innocent people. In both cases, those deaths are collateral to what I perceive to be the main aims of the aggressor -- the "spread of democracy" on one hand, and "vengeance" on the other. In both cases, the aggressor concludes that the loss of innocent life is acceptable when balanced with the aggressor's goal; perhaps this indicates high regard for the goal, perhaps this indicates low regard for the lives that will be lost. (I think in North America's case, the former tends to be true of the public and both tend to be true of the people who actually make decisions.) In both cases, the assessment is that evil now will make for good in the future.

Here are the differences I see. North American bombs are considered acts of the state, while attacks on the U.S. are considered acts of individuals (that is, relevant states generally disavow involvement with or support of attacks on the U.S.). I don't think that has moral relevance, it's just a difference. North American (I'm saying North American but I mean, where relevant, whatever coalition members) attacks are intended to, and probably often do, involve minimal damage to non-military targets, while attacks on the U.S. often strike primarily or entirely non-military targets. The Tsarnaevs, in particular, couldn't really have intended to cause any militarily relevant damage.

So this last, presumably, is the irreconcilable difference that you see. Where I'm tempted to nonetheless draw a similarity, though, is in my assessment that both sides are still fighting for a cause that they (yes, mistakenly, one or both) believe is worth the loss of civilian lives. I believe but cannot prove that if the Tsarnaevs could have killed just W. Bush instead of hurting so many civilians, they would have chosen that option in a heartbeat. Similarly, I believe but cannot prove that if the coalition could have broken up Taliban rule with an assassination or two and not risked the lives of innocents, they would have done so in the same heartbeat. And I therefore think that both sides have a secular purpose in mind -- that is independent of , but well-informed by, religious beliefs -- and that this might well make the respective "collateral damages" more similar than they seem.

But again, I'm not sure.  I'm not sure to what extent the intent of the aggressor matters, versus the extent to which the outcome matters. I will get back to you if I become sure.

I am sure that I wouldn't try to comfort someone by telling them that their dead friend wasn't killed by people targeting him, but by people targeting some people that happened to be near him.

--

I understand your position that I'm willfully blind about Islam as a motive. Similarly, I'm tempted to say that you are willfully blind about secular motives. But I don't think either of us is willfully blind, personally. Probably just raised differently. As I said, some aspects of worldview are borderline unchangeable.

I'm sure your Facebook was flooded with left-leaning goofs eager to show support for their ideology's default position (mine was). Similarly, I'm sure your Facebook was flooded with right-leaning goofs eager to do the same (mine was). Lack of critical thinking isn't confined to one part of the political spectrum and it's not confined to one part of the world.

Buuuuuuut anyway! I'm out unless I need clarify something. I will of course continue to follow the thread, and hopefully you and Andrew have the time to keep on keepin' on. If nothing else, it's a pleasure to see people squirm when the political stuff comes up...

Will drink a beer for ya tonight Kev! You like IPAs? Got a favourite?

Happy weekend all!

http://bostonherald.com/news_o.....b_suspect_on_wiretap
(apparently he considered going to Palestine, but did not because he could not speak the language. So US foreign policy was merely an excuse. This guy was looking for Jihad where he could find it. Is it really wise to avoid considering his motives just because it makes us uncomfortable? Furthermore, whatever anger was aroused in him did not happen in some poli sci class. It likely happened in a mosque, as it usually does.)

UPDATE: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013.....-controversial-past/ (Boston mosques fully radicalized)

Chris, good morning.

I love IPA's. I like the ones that are so hoppy you can smell the hops as it's poured from the tap. We used to sell one at the bar that was from Portsmouth N.H., I can't recall the name at the moment, but that one was my favorite. They are always better of local.

Your argument and more importantly your approach is EXACTLY the kind of thing I am talking about. It's the approach to analysis that matters. And when people find themselves in the position of ignoring the blatantly evident it's time for them to sit back and say, whoa, why I am doing that?

As I think we have agreed, saying Islam motivated the bombers is not the same as saying Islam caused the terrorism. Just like Catcher in the Rye did not cause the death of John Lennon. The causality is a separate discussion. The motive can be included in that discussion, but it's just one piece of evidence.

What troubles me is that you, and most liberals/Lefties/progressives can not even allow that Islam was the motive. That's a canary in the coal mine to your ability to analyze productively on the topic. There is a major blind spot that prevents you from thinking objectively.

The terrorists have said in their own statements they did it for Islam. This is further supported by the lifestyles they attempted to adopt in recent years. Particularly the older brother who was trying to live according to his interpretation of the religion. There are also numerous tweets by the younger brother making clear his motive. The evidence simply could not be more stark.

And yet you search for ways not only to discount it, but to ignore it. You cling to any possible argument to avoid even mentioning the obvious.

For example, there is the anger over injustices or revenge motive. I think you have to keep in mind that the US has never gone to war with Chechnya. And this family was given sanctuary, welfare benefits, free tuition, and free housing here. What are they angry about?

Oh, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And why are they angry about that?

I could argue that they are angry over those things because of Left Wing narrative which falsely portrays these things as "empire building". So I could argue the Left Wingism motivated the bombings.

The problem is that your standard liberal agitator, even those inclined to violence,is not setting bombs at sporting events behind innocent children.

Sensible analysis might begin this way:

- sets of ideas can lead to violence against innocent civilians
- religion is a set of ideas
- the marathon bombers were motivated by their religion.
- question: is it an isolated instant, or is there evidence that the set of ideas which motivated the bombers is influencing others in a similar way.

The heavy lifting in the analysis comes in looking at the question. But you can't even get there without first allowing the obvious. That was all my original post meant. Are there political and psychological aspects to the motives? Always! I don't discount those at all.

Finally, my positions really have nothing to do with how I was raised. These kinds of things were not discussed in my house, nor was politics. And my parents vote Democrat generally...I think. My ideas come from the fact that I have always loved history and have read pretty widely. They also come from a tendency to follow logic where it leads me, even when I don't like the conclusion.

Please don't over interpret that. I am not saying my logic is correct or I have the answers. I don't. I find much of Islam appealing and poetic. I've been friendly many Arabs and have generally been impressed by their qualities. I have no personal animosity at all, and certainly was not raised that way.

There are historical facts that have to be weighed, however, when evaluating a set of ideas. Which is what a religion is. And no religion is exempt. When we see cartoonists getting killed, women denied the chance for schooling, bombs set behind families(targeting innocents), and much of this kind of activity supported and stimulated in the mosques themselves, common sense requires us to take a close look. Not willfully turn a blind eye.

One more thing, as pertaining to Phil's point:

Phil has indicated the Catholic Church's recent opinion(2005) on the fate of the unfaithful in the afterlife. This is a recent evolution in the Church's position. A wise one, I think, but recent. When I was in Catholic school, the Church's position indeed was the same as Michael's: that the only way to be saved was through faith in Jesus.

Non-believes were not treated as infidels to be slaughtered. They were viewed compassionately. But nonetheless, this was the official Church position.

Which shows the Church and the religion is still evolving and adapting. As a religion should.

Andrew mentioned something about who am I to suggest such a thing for Islam as though it was only a couple hundred years old. The Reformation took place in Christian Europe when Christianity was 1500 years old!

I don't think it's unreasonably to hope that Islam evolves away from fatwhas against cartoonists, honor killings, and the Koranic command to kill those that renounce the faith. The definition of human rights is always changing, but there are some core rights that everyone should be willing to defend.

edit note on "just" wars:

Always a difficult subject for anyone. There is also a difference between a just war and the wisdom of going to a particular war.

What would Korea look like if we had allowed the communists to take over? Hard to say. Maybe they would look like Vietnam now does, which seems to be coming around. Or maybe it would look like the North now does, which is a true living nightmare. Certainly Korea would look much better if China had not intervened in our defense effort. It would look like South Korea.

What would the middle east look like if Iraq was allowed to invade Kuwait? Would Saudi Arabia have been next? What kind of weapons would Hussein have developed?

In Afghanistan, the US gained nothing of national interest, except the eradication of the terror training camps. And the US invasion made the country a better place. The Taliban was another living nightmare of brutal oppression. And if the US leaves, many thousands, especially women who dared to go to school, will pay a terrible price.

The second Iraq war I consider to be a mistake. But not unjust. Despite any crazy conspiracy theory, the US had nothing to gain. The oil remains in Iraqi hands, and the presence of Iraqi oil on the market increases the overall world supply, which reduces the value of wells in Texas.

Furthermore, the US has spent much blood and treasure to try to make Iraq a better place for all its citizens and has tried to bring modern rights and democracy. The kind of people who dispute these things are the same people who refuse to admit religion even played a role in the marathon bombings. This is what happens when people create their own reality for their own reasons.

Am I overlooking the mistakes in those wars? Or the possibility that those wars were in themselves mistakes? No, I am not. Each of these wars can be reasonably debated. But as with terrorism, those debates have to begin with a balanced approach. One has to look at real motivations, not imaginary ones. One has to weigh the alternatives, including doing nothing.