Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Boston Marathon Explosion

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 6:20am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

Re brevik specifically:  I couldn't give 2 spits about "the dilution of Christian Europe."  And, his actions make me even more convinced that racism is an unhealthy, unrealistic, and indefensible position that only a really dumb crazy person would maintain.  And thats pretty much the point I was making. 

it isn't very real to setup so many boxes.
or do you disagree whit everyone who is missing one of the boxes you called out?

Would I bomb a marathon to fight for those ideals?  No!
Would I disagree?  Yes.  Disagreement with others can consist of polite, rational dialogue.  My point was that generally when someone is a pacifist (or all the others), they won't be bombing anyone.... so I don't think thats something that I have to worry about.  If I was a racist, or a gun-nut, or super religious, or in favor of a tax revolt, I might be concerned that whoever bombed the marathon was doing so in support of one of my causes.

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 6:34am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

And also, al qaeda has lost its founder/leader, enumerous #2's and 3's, and no longer has a top-down organizational structure.  It has morphed into more autonomous cells, which make it difficult to quantify, but also lessens its overall ability to accomplish its stated goals.  In addition, the arab spring showed that twitter/facebook and democratic action could topple regimes much more effectively than terrorism.

HuH tell that to syrians and libiyans and tunisians
Terrorism is nothing substantial, its what one nation calls any one fighting against them.
You are terrorists to many.
Its like the IRA, ppl call them heroes, others callem terrorists.

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 6:54am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

al qaeda has no longer has a top-down organizational structure.

hmm yes it does. but they are divided in in more different organizations that work together under the same name.
i would say that is a stronger structure then just one top-down organization.
you can kill al-quada leaders today but it wont have effect on the efficiency of the organization as a whole.

It has morphed into more autonomous cells, which make it difficult to quantify, but also lessens its overall ability to accomplish its stated goals.

it's more spread out, therefore it's harder to trace. hence big pieces of al-quada just fell of the usa radar. where it is able to regroup and rearm themselves.

In addition, the arab spring showed that twitter/facebook and democratic action could topple regimes much more effectively than terrorism.

the arab spring also gave al-quada the ability to move to other countries where they befor could not get a foot in the regime.
al-quada used the arab spring to get more people for their cause and to get new weaponry that was given to the "rebels" by western countries.

And, the number of places that al qaeda is welcome throughout the world has shrunk dramatically

that they are not welcome doesn't mean they are not there ;)

polls among muslims

from link:Muslims questioned in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon

sofar i know did most people in egypt, jordan and turkey never agree whit al-quada. questioning the muslims in these countries about al-quada is kinda playing safe. my guess is that they didn't dare to ask muslims in countries where al-quada had allot of followers in the past or now.
(only in pakistan and thats kinda a safe option aswell. because pakistan now feels the usa drones attacking their civilians because they think al-quada is still there.)

I couldn't give 2 spits about "the dilution of Christian Europe."

me neither, and neither do i give 2 spits about the usa as a whole.
but that doesn't mean there are not allot of people who do.

only a really dumb crazy person would maintain.

the world is full whit dumb crazy people. i would even say that 99% of the world is dumb and crazy in some way.

Would I bomb a marathon to fight for those ideals?  No!

you wouldn't but maybe someone els does.

Disagreement with others can consist of polite, rational dialogue.

how true this may be, it sure is not realistic to think this will always happen.

My point was that generally when someone is a pacifist

a pacifist sure wont i'll give you that. but thats just 1 box.
a environmentalist on the other hand.... look at greenpeace for example thats almost a terrorist organization of it's own.
altho i agree whit much that greenpeace stands for. i disagree on most of their actions.

thats what i mend whit not being realistic to setup so many boxes.
ofcours someone that fits in every box you called out wont do this. but it are so many boxes that i have my question marks at how many people actually fit in all of them. maybe 0,1% of the population.

If I was a racist, or a gun-nut, or super religious, or in favor of a tax revolt, I might be concerned that whoever bombed the marathon was doing so in support of one of my causes.

maybe it was a environmentalist..... then you might agree whit him, right?
(altho it is kinda wierd to hit a running event instead of a racing event but still.) if this same would have happened during a nascar race or whatever, then you probably would have reacted the same way.

I might be concerned that whoever bombed the marathon was doing so in support of one of my causes.

breivik attacked christians for a christian cause.
it might 1st look like someone from the opposing side. but it can ofcours also be one amoung yourself. (a pacifist can also snap)

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 7:57am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

    only a really dumb crazy person would maintain.

the world is full whit dumb crazy people. i would even say that 99% of the world is dumb and crazy in some way.

you wouldn't but maybe someone els does.

But you are meandering away from my original point that you responded to, which was that given my views, it is unlikely that someone holding my views, or even 1 box at a time, would choose to bomb a marathon.  Hence my prediction that I already disagree with the cause that those terrorists were trying to further. 

    Disagreement with others can consist of polite, rational dialogue.

how true this may be, it sure is not realistic to think this will always happen.

Again... you asked about me and I was talking about me.   Disagreement with me will never result in you or anyone else getting bombed. 

a environmentalist on the other hand.... look at greenpeace for example thats almost a terrorist organization of it's own.

No its not.  Greenpeace never has and never will bomb a marathon... or bomb anyone for that matter.  No suicide bombers, no using women and children as human shields, no mail bombs, no machine gunning open market places, no rocket attacks, no mortar fire, no anthrax.  Civil disobedience and vandalism do not equal *(or even come close to) terrorism. 

(altho it is kinda wierd to hit a running event instead of a racing event but still.) if this same would have happened during a nascar race or whatever, then you probably would have reacted the same way.

Well clearly you have to react to the facts that we are talking about.  aka the boston marathon bombing.   If someone had bombed a munitions factory, fast-food place, or went all "Monkey Wrench Gang" on some rainforest clearing crews...  (I'm just reaching now), then I would have to stop and think.   But until then, I get to sit back and be a Judgy McJudgerson because people I associate with certainly don't do that, and people who support the causes I support, generally don't do things this awful. 

that they are not welcome doesn't mean they are not there ;)

But it does mean they aren't effective at winning public support, or gaining political influence, and people are turning against them because of their methods. 
Al qaeda's goal is to get rid of western influence in the middle east.  Thats not gonna happen.  They want to create some true islamic law shariah states.  Yes, they may be piggybacking on the tails of some of the revolutions, but it wasn't terrorism that made those revolutions happen.  It was twitter and facebook and democratic actions.  Also, in the cases of prolonged civil wars, like syria, I would certainly argue that those are not terrorism, they are outright wars.  Which is a different topic.  I'm arguing that terrorism is a failed tactic, not whether or not al gaeda can successfully do other things. 
And re: the strength and organizational leadership of al qaeda: lets quote our friend, wikipedia

following the War on Terror, has "become geographically isolated", leading to the "emergence of decentralized leadership" of regional groups using the al-Qaeda "brand".[38][39]  Many terrorism experts do not believe that the global jihadist movement is driven at every level by al-Qaeda's leadership. Although bin Laden still held considerable ideological sway over some Muslim extremists before his death, experts argue that al-Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of regional movements that have little connection with one another. Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, said that al-Qaeda is now just a "loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". "There is no umbrella organisation. We like to create a mythical entity called [al-Qaeda] in our minds, but that is not the reality we are dealing with."[40]

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 8:24am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,164 posts

Knight

I want to know what his/their motivation is for doing so.

Your question was phrased in such a way that people will easily perceive the stress of the query to be placed on the location, and not the end purpose.

Furthermore, I would seriously question the mental status of someone who considers that a good option, because if the last 12 years have taught us anything, its that terrorism is a failed tactic.  While it certainly is effective at causing immediate, short term (ie that same day) chaos/fear/panic, the lasting result of a terrorist attack is an uprising of support for the victims, and a backlash for whatever the terrorist's cause was.   

No, terror has always proven a very very effective way of getting the job done.

They have been an utter failure in their grandiose aim of establishing a worldwide Caliphate. But in terms of highlighting their cause, wearing down their enemies in a decade long struggle, recruiting ever more fervent supporters, turning an entire region against Western civilization, yes they have been very successful.

While al Qaeda, especially its central leadership, has been pummeled, and its capabilities to mount large-scale attacks have been reduced, claims of its imminent defeat are hyperbolic in nature.
Al Qaeda is definitely more decentralized, more dependent on its proxies and allies, and its ability to radicalize and recruit distant recruits to carry out attacks on its behalf.  Its allies have bought into its ideology of global terrorism. Its communications network continues to function. It is resilient and opportunistic.

Al Qaeda’s ideologues see the situation not simply from the other side of the contest, but in completely different terms from its Western foes. In their view, war is perpetual lasting beyond their lives.

They have survived the infidels’ mightiest blows. They have checked what they imagine to be the West’s determination to destroy Islam. America has suffered defeat after defeat: 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the loss of America’s puppet governments to the
popular uprisings of the Arab Spring. Americans are overextended, weary, and in economic crisis" in their minds, God’s punishment for their materialism. And terror has proven very lucrative and essential in wearing down Western morale.

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 9:49am

danielo

danielo

1,396 posts

Tell me about it...

The idea behind these attacks is "I hit therfore i exist". Let your enemy remmember that you are still around. In this case its quite not a good idea, as many of the hypocrare peoples out there in USA start to belove that the al-quaida are brave freedom fighter who fight the evil oil drinking US empire. See these imagies? Israel sawthem weekly in 2002-2005. Not the rock throwing kids you belive it was, but suicide bombers.

Now they exept the USA to retaliate, in which they hope they will hurt some innocente peoples (as this is wher they hide).

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 11:27am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

But you are meandering away from my original point that you responded to

it's called "progress of debate".

we could all just stick whit what we think, but then we wouldn't go anywhere, do we?

Hence my prediction

predictions are like "if" stories.
it could be yes. but there is no reason to see it as truth. (yet)
it could just be the other way around.

you asked about me and I was talking about me

i didn't ask about you sofar i know. all i'm saying is that you might not do it. but that doesn't mean someone els in your situation wouldn't do it.

No its not.

i know that many people will agree that it is a terrorist organization.
mostly people that work for companies that greenpeace is against.
greenpeace terrorizes these people both on the job and in private. greenpeace activists are in my eye's really awful people. how good their cause might be.

Well clearly you have to react to the facts that we are talking about.

i'm not from the usa i have no idea what/who/where those things "are".
anyway i find it hard to believe you would react different when this very same thing would have happened during a other event.

But it does mean they aren't effective at winning public support

you mean like... belgium? ever heard of "sharia4belgium"?
they indoctrinate belgiums (not just muslims) to fight for them in the middle east.
and for the good order... they are not welcome in belgium, but they still are there. aslong they dont do anything wrong there is no need to kick them out of the country. you know... freedom of speech and all that ;)

Yes, they may be piggybacking on the tails of some of the revolutions, but it wasn't terrorism that made those revolutions happen. 

the point was not that they started it. but that they use it to:
A:grow in size
B:regroup behind "military radar"
C:get free new weaponry (that is provided by their enemy)

I would certainly argue that those are not terrorism, they are outright wars.

let me guess. you think assad is the only bad guy over there?

lets quote our friend, wikipedia

blindly going to wiki is also not the right way.
it is the truth of the masses. and the masses are not always right ;)
anyway lets go decompose that wiki quote:

become geographically isolated

hardly.
they still stretch from morocco to congo and indonesia about 1/4 of the world.
i got not 1 source stating this. i have multiple that talk about different al-quada groups that are busy in there own "local" area.

emergence of decentralized leadership

more smaller top-down constructions are better then just 1 single top-down construction.
you can kill a leader now and it will only disrupt what he was busy whit. and not what the other groups are doing.

Many terrorism experts do not believe that the global jihadist movement is driven at every level by al-Qaeda's leadership. Although bin Laden still held considerable ideological sway over some Muslim extremists before his death, experts argue that al-Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of regional movements that have little connection with one another.

no agrueing whit that.
however.. the ideals are still there. the war on terror is still there and it's just harder for the military to find and attack them.

said that al-Qaeda is now just a "loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". "There is no umbrella organisation.

it doesn't need a umbrella organisation. that would weaken them. the ideology is enough.

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 2:03pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

i didn't ask about you sofar i know.

Previously: 

befor you know the cause you already know your against it?
maybe you support his idea's. and just not the act.

You can see how I might have thought (with all the "you"s and "your"s) that you might have been talking about/to me specifically and not the plural (royal) "you."

And seriously?  two kids fighting is not evidence that pacifists might bomb a marathon.   

"progress of debate" ...or not backing up our original statements because they weren't panning out. 

I admit I have an americentric view of al qaeda, and there are different  definitions of size/strength/success. 

let me guess. you think assad is the only bad guy over there?

Not sure where you inferred that from.  But that guess would be incorrect.

Your question was phrased in such a way that people will easily perceive the stress of the query to be placed on the location, and not the end purpose.

Mea culpa.   Probably came out that way cuz I was P/O'd.

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 2:09pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

the point was not that they started it. but that they use it to:
A:grow in size
B:regroup behind "military radar"
C:get free new weaponry (that is provided by their enemy)

We are totally agreeing here.  And they may be good at evolving (ironically while not believing in evolution), adapting, using religion to gain support and rationalize murder, using technology, being secretive, establishing new cave-bases in remote regions, recruiting, and other non-terrorism forms of political unrest.   And these gains AB&C were not accomplished due to terrorism.

 

Posted Apr 18, '13 at 5:30pm

Jblaze101

Jblaze101

461 posts

Hopefully they indefinitely catch the people who ruined the mararthon and the people

 
Reply to Boston Marathon Explosion

You must be logged in to post a reply!