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.
I feel so much for those in Boston. It is so hard to comprehend why someone would do something like that to me. Bless the fallen. My thoughts and prayers are with them!
This is a giant planet and we're lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they're pointed towards darkness.
But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago.
So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."
This is truly horrible. What was even more horrible than the bombings itself was that a thought flashed through my mind "at least it wasn't as bad as Sandy Hook". Really?!!! Is this the new world?
This is truly horrible. What was even more horrible than the bombings itself was that a thought flashed through my mind "at least it wasn't as bad as Sandy Hook". Really?!!! Is this the new world?
Sorry to say it, Pia but this is the new normal. You really are better off adjusting to it than being horrified every time it happens for now on. That's the truth, sad as it is.
My mom was at the finish line (near the site of the second explosion) about 5 minutes before in happened. She went to watch the finish during her lunch break and went back to work just in time not to be there. She was two blocks away when she heard the explosions and also saw smoke coming from the Kennedy library.
Both of my parents work in Boston and were evacuated shortly after.
This is a disgusting thing to happen but I am always inspired by the people you see running toward the explosion when it happens.
'Artist' is not a term you should use to refer to yourself. Let others, and your work, do it for you.
Sorry to say it, Pia but this is the new normal. You really are better off adjusting to it than being horrified every time it happens for now on. That's the truth, sad as it is.
Adjusting only makes it okay. We can't accept this and turn away.
'Artist' is not a term you should use to refer to yourself. Let others, and your work, do it for you.
Adjusting only makes it okay. We can't accept this and turn away.
Who said anything about turning away? I don't subscribe to that at all. But, if there's anything that can be done about it, you need to try and take emotion out of the equation. Look at the people who were out there helping the injured. They let rationalization take over and helped people instead of falling victim to emotion.
I'm going to do my best not to bring politics into this (and please don't respond to this part, because it could cause thread problems) but look at when something like this happens. Immediately, people make calls for things to be banned. Looking away from the Newtown shooting where banning assault rifles was called for, there are other situations in which the same thing has happened. Remember K2 aka synthetic marijuana? It flew under the radar for two years before the news caught on and all of a sudden, people were horrified and called for it to be banned. Nothing good has ever come from an emotional decision.
Point is, people should be vigilant. Beyond that, there's nothing else you can do except watch as things like this happen again and again.
Mr. B...seriously, your attitude is not what I think anyone needs at this time.
Yes, shit like this happens and will continue to happen, but to act like it's something we should understand as normal is not cool, IMO.
Jeff, you don't have to tell me. These are my thoughts on how to prepare for future situations like this. And, I feel for every one of the three who died and the 130 who were injured.
And, I'm not saying it has to be something that's felt right now. Not to be snide, but if you thought I meant what I said applied on the same day as the attack, that's ridiculous. It was meant for the future, when we're in the re-build and (hopefully) come back stronger phase. This is the time where we pray for those who are injured and mourn the dead.
Also -- my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon explosions. Prayers also for the first responders, and other heroes who assisted at the scene, and in hospitals and for law enforcement personnel, who are already working to bring those responsible to justice.
April 15 -- not a nice day. My prayers to those murdered in Boston, in Kirkuk, and in the other Iraq cities that were the sites of bomb attacks yesterday.
Yes, Heretic. I'm in Azerbaijan and April 15th was very quiet here (thankfully - it's my b-day, you know) and then on 16th we heard about the Boston tragedy.
I don't even know about what happened in Iraq...
Got me thinking that there will be time every day will be called a mourning day by some group of people if not already. That's so sad.
Of course you never hear about the church groups that come to the aid of people in times of disaster, but this kind of cra@p always makes front page news. Blah, blah, blah.
Anyone with half a brain knows good and well this is not what "true christianity" is all about.
Why aren't you stopping them, Pia? You live in their neck of the woods. You have a gun. And a poodle.
Oh, is it that Terry Jones church? I saw him last week at the grocery store. His church is about 3 miles from my house. No one listens to him. They only have like 30 members.
And yes, I do have a couple of guns, but I think in this case, Guinness could handle it on his own.
And they're all saying that regarding their gods. Phil
Their god has a little "g" Mine has a big "G". Jesus said you can tell a tree by its fruit. But Let's not use this tragedy as an opportunity to promote my God - or your athiesm.
Upper case and lower case spellings mean nothing in this matter. My reference to 'gods' is a generic term and an indirect noun; it shouldn't be capitalized. 'God' and 'Jesus' are direct nouns and specific names; they should be capitalized. This doesn't give your faith any validity. People also capitalize Thor, Mohammed, Santa Claus and Green Lantern (look, another big "G").
I find it upsetting how two of NYC's major newspapers reported on the bombing.
The New York Post website reported early on that there were a dozen dead; it didn't change this number for over ten hours. The Daily News doctored a photo on its front page as not to show what they considered to be a gory injury.
I don't think it's a terrorist act. A fertilizer plant is just a timebomb waiting to go off. That is literally some of the most volatile stuff out there. That was just a case of someone making a small mistake with a serious repercussion.
They say this Waco blast measured 2.1 on the Richter scale. Same intensity as a small nuke. Felt from 50 miles away. Makes me wonder how these fertilizer plants store their product. Has to be a safer way. That is unreal.
They say this Waco blast measured 2.1 on the Richter scale. Same intensity as a small nuke. Felt from 50 miles away. Makes me wonder how these fertilizer plants store their product. Has to be a safer way. That is unreal.
James
Yeah, found it hard to believe that they would allow a fertilizer plant to be that close to homes, let alone that school and nursing home a hundred yards away. That's like living next door to a dynamite factory. In fact, when I first saw the news report, it reminded me of this chemical plant explosion in Nevada, but they had the sense to put that place in the middle of the desert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuRwXFzO1Yo
Surprised this kid didn't try to kill himself when his brother did. What's scary is he might have had a reason. Something he wanted to do first. He won't be able to move much though.
Boston looks like an apocalyptic film with all the empty streets.
Hopefully this ends without more innocent suffering.
MSNBC no doubt is disappointed the way this played out. Completely the opposite of the POV they pushes all week.
the video clearly shows the 26 year old being escorted to BPD vehicle whilst handcuffed and not wounded, which in total contradiction to official reports which claim the suspect was shot by police and then run-over by his younger brother in a stolen SUV in Sommerville, MA.
There is nothing clear about the video. Yes, there is a man walking naked in handcuffs, but that's about as far as this controversy goes. The man in the video could be anyone. The identity is not clear and what the witness in the other video is describing could be a misinterpretation.
It just seems like some drop-kick "journalist" is attempting to create a controversy to make a little money for themselves. It's disgusting.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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!
"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?
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.)
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.
Pages: 
Author
Boston Marathon Bombings
Logged
) 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.
Locked Board