[Archived] Boston Marathon hit by Explosions

[SydneyRover]

It's a bit pathetic to have to resort to history books to support an discussion about current affairs Colin would you not say.

You can't have a reasonable discussion about current affairs without putting things in a historical context.

Which is why you've looked so silly in this thread.

[Al]

Not at all.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

The phrase "Grasping at straws" comes to mind.

[broadsword]

I think it's actually quite an interesting, if terribly morbid, topic. I'm not exactly a walking encyclopaedia on it, I think it's best to keep an open mind. Although I'll probably get slated for citing wikipedia here.

The first thing that's interesting is that the CIA purportedly supported al Qaeda as an insurgent force against the Russians in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_%E2%80%93_al-Qaeda_controversy

Two things that stood out for me in the main wiki entry for al Qaeda is firstly the quote: al Qaeda is a "loose label for a movement that seems to target the West".

Secondly, its plan for bringing the US tumbling down by 2020 by engulfing it in wars on multiple fronts that it cannot economically sustain (by provoking it to invade), which would then pull the rug on the world capitalist system. The US seemed only too happy to oblige, what the hell were they doing going into Iraq if it wasn't for the oil?

9/11 was obviously its big set-piece; 7/7 its follow-up - the hall-marks being multiple targets at once. Now with bin Laden gone and the organisation de-capitated, the big question is whether they are capable of striking again in the manner of 9/11, or will atrocities "merely" be restricted to lone nut-jobs "killing in the name". Will the US eventually go into Iran (what is their thing about invading countries, they have a hard-on for it?), does al Qaeda still have a command structure it can use, are they already planning something?

I don't think the media help in any sense by attempting to stir up a panic and make people think divisively. Are they just doing this to sell 'papers or is there a darker motive? I think there's two separate strands to this, what is played out in the media for the benefit of the public, and what is really going on behind the scenes.

And what I also think is interesting is how the Bush family came to be close buddies with the bin Laden family, that is rather an uncomfortable fact. Also noteworthy that the 9/11 hijackers (some of them) were going to travel to Chechnya in 1999 to fight against the Russians.

[Steve Moss]

You can't have a reasonable discussion about current affairs without putting things in a historical context.

Which is why you've looked so silly in this thread.

Fine. Here's some historic context.

Muhammad creates Islam out of the whole clothe. [1]

Muhammad then begins a reign of terror that results in several centuries of Muslim aggression and forcible expansion of its religion, across the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. This includes the Muslim conquest of previously Christian Jerusalem.

Then Catholics initially decide they'd like to restore Christian access to Jerusalem, though later decide to conquer it (perhaps due to the Muslim rulers order to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre [later ordered rebuilt] and the Seljuk Muslims assaults on Christian pilgrims, or just because they had a wicked temper), from the Muslim. Regardless of reason, about 200 years of intermittent war breaks-out.

After the Crusades, Christians turn to killing other Christians as their primary religious hobby. Muslims under the Ottomans continue expansion into Christian Europe, including destroying the Byzantine Empire, and further expansion into the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe (as far as Austria).

Muslim power fades around the 1600s. Not to be deterred, Muslim pirates continue raids against Christian villages and shipping, using their religion as an excuse.

After another century or two, supposedly Christian nations become more literate, the population begins to read the Bible directly, and, perhaps not coincidentally, their leadership no longer profess religious reasons to invade their neighbor but start rationalizing the need to kill each other for far more sensible reasons; national honor, territory, resources, political philosophy (though I suspect Marxism as akin to a religion in a lot of ways) or because My Cousin Vinny asked me to. Surprisingly enough, I believe that these were the exact same reasons people killed each other prior to Judaism, Christianity or Islam (religious adherents of which created the god told me to excuse for going to war).

The real weakness of the Muslim governments is but into stark contrast by the youthful, relatively weak and inexperienced, USA's kicking the pirate protecting Muslim governments in the teeth in the early 1800s.

Muslims become relatively insignificant in world affairs. It doesn't stop them from pursuing their local religious pogroms, including the killing of almost 2 million Christian Armenians, in the early 20th century.

Jews settle Palestine. For good reasons or bad, Jews and Muslims begin to kill each other. Surprisingly (or not) as a matter of general practice, Jews don't go around killing Christians despite the apparent religious nature of the conflict.

Oil becomes important and Muslim nations have a lot of it. Now wealthy, Muslims become more influential in world affairs.

Coincidentally (or not) Jihadis arrive on scene.

Now that the history is in context (some people from some religions have been killing each other for religious reasons for 2,000 years, though some appear to have grown out of it), it is my hypothesis that:

Most Muslims are peace loving because most people are peace loving, not because their religion tells them to be.

A not insignificant minority of the Muslim population which is not peace loving finds plenty of justification for killing others within the pages of the Koran.

The apparent goal of these nut-jobs is to bring down the West, restore the Caliphate, and spread Islam.

The majority of peace loving Muslims lack the desire, will, courage and/or ability to restrain/control their extremist co-religionists.

Ergo, Islam is not a religion of peaceful co-existence.

Therefore, If Muslims can't (or won't) keep their own in order, and can't (or won't) control these loons within their own territory, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Marines kick down their doors and do the job they apparently can't (or won't).

All told, I think the West has been far too civilized in dealing with these nations/peoples/religious organizations and its time to starting showing them how serious we are in dealing with their problem. And that we should do so in such away that the majority of Muslim people view it as being in their interest to handle the problem in house, squelching an idea of bringing about the fall of the West, restoration of the Caliphate or the forcible spreading of Islam through terror or other means.

[1] _{To be fair, a similar case (right or wrong) can be made for Judaism (burning bushes?) or Christianity (God sends to Earth himself, his son and/or the Holy Ghost who are one and the same but aren't really?). [For the record, I'm a Christian of the Methodist persuasion and I believe in God, the Son and Holy Ghost who died for our sins [eliminating the need for ritual sacrifice] and give us a path to redemption as a matter of faith, though reason may cause some to not unsurprisingly doubt.]}

[Al]

You can't have a reasonable discussion about current affairs without putting things in a historical context.

Which is why you've looked so silly in this thread.

On the contrary it is you who have looked silly and I who has been proved to be correct.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Fine. Here's some historic context.

Muhammad creates Islam out of the whole clothe. [1]

Muhammad then begins a reign of terror that results in several centuries of Muslim aggression and forcible expansion of its religion, across the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. This includes the Muslim conquest of previously Christian Jerusalem.

Then Catholics initially decide they'd like to restore Christian access to Jerusalem, though later decide to conquer it (perhaps due to the Muslim rulers order to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre [later ordered rebuilt] and the Seljuk Muslims assaults on Christian pilgrims, or just because they had a wicked temper), from the Muslim. Regardless of reason, about 200 years of intermittent war breaks-out.

After the Crusades, Christians turn to killing other Christians as their primary religious hobby. Muslims under the Ottomans continue expansion into Christian Europe, including destroying the Byzantine Empire, and further expansion into the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe (as far as Austria).

Muslim power fades around the 1600s. Not to be deterred, Muslim pirates continue raids against Christian villages and shipping, using their religion as an excuse.

After another century or two, supposedly Christian nations become more literate, the population begins to read the Bible directly, and, perhaps not coincidentally, their leadership no longer profess religious reasons to invade their neighbor but start rationalizing the need to kill each other for far more sensible reasons; national honor, territory, resources, political philosophy (though I suspect Marxism as akin to a religion in a lot of ways) or because My Cousin Vinny asked me to. Surprisingly enough, I believe that these were the exact same reasons people killed each other prior to Judaism, Christianity or Islam (religious adherents of which created the god told me to excuse for going to war).

The real weakness of the Muslim governments is but into stark contrast by the youthful, relatively weak and inexperienced, USA's kicking the pirate protecting Muslim governments in the teeth in the early 1800s.

Muslims become relatively insignificant in world affairs. It doesn't stop them from pursuing their local religious pogroms, including the killing of almost 2 million Christian Armenians, in the early 20th century.

Jews settle Palestine. For good reasons or bad, Jews and Muslims begin to kill each other. Surprisingly (or not) as a matter of general practice, Jews don't go around killing Christians despite the apparent religious nature of the conflict.

Oil becomes important and Muslim nations have a lot of it. Now wealthy, Muslims become more influential in world affairs.

Coincidentally (or not) Jihadis arrive on scene.

Now that the history is in context (some people from some religions have been killing each other for religious reasons for 2,000 years, though some appear to have grown out of it), it is my hypothesis that:

Most Muslims are peace loving because most people are peace loving, not because their religion tells them to be.

A not insignificant minority of the Muslim population which is not peace loving finds plenty of justification for killing others within the pages of the Koran.

The apparent goal of these nut-jobs is to bring down the West, restore the Caliphate, and spread Islam.

The majority of peace loving Muslims lack the desire, will, courage and/or ability to restrain/control their extremist co-religionists.

Ergo, Islam is not a religion of peaceful co-existence.

Therefore, If Muslims can't (or won't) keep their own in order, and can't (or won't) control these loons within their own territory, then they shouldn't be surprised when the Marines kick down their doors and do the job they apparently can't (or won't).

All told, I think the West has been far too civilized in dealing with these nations/peoples/religious organizations and its time to starting showing them how serious we are in dealing with their problem. And that we should do so in such away that the majority of Muslim people view it as being in their interest to handle the problem in house, squelching an idea of bringing about the fall of the West, restoration of the Caliphate or the forcible spreading of Islam through terror or other means.

[1] _{To be fair, a similar case (right or wrong) can be made for Judaism (burning bushes?) or Christianity (God sends to Earth himself, his son and/or the Holy Ghost who are one and the same but aren't really?). [For the record, I'm a Christian of the Methodist persuasion and I believe in God, the Son and Holy Ghost who died for our sins [eliminating the need for ritual sacrifice] and give us a path to redemption as a matter of faith, though reason may cause some to not unsurprisingly doubt.]}

You missed quite a lot of history in that little round up. I don't have time to educate you (especially since I think you actually know but edited it to fit your purpose), so I'll just ask why a couple of things weren't included:

1. The Christian expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem (Muslim rulers later allowed the Jews to return).

2. The Spanish Inquisition and (again) the expulsion of Jews from the region (those Jews were welcomed to Muslim-ruled Turkey).

3. On their way to the First Crusade, which had more to do with French and Vatican politics than religion, the Christians carried out the pogroms of 1096, massacring Jews in central Europe.

4. During the Crusades the local Jews were so terrified of the return of Christian rule that they fought alongside the Muslims, who had been much gentler in their administration. The much criticised "jizya" actually imposed lower taxes on Christians and Jews than on the local Muslims. The Templars and Hospitallers were among the most reviled orders ever to march through the Holy Land.

5. The Jews just settled back in Palestine? So Irgun and the Stern Gang never existed and Jewish terrorism never happened?

6. If we're looking at people who use violence to ensure their international dominance then we should probably point the finger at the US before we look at the handful of violent acts committed outside of Muslim countries. Western attempts to manipulate Iran have led to the current situation there and that sordid affair was the primary reason for the sponsorship of Saddam Hussein's regime. Before you even attempt to defend America, explain what happened in Grenada to me, it's not just Muslims that suffer under Western brutality when they don't fall in line.

[ABBEY]

http://english.sina.com/world/p/2013/0401/577567.html

[Steve Moss]

You missed quite a lot of history in that little round up. I don't have time to educate you (especially since I think you actually know but edited it to fit your purpose), so I'll just ask why a couple of things weren't included:

1. The Christian expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem (Muslim rulers later allowed the Jews to return).

2. The Spanish Inquisition and (again) the expulsion of Jews from the region (those Jews were welcomed to Muslim-ruled Turkey).

3. On their way to the First Crusade, which had more to do with French and Vatican politics than religion, the Christians carried out the pogroms of 1096, massacring Jews in central Europe.

4. During the Crusades the local Jews were so terrified of the return of Christian rule that they fought alongside the Muslims, who had been much gentler in their administration. The much criticised "jizya" actually imposed lower taxes on Christians and Jews than on the local Muslims. The Templars and Hospitallers were among the most reviled orders ever to march through the Holy Land.

5. The Jews just settled back in Palestine? So Irgun and the Stern Gang never existed and Jewish terrorism never happened?

6. If we're looking at people who use violence to ensure their international dominance then we should probably point the finger at the US before we look at the handful of violent acts committed outside of Muslim countries. Western attempts to manipulate Iran have led to the current situation there and that sordid affair was the primary reason for the sponsorship of Saddam Hussein's regime. Before you even attempt to defend America, explain what happened in Grenada to me, it's not just Muslims that suffer under Western brutality when they don't fall in line.

1-4 are true. And almost 500-1,000 years old. As clearly stated in my initial analysis, Christian nations have been prone to murder for religious reasons, if you turn back the clock centuries. Muslims have significant portions of their adherents, supported actively or passively by Muslim governments, to do so through current date.

5- Jewish terrorists existed. The Stern Gang/Lehi appear to have been totalitarian communists and even went so far to offer an alliance with Nazi Germany. They were reigned in (and in some cases declared terrorists) by the Israeli government, though most escaped prosecution (though they should have been shot).

6- On the Grenada issue, here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada. Here's the summary:

"Triggered by a bloody military coup which had ousted a four-year revolutionary government, the invasion resulted in a restoration of constitutional government. It was controversial due to charges of American imperialism, Cold War politics, the involvement of Cuba, the unstable state of the Grenadian government, the illegality under international law and Grenada's status as a Commonwealth realm. Media outside the U.S. covered the invasion in a negative outlook despite the OAS request for intervention (on the request of the U.S. government), Soviet and Cuban presence on the island and the holding of American medical students at the True Blue Medical Facility."

As to American Imperialism, since when have I denied it? What I deny is that we base our decisions to go to war on "God told us so". When we go to war its to protect or advance our national interests and I would not have it any other way.

http://english.sina.com/world/p/2013/0401/577567.html

I would do horrible things to the legal beagles who collaborated in planning the torture of that 15 year old girl. We need to be a lot more proactive in arranging a meeting with their supposed maker.

[dave birch]

Steve, point 5:

How could the Stern gang, et al offer an alliance with Nazi Germany and then be reigned in by an Israeli Government that didn't exist at the time when the Nazis were in power?

[Al]

I find it incredible that posters are trying to justify terrorist bombers by looking at history and our presence in the Middle East. There can be NO justification for terrorist bombing of innocent people whatsoever.

[dave birch]

When we go to war its to protect or advance our national interests and I would not have it any other way.

Is this part of the problem?

I can understand the protection of your national interest, but how can you justify war to "advance " it?

If I take your meaning right, then you would take some foreign asset and proclaim it as a US asset, and do it by force?

[Guest Norbert]

Justifying, or trying to explain why?

I'll be honest and say I've not been paying much attention to this thread, as I could see where it would end up, one group saying all Muslims are shifty to say the least, another saying that they're not and mentioning violence commited by non-Muslims......and so on.

Ultimately we are all the same species, and it depends on the personality and circumstances of the individual which bits of the various contradictory fairy stories they choose to act on, if at all. These Chechen lads were unbalanced, easily led, angry, disillusioned nutjobs who thought they should commit a terrorist act in the name of their religion.

[thenodrog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LA47fuWc8

[adopted scouser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LA47fuWc8

Chris Hitchens was a personal hero of mine Gordon, sadly missed.

[Al]

Justifying, or trying to explain why?

The explanation is getting close to trying to justify in my opinion.

[Mike E]

Chris Hitchens was a personal hero of mine Gordon, sadly missed.

And mine. A more articulate Richard Dawkins (love how that is filtered hahaha).

[SydneyRover]

The explanation is getting close to trying to justify in my opinion.

No, people are saying both things are unjustifiable. Western intervention in the Middle East, propping up corrupt dictatorships, forcibly evicting communities from land that had been theirs for generations, starting illegal wars etc etc has been a disgrace as has the actions of people who go out with the sole intention of killing and maiming innocent civilians in Western countries to draw attention and force governments hands on the issues - not least because it aggravates the problem further.

But what do you think has caused more deaths? The actions of terrorists attacking Western targets, or Western intervention in the Middle East?

As to American Imperialism, since when have I denied it? What I deny is that we base our decisions to go to war on "God told us so". When we go to war its to protect or advance our national interests and I would not have it any other way.

How on earth did the likes of Vietnam and Iraq advance US national interests?

[Mike E]

How on earth did the likes of Vietnam and Iraq advance US national interests?

Posturing. Simples.

[Steve Moss]

Steve, point 5:

How could the Stern gang, et al offer an alliance with Nazi Germany and then be reigned in by an Israeli Government that didn't exist at the time when the Nazis were in power?

It's a sequence. The offer was made in the early days of WWII. The Stern Gang et al last more than a few years. By the time the Israeli government came into being (a few years after WWII), the Stern Gang and/or their successors were still up to their dirty tricks. Once the Israelis had a proper government it wasted little time in yanking their chain. Though I think many of them got off easy.

Is this part of the problem?

I can understand the protection of your national interest, but how can you justify war to "advance " it?

If I take your meaning right, then you would take some foreign asset and proclaim it as a US asset, and do it by force?

If we needed the asset (as opposed to merely wanting it) and had no other way of acquiring it, then yes. Push comes to shove I'd send in the Marines in that extreme circumstance.

On the other hand, the good thing about market economies is that we can buy, or trade for, what we need (or want) and don't have to resort to the Marines (which are generally very expensive to deploy, so its worth paying a premium to purchase the asset as opposed to resorting to violence).

[dave birch]

If we needed the asset (as opposed to merely wanting it) and had no other way of acquiring it, then yes. Push comes to shove I'd send in the Marines in that extreme circumstance.

On the other hand, the good thing about market economies is that we can buy, or trade for, what we need (or want) and don't have to resort to the Marines (which are generally very expensive to deploy, so its worth paying a premium to purchase the asset as opposed to resorting to violence).

If it were my asset you wanted, I'd be pretty @#/? off if the US came and took it, just as you would be if someone came and took something of yours. So from that perspective you can see why some are aggro viz a vis the US.

It's that mentality that gets the US it's bad name; that and constantly backing the "wrong" side, then changing it's mind when things don't go it's way.

How about being an even handed global "citizen"?

There's more to the world than the borders that define the USA.

[broadsword]

No, pe

How on earth did the likes of Vietnam and Iraq advance US national interests?

Viet Nam - the aim was to ruin a country that was operating perfectly well on an alternative economic model to capitalism.

[thenodrog]

No, people are saying both things are unjustifiable. Western intervention in the Middle East, propping up corrupt dictatorships, forcibly evicting communities from land that had been theirs for generations, starting illegal wars etc etc has been a disgrace as has the actions of people who go out with the sole intention of killing and maiming innocent civilians in Western countries to draw attention and force governments hands on the issues - not least because it aggravates the problem further.

But what do you think has caused more deaths? The actions of terrorists attacking Western targets, or Western intervention in the Middle East?

How on earth did the likes of Vietnam and Iraq advance US national interests?

Vietnam was strategic in an attempt to deny communist forces a foothold in SE Asia. The world was in the grip of the cold war back then with the majority living in fear of 'reds under the bed' as communist expansionism threatened all manner of disruption around the globe. Much of the UK's loss of industrial and economic power in the 70's was down to disruption caused by communist infiltration into the major Trades Unions when workers rights were simply a Trojan Horse to further left wing political ambition.

[dave birch]

Vietnam was strategic in an attempt to deny communist forces a foothold in SE Asia. The world was in the grip of the cold war back then with the majority living in fear of 'reds under the bed' as communist expansionism threatened all manner of disruption around the globe. Much of the UK's loss of industrial and economic power in the 70's was down to disruption caused by communist infiltration into the major Trades Unions when workers rights were simply a Trojan Horse to further left wing political ambition.

Kinell, Gord.

There's a bloody big country called China that lives in that neck of the woods that happens to be a commie country (not so much these days). Vietnam was seen as one step too far as it had been a French enclave, and the good ol boys reckoned it might be worth a standoff.

As for your point about communist disruption, well, you could be right, but it worked both ways. Remember the Soviets developing a plane that looked like Concorde? Yeah, they (the USSR) had knicked the plans, but they were "doctored" plans and the plane fell out of the air IIRC.

Like I said, it worked both ways.

[thenodrog]

It was about the spread of communism.

A potted history.....

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes_vietnam_war.htm

[jim mk2]

Vietnam was strategic in an attempt to deny communist forces a foothold in SE Asia. The world was in the grip of the cold war back then with the majority living in fear of 'reds under the bed' as communist expansionism threatened all manner of disruption around the globe. Much of the UK's loss of industrial and economic power in the 70's was down to disruption caused by communist infiltration into the major Trades Unions when workers rights were simply a Trojan Horse to further left wing political ambition. chronic mismanagement by boardroom bosses who ruled by confrontation instead of working with employees as in the German and Japanese consensus models, poor designs and lack of innovation owing to lack of investment in research, and laissez-faire government industrial policy that saw leading industries unnecessarily allowed to go to the wall.

Corrected for you.