OT: Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Taro T]

Taro, when does it become an act of war? Where do you draw the line?

An excellent question. I have an idea in my head of how to draw this line within the very gray landscape. Unfortunately, in order to describe where I'd place it, I'm certain that I don't have the time to write that novel. What I will state is that had 'enemy combatant' been a classification back in '95, I'd have considered it for McVeigh and Nichols. I also would have considered it for Hasan had he been a civilian.

 

I'd also like to add that for a citizen, including the 1 currently in custody, I would have them only subject to 'enemy combatant' status for a limited time after which they are returned to the criminal justice system. (That's another area where I'd draw a line.)

[wjag]

It shouldn't be. That's exactly what our system is designed to prevent.

 

I gave up on that altruism years ago. Our system is designed to protect the rich and protect the government from embarassing themselves. Yeah, I'm a bit jaded.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

... And when Step 1 of your belief system is "We're always the good guys no matter what we do, because we believe in the right God and worship the right way", Step 2 can be just about anything. If that means the "others" (anyone not in your group) have to die, then so what? Refer back to Step 1.

 

A vast, vast majority of us don't think that way.

 

=====

 

I like the way the discussion has drifted away from religion and on to the legal aspects.

 

I don't really have much to say about that.

 

=====

 

See we also have nutbars in Canada ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/24/via-train-terror-plot.html

 

and ...

 

We in Canada have been climbing to the top of that slippery slope ever since Harper became PM.

 

With this law I figure we are at the pinacle and about to fall over the other side ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/22/pol-anti-terrorism-bill-debate-parliament.html

 

I do not like this at all. No sir, not one bit.

[JohnRobertEichel]

I understand and accept that everyone has a right to their opinions and to express them.

 

I have often said in this thread that I welcome honest and upfront debate on this issue, especially the Islam aspect of this event.

 

The posts have been generally well thought out and presented in a reasonable fashion.

 

The conversation has drifted somewhat from time to time through the thread, but has generally been above reproach.

 

At some point last evening after I had signed off a drift happened again. Most posts were good and well intentioned to add to the discussion.

 

The two below were not and, IMO, crossed the line of civility.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a mod.

 

I do not want to not read this thread.

 

Both posters above are usually above reproach. SwampD is a regular. I am hoping his post was caused by a "heat of the moment" thing and hope he does not really believe that what he proposed, although, in a somewhat veiled delivery, the message came through clearly to me, is a real solution.

 

That said, I cannot accept the level of hatred in the above two posts.

 

And Billy. I converted to Islam. And no one, repeat NO ONE, held a sword up to my head.

 

My apologies to the mods and the board.

 

I don't think I crossed the line of civility in my post. If I did, the mods have yet to warn me.

 

Also, I'm sorry that you found my post to be hateful, but what you interpreted as hate is what I would call fair criticism.

 

I stand by my assertion that Islam is a dangerous religion that - at worst - promotes violence when interpreted literally through the Quran and - at best - still supports intolerance and bigotry when interpreted allegorically.

 

The Western traditions of secular government, free speech, and the Golden Rule code of morality are under assult by all of the Abrahamic religions, but especially Islam. No doubt part of the West's problems with Islam are rooted in economics, politics, culture, etc... but it sure doesn't help when its alleged prophet, Muhammad, was actually a despicable historical figure who engaged in murder, slave ownership, pedophilia, misogyny and an assortment of other character flaws befitting of such a mentally ill charlatan. When these Islamic extremists bully Western civilization with violence and threats of it to get what they want, they're simply doing what Muhammad would sanction were he alive today.

 

Moderate Muslims like yourself need to spend more time and energy on castigating Muslim extremists than with taking offense to the criticisms of nonbelievers.

[K-9]

What 'talking heads' are germane to this discussion?

 

 

Not if his lawyer is sitting there telling him 'you don't have to answer that.' Again, I specifically stated that any information obtained from him as a function of national defense should NOT be included in any criminal (or civil, for that matter) trials that come about due to the bombing.

 

The talking heads that are insisting he needs to be held as an enemy combatant in order to get around his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I just find it interesting that the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world were such stallworths of 2nd Amendment rights during the recent gun law debates and yet are so quick to want to strip a citizen of another guaranteed right. If that's not germane, that's cool. I just find it interesting.

 

As an American citizen, he's fully entitled to every right that implies and I know you know that. If he's part of any larger conspiracy to commit further terrorist acts and he doesn't wish to divulge that information, that will have to be discovered through good, old-fashioned police work. And I trust the FBI is more than capable.

 

But somewhere right now, some other sick wacko US citizen is plotting and planning to commit other terrorists acts. It's not a question of if, but when. We all know this. I'm afraid we are too willing as a society to have more of our rights infringed upon under the guise of being "better protected." I don't buy that line of thinking.

[Weave]

They didn't have access to him for very long and they were under extreme duress in their situation. He could and should be returned to the criminal justice system after being interrogated by interrogators that aren't under duress.

 

 

I have misgivings about this as well. This issue brings up a slew of really gray areas IMHO.

 

But he didn't just commit a criminal act, he committed an act of war. If he was acting in concert with a larger group, we need to know that.

 

I don't believe you can have an act of war as an individual. The problem with your assertion is that it assumes a larger group involved before the investigation is even started. Yes, I strongly suspect that the heart of this act lies in religious extremism. That does not mean we can or even should treat him any differently than any other US citizen suspected mass killer. Treat him like he committed an act involving a larger group when we have credible evidence that he acted as part of a larger group. It is unacceptable to me to remove the basic tenets of our justice system (presumed innocence and Miranda protections) simply because of what we suspect about his motivation.

 

There is a key difference between this and Tim McVeigh (what a great Buffalonian he was). TM wasn't part of a group that had declared war on the US and carried out repeated attacks in the name of that war.

 

 

OK, substitute the DC sniper then. Supposedly he was heavily influenced by his religion. Still the same process as far as I am concerned.

[shrader]

And to answer LPF - I expect the CIA will do a much better job of interrogating him than the Boston PD will.

 

I'm thinking endless hours of questions asked in that obnoxious Boston accent would make just about any suspect cave and admit to everything.

[Weave]

The talking heads that are insisting he needs to be held as an enemy combatant in order to get around his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I just find it interesting that the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world were such stallworths of 2nd Amendment rights during the recent gun law debates and yet are so quick to want to strip a citizen of another guaranteed right. If that's not germane, that's cool. I just find it interesting.

 

As an American citizen, he's fully entitled to every right that implies and I know you know that. If he's part of any larger conspiracy to commit further terrorist acts and he doesn't wish to divulge that information, that will have to be discovered through good, old-fashioned police work. And I trust the FBI is more than capable.

 

But somewhere right now, some other sick wacko US citizen is plotting and planning to commit other terrorists acts. It's not a question of if, but when. We all know this. I'm afraid we are too willing as a society to have more of our rights infringed upon under the guise of being "better protected." I don't buy that line of thinking.

 

And now this thread is going to go right into the deep end, eyes closed and feet first.

 

Edit-- never mind. I quoted the wrong post. I think y'all can figure out which post I was intending to quote. :P

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I don't think I crossed the line of civility in my post. If I did, the mods have yet to warn me.

 

Also, I'm sorry that you found my post to be hateful, but what you interpreted as hate is what I would call fair criticism.

 

I stand by my assertion that Islam is a dangerous religion that - at worst - promotes violence when interpreted literally through the Quran and - at best - still supports intolerance and bigotry when interpreted allegorically.

 

The Western traditions of secular government, free speech, and the Golden Rule code of morality are under assult by all of the Abrahamic religions, but especially Islam. No doubt part of the West's problems with Islam are rooted in economics, politics, culture, etc... but it sure doesn't help when its alleged prophet, Muhammad, was actually a despicable historical figure who engaged in murder, slave ownership, pedophilia, misogyny and an assortment of other character flaws befitting of such a mentally ill charlatan. When these Islamic extremists bully Western civilization with violence and threats of it to get what they want, they're simply doing what Muhammad would sanction were he alive today.

 

Moderate Muslims like yourself need to spend more time and energy on castigating Muslim extremists than with taking offense to the criticisms of nonbelievers.

 

Billy,

 

I fully accept your point of view, as misguided as it is.

 

I suggest you read the Qur'an with an open heart and read a true historical account of Muhammad (PBUH), I suggest either volume by Karen Armstrong (a non-Mulsim). Very few people hold your perspective on him.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

And now this thread is going to go right into the deep end, eyes closed and feet first.

 

Edit-- never mind. I quoted the wrong post. I think y'all can figure out which post I was intending to quote. :P

 

Oh, pick me. Pick me.

[X. Benedict]

I don't think I crossed the line of civility in my post. If I did, the mods have yet to warn me.

 

Also, I'm sorry that you found my post to be hateful, but what you interpreted as hate is what I would call fair criticism.

 

I stand by my assertion that Islam is a dangerous religion that - at worst - promotes violence when interpreted literally through the Quran and - at best - still supports intolerance and bigotry when interpreted allegorically.

 

The Western traditions of secular government, free speech, and the Golden Rule code of morality are under assult by all of the Abrahamic religions, but especially Islam. No doubt part of the West's problems with Islam are rooted in economics, politics, culture, etc... but it sure doesn't help when its alleged prophet, Muhammad, was actually a despicable historical figure who engaged in murder, slave ownership, pedophilia, misogyny and an assortment of other character flaws befitting of such a mentally ill charlatan. When these Islamic extremists bully Western civilization with violence and threats of it to get what they want, they're simply doing what Muhammad would sanction were he alive today.

 

Moderate Muslims like yourself need to spend more time and energy on castigating Muslim extremists than with taking offense to the criticisms of nonbelievers.

 

Why should moderate Muslims be spending time and energy castigating extremists (when they don't identify with, or associate with extremists in the first place)? What other parts of life to you find moderates tempering the views of extremists? Isn't it enough that they don't associate with them, tell everyone who asks that they consider them a corruption of their religion, and go about their lives?

 

I, as a Christian, don't have anything to do with Westboro Baptist and their weirdness. Nor do I think time invested in changing their minds would be effective or worthwhile. Ask me though, and I'd tell you they are nutters.

 

I just find it to be a weird expectation.

 

(aside: isn't an attack on the Prophet as an historical baddy a little gratuitous, as most Muslims wouldn't associate themselves with this characterization anyway).

 

 

And Armstrong is good.

[Eleven]

And now this thread is going to go right into the deep end, eyes closed and feet first.

 

Edit-- never mind. I quoted the wrong post. I think y'all can figure out which post I was intending to quote. :P

 

Glad to see the edit because I was wondering where you were going with that...

 

Why should moderate Muslims be spending time and energy castigating extremists (when they don't identify with, or associate with extremists in the first place)? What other parts of life to you find moderates tempering the views of extremists? Isn't it enough that they don't associate with them, tell everyone who asks that they consider them a corruption of their religion, and go about their lives?

 

I, as a Christian, don't have anything to do with Westboro Baptist and their weirdness. Nor do I think time invested in changing their minds would be effective or worthwhile. Ask me though, and I'd tell you they are nutters.

 

I just find it to be a weird expectation.

 

(aside: isn't an attack on the Prophet as an historical baddy a little gratuitous, as most Muslims wouldn't associate themselves with this characterization anyway).

 

 

And Armstrong is good.

 

 

A lot of people do stand up to WBC, though, and it's a good thing that they're branded as fringers. Otherwise, you get what happened in the south with the KKK--before Christians decided to brand them as fringers and nutters.

 

Also, there are some Islamic states--and I'm talking about governments and not their citizenries--that either tacitly or outwardly support terrorism. That type of change needs to come from the people. Somewhere above, I posted that the Middle East needs its reformation, renaissance, and revolution all at once; this is what I meant.

 

And yes, Karen Armstrong is good.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Why should moderate Muslims be spending time and energy castigating extremists (when they don't identify with, or associate with extremists in the first place)? What other parts of life to you find moderates tempering the views of extremists? Isn't it enough that they don't associate with them, tell everyone who asks that they consider them a corruption of their religion, and go about their lives?

 

I, as a Christian, don't have anything to do with Westboro Baptist and their weirdness. Nor do I think time invested in changing their minds would be effective or worthwhile. Ask me though, and I'd tell you they are nutters.

 

I just find it to be a weird expectation.

 

(aside: isn't an attack on the Prophet as an historical baddy a little gratuitous, as most Muslims wouldn't associate themselves with this characterization anyway).

 

 

And Armstrong is good.

 

 

Thank you, X.

[Weave]

Oh, pick me. Pick me.

 

Wait your turn. you're not up yet.

[Taro T]

The talking heads that are insisting he needs to be held as an enemy combatant in order to get around his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I just find it interesting that the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world were such stallworths of 2nd Amendment rights during the recent gun law debates and yet are so quick to want to strip a citizen of another guaranteed right. If that's not germane, that's cool. I just find it interesting.

 

As an American citizen, he's fully entitled to every right that implies and I know you know that. If he's part of any larger conspiracy to commit further terrorist acts and he doesn't wish to divulge that information, that will have to be discovered through good, old-fashioned police work. And I trust the FBI is more than capable.

 

But somewhere right now, some other sick wacko US citizen is plotting and planning to commit other terrorists acts. It's not a question of if, but when. We all know this. I'm afraid we are too willing as a society to have more of our rights infringed upon under the guise of being "better protected." I don't buy that line of thinking.

 

To the bolded, IMHO that isn't germane to this discussion. We're discussing this like civilized human beings; IMHO (again), when we start bringing in paid entertainers who know that they'll make more money by getting a rise out of somebody into the discussion we're less likely to keep up the discussion on civil terms. (Wow, never thought I'd write 'discussion' and 'discussing' so many times within 2 sentences.)

 

I don't believe you can have an act of war as an individual. The problem with your assertion is that it assumes a larger group involved before the investigation is even started. Yes, I strongly suspect that the heart of this act lies in religious extremism. That does not mean we can or even should treat him any differently than any other US citizen suspected mass killer. Treat him like he committed an act involving a larger group when we have credible evidence that he acted as part of a larger group. It is unacceptable to me to remove the basic tenets of our justice system (presumed innocence and Miranda protections) simply because of what we suspect about his motivation.

 

 

 

OK, substitute the DC sniper then. Supposedly he was heavily influenced by his religion. Still the same process as far as I am concerned.

I fully appreciate your comments. In this particular case, I believe that there were enough facts known about this case by the time the authorities had performed their initial interrogation of him that they had a very reasonable idea that this terrorist act was committed under nationalistic or foreign Islamist extremism pretenses. (IIRC, the suspect stated as much.) Given that, I would prefer to have seen the terrorist act viewed as such a little longer and I simply don't agree with the rush to push this into the realm of criminal case law. I don't go happily into my belief that he should have been considered to be an enemy combatant.

[LastPommerFan]

And yes, Karen Armstrong is good.

 

Her "a History of God" is top notch for people of any or no faith.

[TrueBlueGED]

The best part about Billy's characterization of Muhammad was that his list of character traits/flaws could easily be laid on any number of former and current world leaders, plenty of whom are not Muslim. Even some of our beloved founding fathers!

[Sabres Fan in NS]

A lot of people do stand up to WBC, though, and it's a good thing that they're branded as fringers. Otherwise, you get what happened in the south with the KKK--before Christians decided to brand them as fringers and nutters.

 

Also, there are some Islamic states--and I'm talking about governments and not their citizenries--that either tacitly or outwardly support terrorism. That type of change needs to come from the people. Somewhere above, I posted that the Middle East needs its reformation, renaissance, and revolution all at once; this is what I meant.

 

And yes, Karen Armstrong is good.

 

There is merit to your suggestion, 11.

 

Actually, a true Muslim is supposed to stand up to injustice and tyranny everywhere, which would include so called Muslims.

 

I am having a difficult enough time just dealing with our own little (20,000) Muslim community here in Halifax (it is so muddied with culture and tradition that is not part of the teaching of the faith) and it's a losing battle by the way, that I just don't have the strength for anything more. At least not at this time. Insh'Allah, maybe later.

 

As to the bolded and underlined ... ISINO. Do I need to spell it out for you?

[TrueBlueGED]

The talking heads that are insisting he needs to be held as an enemy combatant in order to get around his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I just find it interesting that the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world were such stallworths of 2nd Amendment rights during the recent gun law debates and yet are so quick to want to strip a citizen of another guaranteed right. If that's not germane, that's cool. I just find it interesting.

 

As an American citizen, he's fully entitled to every right that implies and I know you know that. If he's part of any larger conspiracy to commit further terrorist acts and he doesn't wish to divulge that information, that will have to be discovered through good, old-fashioned police work. And I trust the FBI is more than capable.

 

But somewhere right now, some other sick wacko US citizen is plotting and planning to commit other terrorists acts. It's not a question of if, but when. We all know this. I'm afraid we are too willing as a society to have more of our rights infringed upon under the guise of being "better protected." I don't buy that line of thinking.

 

It's all just preferences. Very few people, paid entertainer or otherwise, have particularly consistent beliefs across issues like you're talking about.

[Weave]

To the bolded, IMHO that isn't germane to this discussion. We're discussing this like civilized human beings; IMHO (again), when we start bringing in paid entertainers who know that they'll make more money by getting a rise out of somebody into the discussion we're less likely to keep up the discussion on civil terms. (Wow, never thought I'd write 'discussion' and 'discussing' so many times within 2 sentences.)

 

 

I fully appreciate your comments. In this particular case, I believe that there were enough facts known about this case by the time the authorities had performed their initial interrogation of him that they had a very reasonable idea that this terrorist act was committed under nationalistic or foreign Islamist extremism pretenses. (IIRC, the suspect stated as much.) Given that, I would prefer to have seen the terrorist act viewed as such a little longer and I simply don't agree with the rush to push this into the realm of criminal case law. I don't go happily into my belief that he should have been considered to be an enemy combatant.

 

Well I don't appreciate yours! :P (kidding hopefully obviously)

 

To take it a step further, it bothers me a great deal that we, the public at large have accepted without question that our police agencies, our public servants for crying out loud, are now routinely going around looking, acting, and now processing suspects like a military force. I was watching youtube footage of the house-to-house searching going on. Residents forced out of their homes practically at gunpoint, hands on head, frisked repeatedly by several layers of police, being screamed at by the their own community police forces, and directed over a block away, so that their houses could be methodically searched. I understand why it was done that way, but man I didn't like seeing that image one bit. I'd like to see activities like that questioned to some extent.

 

 

As to the bolded and underlined ... ISINO. Do I need to spell it out for you?

 

You do for me. i have no idea what ISINO means. :blush:

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Her "a History of God" is top notch for people of any or no faith.

 

It is great, but it is a tougher read, at least for me.

 

In her more recent works she has refined her style and, IMO, these are much more *readable* efforts (including her two efforts on Muhammad (PBUH)).

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Well I don't appreciate yours! :P (kidding hopefully obviously)

 

To take it a step further, it bothers me a great deal that we, the public at large have accepted without question that our police agencies, our public servants for crying out loud, are now routinely going around looking, acting, and now processing suspects like a military force. I was watching youtube footage of the house-to-house searching going on. Residents forced out of their homes practically at gunpoint, hands on head, frisked repeatedly by several layers of police, being screamed at by the their own community police forces, and directed over a block away, so that their houses could be methodically searched. I understand why it was done that way, but man I didn't like seeing that image one bit. I'd like to see activities like that questioned to some extent.

 

 

 

You do for me. i have no idea what ISINO means. :blush:

 

As to your first part ...

 

I linked to an article from the CBC that our parliament is debating now and will pass soon a law that will make all that stuff and more commonplace in Canada.

 

=====

 

ISINO = Islamic State In Name Only.

 

None, absolutely none of the so-called Islamic States are real Islamic States.

 

Not to derail the thread even further, but in some ways we have gone back down that rabbit hole.

[SwampD]

 

Well, if you believe in moral equivalence and accusing those who disagree with you of promoting genocide, then we are pretty far apart and going to stay that way. But we shouldn't ignore the fact that in the last 12 years -- during which the fight has been forcefully taken to the enemy -- there have been exactly 2 successful terrorist attacks on US soil -- and it hasn't been for any lack of desire on the part of the enemy. So perhaps using force has been effective.

I do believe in moral equivalence, a hundred thousand civilian deaths (most of which occured during Shock and Awe) and commanding generals like the aformentioned Boykin make it pretty clear to me.

 

And c'mon, it wasn't because I merely disagree with you. It's because of what you actually said. When I connect the dots of "it's a part of their religon to hate us" and "you have to kill the beast where it lives" (I think that's what you said) and lots of other dots filled with killing, I'm having a hard time getting to a different end game.

 

Man, I wish we were talking about the Sabres' first round matchup. This sucks.

[Taro T]

...

 

To take it a step further, it bothers me a great deal that we, the public at large have accepted without question that our police agencies, our public servants for crying out loud, are now routinely going around looking, acting, and now processing suspects like a military force. I was watching youtube footage of the house-to-house searching going on. Residents forced out of their homes practically at gunpoint, hands on head, frisked repeatedly by several layers of police, being screamed at by the their own community police forces, and directed over a block away, so that their houses could be methodically searched. I understand why it was done that way, but man I didn't like seeing that image one bit. I'd like to see activities like that questioned to some extent.

 

...

If that's the way the search was conducted, I have a problem with a lot of that.

[nfreeman]

I do believe in moral equivalence, a hundred thousand civilian deaths (most of which occured during Shock and Awe) and commanding generals like the aformentioned Boykin make it pretty clear to me.

 

And c'mon, it wasn't because I merely disagree with you. It's because of what you actually said. When I connect the dots of "it's a part of their religon to hate us" and "you have to kill the beast where it lives" (I think that's what you said) and lots of other dots filled with killing, I'm having a hard time getting to a different end game.

 

Man, I wish we were talking about the Sabres' first round matchup. This sucks.

 

I did not say the bolded item. Not even close.

 

As for killing the beast in its lair -- I did say that, and I believe it. But I think it should be pretty clear that "the beast" is not the same as "all Muslims."

 

I think I have been pretty consistent in differentiating between militant Islamists -- who are the enemy -- and all Muslims. I also think you ought to read carefully and assimilate what I or anyone else here actually says before you make the kind of accusation you made.