Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

[shiny!]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

and fear, Shiny, and fear . . .

(just think how complacent Americans would be if a tiny sliver of the critical intelligencia were held in Homeland Security detention centers, as happened in Germany immediately after the Reichstag fire)

Yep.

The bad guys won, most people are happy as long as they have their bread and circuses, and the rest of us can shout from the rooftops (or grouse in our forums) but it won't change anything. Voting won't help, and civil disobedience is no longer possible.

[don]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

Yep.

The bad guys won, most people are happy as long as they have their bread and circuses, and the rest of us can shout from the rooftops (or grouse in our forums) but it won't change anything. Voting won't help, and civil disobedience is no longer possible.

Plenty of people are unhappy - check out the suicide article I just posted - but they're also afraid. The German factory workers were unhappy early, with the Nazi's national union supplanting the existing ones. (guess who they favored) The German middleclass bought the early victories. From Barbarrosa on it was all downhill for them. And, of course, the camps were a friendly reminder that it just wasn't worth bitching out loud about in public.

[BadJuju]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

I just know that if such a thing occurred here, I'm fucked because of all the shit I post online that they probably already have stored in databases somewhere. That's alright. I have a policy of not allowing myself to be taken alive and won't hesitate to exercise that to full effect should worse come to worst.

[c1ue]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

"Islamophopbia" is a term coined by the multi-culti left to slander those who tell the truth about the teachings of the prophet Muhammad.

Sorry, but the demonization of Islam is just as wrongheaded as similar demonizations of Catholics, of Mormons, of .

The reality is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not violent in any way.

Ultimately the reason some Muslims engage in violence is due to what their societies back home are pushing them towards.

I'll note yet again that the numbers of foreign nationals involved in 'terrorism' on US soil remains skewed toward Saudis, as opposed to the various member of the 'Axis of Evil'. Equally so we see, all the time, terror attacks by 'true blue' Americans: mass shootings, McVeigh, etc etc.

[Raz]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

....The reality is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not violent in any way. ...

The majority of Muslims worldwide may not practice violence, but their prophet most certainly did.

Islam was spread by violent conquest - not by young men in white shirts knocking on doors and asking those who answered if they have ever considered the Koran.
The only nation that became Muslim due to conventional missionary activity is Indonesia. The rest were conquered and forced to submit.

...

Utimately the reason some Muslims engage in violence is due to what their societies back home are pushing them towards.

It would seem that there's some truth to this as most come from failed states like Pakistan or Yemen, or Saudi Arabia where there's little or no economic opportunity.
But it is also impossible to overlook the Wahabist teachers who actually believe that those who martyr themselves in Jihad will be certain of heaven.

This will continue as long as the parents and Imams hate others more than they love their own children.

[Raz]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

...
On the other hand, the Islamophobia in the US is very real.

I certainly hope so.

It's evidence of (a) increasing knowledge of Islamic teachings and the treatment of other faith adherents in Islamic countries, and (b) common sense trumping political correctness.

[c1ue]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

I certainly hope so.

It's evidence of (a) increasing knowledge of Islamic teachings and the treatment of other faith adherents in Islamic countries, and (b) common sense trumping political correctness.

We've gone around the bend several times; I disagree with both your and Master Shake's views on this subject.

Islam is no more a unified religion than Christianity is. There are moderate, liberal, conservative, and radical (both ends) Muslims.

To lump all of them into Salafism is precisely to encourage the spread of that radicalized version in a Gresham's dynamic. Or a concrete example: Mao's famous:

Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent

which many have translated to: "the worse, the better"

[reggie]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

I certainly hope so.

It's evidence of (a) increasing knowledge of Islamic teachings and the treatment of other faith adherents in Islamic countries, and (b) common sense trumping political correctness.s

Huh, what about Carter/Brzezinski's funding of the Mujahideen PRIOR to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Are we just going to conveniently ignore the covert creation of this supposed-islamic terror complex in order to fit the American propaganda model? When is the American public going to grow out of its utterly stupid worldview spoon fed to them on a super sophisticated media behemoth?

The entire frame for this discussion is based upon fabrication.

[Raz]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

We've gone around the bend several times; I disagree with both your and Master Shake's views on this subject.

Yes we have. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Islam is no more a unified religion than Christianity is. There are moderate, liberal, conservative, and radical (both ends) Muslims.

"Moderate" Muslims are, I suppose, the tens and hundreds of thousands who have taken to the streets to protest the terror and murder of 9/11, the Boston Bombings, the Bali Bombings, as well as the slaughter of other Muslims, ... oh wait! ....

Liberal Muslims who ignore the plain, obvious meaning of the Koran and Haadith are not "liberal", they are apostate. Like pro-choice "christians"; there is no such thing.

To lump all of them into Salafism is precisely to encourage the spread of that radicalized version in a Gresham's dynamic. Or a concrete example: Mao's famous:

which many have translated to: "the worse, the better"

It is the arrogant, Neocon American Empire that breeds these terrorists, not the critiqing of Islam. Terror is the defense afforded the outraged weak. Some of this has clearly been brought upon us by the actions of our government.

[Raz]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

Huh, what about Carter/Brzezinski's funding of the Mujahideen PRIOR to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Are we just going to conveniently ignore the covert creation of this supposed-islamic terror complex in order to fit the American propaganda model? When is the American public going to grow out of its utterly stupid worldview spoon fed to them on a super sophisticated media behemoth?

The entire frame for this discussion is based upon fabrication.

I have no intention of attempting debate with you since you see a world of total fabrication. I don't have time to learn another vocabulary and entirely new definitions of meaning.

While you will get no disagreement from me concerning the American Empire, which I hate, that subject does NOTHING to alter the fundamentaly violent nature of Islam. It was NOT spead by unarmed missionaries and the claims of Al-Quaida are little different than those of the Barbary Corsairs face by Jefferson and Adams.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and Joh Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

[radon]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

Liberal Muslims who ignore the plain, obvious meaning of the Koran and Haadith are not "liberal", they are apostate.

You could go even farther and say that their tacit acquiescence makes them accomplices. Who else but their community put the idea in their head that killing kafirs is somehow gods work.

It is the arrogant, Neocon American Empire that breeds these terrorists, not the critiqing of Islam. Terror is the defense afforded the outraged weak. Some of this has clearly been brought upon us by the actions of our government.

You can't even draw a cartoon of Muhammad without getting death threats. I think a bit of critiquing would be a step in the right direction. Not getting your head cut off for making a joke about Islam would go a long way toward showing the world that Muslims have learned to play nice with others.

[astonas]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

Liberal Muslims who ignore the plain, obvious meaning of the Koran and Haadith are not "liberal", they are apostate. Like pro-choice "christians"; there is no such thing.

Is it fair to assert one's own categorization of religions onto others, asserting that people who believe themselves to be Muslim are not, because they do not fit one's own (non-muslim) definition of the term? Surely one who practices a religion should have some say in how their faith is labelled?

The alternative seems fundamentally fraught. Even the rift between Eastern and Western Christianity would imply that there could never be a universally agreed upon definition of "Christian" for example. I'm not sure that denying people's ability to self-label results in anything but pointless and unnecessary conflict, at the expense of all the faiths that are being professed. Numerous wars in Christiandom and the Islamic world have been fought over such things, and I think it would be a hard argument to make that the world is a better place for having had such wars.

Given this, I'm curious what the justification could be for universal labels, applied by those not in the faith itself? That seems a further complication yet, even beyond the demand for universal labels within religions.

It is the arrogant, Neocon American Empire that breeds these terrorists, not the critiqing of Islam. Terror is the defense afforded the outraged weak. Some of this has clearly been brought upon us by the actions of our government.

I think you've hit on a key point here. Whenever people are placed in a circumstance in which they are systematically doomed to be weak or exploited, that creates inevitable tension. The tighter the bonds of servitude, the deeper the bow of submission, the greater the desire to explode out of those positions violently.

Forced into a corner, any ideology can be perverted into a manual for terror, and there have been domestic self-identified Christians who have resorted to terror as well. I'm sure there is an argument to be made that some religions lend themselves to that more easily than others (and I'm pretty sure you've made that before) but I think the fact that the vast majority of people who identify themselves as Muslims aren't blowing things up is at least worth acknowledging in the interest of fairness, as is the fact that most people who self-identify as Christians aren't either.

[Raz]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

Is it fair to assert one's own categorization of religions onto others, asserting that people who believe themselves to be Muslim are not, because they do not fit one's own (non-muslim) definition of the term? Surely one who practices a religion should have some say in how their faith is labelled?

So certain "muslims" can reword and redefine the Shahada, ignore all traditional interpretation of their holy books in plain disagreement with the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars and jurists of the past 1,400+ years, and yet because they call themselves Muslims I'm suppose to accept that they are indeed, Muslims?

Because Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to have an "eating disorder", and because I've never eaten human flesh, am I then estopped from labeling him a cannibal?

The alternative seems fundamentally fraught. Even the rift between Eastern and Western Christianity would imply that there could never be a universally agreed upon definition of "Christian" for example. I'm not sure that denying people's ability to self-label results in anything but pointless and unnecessary conflict, at the expense of all the faiths that are being professed. Numerous wars in Christiandom and the Islamic world have been fought over such things, and I think it would be a hard argument to make that the world is a better place for having had such wars.

If one rejects the Nicene Creed, and rejects the principles laid out in the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerin, denies the Incarnation, denies the clear, unambiguous moral prohibition against procured abortion that stood from the very birth of the Church in 30 A.D. until the Twentieth Century,
then one is not only a heretic (the word literally means: "pro-choice") but an apostate as well, specifically as regards the Incarnation.

Denying the truth by allowing frauds to redefine it is cowardice in the face of conflict where one ignores the fact that aforesaid conflict is already occuring regardless.

Given this, I'm curious what the justification could be for universal labels, applied by those not in the faith itself?

How about applying them for the sake of clarity and truth in the face of political correctness.

Modern Western ideas of inclusion, tolerance, mutual respect, and compromise are foreign to the MENA Islamic world. It should be obvious when observing the persecution of the Christians and other religious minorities of the area that there is no real respect for freedom of worship for non-muslims.

As to me being a non-muslim yet applying labels: as Bob Dylan said: "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".


PS. I'm through discussing this subject here. Rant-and-Rave is the appropriate forum for such.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

PS. I'm through discussing this subject here. Rant-and-Rave is the appropriate forum for such.

Sorry to see you go Raz, but as I see it there is no Rant and Rave here; this is a welcome discussion upon the underlying principles of why there has been a terrorist bombing in Boston.

My input is different in that Christmas before last I had promised, (in public), to provide a short paper to my local Vicar on why I have no problem with religion, but do have a problem with the three letter word GOD.

Earlier this year, I was granted a free pass to attend the 12th Islamic Finance Summit in London. I have to say, I went with some trepidation as I do not agree, (I must add in the same way as Raz), with many of the perceived aspects of what one calls the Muslim religion. However, attendance was a revelation in more ways than one.

My childhood was marked with frequent religious dissent. My father became a Roman Catholic in the 1930's and by the time I was born, 1944, he had completely lost his way and there were frequent rows and angst thereafter. So arriving amongst a group of Islamic Scholars debating the structure of an Sukuk for Egypt, brought me right back to where I had been in my childhood. Back then I had discovered that the best way was always to argue your case; yes, strongly, but without violence.

So having arrived into a very strange setting in a large London hotel amongst a group none of which I had ever met before gave me an impression that today has a deep meaning for the future. As is my way, almost immediately, I stood up to debate with the conference; asking questions related to what they were debating. What was truly remarkable was that at the first interval, I was surrounded by Islamic scholars, business card in hand, wanting to further the discussion.

There were ~ six hundred delegates with only three of us asking questions.

So, the first point to make is that Islam has taught the majority never to raise any objections; silence must be the first rule for survival.

The second point being that the Islamic scholars are, (I was about to say; desperate), shall we say, very keen to hear debate and further it.

It was as though I was back home again as a child watching fervent religious debate; where in fact the underlying problem was a need to be able to change direction without also being seen as an unbeliever.

On another aspect; their attitude to the need for ethics and morality, service to the community in banking and finance is very very attractive; when seen against the normal attitude of the western banking system.

My take is that Islam needs open debate to allow it to move on from what is a medieval set of rules that have no place in a modern world. To give an example of why I say that, during the second day we were presented with eight Islamic scholars debating the wording of the Sukuk for Egypt. One of them kept repeating:

"If we allow that change, the next thing you know the women will want to not wear the Hijab, others will not want to pray three times a day, etc. etc....."

More than anything I saw or heard, that repeated outburst told me that they were in a deep state of flux with even the basic principles of Islam being repeatedly questioned from within Islam.

My own input was sufficient that I was introduced to what was one of the most senior figures at the conference over dinner the second day. (He was brought to my table for me to meet him). Again, I felt that I had made some good initial friendships with the scholars who came across to me as open minded and very civilised.

But that brought me right back to the promise made regarding the short paper and I felt that it was important to try and set out my own views; both to fulfil the earlier promise; but also to let all these scholars know my own viewpoint; so I sat down and wrote the following paper; A Philosophical Viewpoint, attached as a PDF.

I have to add that following the distribution of the paper, I have had no further direct contact with any of the Islamic scholars....... yet!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Multiple Explosions Reported at Boston Marathon

I reckon the threat from Militant Islam parallels the threat from Communism.

A good few Communist leaders and their adherents WERE out to get us.

Same for Militant Islamists and adherents today.

But where it gets confusing and complex with the depth and breadth of Militant Islam is the same confusion and complexity we faced with Communism.

While the Soviet Union and China opposed the US/West in Vietnam and Rhodesia as two examples, around the same time the SU and China were fighting very very seriously along their vast border as well as battling for influence in Zimbabwe(China won) as well as China and Vietnam fighting a border war post Vietnam War.

There IS a Militant Islam battle against the west just as there was with Communism.

But there was no unified Communist war against the west, just as there is not real unity in Militant Islam battling against the west.

Exemplified by Shia Iran battling Sunni Saudi as well as the recent border skirmishes between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here in Afghanistan hatred directed against Muslim Pakistan in several orders of magnitude greater than anything I've seen directed against the infidel US/west.

The world was not black and white then with the real versus perceived threat from Communism just as it isn't today with the real versus perceived threat posed by Militant Islam.

Some Communist were out to get us as well as other Communists. Just as some Militant Islamists are out to get us and other Islamists.

The average Communist, Muslim, and customer of semi functioning crony Capitalism are for the most part focused on meeting Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I think it's largely the minorities at the top of the curve influencing and controlling those at the bottom of the curve that helps create these boogyman perceptions.