Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Boston Marathon Explosion (Page 21)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 23 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23   
Author Topic: Boston Marathon Explosion
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
well you either changed your mind or you expressed yourself badly or I misunderstood you.

All possible, but its interesting that you did not mention the possibility that you were misrepresenting me. Not because I think that's what you were doing (or think it matters, really), but because I recall a recent incident where that was the *only* possibility that occurred to you:


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That's a complete distortion of my position.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
yes I should have expected that lefties would grab that sound bite and FOX News me into a something I neither said nor meant.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I imagine that you despise sharia but despise me more, and are willing to defend sharia for no other reason than to spit in my eye, and create some forum drama so you can denounce me like this:

Which is why I left this discussion. Since then, you've attributed at least two positions to me that I don't hold, and while I generally trust the community here to know me well enough to realize this, courtesy suggests that, having explicitly left the conversation, I could expect not to have others making claims on my behalf. Is this an unreasonable request?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A uniform is just a label. But in WWII, if we see someone in a Nazi uniform coming towards us, we shoot. That's the best you can do.
Except that uniforms are normally put on by the person wearing it (with the one exception you provide). And that Nazi coming toward you normally has a gun to shoot you with, not holding up his hands or holding a white flag.

quote:
Fighting with terrorism involves, by necessity, a battle of stories. We can outgun them 100:1, but if their story beats our story, they win. They paint a vivid and powerful story in the blood of innocents. That terror story saps the heart convictions out of the best of us, and fills the worst, the crazies like Tamerlane, with passionate intensity. We need a counter-story. We need violence and we need a show. Because the ends cannot justify all means, we set limits: we don't intentionally shed the blood of innocents. We restrict the deaths to what we could justify in an ordinary story of self-defense. But we need to have our timing, and cameras, to tell the sort of story that will counteract terrorism.
Is violence the only effective way to deal with violence? An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth; a death for a death? "Yeah, though I walk through the valley of shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I'm the meanest SOB in the whole ******* valley!"

I'm not saying we shouldn't go after Al Qaeda, kill them when we can, take out the worst of them when possible. But I don't think it is a good response to when someone hurts us.

Sure, it feels good for a while. It makes us feel strong and secure and virile for a while. But does it really do much good? Remember the letter-opener given to FDR during WWII by some Congressman? FDR's response was, good, we need more of these. And the Japanese used the report to hearten their soldiers, because it showed how vicious and deranged Americans were, to be stopped at all costs. [Frown]

One reason Al Qaeda and Hamas and many of the those other terrorist organizations are so prevailant in the Middle East is because they help the people far more than other organizations.

Need food? Hamas will get it to you. Need some good fighters to stop the Syrian government? Al Qaeda are some of the best. Sure, they have some radical ideas. But they are on my side and keeping me alive today. Better the friend you hate than the enemy who hates you.

"The pen is mightier than the sword, but the sword speaks louder and stronger at any given moment." -- Sir Roger Fenwick. But in the long run, the pen is mightier.

As I said, I am not saying we should not pursue Al Qaeda whenever we can. But when we make big show of striking Al Qaeda--especially to revenge an action by those not directly financed and/or trained by Al Qaeda--then we are not really helping anyone. We are only taking vengence, which in turn will inspire others to take vengence on us.

"Vengence is mine, says the Lord." And He will provide it in His own good time. But don't desire it; don't pray for it; don't hunger and thrist to see death and destruction; don't seek to do evil and curse those who hate us. That is not the right way. That is not Christ's way.

Al Qaeda will pay, as well as those of us who don't care how many others must get killed to make Al Qaeda pay.

[ May 02, 2013, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
well you either changed your mind or you expressed yourself badly or I misunderstood you.

All possible, but its interesting that you did not mention the possibility that you were misrepresenting me.
It's really not that interesting if you think about it. it's kind of obvious. I didn't mention the 'possibility' that I'm intentionally misrepresenting you because I know what I'm thinking, and I am not intentionally misrepresenting you. A misrepresentation may occur through misunderstanding, and I did address that possibility.


quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Not because I think that's what you were doing (or think it matters, really), but because I recall a recent incident where that was the *only* possibility that occurred to you:


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That's a complete distortion of my position.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
yes I should have expected that lefties would grab that sound bite and FOX News me into a something I neither said nor meant.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I imagine that you despise sharia but despise me more, and are willing to defend sharia for no other reason than to spit in my eye, and create some forum drama so you can denounce me like this:


And you think this last post of yours makes that theory less likely to be true? [Confused]


quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I could expect not to have others making claims on my behalf. Is this an unreasonable request?

You mocked me when I asked the same courtesy of you.

How's this: If you'll agree not to make references to what I've supposedly claimed, said, or believe, without explicitly quoting me and saying where you got the quote so others can look up the context, then I will extend you the same courtesy. Deal?

[ May 02, 2013, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:


quote:
Fighting with terrorism involves, by necessity, a battle of stories. We can outgun them 100:1, but if their story beats our story, they win. They paint a vivid and powerful story in the blood of innocents. That terror story saps the heart convictions out of the best of us, and fills the worst, the crazies like Tamerlane, with passionate intensity. We need a counter-story. We need violence and we need a show. Because the ends cannot justify all means, we set limits: we don't intentionally shed the blood of innocents. We restrict the deaths to what we could justify in an ordinary story of self-defense. But we need to have our timing, and cameras, to tell the sort of story that will counteract terrorism.
Is violence the only effective way to deal with violence?
That's not the question here. There are cases that give us better alternatives with how to deal with violence. If you have a better alternative for dealing with the particular violence of Al Qaeda and its mini-mes, then offer it. But platitudes aren't a viable alternative.

quote:
An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth; a death for a death?
Most of society is completely ignorant to what that actually meant. Contrary to the ramblings of the ignorant majority who quote that, eye for eye was never meant to say that you HAVE to get revenge. It was meant to set an outer limit on retributive justice. It meant that you can't possibly justify taking more than an eye in retribution for an eye.

Here, the issue isn't retribution at all.

If it were possible to end Al Qaeda's campaign of terror by setting Bin Laden up for life in a whorehouse, without any deaths on either side, I'd say take the deal and thank God.

quote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't go after Al Qaeda, kill them when we can, take out the worst of them when possible. But I don't think it is a good response to when someone hurts us.
Since you're citing scripture and platitudes rather than addressing strategy, when you say "good response" I assume you're talking about morality, so what you're saying isn't even connecting to what I'm saying. This isn't your fault; it's my fault for using words like "mitzvah," which set it off on a religious and moral bent. My point about the nature of terrorism, and the associated damages, has been lost. A story doesn't necessarily require new blood. I did, earlier in the thread, suggest that this would be a good time to roll out footage of past strikes, particularly the hit on Bin Laden, to give the news something else to play.

quote:
One reason Al Qaeda and Hamas and many of the those other terrorist organizations are so prevailant in the Middle East is because they help the people far more than other organizations.
True to Hamas, but not to Al Qaeda. The strategy you describe is new to Al Qaeda. Until months ago, they never got involved in actually helping the people. They got big without it. But you're right that it's a winning tactic, which is why they've latched onto it.

quote:
But when we make big show of striking Al Qaeda--especially to revenge an action by those not directly financed and/or trained by Al Qaeda--then we are not really helping anyone.
Two points:

First of all, Training materials constitute training. Inspire Magazine constitutes trained by Al Qaeda. Not trained very much, but apparently enough to do some damage. Taking down anyone involved in "Inspire Magazine" would be wonderful if possible.

Second, anything that takes the Marathon bombing pictures off the news to focus on something else, helps people. We don't want to interfere with freedom of the press, but it would help to give them something else to look at. I think that's part of why McCain wants to take us into Syria, although I think he's also genuinely sympathetic of some Syrian people. But I think that's a very dangerous move that would hurt us and a lot of other innocents.

[ May 02, 2013, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
]You mocked me when I asked the same courtesy of you.

You didn't ask me; you *accused* me of misrepresenting you (I believe the sentence began "dammit, Adam.") And my response to that wasn't mockery, it was an exasperated attempt to point out to you that you often leap to this accusation, and it makes civil conversation with you more or less impossible. You can't discuss a topic without referencing or paraphrasing the other person's position. When you get accused of distortion, manipulation, or some other nefarious plot every single time disagreement arises, its obnoxious. I'm not mocking you; I'm being candid about your behavior. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but the alternative is to simply leave every conversation you join (which I ultimately did here anyway).


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
]
How's this: If you'll agree not to make references to what I've supposedly claimed, said, or believe, without explicitly quoting me and saying where you got the quote so others can look up the context, then I will extend you the same courtesy. Deal?

As I said, two people can't discuss a topic without somehow referencing what the other person is saying. I already left the conversation, despite a marked distaste for most of your reasoning on this subject. All I'm asking is, considering that I've left, you stop attributing positions to me that I have to come back and add disclaimers to. If I were still participating in the conversation, I wouldn't have to ask this (obviously). And I'm genuinely asking if I can reasonably expect this.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
]
How's this: If you'll agree not to make references to what I've supposedly claimed, said, or believe, without explicitly quoting me and saying where you got the quote so others can look up the context, then I will extend you the same courtesy. Deal?

As I said, two people can't discuss a topic without somehow referencing what the other person is saying.
I agree. And since you interpret my own complaints as "accusations," and your own as polite requests," [Roll Eyes] , how about we stop leaving it up to chance, make sure that any references to what someone said are accompanied by quotes and indications of where someone might look up the context. Pretend for sake of argument that I had the same claim on the courtesies that you claim for yourself.

quote:
As I said, two people can't discuss a topic without somehow referencing what the other person is saying.
Precisely. So to avoid these disagreements in the future, on this thread and others, will you accept my proposal that we accompany such references with quotes and directions to context? References are important, so that "I agree with that" doesn't get taken out of context as "I agree that babies are a breakfast food." I've had my thisses and thats turned into rather amazing things on this thread.

[ May 02, 2013, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
To establish a clear connection between the brothers and AQ you need to show how they adopted an "approved" life style and appropriate ideological objectives, as well as some indication attesting to their affiliation with AQ in some organized way. You also have to be able to show that they were not garden-variety crazy. None of that is clear, yet.
This is an ideological war. AQ does not need a chain of command or even face time with its “assets”. You get your message out, hope someone listens and hope they act. If they provide the motive but not the means or opportunity that is still a link. If they provide bomb schematics that’s a good step towards means. Pete is being grossly unfair in his exchanges with you Al but you are being blind or naive on some points. Even if they are just “garden-variety crazy” the existence of AQ, the pervasiveness of their message and the information they provide was used to channel that mundane craziness into the terrorism framework. Emulation, delusion or structured operation all looks pretty much the same in the aftermath of an attack.

quote:
I missed the part where the Lt Robinson said anything about Sharia.
You may be right that there are those who pattern their behavior and enforce within their own homes Sharia law, The quote however doesn’t appear to have anything to do with this. The “culture” is not a problem. Any attempts to handle criminal matters or punish non-criminal (under our system) behavior is a pretty serious problem. I don’t think you would find a cop in Dearborn who would look the other way while someone’s rights were violated because it was culturally acceptable within their community. I also don’t think any cop there would, “just let them handle it” when a criminal matter was being “dealt with”. If it does happen it’s hopefully only a symptom of budgetary triage.

And Pete, stop trolling Al. Or if you must, strive to make it funnier. I’m a bit ashamed to admit the “no relation” crack made me chuckle.

Out of curiosity, DW, can you point to anything remotely offensive to Al that I said prior to page 1 and page 2 where Al said:

quote:
With little or no reliable information people rely on their prejudices to point at likely perpetrators. I'm surprised how many of you are succumbing to the impulse to pre-emptively air your fears and biases, however well you try to rationalize them.
and in response to me saying
quote:
"The 9/11 hijackers did not come from poor, under-privileged background.
Think."

quote:
[Al] Think? Why don't you back off yourself. If you're such a militant hero, why aren't you out there killing them yourself instead of bravely telling us who should be killed? You're acting like a drone soldier. The pontificating and finger pointing here by folks on the right (you included, Pete) is pretty pathetic. ... I popped in because I thought I might find something useful being said here, but this thread is garbage.
Al's statements cited and directly responded to my statement that we should be fighting Al Qaeda, and saying that Al Qaeda was not comprised by underprivileged people who just needed more love and food.

Note that here I've simply said I said this and in response Al said [quote].

I don't doubt that some desperate people will find what I just said wildly upsetting and unfair, and will no doubt run off to pages 9, 13, and 16 to justify what Al said about me on page 1 and 2. [Roll Eyes] But that's the basic format of what I'm proposing, Adam. I find your characterizations of my statements obscenely distorted, and you seem to feel the same about mine. I think quoting and citing provides better accuracy. Fair?

[ May 02, 2013, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joker and Roadkill had originally planned a July 4 bombing
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Islam is a religion and a legal system and a form of governance. I think that's what Pete is trying to convey and you are missing. I would say that most religions distance themselves from the law and governance or see themselves as symbiotic to it. They don't encompass all of it.

So is Judiasm, for that matter. Christianity is kind of distinct among the Abrhamic religions in that it nominally changes the focus of its rules from the socierty to the individual (though that important elemnet is missed by many of its followers, and what glossed over historically for a thousand or so years until enough sentiment against such control had built to break it loose). Even so most Jews and western Muslims seem to get that they can have such rules for their own communities without imposing them on external governments as well. The issue isn't that any given faith incorporates a system of govenance for its adherents, it's that fundamentalists, though the aggressive evangelism that defines them as such, lead them to try to impose that system on others outside of the natural community defined by their faith.
I don't think that "Orthodox" Jews should be able to force their rules anyone, other Jews included, or that Sharia should be forced on anyone, including Muslims. In America, adherents should be able to voluntarily accept or reject their faith community's counsel when they see fit, rather than having anyone treat them as the "natural community defined by their faith" and let their Imam or Rabbi or priest make the rules for them. A religious community should have no legal rights or powers over its members, other than to say that someone is no longer a member of the group.

Does anyone really disagree with that?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joker says that he was "motivated by religion"
quote:
Before he was given a Miranda warning and stopped talking, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told investigators that he and his brother were motivated by religion but acted alone, without help from any overseas terrorist organization.

But law enforcement officials believe someone may have carried items out of his dorm room at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth a few days after the bombings and they searched local landfills for them. So far nothing has turned up, but investigators are still looking in garbage containers.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I imagine that you despise sharia but despise me more, and are willing to defend sharia for no other reason than to spit in my eye, and create some forum drama so you can denounce me like this:

Which is why I left this discussion.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you and Al keep saying that. [Big Grin]

Please remember the context for my "I imagine" remark. You speculated about that "Pete imagines" that you like Sharia. In the future, don't speculate about what I imagine is going on in your head, so that I won't feel obliged to correct you. Don't ask, don't tell. Does that sound reasonable?

[ May 03, 2013, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
All possible, but its interesting that you did not mention the possibility that you were misrepresenting me. Not because I think that's what you were doing (or think it matters, really), but because I recall a recent incident where that was the *only* possibility that occurred to you:


quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That's a complete distortion of my position.


The trouble with words like misrepresentation and distortion is that they can be interpreted as an allegation of dishonesty, when in fact it's quite possible to misrepresent or to distort in good faith. That's why at my best I try to distinguish "mistake" (accidental misrepresentation) from "intentional misrepresentation."

When some Ornerians claim to represent what I've said, I feel like I'm being prosecuted in a Kafka novel. When you claim to represent what I'm saying, I feel more like I've wandered into some fun house hall of mirrors. That metaphor evokes literal distortion. Turning things upside down, inside out, blowing some things up, shrinking others down to insignificance, or making my central point entirely disappear. Can you recommend a better word than "distortion" for me to describe that phenomenon?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Out of curiosity, DW, can you point to anything remotely offensive to Al that I said prior to page 1 and page 2 where Al said:
If you want to be offensive, be offensive. Whether or not someone gave you cause to do so is a personal decision. [Smile]

I'm not above being rude and offensive at times. I can offer no absolution, pardon. Best I can do is inform when I'm entertained, bored or irritated. Things were sliding towards the latter end of the spectrum.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No absolution required. You passed moral judgment when you said that I was being "grossly unfair." I simply pointed out that you were wrong about the "grossly unfair" part. [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Best I can do is inform when I'm entertained, bored or irritated. Things were sliding towards the latter end of the spectrum. "

Fair enough. What for you were the high points of this discussion? There had to be something you liked since we're on page 21 and you're still reading and responding.

I like Aris' idea of speculation bets. [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I can find 12 items where I think you were unfair can I stick to my characterization? Tediously unfair doesn't have the same ring to it. But I do strive for accuracy.

I find a lot of the topics in this thread interesting. It's the fact that people are straining to tie them all together into a neat package that is causing all the speculation and misrepresentation. All this stream of consciousness stuff isn't for everyone. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CIA anylist who mentored the Boston Bomber, Mark Ames

Some interesting info.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting how? (I read the whole thing plus a few of the articles linked or cited.)
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You read the whole thing and you didn't think it was interesting?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am asking for your perspective, why you think it matters. It sounds like the [mentoring] class might have had some influence of ideas, but he's a college professor and his classes and project leadership are supposed to be informative and provocative, aren't they? Or asking in another way, what did Williams do wrong or how responsible is he for the Boston bombing?

[Edit to clean up details...]

[ May 09, 2013, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From my perspective the most interesting thing was all the effort to deny Chechnya's relationship to Al Queda so long as they focused their attention on Russia.

(Supposedly the men who kidnapped the Bishops in Allepo were Chechens as well.)

I don't think that Williams did much regarding Tamerlan that some college professors don't do to minority students and women of all sorts. It just happens that in this case the student took the message in a way he didn't intend.

[ May 09, 2013, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Assuming the article is right (a fair amount of association between his facts rather than causality), I would agree with your conclusion.

I'll quibble (that's why we're here, right) that Williams was being provocative in the way that some professors "...[are] to minority students and women of all sorts." My professors took the view that we were all naive, misinformed and uninformed to varying degrees. They provoked us to learn for ourselves. That would include everybody, not just minorities/women.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, I think we're in agreement that William's was probably using a tactic intended to provoke Tamerlan to learn more.

From my perspective, (which is what you asked about) that's not the interesting part.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"From my perspective the most interesting thing was all the effort to deny Chechnya's relationship to Al Queda so long as they focused their attention on Russia."

Yeah, I want to read a bit more about that. What's in the article and attached material isn't enough for me.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to read more about Al-Queda's involvement in Chechnya try googling it. There actually is a lot on the web including stories from mainstream media about Al Queda opperatives that have been killed in Chechnya.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking, is it just me or is the US press remarkably slow about reporting kidnappings of Orthodox clergy? Hell, even kidnapped mormon missionaries seem more likely to get press. I wonder if that's just a younger vic = more photogenic = more newsworthy thing ...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete the US press has studiously avoided talking about the situation of Christians in Syria as consistently as the avoided talking about the situation of Christians in Iraq. So I am not surprised about that. The media wants to sell the American people what we want, and what we want is a straight-forward narrative with good guys and bad guys. If Assad had kidnapped two Bishops it would be all over the news. For rebels to have done it complicates the story.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The older of two brothers who allegedly bombed the Boston Marathon earlier this year had “right wing extremist” literature including information about gun rights and white supremacy.

The BBC program Panorama spent months speaking to friends in attempt to uncover what might have radicalized Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed by police following the bombing.

In a report published on Monday, the network said that it had learned that Tamerlan subscribed to publications that promoted white supremacy. Some articles that were in his possession asserted that the government was behind both the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

One piece of literature discussed “the rape of our gun rights,” and a white supremacist document argued that “Hitler had a point.” Other materials described how mass killers acted calmly while carrying out their crimes.

BBC also discovered articles about the how U.S. drone attacks kill civilians and the suffering of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

But people who attended mosque with Tamerlan in Cambridge said that he had only turned to Islam out of frustration after his boxing career and attempts to becoming a U.S. citizen failed.

“As far connecting with the Islamic community here, to actually praying, being involved, doing acts of charity….all of those were pretty much lacking,” mosque spokesperson Nicole Mossalam explained. “As far connecting with the Islamic community here, to actually praying, being involved, doing acts of charity… all of those were pretty much lacking.”

“I would say he was just a Muslim of convenience,” she added.


Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a good thing we don't need to guess about their motives as Darwin Award #2 clearly stated their feelings and motivations about America, Islam and their attack:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/america-boston-marathon-bomb-suspect-wrote-boat-officials/story?id=19193153

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting pieces of info by Wessex and Seneca right there. Much appreciated. Sounds like quite the wacko.
Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
Interesting pieces of info by Wessex and Seneca right there. Much appreciated. Sounds like quite the wacko.

I find the left's desperate, wild attempts to paint Darwin Award #1 as some kind of white supremacist, gun-rights, extremist as laughable since it is all based on inference, innuendo and sketchy links, whereas the Islamist connection is from the bombers' own mouths and demonstrated by their own actions. Just more of the left-wing media trying to make it sound like this is "America's fault" and the poor Islamists had nothing to do with it.

[ August 06, 2013, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't be inclined to blame "Islamists" or the American right wing. What Al posted suggests that the guy was just a nut in search of a cause.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I wouldn't be inclined to blame "Islamists" or the American right wing. What Al posted suggests that the guy was just a nut in search of a cause.

That's entirely hearsay and speculation. I'd rather deal with facts directly from the source. What does the surviving perpetrator have to say about why they did it? That seems a lot more relevant than trying to blow smoke and say these were just "lone wolves" looking for a fight and not caring what justification they had.

More attempts to absolve the role of radical Islamism's links with terrorists. Not going to fly. Just wait for Darwin Award #2's trial when he gets up on the stand and rants about the Great Satan...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...as opposed to the Corrupt Government That Is Taking Away All Our Freedoms (ala McVey)? [Wink]

You see links because you want to see links.

The boys used Islam for justification, just like McVey used Right-Wing idiocies for justification. It doesn't mean either was essential for their actions, and eliminating either Islam or Right-wing paranoia would change anything. The alledged reading of right-wing materials was probably more for learning how to do an attack than for ideology. Just as reading certain Islamic sites can be used to learn how to make bombs out of pressure cookers.

Certainly radical Islam bears some responsibility for the crimes the Boston Marathon Bombers did. But you also have to wonder how much American Right-wing extremists bear, too, for publishing their literature of hate and instructions on how to kill. The rhetoric may differ, but the underlying message of fear, hatred and violence is the same. Both want to destroy that which they cannot control.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
...as opposed to the Corrupt Government That Is Taking Away All Our Freedoms (ala McVey)? [Wink]

You see links because you want to see links.

The boys used Islam for justification, just like McVey used Right-Wing idiocies for justification. It doesn't mean either was essential for their actions, and eliminating either Islam or Right-wing paranoia would change anything. The alledged reading of right-wing materials was probably more for learning how to do an attack than for ideology. Just as reading certain Islamic sites can be used to learn how to make bombs out of pressure cookers.

Certainly radical Islam bears some responsibility for the crimes the Boston Marathon Bombers did. But you also have to wonder how much American Right-wing extremists bear, too, for publishing their literature of hate and instructions on how to kill. The rhetoric may differ, but the underlying message of fear, hatred and violence is the same. Both want to destroy that which they cannot control.

Wow psychology and mind-reading, very complicated and very elaborate. You think I want to see links? Nope, I am just going on the facts. Between the two of us I am basing my conclusions on statements made by the perpetrator. You, on the other hand, are making hypotheses and guesses based on innuendos and 2nd-hand hearsay. You are ignoring the statements made by the terrorist.

Lets keep it simple. Rather than a lot of unproductive, wild speculation, lets ask the bombers why they did it, the survivor seems to be capable of speech and he seemed very willing to write down his manifesto inside that boat, why not also let him speak at his trial?

He specifically said the attacks were retaliation for US offences against Islam in the middle east and that his brother was in paradise waiting for him.

This other analysis about "right wing" motivations from the liberal media is reaching, and I think it's pretty obvious that it is politically-motivated reaching.

Do I really have to go back and point out all the articles where the left wing press was HOPING that the terrorists weren't muslim and that they were white Americans and their insane reasons why?

[ August 06, 2013, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd rather deal with facts directly from the source
Just as long as you realize that this means any crazy can project responsibility for their crimes onto any cause they wish, as long as there's some overblown rhetoric from someone associated with that cause that is fit for blame.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not denying that they are using Islam and the situation in the Middle East to rationalize their actions.

I'm not denying that radical Islam bears some responsibility for their actions.

I'm not saying that they do not consider themselves Moslems.

I'm not blaming the Right Wing for their actions, nor saying that it was motivation for their actions.

Basically, I don't think I'm saying anything you think I'm saying. [Smile]

What I am saying is that the links between Islam and their actions is superficial, about as deep as the links to Right-wing extremists. That their using Islam as their justification is as meaningful as Timothy McVey using Right-wing ideology as his justification. And that saying that all Islam is evil because of what they did (which I am not accusing you of saying) is the same as saying that all Right-wing ideology is evil because of what Timothy McVey did.

This is what I took away from Al's article.

The Moslems who knew Tamerlan didn't see him as a good Moslem. He just took on the mantle of Islam so he would have a reason to do what he wanted, just like McVey embraced Right-wing paranoia to justify his actions.

He had hate. He wanted to kill. He took on a veneer of Islam to tell himself it was OK. He researched how to do it, from Islamic and Right-wing sources.

But he is no more a reflection of Islam as a whole as McVey is of Right-wing ideology.

Radical Islam is a serious threat because of the network of planning and logistics they provide. But neither were supplied to the B.M. Bombers as far as I know. They just picked up the knowledge and the hate on their own. Radical Islam may appauld them, but they really had very little to do with helping them--about as much as the Radical Right did.

Organized terror is a threat that must be dealt with. Organized hatred is a lesser threat that must be dealt with in other ways.

Some believe that Islam itself is the threat, because some Islamist preach hate and provide information on how to kill. But so does the Radical Right. And it looks like the B.M. Bombers utilized both Radical Islam and the Radical Right to kill and maim those in Boston.

That is something I want people to consider when they condemn entire religions and cultures.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets look at the numbers between "radical right wing" murders and radical Islamism numbers. You cannot even begin to compare the two and the fact that anyone is trying is telling of political obfuscation.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not saying that radical Islam is not the greater threat. But morally, murder is murder, wouldn't you agree?

Or is there some minumum number of cold-blooded killings that is required before you can compare a movement to radical Islam? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I'm not saying that radical Islam is not the greater threat. But morally, murder is murder, wouldn't you agree?

Or is there some minumum number of cold-blooded killings that is required before you can compare a movement to radical Islam? [Wink]

Why don't we bring in depression? I find it just about as likely that poor victimized Tamerlan was suffering from a mental disorder that he was motivated or benefited from "right wing extremism." [Razz]
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 23 pages: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21  22  23   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1