Re: Okay
 

Though that was part of the plan: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/opinio...ers/index.html

There are numerous themes here that echo prior attempted attacks.

Re: Okay
 

Actually, that's exactly what we ought to do. I'm not spiritual. Thus, I have a lot to lose if I lose my life. In fact, I have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. A guy who's "spiritual," on the other hand...

Who is - objectively - a fictional character. Underlying the absurdity of thousands of years of nitwits fighting over whose bag of myths and fables is the real handbook for getting to heaven.

Three people, including an eight year old kid, are dead in significant part due to religion and tribalism. That's a truth nobody can argue around. And the polite validation of "spiritualism" allows this to happen.

It's fake. We all know it's fake (yes, you do... you know it deep down... everybody does). There's no New or Old Testament "truth." There's nothing but fiction in the Koran. It's nonsense. And we're all to blame if we can't muster the fortitude to admit that to ourselves, and admit that those who insist otherwise are contributing to the problem.

Re: Okay
 

Huh? According to that article, it wasn't the apparent plan in this case and was in all the others.

Re: Okay
 

Now turn that around. Look at the fact that there were over 57 Iraqis killed on April 15 by bombs, due to a war we started, in part to keep the world safe for Christians threatened by Muslim hordes.

How many of the people calling for Islamic blood have claimed that God is on their side? It's not just Islam that is bloodthirsty and murderous.

Re: Okay
 

oh. Whoa the bloody imperialists.

Let's not fight the hypo.

After a day of digesting news (between and around Knicks and Mets) it is clear:

The older brother was straight up fundamentalist.

Re: Okay
 

So if they plan to die like in othe terrorist attacks, they're terrorists, and if they don't, like in other terrorist attacks, they're terrorists. Got it.

Anyone who watches TV could copy the MO of a terrorist attack. Doesn't make them a sleeper cell.

Re: Okay
 

Hi!

Re: Okay
 

I don't get the debate. When I first heard the news I thought tea party guys- April 15 and a very liberal town, plus running is vaguely foreign. And before we knew who did it, assuming it was a muslim, or an Arabic muslim is wrong, and actually counter-productive.

But we know now it was muslims. I suppose a muslim could blow up the marathon as a tax protest, as opposed to making some Islamist point, but I don't hear anyone arguing that. Are you?

I also don't understand the point of whether they are tied to Al Queda or not. I get that if they are tied to other people we would like to catch those folks, but beyond that what difference does it make? They learned to make bombs from an Al Queda webpage, or from a neo-Nazi webpage, who cares?

We need to learn to be more watchful about packages left on the ground during mass gatherings. Beyond that, what else is there to learn.

Re: Okay
 

I think we are arguing about whether the fact that they were Muslim tells you much about why they did what they did, and my view is, not really. You're talking about a couple of disaffected young men who seemed to have turned to Islam for the same reasons that they started to kill people around them -- more Columbine than 9/11.

Re: Okay
 

Things to look out for:

Larger than expected clothing

Dissafected stares

Walking in single file, same pace

eyes scanning back and forth

people not focused on the norm (these guys weren't looking at the race)

Re: Okay
 

That we've killed hundreds of thousands without justification, in furtherance of fraudulently sold pre-emptive war, is a point we should reinforce every time a bombing occurs here. But we both know, that is Never Going to Happen. We're America. We're always right, about everything. Might makes right. Question us and you're against us.

Anyone who says Islam is a uniquely violent religion isn't much for reading history. Islam is currently the most violent religion, in part because it's the newest, in part because its worldwide ranks tend to be be filled with more poor/poorly educated sorts. In five hundred years, it'll probably be a lethargic dinosaur like Christianity.

All religions are used to foster horrible, factionalizing narratives. The Jews are a chosen people? A bit exclusionary, wouldn't you say? Catholicism is the only path to heaven, the non-baptized being thrown for eternity into limbo? The Pope is infallible? Sounds like a pretty harsh, exclusionary sales pitch to me. Islam is the one true path, and those who don't believe are either the lamentable damned, or infidels to be converted? Again, a bit factionalizing? Just a tad, you think?

We already have enough division. Religion breaks people into another level of tribes no one needs. I'd say it to a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, (insert faith here): Your "church," or "tradition," or whatever it is, is fiction. The stories around which it is based either didn't happen, or are historical events rewritten to insert the hand of a deity in the action. There may be a God of some sort, but whatever it is, it has never come here and formed a covenant with anyone, or been directly involved in anything. You know it. You just don't like dealing with an unknown and unknowable reality and ultimate destiny.

I have nothing against religion as a community building thing. If you need the patina of worshipping the divine to keep a social circle together, fine with me. The problem is, communities based around the notion each has some exclusive relationship with a man in the sky who controls everything will be, well, exclusive. The accruing friction from that is, to some extent, the cause of almost every bombing we've seen for the past thirty years.

Re: Okay
 

Right. We allow Islam validity. We pretend the Koran is not a self-contradicting book of faery tales. So log as we do that, it'll be something losers can embrace.

If we call it what it is - fiction - it becomes a less valid set of organizing principles.

This is naive, of course, as there will always be a certain low mind clinging to fiction all the more as a result of hearing it debunked (Americans believing the bible is literal, etc.). But you have to start somewhere.

We need to elect an Atheist President, I think. We also need to vigorously address all the people arguing, "People need myths... It's natural to delude ones self a bit." That placation of religion (and empire building) has been offered by many centrist academics, pundits, and even politicians. I can't think of a more dangerous position for a person to hold.

Re: Okay
 

in that sense I'm not sure 9/11 is that different from Columbine, except Columbine was killing "people around them," whereas 9/11 (and Boston) was killing people who happened to be there.

Re: Okay
 

Cool. We've got Daily-Mirror style "sleeper cell" speculation even here.

From everything I can see, these guys were inspired by radical Islam, but if they were part of any organized terror network, it's not a very well-run one. They were radical islam the way Adam Lanza was NRA (and, of course, he was NRA).

They stopped for snacks with a hostage in the car and let him escape. Most of their bombs and grenades didn't explode. They did not make any claims of responsibility. Their bombs really weren't all that powerful.

The chechen leadership has to be completely freaking out over this. The last thing they want is for Americans to line up with the Russians. The IRA always avoided American targets - smart terrorists there.

Re: Okay
 

While plenty of this is true, religion is not needed to justify violence and terror. It's not hard to find some pretty brutal 20th century regimes that share your view of religion.