Boston Marathon explosions......

[The Thriller]

you're asking the wrong question.

The right word does the "magic" of correctly describing the act and it's motivation.

The right question will lead to actually discussing the relevant issue in a meaningful and helpful way.

I think we are making this waaaayyyy more complicated than it needs to be.

For months we have heard nonstop about a certain Adam Lanza. Everything from his family situation to video games has been analyzed over and over again. Was he a "terrorist?" So I see little difference in how we analyze terrorists or criminals.

Now, it appears as if these 2 brothers acted independent of a terrorist organization. Did a terrorist organization influence one of them? Instruct one of them how to create bombs? Maybe. But it wasn't like a terrorist organization planned this and trained these brothers for the specific purpose to blow up the Boston Marathon. Finally, terrorist organizations ALWAYS take credit for their violence. ALWAYS. Otherwise, their agenda is screwed and objective lost. To my knowledge, al queda, which supposedly helped train this guy hasn't taken credit for it.

These 2 punks were crimials. Or terrorists. It doesn't matter. Their criminal acts were terrifying. One punk has already been killed. The other one is as good as dead.

Bashing the president over his use of the 2 terms seems petty. Arguing over the 2 terms seems worthless. Suggesting he should be tried as a terrorist and not as a criminal seems bloodthirsty to me. Is that what foxnews is hungry for? A pound of flesh from the president? Or a pound of flesh from this criminal?

Gameface and I don't necessarily agree all the time but I definitely agree with him here. Does something "magical" happen when we use one word over the other? Is this guy less scary if we call him a criminal? Is he more terrifying if we call him a terrorist?

 

[The Thriller]

Another example of what I'm talking about:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...n-bombings-should-be-treated-accordingly.html

The Boston bombings were not an ordinary criminal act. They were an act of terror/war, no different than if they had been committed against our soldiers/citizens in Afghanistan or Iraq. The fact that they were committed on U.S. soil by naturalized citizens makes no difference. New information has come forward that the bombers were intending to detonate additional bombs. The imminent danger to additional innocent U.S. citizens necessitates that the lone surviving bomber be treated as an enemy combatant so that he may be interrogated regarding his associates and future planned acts of terror.
Richard Davis stated that those responsible for this despicable act should be brought to justice ("Boston bomb suspect deserves rights under law," April 24). Just how do we intend to accomplish that when Tsarnaev invokes his right to remain silent? This is not about protecting or even violating civil liberties; it is about identifying those present in our nation who wish to wage war against us on our own soil. Also, the police did not violate the law by not advising Tsarnaev of his Miranda Rights at the time of his arrest. They are not required to Mirandize a suspect until they begin an interrogation. President Obama has needlessly endangered countless U.S. citizens by his decision.

Obama has needlessly endangered countless US citizens??? Huh?

American lives are suddenly endangered because we are treating this as a criminal case? Huhhhhh???

 

[Scat]

I think we are making this waaaayyyy more complicated than it needs to be.

For months we have heard nonstop about a certain Adam Lanza. Everything from his family situation to video games has been analyzed over and over again. Was he a "terrorist?" So I see little difference in how we analyze terrorists or criminals.

Now, it appears as if these 2 brothers acted independent of a terrorist organization. Did a terrorist organization influence one of them? Instruct one of them how to create bombs? Maybe. But it wasn't like a terrorist organization planned this and trained these brothers for the specific purpose to blow up the Boston Marathon. Finally, terrorist organizations ALWAYS take credit for their violence. ALWAYS. Otherwise, their agenda is screwed and objective lost. To my knowledge, al queda, which supposedly helped train this guy hasn't taken credit for it.

These 2 punks were crimials. Or terrorists. It doesn't matter. Their criminal acts were terrifying. One punk has already been killed. The other one is as good as dead.

Bashing the president over his use of the 2 terms seems petty. Arguing over the 2 terms seems worthless. Suggesting he should be tried as a terrorist and not as a criminal seems bloodthirsty to me. Is that what foxnews is hungry for? A pound of flesh from the president? Or a pound of flesh from this criminal?

Gameface and I don't necessarily agree all the time but I definitely agree with him here. Does something "magical" happen when we use one word over the other? Is this guy less scary if we call him a criminal? Is he more terrifying if we call him a terrorist?

Another example of what I'm talking about:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...n-bombings-should-be-treated-accordingly.html


Obama has needlessly endangered countless US citizens??? Huh?

American lives are suddenly endangered because we are treating this as a criminal case? Huhhhhh???

Quick question... do find that extra punishment tacked on for hate crimes to be silly?

 

[The Thriller]

Quick question... do find that extra punishment tacked on for hate crimes to be silly?

Yes

 

[Scat]

Yes

Good. At least you're consistent. I appreciate the honesty.

 

[One Brow]

Of course you are done with me janitors can only handle talking amongst intellecutials for so long before they find themselves completely dumbfounded. Go back to your dust bunnies.

Since so many others are done with you, can you now find the time to admit Hitler was not revealed to be an atheist by Hitler's Table Talk, and that there is no good reason to say he was and many good reasons to say he was not?

 

[One Brow]

Timothy McVeigh: "Science is my religion"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_views_and_religious_beliefs

McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York, in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military, but voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections. McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic. During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly. McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985. In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion. In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic. Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

At the time of the bombing, he's very conservative.

 

[One Brow]

That being said, I'm going to disagree with a lot of it. Regarding your statement, "It is simply that people find it unacceptable to "insult" religion.", there is a reason for that; In America, the first amendment grants a fundamental right to practice however you see fit, without fear of persecution. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." In short, let people worship however the **** they want. I expect people to let me worship how, what, and wherever I want, and I expect to do it free from ridicule and insults. If certain aspects of someone's faith requires or inspires them to commit crimes, then hate the crime and the individual, but don't hate the religion. [/COLOR][/FONT]

This was generally a very good post, but I disagree here. In America, the solution to bad speech is good speech. The solution to bad ideas are good ideas, well-stated and plainly. I agree that no one should be persecuted for their religious belief (or any other sort of belief). However, I think it's possible to call out religious beliefs without it rising to the level of persecution. If I followed TheBlackSwordsman/Stoked/JazzSpazz/PearlWatson/Bronco70/etc. around every thread, calling out their religion in every (or even many) unrelated threads, that would be harassment and persecution. That it happens in the occasional thread means it is not harassment and not persecution.

 

[One Brow]

How come we don't have a publicly-funded counterpoint to NPR???? Isn't that just some silly abuse of public funds to propagandize the American people???

NPR goes out of its way to present different sides of issue. What would the counterpoint be?

 

[Stoked]

This was generally a very good post, but I disagree here. In America, the solution to bad speech is good speech. The solution to bad ideas are good ideas, well-stated and plainly. I agree that no one should be persecuted for their religious belief (or any other sort of belief). However, I think it's possible to call out religious beliefs without it rising to the level of persecution. If I followed TheBlackSwordsman/Stoked/JazzSpazz/PearlWatson/Bronco70/etc. around every thread, calling out their religion in every (or even many) unrelated threads, that would be harassment and persecution. That it happens in the occasional thread means it is not harassment and not persecution.

Nice distinction. Agreed.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Since so many others are done with you, can you now find the time to admit Hitler was not revealed to be an atheist by Hitler's Table Talk, and that there is no good reason to say he was and many good reasons to say he was not?

If you agree that Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, and Einstein weren't atheists, sure I'll say Hitler wasn't an atheist.

 

[PearlWatson]

God deniers usually feel the void by becoming Darwiniacs, a major cult of the Liberal religion. It is either that or they turn to booze.

Hitler may have expressed disliked for the Godless soviets but he wholeheartedly embraced the Darwiniac cult, so popular among Germany's "intellectual" class, and it's doctrine of "preserving the favored races."

God deniers and/or Darwiniacs are all one big happy family when it comes to applying the logic of the Darwiniac Dogma that man is simply an accident and has no greater moral significance than the flies that frequent Obongo's purple lips.

 

[NAOS]

God deniers usually feel the void by becoming Darwiniacs, a major cult of the Liberal religion. It is either that or they turn to booze.

Hitler may have expressed disliked for the Godless soviets but he wholeheartedly embraced the Darwiniac cult, so popular among Germany's "intellectual" class, and it's doctrine of "preserving the favored races."

God deniers and/or Darwiniacs are all one big happy family when it comes to applying the logic of the Darwiniac Dogma that man is simply an accident and has no greater moral significance than the flies that frequent Obongo's purple lips.

how tired have you become of saying this obsolete reactionary stuff (recycled from 1980s junk talk radio) to an empty chair?

 

[Gameface]

God deniers usually feel the void by becoming Darwiniacs, a major cult of the Liberal religion. It is either that or they turn to booze.

Hitler may have expressed disliked for the Godless soviets but he wholeheartedly embraced the Darwiniac cult, so popular among Germany's "intellectual" class, and it's doctrine of "preserving the favored races."

God deniers and/or Darwiniacs are all one big happy family when it comes to applying the logic of the Darwiniac Dogma that man is simply an accident and has no greater moral significance than the flies that frequent Obongo's purple lips.

So what if there isn't a God? Wouldn't it make sense to not pretend there was?

 

[NAOS]

So what if there isn't a God? Wouldn't it make sense to not pretend there was?

Brace yourself for some stupid lecture about how magnificently complex the human eye is. Then, about how drunk we get in our own skepticism because god gave us will.

It's like 17th century Paris all over again...

 

[Stoked]

Brace yourself for some stupid lecture about how magnificently complex the human eye is. Then, about how drunk we get in our own skepticism because god gave us will.

It's like 17th century Paris all over again...

Now you know how the religious feel. Works both ways NAOS.

 

[One Brow]

If you agree that Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, and Einstein weren't atheists, sure I'll say Hitler wasn't an atheist.

Mark Twain was definitely not an atheist.

Since Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein chose not to identify themselves as atheists, and it would be rude of me to correct them on their own beliefs, I will agree they are not atheists.

Deal!

Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, and Einstein weren't atheists.

Now, it's your turn.

 

[babe]

Since so many others are done with you, can you now find the time to admit Hitler was not revealed to be an atheist by Hitler's Table Talk, and that there is no good reason to say he was and many good reasons to say he was not?

why do you need a personal victory in a point like this.

Hitler obviously was not a believer in christianity or islam or confucianism. He only dealt with these beliefs in a sort of practical way, without exploring their merits as guides in life. He didn't actually care if they were true or not, only if they were useful to his larger purposes. I don't think he even cared about race, except as a useful tool for projecting power and/or accumulating power. He didn't mind the Japanese being aligned with him, or the dark-skinned Arabs.

Hitler today would be a good player in the whole UN new world order. He was very lenient with the international cartels and very willing to let them gain inordinate market dominance. He was, at root, more fascist than anything else. Not all that different from George Bush or Barack Obama.

 

[NAOS]

Now you know how the religious feel. Works both ways NAOS.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you saying the sides have reached a stalemate?

 

[babe]

Mark Twain was definitely not an atheist.

Since Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein chose not to identify themselves as atheists, and it would be rude of me to correct them on their own beliefs, I will agree they are not atheists.

Deal!

Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, and Einstein weren't atheists.

Now, it's your turn.

Mark Twain was a corrupt newspaperman. He earned a lot of money from stock manipulators who needed him to pump worthless stocks, or drive stock worth something down with false rumors. He played the part of a shameless humor ho for the emerging wealthy elite of the US, though he perfectly understood their corrupt manner of business. He was a willing aider and abetter of fascist principles. All he cared about was an easy buck. Of course he didn't care about God.

Carl Sagan was as disinterested in God as he was romantically attached to his own sense of unhinged awe at the universe. Probably never understood a damn thing in fact.

Albert Einstein didn't know beans. . . . according to one boy who was raised on a farm and did know what beans look like as new sprouts. But I find his kind of thinking worthwhile. He frankly acknowledged stuff he just didn't know, and would listen to someone who thought they did. . . . at least politely. His point was that he just recognized the actual limits of understanding not only for himself but for others. Being able to live with those limits and still respect people is something I find admirable. I do think Einstein acknowledged with humility his place in creation, and knew there was something "out there" that had an ordering influence on the whole universe. Fundamentally, that is axiomatic in the very idea of imagining the existence of a general theory capable of interpreting the universe.