boston bombing

[kandrathe]

Yes exactly, this is a very important point. This is what I wanted to discuss when starting this thread.

The new buzz in security circles is automated behavioral profiling (Perpetrator-Motive Research Design). The governments computers analyze your behaviors (travel, banking, shopping), and if they fit a pattern, then you'll be on a watch list and "monitored" more closely. For example, you get fired from your job, and the next day you go out and buy a bunch of guns and ammo. From the detailed profile I read about Tamerlan, there were warnings noted by those close to him that he was going down a radical path. He had some outbursts in his mosque when he disagreed with some speakers who advocated assimilation to western traditions. That alone wouldn't be noteworthy, but his relatives knew he was becoming radicalized. In fact, his mother might have known enough to be considered complicit in providing material support to terrorism. So, again, as with the Newtown or Aurora shootings, or even OK city, it is those closest to the potential perpetrators who can act to prevent mass killing.

In a land of freedom, we must be considered innocent until we commit a crime (or at least conspire to commit a crime). Only in the most twisted of philosophies would it be considered acceptable to slaughter masses of innocents in furtherance of your cause. I think where the greater Islam and the world press fails here is in not totally debunking the mythology of "martyrdom" -- In the Quran, the word Shahid is confused with martrydom operations where it mainly means to "surrender ones life to the will of Allah". For example, for someone to have suffered their entire life while bearing witness to Allah is a noble act of Shahid. To commit a mass killing, or suicidal homicide is reprehensible to Islam. It is similar to the Christian verse from Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account." This does not mean one should seek ways in which to become persecuted, or become a social pariah in order to be considered blessed.

At some point, the costs of perpetual war, and a vigilant surveillance police state will either collapse us, or further make us into the dystopian nightmare we've read about in fiction since our childhood. It is the cost of TSA, electronic monitoring, , registration of weapons (and pressure cookers), metal detectors at public civic events, etc. which bankrupt us, rob us of our dignity, and reveal the lie that we live in a free republic. Are we free?

[FireIceTalon]

I'm radicalized (and have been for a while now). Does me spreading revolutionary and anti-capitalist ideology to working class members so they also potentially become radicalized, as to create a form of solidarity so that revolution and the destruction of the entire social order becomes a possibility, make me a terrorist? I guess in the eyes of the bourgeois it probably would. But then again, I care little of what they think - they are, afterall, the enemy, and in many ways, are terrorists themselves. And the goal of course, is not to appease them, but to eliminate them (or not them directly, but rather the social power and status they hold through class domination).

As a revolutionary leftist, I am opposed to all groups who use violence against innocent people because of the actions of their, or the targeted citizens, government and their policies. I've been accused as being a terrorist supporter at one time or another simply because of my political views. I do not see how this is warranted however, since I am just as opposed to Al Quada and all other factions of radical Islam, N.Korea, Iran, and other outlets for "terrorism" as much as I oppose U.S. and Isreal bourgeois imperialism and capitalist hegemony. Overall, N.Korea, Iran, and Afghanistan are probably the most reactionary places on the planet, not just politically but culturally as well. There seems to be some stereotype that leftists (both revolutionary and non-revolutionary types) somehow support or are at least indifferent to terrorist organizations and their actions.

[Bolty]

I'm radicalized (and have been for a while now).

Define radicalized. There's a difference between being very vocal on viewpoints that go against the standard grain in a society, as you have done quite often here, and being willing to attack others and instigate violence to get your way or draw attention to your cause.

One form I'm willing to defend even if I don't agree with it; the other form I find detestable.

[FireIceTalon]

I think radical and reactionary should be distinguished here, because both are not happy with the current way of things, but both want to achieve very, very different things (although those who are happy overall with the current way of things would be considered reactionary as well, to some extent). Socialists, communists, anarchists and basically all revolutionary leftists in general are radicals - they want to destroy the current social order and usher in a more humane, egalitarian society where every human being can live with dignity and reach his/her potential as a human being. Some reactionaries are also unhappy with the current social order, but they don't want to move history forward - rather they want to move it backward, to a time when traditional power structures and hierarchy were more prominent as to what they see fit for society. As a result, I dont really consider most radical Islamists to actually be "radical" per se, but very reactionary. Hitler was a reactionary of a very particular kind, while Lenin was a radical. But reactionary has different degrees as well just as radicals do. A person who wants a feudalist organization of society for instance would be reactionary not only by Marxist standards, but even by bourgeois capitalist standards as well. Just as a democratic socialist wants to achieve socialism through parliamentary/democratic means is less radical than a communist, who see socialism as being achievable only by revolution. I think these distinctions are important because many people view "radicals" as simply being anyone who has a extreme political view of how society should be, but that isn't always the case since it doesn't take context into account. It really depends on which direction you want to go

The guys who were responsible for the Boston bombing, are probably very reactionary in some way.

[Hammerskjold]

Define radicalized. There's a difference between being very vocal on viewpoints that go against the standard grain in a society, as you have done quite often here, and being willing to attack others and instigate violence to get your way or draw attention to your cause.

One form I'm willing to defend even if I don't agree with it; the other form I find detestable.

Hmm, but what's the policy on this type of radicalization?


Well if nothing else I learned that for some people the word bourgeois is the new 'Aloha'! It means 'hello!', AND 'goodbye'!

It's Bon Jour! Bon Soir! Auf Vid da Zein, Goodbye! Bourgeois!

As for Marx, I thought he was always a petty whiner.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/19/richard_...s_my_guts/


ps. No mention of Hitler yet? Oh wait never mind.

Hitler was a reactionary of a very particular kind, while Lenin was a radical.

.....right....ok then. Tubular. Cowabunga. To the max.

OK, let's do some wild discussion without knowing all the facts yet.

Yeah....cheque please! Eppie, unless this was a language barrier, that sentence pretty much sums up why there's a whole lotta problems in the world. And no shortage of fools who thinks they have all the answers. Oh woe! If only the proles would understand -my- geniosity!

[kandrathe]

I think these distinctions are important because many people view "radicals" as simply being anyone who has a extreme political view of how society should be, but that isn't always the case since it doesn't take context into account. It really depends on which direction you want to go

Is it direction, or the lengths that you are willing to go in that direction? Once you take anarchism as far as the Galleanists, or the weather underground against the vietnam war, or politcal Islam as far as the Tsarnaevs, then you've crossed the line where the Government will oppose you "for the common good".

i.e. What path are you taking that hasn't been tred by those who've gone before?

Maybe you just need the right radical to take you to where they've already been?

[kandrathe]

OK, let's do some wild discussion without knowing all the facts yet.

Yeah....cheque please! Eppie, unless this was a language barrier, that sentence pretty much sums up why there's a whole lotta problems in the world. And no shortage of fools who thinks they have all the answers. Oh woe! If only the proles would understand -my- geniosity!

Yeah, I think Reddit has that one covered. I heard this morning about the falsely accused who were glommed onto by the press and published as the potential bombers, prior to the authorities actually doing the investigations and finding the real ones. No shortage of virtual torches and virtual pitchforks in our techno-society. New digital village, same group of vigilante village idiots.

P.S. I love authentic bourgeoisie (or Bürger in german), yum. It's better with a slab of red onions, and a big bowl of bouillabaisse!

[shoju]

.....right....ok then. Tubular. Cowabunga. To the max.

Wouldn't, a better pun in this instance be...

"To the Marx?"

I can at least make myself laugh.

[Hammerskjold]

.....right....ok then. Tubular. Cowabunga. To the max.

Wouldn't, a better pun in this instance be...

"To the Marx?"

I can at least make myself laugh.

Gah, I can't believe I missed that one.

A million bonus points to you sir.

[eppie]

Yeah....cheque please! Eppie, unless this was a language barrier, that sentence pretty much sums up why there's a whole lotta problems in the world. And no shortage of fools who thinks they have all the answers. Oh woe! If only the proles would understand -my- geniosity!

Hammerskjold, i was of course pointing at the people who did this, which at the moment i started this thread was not clear yet.
For the sake of the rest of my post i considered that probably it was some kind of islamic extremist action ( because of the chechenya connection). So far it seems that i was right about that part of the story. But for the sake of being correct i wrote that first sentence.

My question (and the real subject of this thread) was how it is possible that such people are allowed to come and live in the US, while it is so difficult for us law abiding non-extremist citizens to go to the US on holidays. They want your passport, your finger prints, and full body scan to put in their penis size database.
Please elaborate.

[kandrathe]

My question (and the real subject of this thread) was how it is possible that such people are allowed to come and live in the US, while it is so difficult for us law abiding non-extremist citizens to go to the US on holidays.

Unquestioningly it is security theatre where the appearance of security is more important than actually preventing or protecting anyone. We wouldn't want aunty mimsie so scared of plastic butter knives being wielded by those dark skinned, turban wearing sikhs (she confuses them with the A-rabs). So we'll just ban anyone from plastic cutlery altogether. After the shoe bomber, we just had to ban shoes (at least for part of the journey). After the underwear bomber, we just stopped wearing underwear altogether... while flying at least... I did enjoy that time when anti-TSA protesters only wore underwear (at least sometimes). Some billions of dollars later, we've developed a way to see through clothes, and then after some more billions, we've developed away to obscure the image so the perverts operating the devices must again rely on their natural prejudices for profiling passengers for more vigorous groping. The crucial point here is that passengers continue to spend billions of dollars flying, and along the way the providers of security, and the makers of security devices have made billions of dollars performing in an airport near you. You are not safer. This is the only down side. I do find it ironic that our response to the terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists is to enact security measures that would be reprehensible to the sensibilities of muslims, whether it be the scanners that can penetrate a burka, or having anyone not halal touch them.

It is as irrational as the other government theatres of the absurd, like a "War on Poverty" which created a generations of dependency. Or, a "War on Drugs" which makes POW's out of casual drug users (47% of US prison inmates are drug offenders), while being almost entirely ineffective at impacting imports of drugs and exports of cash.

I'm reminded of this.

They want your passport, your finger prints, and full body scan to put in their penis size database. Please elaborate.

Small minds have small imaginations?

[Hammerskjold]

My question (and the real subject of this thread) was how it is possible that such people are allowed to come and live in the US, while it is so difficult for us law abiding non-extremist citizens to go to the US on holidays. They want your passport, your finger prints, and full body scan to put in their penis size database.
Please elaborate.

kandrathe mentioned Security Theatre, I like calling it Security Kabuki. But same difference really. It's mostly just for show.

IMO it's less about being politically correct and we can't call all muslim evil terrrrsts, bla bla bla. The real show of Security Kabuki is that don't worry, competent people are always in charge of things. If not people, well then my dogmatic ideology. (Though Lenin and their fans are never, ever fanatics of course. Ringo fans on the other hand...)

Finding out that Oz is not so great or powerful, even worse sometimes there is -nothing- behind the curtain...would probably terrify more people.

But the show must go on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu2yzPYGsfk

[eppie]

@kandrathe and hammerskjold.

Ok, thanks, so it is not just me.

[kandrathe]

@kandrathe and hammerskjold.

Ok, thanks, so it is not just me.

I feel this way about most of government responses to issues -- it's more about the politically expedient appearance of making a difference, than making a difference. And, cynically, it is about maintaining the financial and social status quo, rather than meaningful changes that might risk alienating a constituency.

For example, had the government merely implemented a regulation requiring airlines to be responsible for ensuring passenger safety. Then the airlines would have needed to develop a passenger friendly, and cost effective strategy for pre-screening passengers with the smallest amount of reasonable intrusion.

Since the government is doing it, they can do whatever they want to the passengers without the "stink" of it tainting the airlines. It is now flying in general that stinks, mostly due to how our government degrades us. The airlines are off the hook, somewhat, if an actual terrorist slips past the perpetual government drag net.

Due to the excessive amount of corporate welfare doled out to US airlines, they have little choice but to go along with whatever the government wants. I feel this is that the government wants to be in total control, and take over whatever they touch. It is the difference between having regulations, holding airlines accountable to follow them, versus having boots on the ground enforcement at the passenger level. And, it has the government in the position to control, and to collect detailed intelligence on the movements of people both foreign and domestic.

I'm trying not to let my imagination carry me away with the haunting dystopian possibilities of City 17, and the potential difficulties in trying to visit my good buddy Barney. However, the recent lock down and travel restrictions in Boston (granted, for what we'd call good reasons) show what the government is capable of when they control all means of moving. Whether we like it, or not, a gilded cage, is still a cage and a benevolent dictator/emperor is still an imperialist tyranny.

[kandrathe]

I feel this way about most of government responses to issues -- it's more about the politically expedient appearance of making a difference, than making a difference. And, cynically, it is about maintaining the financial and social status quo, rather than meaningful changes that might risk alienating a constituency.

I had to add this Daily Show clip as an example of what I'm talking about. (while I don't really agree too much with the gun control position, it still exemplifies the "political animals" who dominate our government.

Gun Control -- Political Suicide

[Occhidiangela]

Russians rounded up a bunch of radicals in their more Muslim infiltrated provinces yesterday.

Any connection to this, or coincidence?

The mother of those two young MEN (NOT boys) seems to me a parody.

Is she for real? The stuff coming out of her mouth seems to have been written by SNL as part of a farce.

I was in OKC Wednesday, and visited the Murrah building. Sobering. These two dipsticks in Boston have had their fifteen minutes of fame, and one is dead .... as I understand it, run over by his brother accidentally?

So, WHY give them more fame, more air time?

Comments in previous posts in re news/journalism/frantic and breathless noise are right on.

[kandrathe]

These two dipsticks in Boston have had their fifteen minutes of fame, and one is dead .... as I understand it, run over by his brother accidentally?

I believe he was shot during the chase, possibly multiple times. He also got hit by one of his own home grown hand grenades, and then was run over by his brother who was wounded in the same melee. The SUV was too damaged to get far, but the younger one was able to elude the authorities and make it a few blocks to the boat.