info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A justice system that does not reflect well on America - zealous prosecutors' overkill on the small fry with absurd questions that also carry large implications for our cruel and hypocritical rulers
1 view
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
May 5, 2015, 12:42:16 AM5/5/15
to
It's supposed to be a basic American value for our children to grow up
in this country loving animals - at least the good ones, whatever that
means.
That's not just an American value. It is in fact much more universal
human nature to be kind to animals, particularly mammals who are
emotionally close to us.
It is another story, however, for Americans to be kind to other human
beings - we still have the death penalty for criminals, at least,
small scale criminals, to begin with. And we simply don't give
another thought about the innocent people that our presidents have
killed in our name.
We can keep watching Monday night football games in the fall and spend
many more weeks going to baseball and other kind of professional ball
games all year round, totally oblivious of the harm our presidents are
doing to the world. So even as we regularly convict people for murder
and then send them to death, we never hold our presidents culpable for
their acts of mass murder of innocent people.
Thus a CNN headline screamed:
Prosecutor: Tsarnaev cried for 'The Lion King,' but not for bomb
victims
Of course, a headline, such as it is, removed all the contextual
substance from the two situations that would allow any fair-minded
person to provide a sensible assessment of the paradox posed to the
witness by the prosecutor. But the latter's approach serves his/her
purpose since the witness can only give an agree or disagree or yes/no
answer to his/her self-serving question.
First of all, have you seen a father who doesn't teach his young son
to be strong when he is about to cry? It would be very strange for us
to expect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be crying in the public, after his rite
of passage to adulthood.
Second, Tsarnaev was clearly radicalized since the the days when he
saw `The Lion King' as a child in Chechnya.
Third, nobody, certainly not the prosecutor, but surprisingly
Tsarnaev's defense team also, ever raised the question of how the
accused might have been radicalized in the New World, by our so-called
"war on terror", that never seems to end or go anywhere.
The New World has indeed turned out to be such a disappointment to the
immigrant family that at least three of its members were radicalized.
While any adult must take responsibililty for his/her action, there is
so little room for people to see and hear the truth these days that
the real villains like George W Bush and his handler Dick Cheney, as
well as their accomplices, are rarely in the consciousness of anybody,
when it comes to holding them accountable for the killing of untold
number of "bomb victims".
The prosecutor might feel indignant about Tsarnaev's lack of feeling
for his bomb victims, do we Americans ask whether George W Bush or
Barack Obama have feelings for their bomb victims, whose numbers are
staggering!
Ok, if you kill using a few IEDs, you're a monster but those who have
killed dozens each time with much more powerful and precision-guided
delivery systems and have done it repeatedly are never even mentioned
as possibly the cause behind the radicalization of people such as the
Tsarnaevs.
We like to think about how good we are and how bad everybody else is.
But in the end, we don't even know why somebody who started out as a
promising human being who looked to flourish in the New World ended up
throwing a bird at a surveillence camera that aims to make sure that
his life, like those of so many innocent Muslims in the Middle East,
is fully destroyed.
To many, the American society is just as unjust, hypocritical, and
ultimately highly morally corrupt. It's soffocating for many just
like the holding cell for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and just like the
Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib for many who resented us for
bombing and killing them, and just like the life's journey for the
millions who have escaped death from our bombs only to be condemned to
live, with little hope and mostly despair in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in
Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, and other places.
According to Jessica Henry, Tsarnaev's sentence, whatever it will turn
out to be, will reflect very poorly on the American people ourselves.
lo yeeOn
Jessica S. Henry
Department of Justice Studies, Montclair State University
Tsarnaev's Sentence: A Deeply American Choice
Posted: 05/04/2015 1:50 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-s-henry/tsarnaevs-sentence-death-penalty_b_7203054.html
Jurors in the Boston bombing trial have found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty
of murder and other horrific acts of violence. They now have to make
the difficult choice of deciding which punishment is most appropriate
for his crimes: the death penalty or life without parole (LWOP).
The sentencing decision would be quite different in other parts of the
world.
The Unites States' continued commitment to capital punishment makes it
unusual among developed nations. 140 out of 196 countries (over 70
percent) worldwide have abolished the death penalty in law or
practice, including many of our trading partners and political
allies. In the countries without it, capital punishment is viewed as a
human rights violation.
In Europe, a country must abolish capital punishment before it will be
admitted to the European Union. All 35 members of the Organization for
American States -- with the sole exception of the United States --
have no executions. In 2014, the United States once again joined Iran,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia at the top of the list of countries that use the
death penalty (China too most likely belongs on this list, but
accurate data is not easily available).
Although the demise of capital punishment in the U.S. is not imminent,
support for it seems to be waning. Last year, there were 35 executions
and 73 death sentences imposed -- the lowest numbers in recent
history. 32 states continue to have the death penalty on the books,
but only a small fraction of those states -- and, more accurately,
only a small fraction of counties within those states -- continue to
actually execute death row inmates. 18 states -- Massachusetts among
them -- have no death penalty at all. Indeed, one reason Tsarnaev is
being tried in federal court is to ensure that the death penalty was a
punishment option.
To be clear, a majority (61 percent) of Americans continue to support
capital punishment. But that number is lower than previously
recorded. And when offered the choice between capital punishment or
LWOP, a majority of Americans, for the first time ever, say they
prefer LWOP. Less than 20 percent of Massachusetts residents, and only
15 percent of Bostonians, believe Tsarnaev should be sentenced to
death, even though that is ground zero for Tsarnaev's devastation.
If the jurors do not vote for death, Tsarnaev will be sentenced to
LWOP, which would not permit him to be released or to ever be
considered for release. Sometimes called a "death in prison" sentence,
LWOP ensures that an offender will be incarcerated forever, and often
under conditions of severe deprivation.
Unlike in the United States, some countries across the world have
begun to seriously question the use of LWOP sentences. In Germany,
France, Italy, Portugal, Norway and Spain, LWOP has been
abolished. The same is true in Brazil, Costa Rica, Columbia, El
Salvador, Peru and Mexico. These countries have determined that, like
the death penalty, imprisonment with no possibility of release is
inconsistent with human rights.
Consider that under the Rome Statute, which has nearly 100
signatories, a person convicted of even the most horrific offenses --
including war crimes and genocide -- must have their sentence reviewed
after 25 years. Or that in Norway, Anders Brievik, who killed 77
people and injured hundreds more in a deadly bomb attack and shooting
massacre, received a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, which can be
extended indefinitely in five year increments, but only after review
and a determination that he is a continued threat to society.
In the United States, however, LWOP means exactly what it promises: no
possibility for review and no possibility of parole release. Over
50,000 people in the United States are serving an LWOP sentence, and
short of executive clemency or pardon, each and every one of them will
die in prison.
When the penalty phase of his trial is over, Tsarnaev will be punished
severely and permanently -- with a sentence of either death or LWOP --
for the terroristic acts that destroyed so many lives on that sunny
marathon morning.
But whatever punishment the Boston bombing jury deems appropriate in
this case, it will have chosen a sentencing option that is deeply, and
particularly, American.
Follow Jessica S. Henry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jhenryjustice
in this country loving animals - at least the good ones, whatever that
means.
That's not just an American value. It is in fact much more universal
human nature to be kind to animals, particularly mammals who are
emotionally close to us.
It is another story, however, for Americans to be kind to other human
beings - we still have the death penalty for criminals, at least,
small scale criminals, to begin with. And we simply don't give
another thought about the innocent people that our presidents have
killed in our name.
We can keep watching Monday night football games in the fall and spend
many more weeks going to baseball and other kind of professional ball
games all year round, totally oblivious of the harm our presidents are
doing to the world. So even as we regularly convict people for murder
and then send them to death, we never hold our presidents culpable for
their acts of mass murder of innocent people.
Thus a CNN headline screamed:
Prosecutor: Tsarnaev cried for 'The Lion King,' but not for bomb
victims
Of course, a headline, such as it is, removed all the contextual
substance from the two situations that would allow any fair-minded
person to provide a sensible assessment of the paradox posed to the
witness by the prosecutor. But the latter's approach serves his/her
purpose since the witness can only give an agree or disagree or yes/no
answer to his/her self-serving question.
First of all, have you seen a father who doesn't teach his young son
to be strong when he is about to cry? It would be very strange for us
to expect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be crying in the public, after his rite
of passage to adulthood.
Second, Tsarnaev was clearly radicalized since the the days when he
saw `The Lion King' as a child in Chechnya.
Third, nobody, certainly not the prosecutor, but surprisingly
Tsarnaev's defense team also, ever raised the question of how the
accused might have been radicalized in the New World, by our so-called
"war on terror", that never seems to end or go anywhere.
The New World has indeed turned out to be such a disappointment to the
immigrant family that at least three of its members were radicalized.
While any adult must take responsibililty for his/her action, there is
so little room for people to see and hear the truth these days that
the real villains like George W Bush and his handler Dick Cheney, as
well as their accomplices, are rarely in the consciousness of anybody,
when it comes to holding them accountable for the killing of untold
number of "bomb victims".
The prosecutor might feel indignant about Tsarnaev's lack of feeling
for his bomb victims, do we Americans ask whether George W Bush or
Barack Obama have feelings for their bomb victims, whose numbers are
staggering!
Ok, if you kill using a few IEDs, you're a monster but those who have
killed dozens each time with much more powerful and precision-guided
delivery systems and have done it repeatedly are never even mentioned
as possibly the cause behind the radicalization of people such as the
Tsarnaevs.
We like to think about how good we are and how bad everybody else is.
But in the end, we don't even know why somebody who started out as a
promising human being who looked to flourish in the New World ended up
throwing a bird at a surveillence camera that aims to make sure that
his life, like those of so many innocent Muslims in the Middle East,
is fully destroyed.
To many, the American society is just as unjust, hypocritical, and
ultimately highly morally corrupt. It's soffocating for many just
like the holding cell for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and just like the
Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib for many who resented us for
bombing and killing them, and just like the life's journey for the
millions who have escaped death from our bombs only to be condemned to
live, with little hope and mostly despair in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in
Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, and other places.
According to Jessica Henry, Tsarnaev's sentence, whatever it will turn
out to be, will reflect very poorly on the American people ourselves.
lo yeeOn
Jessica S. Henry
Department of Justice Studies, Montclair State University
Tsarnaev's Sentence: A Deeply American Choice
Posted: 05/04/2015 1:50 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-s-henry/tsarnaevs-sentence-death-penalty_b_7203054.html
Jurors in the Boston bombing trial have found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty
of murder and other horrific acts of violence. They now have to make
the difficult choice of deciding which punishment is most appropriate
for his crimes: the death penalty or life without parole (LWOP).
The sentencing decision would be quite different in other parts of the
world.
The Unites States' continued commitment to capital punishment makes it
unusual among developed nations. 140 out of 196 countries (over 70
percent) worldwide have abolished the death penalty in law or
practice, including many of our trading partners and political
allies. In the countries without it, capital punishment is viewed as a
human rights violation.
In Europe, a country must abolish capital punishment before it will be
admitted to the European Union. All 35 members of the Organization for
American States -- with the sole exception of the United States --
have no executions. In 2014, the United States once again joined Iran,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia at the top of the list of countries that use the
death penalty (China too most likely belongs on this list, but
accurate data is not easily available).
Although the demise of capital punishment in the U.S. is not imminent,
support for it seems to be waning. Last year, there were 35 executions
and 73 death sentences imposed -- the lowest numbers in recent
history. 32 states continue to have the death penalty on the books,
but only a small fraction of those states -- and, more accurately,
only a small fraction of counties within those states -- continue to
actually execute death row inmates. 18 states -- Massachusetts among
them -- have no death penalty at all. Indeed, one reason Tsarnaev is
being tried in federal court is to ensure that the death penalty was a
punishment option.
To be clear, a majority (61 percent) of Americans continue to support
capital punishment. But that number is lower than previously
recorded. And when offered the choice between capital punishment or
LWOP, a majority of Americans, for the first time ever, say they
prefer LWOP. Less than 20 percent of Massachusetts residents, and only
15 percent of Bostonians, believe Tsarnaev should be sentenced to
death, even though that is ground zero for Tsarnaev's devastation.
If the jurors do not vote for death, Tsarnaev will be sentenced to
LWOP, which would not permit him to be released or to ever be
considered for release. Sometimes called a "death in prison" sentence,
LWOP ensures that an offender will be incarcerated forever, and often
under conditions of severe deprivation.
Unlike in the United States, some countries across the world have
begun to seriously question the use of LWOP sentences. In Germany,
France, Italy, Portugal, Norway and Spain, LWOP has been
abolished. The same is true in Brazil, Costa Rica, Columbia, El
Salvador, Peru and Mexico. These countries have determined that, like
the death penalty, imprisonment with no possibility of release is
inconsistent with human rights.
Consider that under the Rome Statute, which has nearly 100
signatories, a person convicted of even the most horrific offenses --
including war crimes and genocide -- must have their sentence reviewed
after 25 years. Or that in Norway, Anders Brievik, who killed 77
people and injured hundreds more in a deadly bomb attack and shooting
massacre, received a maximum prison sentence of 21 years, which can be
extended indefinitely in five year increments, but only after review
and a determination that he is a continued threat to society.
In the United States, however, LWOP means exactly what it promises: no
possibility for review and no possibility of parole release. Over
50,000 people in the United States are serving an LWOP sentence, and
short of executive clemency or pardon, each and every one of them will
die in prison.
When the penalty phase of his trial is over, Tsarnaev will be punished
severely and permanently -- with a sentence of either death or LWOP --
for the terroristic acts that destroyed so many lives on that sunny
marathon morning.
But whatever punishment the Boston bombing jury deems appropriate in
this case, it will have chosen a sentencing option that is deeply, and
particularly, American.
Follow Jessica S. Henry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jhenryjustice
jdeluise
May 5, 2015, 1:22:31 AM5/5/15
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
> It's supposed to be a basic American value for our children to grow up
> in this country loving animals - at least the good ones, whatever that
> means.
>
> That's not just an American value. It is in fact much more universal
> human nature to be kind to animals, particularly mammals who are
> emotionally close to us.
lol, is this a joke...?
> It's supposed to be a basic American value for our children to grow up
> in this country loving animals - at least the good ones, whatever that
> means.
>
> That's not just an American value. It is in fact much more universal
> human nature to be kind to animals, particularly mammals who are
> emotionally close to us.
lo yeeOn
May 8, 2015, 12:44:38 AM5/8/15
to
In article <7899a232-407d-4f1f...@googlegroups.com>,
ltl...@hotmail.com <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Do you really find something laughable or funny?
>
>For example, is the following laughable or funny?
American Choice" points out that our American sense of justice is
clearly out of sync with the group of civilized countries we like to
think of ours as belonging to.
That's, however, just the start.
That a young child with a tender heart and promising human qualities
while still living in the post-Soviet Caucasus could have gone through
such a dramatic transformation into a hated criminal after growing up
in America is a compelling indictment of our government: during all
that time Tsarnaev was growing up in Boston, his new country was
killing countless Muslims.
His new country was committing state-sponsored terrorism over and over
again against millions and millions of people in other parts of the
world. His new country offered him and his brother not hope but
despair. So how can we not understand that he and his brother were
deeply affected by what they saw? How can we not understand that they
would sooner or later become radicalized by our government's actions?
The Boston Marathon tragedy should have been a soul-searching moment
for all of us. Instead, our over-zealous prosecutor just wants the
young man dead as soon as possible in order to cover up the real
culprit of the tragedy, which is the government itself.
And that may be the whole point of the death penalty. Most people do
not realize that the Islamic State we abhor so much today is actually
largely the phoenix that arose from the rubble of our destruction of
Iraq.
Regarding the Iraq war, various American officials, such as Paul
O'Neill and Richard Clarke, who were familiar with the inner working
of the Bush White House in 2001 have testified that they were busy
preparing for a war against Iraq. Then the country was invaded on
transparently false pretenses. The WMD charge was just a convenient
line they thought would sell and so they cooked up the intelligence to
justify their barbaric action on the ground.
Of course, if the Tsarnaev brothers had not built their IEDs and
detonated them at the Marathon, those who lost their limbs would still
have their limbs and those who were killed would be alive. But the
chain of causality ultimately goes back to our rulers, who have little
regard for lives, other their own.
Every human life is sacrosanct. If you kill many Muslims, it would be
a miracle that there isn't some form of blowback at home.
lt, thanks.
lo yeeOn
ltl...@hotmail.com <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>For example, is the following laughable or funny?
>
>"To many, the American society is just as unjust, hypocritical, and
>ultimately highly morally corrupt. It's soffocating for many just
>like the holding cell for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and just like the
>Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib for many who resented us for
>bombing and killing them, and just like the life's journey for the
>millions who have escaped death from our bombs only to be condemned to
>live, with little hope and mostly despair in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in
>Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, and other places."
Well, Jessica Henry's article entitled "Tsarnaev's Sentence: A Deeply
>"To many, the American society is just as unjust, hypocritical, and
>ultimately highly morally corrupt. It's soffocating for many just
>like the holding cell for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and just like the
>Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib for many who resented us for
>bombing and killing them, and just like the life's journey for the
>millions who have escaped death from our bombs only to be condemned to
>live, with little hope and mostly despair in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in
>Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, and other places."
American Choice" points out that our American sense of justice is
clearly out of sync with the group of civilized countries we like to
think of ours as belonging to.
That's, however, just the start.
That a young child with a tender heart and promising human qualities
while still living in the post-Soviet Caucasus could have gone through
such a dramatic transformation into a hated criminal after growing up
in America is a compelling indictment of our government: during all
that time Tsarnaev was growing up in Boston, his new country was
killing countless Muslims.
His new country was committing state-sponsored terrorism over and over
again against millions and millions of people in other parts of the
world. His new country offered him and his brother not hope but
despair. So how can we not understand that he and his brother were
deeply affected by what they saw? How can we not understand that they
would sooner or later become radicalized by our government's actions?
The Boston Marathon tragedy should have been a soul-searching moment
for all of us. Instead, our over-zealous prosecutor just wants the
young man dead as soon as possible in order to cover up the real
culprit of the tragedy, which is the government itself.
And that may be the whole point of the death penalty. Most people do
not realize that the Islamic State we abhor so much today is actually
largely the phoenix that arose from the rubble of our destruction of
Iraq.
Regarding the Iraq war, various American officials, such as Paul
O'Neill and Richard Clarke, who were familiar with the inner working
of the Bush White House in 2001 have testified that they were busy
preparing for a war against Iraq. Then the country was invaded on
transparently false pretenses. The WMD charge was just a convenient
line they thought would sell and so they cooked up the intelligence to
justify their barbaric action on the ground.
Of course, if the Tsarnaev brothers had not built their IEDs and
detonated them at the Marathon, those who lost their limbs would still
have their limbs and those who were killed would be alive. But the
chain of causality ultimately goes back to our rulers, who have little
regard for lives, other their own.
Every human life is sacrosanct. If you kill many Muslims, it would be
a miracle that there isn't some form of blowback at home.
lt, thanks.
lo yeeOn
jdeluise
May 8, 2015, 3:31:43 PM5/8/15
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
> Of course, if the Tsarnaev brothers had not built their IEDs and
> detonated them at the Marathon, those who lost their limbs would still
> have their limbs and those who were killed would be alive. But the
> chain of causality ultimately goes back to our rulers, who have little
> regard for lives, other their own.
They indiscriminately killed and maimed scores of people, without any
>
> Of course, if the Tsarnaev brothers had not built their IEDs and
> detonated them at the Marathon, those who lost their limbs would still
> have their limbs and those who were killed would be alive. But the
> chain of causality ultimately goes back to our rulers, who have little
> regard for lives, other their own.
sort of message or purpose... had they gotten away with it we would
never known why it was done. This had nothing to do with any of the
issues you claim, these brothers were simply maladjusted losers.
It was senseless murder, nothing more grand than that. They simply were
attracted to something they felt gave them purpose and a "license" to
kill.
lo yeeOn
May 8, 2015, 9:40:53 PM5/8/15
to
In article <87a8xeq...@wintersun.localdomain>,
how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
of night?
You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
Of course, all of these terrorist acts, whether carried out by two
brothers or by state-sponsored machineries, have purposes and carry
messages.
If the Tsarnaev brothers' act were without purpose, the trial would
have declared that they were deranged, I am sure!
The truth is, without so many words, the brothers were expressing
their repugnance of the so-called "War on Terror" waged against
innocent people around the world, many of them have been Muslims,
people whom the brothers naturally felt dear to.
The "War on Terror" is so false and so pretentious. Who has the right
to kill just because we have the guns and can say anything to justify
what we do?
"Vengeance is mine," Jehovah said; don't you remember?
Islam is closely modelled after the Judeo-Christian Bible, however
discomfortable a truth that is for those of us who are brought up as
Christians but who are oblivious of their responsibility for all the
killings that have been committed in the Middle East and in Africa in
our names.
What the Tsarnaev brothers were doing were dead-ended, stupid stuff,
but what they did were not without purpose or a message. Since sooner
or later they would have been discovered, one way or another, and even
if they weren't, the motive behind their acts would have been, it's
inconceivable that we would not have known what had struck, as you
claimed.
jdeluise:
It has always been clear that our new millennium wars are behind the
radicalization of many youths in the United States as well as in
France and England, among other European countries. It is just that
our government does not want the American people to see that it itself
is ultimately the cause of all these blowbacks.
They've used torture and long jail sentences to shut up people like
Brad Manning, "Johnny Taliban" Walker, and now Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
And they always use the term "conspiracy theories" in attempt to gloss
over any suggestion that the government is behind the largest scale of
slaughter of innocent people we have seen during the last two decades
and that is Tsarnaev's whole life time so far.
Why should we or the Tsarnaev brothers accept the deaths of those
killed by our bombs and missiles, such as those revealed by Brad
Manning, more than they intended to kill and did kill with their IEDs?
Isn't the life of a journalist with an Arabic origin just as precious
as anyone harmed by the brothers at the Boston Marathon? Who is to
say that it is not? In particular, who can say that the morals of the
brothers was just corrupted by themselves, as you claimed?
To the contrary, most educated people should be able to draw the
conclusion that the dramatic transformation of these two from a couple
of kind-hearted souls to a couple of terrorists who are destined to be
losers _must necessarily_ have a cause.
To deny that there could have a causal relationship between our
government's continuing callous action against defenseless people
under the patently dishonest banner of "war on terror" - going after
one country before we finish with another - is transparently dishonest
on the individual's part in itself.
Murder is by definition intentional conduct. I can't imagine the
murders that George W Bush, Obama, or Truman have committed to be any
more grand or acceptable. I can't imagine anyone concluding that the
killings committed by our presidents are not senseless. No human has
the right to take away another human's life. The murder in sheer
numbers by our presidents is not only senseless but in my personal
view unforgivable. By my logic, therefore, that if we can have the
heart to forgive our presidents, we ought to be able to forgive the
small fry too.
The Lord says "Vengeance is mine". Who has the license to kill?
Yet, our government is saying: "Forget what we do, just punish the
little fry. That guy, yes, that surviving creep of the Tsarnaev
brothers must die, and die as soon as possible!"
So the trial drama becomes one which is saying: While George W Bush
and Obama can go scot-free, that "mal-adjusted Chechen" must pay with
the last pound of his stinking flesh.
Right? That's your assessment, right, jdeluise?
Our government wants young Tsarnaev dead so much that it is now
seeking to prevent a nun from testifying on behalf of those who
champion "no execution of another human in the name of the American
people"!
So what is it afraid of? That the American people finally remember
that they are a country of Christians, meaning followers of Jesus
Christ's teaching, and therefore should use this moment to question
the legitimacy and morality of our "War on Terror"?
lo yeeOn
>It was senseless murder, nothing more grand than that. They simply
>were attracted to something they felt gave them purpose and a
>"license" to kill.
Excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0508/Why-Tsarnaev-prosecutors-want-to-keep-Catholic-nun-off-the-stand
As the team of lawyers defending Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev prepare to wrap up their case, they've run into opposition
from prosecutors over their last potential witness.
The witness is Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and prominent
death penalty critic whose autobiography served as the basis for the
Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn film "Dead Man Walking" about a death
row inmate in Louisiana. She was in court on Thursday but is yet to
take the stand as the government signaled its intention to file a
motion to exclude her testimony, according to WGBH.
The defense wants Sister Prejean to testify about what she has
described as the relentless "torture" of death row, but prosecutors
may be wary of her influence in Boston, a heavily Roman Catholic
community, according to legal experts.
Recommended: How much do you know about terrorism? Take the quiz.
. . .
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Of course, if the Tsarnaev brothers had not built their IEDs and
>> detonated them at the Marathon, those who lost their limbs would still
>> have their limbs and those who were killed would be alive. But the
>> chain of causality ultimately goes back to our rulers, who have little
>> regard for lives, other their own.
>
>They indiscriminately killed and maimed scores of people, without any
>sort of message or purpose... had they gotten away with it we would
>never known why it was done. This had nothing to do with any of the
>issues you claim, these brothers were simply maladjusted losers.
Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Of course, if the Tsarnaev brothers had not built their IEDs and
>> detonated them at the Marathon, those who lost their limbs would still
>> have their limbs and those who were killed would be alive. But the
>> chain of causality ultimately goes back to our rulers, who have little
>> regard for lives, other their own.
>
>They indiscriminately killed and maimed scores of people, without any
>sort of message or purpose... had they gotten away with it we would
>never known why it was done. This had nothing to do with any of the
>issues you claim, these brothers were simply maladjusted losers.
how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
of night?
You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
Of course, all of these terrorist acts, whether carried out by two
brothers or by state-sponsored machineries, have purposes and carry
messages.
If the Tsarnaev brothers' act were without purpose, the trial would
have declared that they were deranged, I am sure!
The truth is, without so many words, the brothers were expressing
their repugnance of the so-called "War on Terror" waged against
innocent people around the world, many of them have been Muslims,
people whom the brothers naturally felt dear to.
The "War on Terror" is so false and so pretentious. Who has the right
to kill just because we have the guns and can say anything to justify
what we do?
"Vengeance is mine," Jehovah said; don't you remember?
Islam is closely modelled after the Judeo-Christian Bible, however
discomfortable a truth that is for those of us who are brought up as
Christians but who are oblivious of their responsibility for all the
killings that have been committed in the Middle East and in Africa in
our names.
What the Tsarnaev brothers were doing were dead-ended, stupid stuff,
but what they did were not without purpose or a message. Since sooner
or later they would have been discovered, one way or another, and even
if they weren't, the motive behind their acts would have been, it's
inconceivable that we would not have known what had struck, as you
claimed.
jdeluise:
>had they gotten away with it we would never known why it was done.
The truth never lies far.
It has always been clear that our new millennium wars are behind the
radicalization of many youths in the United States as well as in
France and England, among other European countries. It is just that
our government does not want the American people to see that it itself
is ultimately the cause of all these blowbacks.
They've used torture and long jail sentences to shut up people like
Brad Manning, "Johnny Taliban" Walker, and now Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
And they always use the term "conspiracy theories" in attempt to gloss
over any suggestion that the government is behind the largest scale of
slaughter of innocent people we have seen during the last two decades
and that is Tsarnaev's whole life time so far.
Why should we or the Tsarnaev brothers accept the deaths of those
killed by our bombs and missiles, such as those revealed by Brad
Manning, more than they intended to kill and did kill with their IEDs?
Isn't the life of a journalist with an Arabic origin just as precious
as anyone harmed by the brothers at the Boston Marathon? Who is to
say that it is not? In particular, who can say that the morals of the
brothers was just corrupted by themselves, as you claimed?
To the contrary, most educated people should be able to draw the
conclusion that the dramatic transformation of these two from a couple
of kind-hearted souls to a couple of terrorists who are destined to be
losers _must necessarily_ have a cause.
To deny that there could have a causal relationship between our
government's continuing callous action against defenseless people
under the patently dishonest banner of "war on terror" - going after
one country before we finish with another - is transparently dishonest
on the individual's part in itself.
Murder is by definition intentional conduct. I can't imagine the
murders that George W Bush, Obama, or Truman have committed to be any
more grand or acceptable. I can't imagine anyone concluding that the
killings committed by our presidents are not senseless. No human has
the right to take away another human's life. The murder in sheer
numbers by our presidents is not only senseless but in my personal
view unforgivable. By my logic, therefore, that if we can have the
heart to forgive our presidents, we ought to be able to forgive the
small fry too.
The Lord says "Vengeance is mine". Who has the license to kill?
Yet, our government is saying: "Forget what we do, just punish the
little fry. That guy, yes, that surviving creep of the Tsarnaev
brothers must die, and die as soon as possible!"
So the trial drama becomes one which is saying: While George W Bush
and Obama can go scot-free, that "mal-adjusted Chechen" must pay with
the last pound of his stinking flesh.
Right? That's your assessment, right, jdeluise?
Our government wants young Tsarnaev dead so much that it is now
seeking to prevent a nun from testifying on behalf of those who
champion "no execution of another human in the name of the American
people"!
So what is it afraid of? That the American people finally remember
that they are a country of Christians, meaning followers of Jesus
Christ's teaching, and therefore should use this moment to question
the legitimacy and morality of our "War on Terror"?
lo yeeOn
>It was senseless murder, nothing more grand than that. They simply
>were attracted to something they felt gave them purpose and a
>"license" to kill.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0508/Why-Tsarnaev-prosecutors-want-to-keep-Catholic-nun-off-the-stand
As the team of lawyers defending Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev prepare to wrap up their case, they've run into opposition
from prosecutors over their last potential witness.
The witness is Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and prominent
death penalty critic whose autobiography served as the basis for the
Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn film "Dead Man Walking" about a death
row inmate in Louisiana. She was in court on Thursday but is yet to
take the stand as the government signaled its intention to file a
motion to exclude her testimony, according to WGBH.
The defense wants Sister Prejean to testify about what she has
described as the relentless "torture" of death row, but prosecutors
may be wary of her influence in Boston, a heavily Roman Catholic
community, according to legal experts.
Recommended: How much do you know about terrorism? Take the quiz.
. . .
jdeluise
May 8, 2015, 10:20:20 PM5/8/15
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
> of night?
>
> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
I don't think this argument holds water. The nuking of Japan, for
>
> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
> of night?
>
> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
message it sent was *very clear*.
Contrast that to the Tsarnaev brothers, who cowardly dropped off a
backpack bomb, retreated from the area to detonate it and then proceeded
to head home and **return to their normal lives**! If they were so
angry and sick of the US war machine, why did they not even make an
anonymous claim of responsibility? Where was the message to go along
with the act? The answer was THERE WASN'T ONE.
>
> Of course, all of these terrorist acts, whether carried out by two
> brothers or by state-sponsored machineries, have purposes and carry
> messages.
>
> If the Tsarnaev brothers' act were without purpose, the trial would
> have declared that they were deranged, I am sure!
characterize them as terrorists instead of the callous sociopaths they
really were.
>
> The truth is, without so many words, the brothers were expressing
> their repugnance of the so-called "War on Terror" waged against
> innocent people around the world, many of them have been Muslims,
> people whom the brothers naturally felt dear to.
the bombings, their actions had absolutely NO EFFECT on US policy, none!
They killed and maimed merely for the pleasure of doing so.
jdeluise
May 8, 2015, 11:18:51 PM5/8/15
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
> To the contrary, most educated people should be able to draw the
> conclusion that the dramatic transformation of these two from a couple
> of kind-hearted souls to a couple of terrorists who are destined to be
> losers _must necessarily_ have a cause.
Prior to the bombings, the older Tsarnaev killed a friend and two others
>
> To the contrary, most educated people should be able to draw the
> conclusion that the dramatic transformation of these two from a couple
> of kind-hearted souls to a couple of terrorists who are destined to be
> losers _must necessarily_ have a cause.
by slitting their throats after a drug deal gone wrong... I certainly
wouldn't characterize him as "kind-hearted"... it's curious that you
would :)
I would also argue that these actions cast doubt on the sincerity of
their (or at least his) convictions.
lo yeeOn
May 11, 2015, 6:30:56 AM5/11/15
to
In article <876182p...@wintersun.localdomain>,
but the Tsarnaev brothers' act of terrorism, using their home-made
bombs in downtown Boston was without a purpose or message?
What sort of message did Uncle Sam send by dropping the A bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki again??
The terrorism our military chose to mete out against the innocent
Japanese people was enormous, disproportionate, and inhumane. Have
you no feeling for the sheer number of those who were either killed
instantly and those who died a painful death months or years later?
And have you not heard of the horrific effects of radiation sickness
such as nausea, vomiting, spontaneous bleeding, severe and sometimes
bleeding diarrhea, ulcer in various parts of the body and eventually
the development of cancer?
Whom did our government intend the message for?
Certainly not the Japanese people! We killed tens of thousands of
them instantly and many more from burns and radiation sickness derived
from the exposure to the nuke as time passed by. Yet they were not
allowed to know what happened.
"News of the terrible consequences of the atom bomb attacks on Japan
was deliberately withheld from the Japanese public by US military
censors during the Allied occupation - even as they sought to teach
the natives the virtues of a free press. Casualty statistics were
suppressed. ..."
According to the Wikipedia:
On Monday, August 6, 1945, at 8:15 a.m., the nuclear bomb "Little
Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima by an American B-29 bomber, the Enola
Gay, flown by Colonel Paul Tibbets,[15] directly killing an
estimated 80,000 people.
By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought the total
number of deaths to 90,000-166,000.[16]
The population before the bombing was around 340,000 to 350,000.
Approximately 70% of the city's buildings were destroyed, and
another 7% severely damaged.
The public release of film footage of the city following the attack,
and some of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission research, about the
human effects of the attack, was restricted during the occupation of
Japan, and much of this information was censored until the signing
of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, restoring control to the
Japanese.[17]
As Ian Buruma observes, "News of the terrible consequences of the
atom bomb attacks on Japan was deliberately withheld from the
Japanese public by US military censors during the Allied occupation
- even as they sought to teach the natives the virtues of a free
press. Casualty statistics were suppressed. Film shot by Japanese
cameramen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings was
confiscated. Hiroshima, the famous account written by John Hersey
for The New Yorker, had a huge impact in the US, but was banned in
Japan. As [John] Dower says: `In the localities themselves,
suffering was compounded not merely by the unprecedented nature of
the catastrophe ... but also by the fact that public struggle with
this traumatic experience was not permitted.'" The US occupation
authorities maintained a monopoly on scientific and medical
information about the effects of the atomic bomb through the work of
the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which treated the data gathered
in studies of hibakusha as privileged information rather than making
the results available for the treatment of victims or providing
financial or medical support to aid victims. The US also stood by
official denial of the ravages associated with radiation. Finally,
not only was the press tightly censored on atomic issues, but
literature and the arts were also subject to rigorous control prior.
John Hersey's Hiroshima narrates the stories of six bomb survivors
immediately prior to and for months after the dropping of the Little
Boy bomb.
And if it was a message intended for the Japanese emperor, he was
nearly prevented from making a declaration of unconditional surrender.
After all, the emperor had hardly any control over Imperial Japan's
war policy, at least according to what our government eventually told
us, explaining why the emperor was not put to death for Japan's high
crime of aggression in WWII.
[Read for example] Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day
(Kodansha, 2002, ISBN 4-7700-2887-3), the internal Japanese account
of the surrender and how it was almost thwarted by fanatic soldiers
who attempted a coup against the Emperor.
So if the A bomb attacks were a message for the Japanese, saying that
we killed their people in order to force their military to surrender,
it was far from clear that the generals would heed the message!
(In fact, do generals and high government officials usually care much
about the welfare of the people? No. For example, the fire bombing
of Dresden did not cause Adolf Hitler to surrender or kill himself.
Dresden was quite far from his bunker in Berlin. In fact, Hitler
committed suicide not because of how many Germans were killed, but
because in the night of the last day of April, 1945, the intelligence
he received made him realize that there was no way out for him except
to be captured and put on trial in total humiliation. And three days
later on May 2, the Soviet Red Army took control of Berlin's Reichstag
while the capital had been completely surrounded by the Red Army for
much of the prior week.)
So, exactly for whom was the horrific nuking of innocent people of
Japan intended?
In fact, some say it was a "hands off" message for the USSR, since the
Red Army had already moved quickly into Berlin and had also driven the
Japanese soldiers out of Manchuria and off the Korean peninsula.
So, was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not utterly cynical or
what?
And you don't think that the US government could have first broadcast
a message to Japan where its people could hear:
The Allied forces are on the verge of decisive victory - they have
already defeated Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler has in fact committed
suicide, to avoid a repeat of the fire bombing of Dresden or worse,
we ask your government to surrender immediately or else we are going
to bomb your Emeperor's palace or your army headquarters in 24 hours!
You don't think the Japanese people should know at least what is
coming to them if they don't start doing something like pouring into
the streets and begging the Emperor to do something and pleading for
the generals to save the Emperor's life?
I guess if you believe our government's narrative (about our need to
resort to nukes on the Japanese to end WWII), then you need also to
reconcile your "message" argument to the uncomfortable fact that the
American occupiers in Japan had for years imposed a blackout on the
horrific effects of the attack.
They have no qualm about killing you in mass but they don't want you
to know what horrible things they have done to you!
What kind of a message is that?
If any, such a message is far from clear.
Otoh, you know, the Tsarnaev brothers would've never been able to send
out their message (about their disapproval of our "War on Terror") if
they hadn't surreptitiously committed their act first (before it could
be discovered), given the enormous asymmetric disadvantage they had to
face before a government as powerful as ours.
In fact, individually committed terrorist acts are almost invariably
parts of an asymmetric warfare against a government, whether it is
what has been happening in the Middle East or what was happening in
the 19th century czarist Russia or what was happening when the
Zionists were fighting against the British colonialists in Palestine
for independence.
Of course, it would have been infinitely better for those whom they
had harmed (and for themselves too), if they had been meek. But it
would have certainly conflicted with the macho self-image they had
seen in themselves, I am sure. So, they braved themselves to become
murderers, even though they would have otherwise never done even such
a thing as to hurt a dog, a cat, or a little hamster. But as murder
goes, our government has been cold and calculating, and have been
orders of magnitude worse than these guys.
By the way, the Tsarnaev brothers were planning to do more in NYC, if
you would recall. So, I don't think they had the idea of running away
and not to be heard again, as you seemed to suggest.
And how can we not know the meaning of what happened the moment the
bombs were exploded at the Marathon, since the word "terrorism" has
long been hammered into our consciousness by America's powers-that-be,
through both their foreign policy and domestic policy. Furthermore,
just as familiar to our consciousness is the word IED, which is short
for Improvised Explosive Device or a home-made bomb.
So, not only was there a message, right or wrong, in their bombing
act, but the message could not have been louder or clearer, even if
the perpetrators were never caught. In fact, I don't believe that we
have ever heard them confess. (It was all conclusions from everybody
else.) So, their message came through not because the messengers had
confessed after they were caught or killed but, rather, because of the
inescapable conclusion one draws from the terrorism they perpetrated.
Finally, regarding your accusation in the other follow-up that they
slit their friends' throats and therefore they could not have been the
"kind hearted" guys I had referred to them as, all I can say is that
we don't have the fact nor was it brought up in Dzhokhar's trial. But
it is easy to understand why the federal government might want to
spread that kind of stuff around to "inflame" the public - to exploit
the tragedy to ensure that it continues to have the American public's
support for its ongoing "War on Terror" projects.
lo yeeOn
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
>> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
>> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
>> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
>> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
>> of night?
>>
>> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
>> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
>
>I don't think this argument holds water. The nuking of Japan, for
>instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
>message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
>horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
>will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
>Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
>message it sent was *very clear*.
So your idea is that the United States sent a message by nuking Japan
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
>> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
>> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
>> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
>> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
>> of night?
>>
>> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
>> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
>
>I don't think this argument holds water. The nuking of Japan, for
>instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
>message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
>horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
>will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
>Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
>message it sent was *very clear*.
but the Tsarnaev brothers' act of terrorism, using their home-made
bombs in downtown Boston was without a purpose or message?
What sort of message did Uncle Sam send by dropping the A bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki again??
The terrorism our military chose to mete out against the innocent
Japanese people was enormous, disproportionate, and inhumane. Have
you no feeling for the sheer number of those who were either killed
instantly and those who died a painful death months or years later?
And have you not heard of the horrific effects of radiation sickness
such as nausea, vomiting, spontaneous bleeding, severe and sometimes
bleeding diarrhea, ulcer in various parts of the body and eventually
the development of cancer?
Whom did our government intend the message for?
Certainly not the Japanese people! We killed tens of thousands of
them instantly and many more from burns and radiation sickness derived
from the exposure to the nuke as time passed by. Yet they were not
allowed to know what happened.
"News of the terrible consequences of the atom bomb attacks on Japan
was deliberately withheld from the Japanese public by US military
censors during the Allied occupation - even as they sought to teach
the natives the virtues of a free press. Casualty statistics were
suppressed. ..."
According to the Wikipedia:
On Monday, August 6, 1945, at 8:15 a.m., the nuclear bomb "Little
Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima by an American B-29 bomber, the Enola
Gay, flown by Colonel Paul Tibbets,[15] directly killing an
estimated 80,000 people.
By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought the total
number of deaths to 90,000-166,000.[16]
The population before the bombing was around 340,000 to 350,000.
Approximately 70% of the city's buildings were destroyed, and
another 7% severely damaged.
The public release of film footage of the city following the attack,
and some of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission research, about the
human effects of the attack, was restricted during the occupation of
Japan, and much of this information was censored until the signing
of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, restoring control to the
Japanese.[17]
As Ian Buruma observes, "News of the terrible consequences of the
atom bomb attacks on Japan was deliberately withheld from the
Japanese public by US military censors during the Allied occupation
- even as they sought to teach the natives the virtues of a free
press. Casualty statistics were suppressed. Film shot by Japanese
cameramen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings was
confiscated. Hiroshima, the famous account written by John Hersey
for The New Yorker, had a huge impact in the US, but was banned in
Japan. As [John] Dower says: `In the localities themselves,
suffering was compounded not merely by the unprecedented nature of
the catastrophe ... but also by the fact that public struggle with
this traumatic experience was not permitted.'" The US occupation
authorities maintained a monopoly on scientific and medical
information about the effects of the atomic bomb through the work of
the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which treated the data gathered
in studies of hibakusha as privileged information rather than making
the results available for the treatment of victims or providing
financial or medical support to aid victims. The US also stood by
official denial of the ravages associated with radiation. Finally,
not only was the press tightly censored on atomic issues, but
literature and the arts were also subject to rigorous control prior.
John Hersey's Hiroshima narrates the stories of six bomb survivors
immediately prior to and for months after the dropping of the Little
Boy bomb.
And if it was a message intended for the Japanese emperor, he was
nearly prevented from making a declaration of unconditional surrender.
After all, the emperor had hardly any control over Imperial Japan's
war policy, at least according to what our government eventually told
us, explaining why the emperor was not put to death for Japan's high
crime of aggression in WWII.
[Read for example] Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day
(Kodansha, 2002, ISBN 4-7700-2887-3), the internal Japanese account
of the surrender and how it was almost thwarted by fanatic soldiers
who attempted a coup against the Emperor.
So if the A bomb attacks were a message for the Japanese, saying that
we killed their people in order to force their military to surrender,
it was far from clear that the generals would heed the message!
(In fact, do generals and high government officials usually care much
about the welfare of the people? No. For example, the fire bombing
of Dresden did not cause Adolf Hitler to surrender or kill himself.
Dresden was quite far from his bunker in Berlin. In fact, Hitler
committed suicide not because of how many Germans were killed, but
because in the night of the last day of April, 1945, the intelligence
he received made him realize that there was no way out for him except
to be captured and put on trial in total humiliation. And three days
later on May 2, the Soviet Red Army took control of Berlin's Reichstag
while the capital had been completely surrounded by the Red Army for
much of the prior week.)
So, exactly for whom was the horrific nuking of innocent people of
Japan intended?
In fact, some say it was a "hands off" message for the USSR, since the
Red Army had already moved quickly into Berlin and had also driven the
Japanese soldiers out of Manchuria and off the Korean peninsula.
So, was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not utterly cynical or
what?
And you don't think that the US government could have first broadcast
a message to Japan where its people could hear:
The Allied forces are on the verge of decisive victory - they have
already defeated Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler has in fact committed
suicide, to avoid a repeat of the fire bombing of Dresden or worse,
we ask your government to surrender immediately or else we are going
to bomb your Emeperor's palace or your army headquarters in 24 hours!
You don't think the Japanese people should know at least what is
coming to them if they don't start doing something like pouring into
the streets and begging the Emperor to do something and pleading for
the generals to save the Emperor's life?
I guess if you believe our government's narrative (about our need to
resort to nukes on the Japanese to end WWII), then you need also to
reconcile your "message" argument to the uncomfortable fact that the
American occupiers in Japan had for years imposed a blackout on the
horrific effects of the attack.
They have no qualm about killing you in mass but they don't want you
to know what horrible things they have done to you!
What kind of a message is that?
If any, such a message is far from clear.
Otoh, you know, the Tsarnaev brothers would've never been able to send
out their message (about their disapproval of our "War on Terror") if
they hadn't surreptitiously committed their act first (before it could
be discovered), given the enormous asymmetric disadvantage they had to
face before a government as powerful as ours.
In fact, individually committed terrorist acts are almost invariably
parts of an asymmetric warfare against a government, whether it is
what has been happening in the Middle East or what was happening in
the 19th century czarist Russia or what was happening when the
Zionists were fighting against the British colonialists in Palestine
for independence.
Of course, it would have been infinitely better for those whom they
had harmed (and for themselves too), if they had been meek. But it
would have certainly conflicted with the macho self-image they had
seen in themselves, I am sure. So, they braved themselves to become
murderers, even though they would have otherwise never done even such
a thing as to hurt a dog, a cat, or a little hamster. But as murder
goes, our government has been cold and calculating, and have been
orders of magnitude worse than these guys.
By the way, the Tsarnaev brothers were planning to do more in NYC, if
you would recall. So, I don't think they had the idea of running away
and not to be heard again, as you seemed to suggest.
And how can we not know the meaning of what happened the moment the
bombs were exploded at the Marathon, since the word "terrorism" has
long been hammered into our consciousness by America's powers-that-be,
through both their foreign policy and domestic policy. Furthermore,
just as familiar to our consciousness is the word IED, which is short
for Improvised Explosive Device or a home-made bomb.
So, not only was there a message, right or wrong, in their bombing
act, but the message could not have been louder or clearer, even if
the perpetrators were never caught. In fact, I don't believe that we
have ever heard them confess. (It was all conclusions from everybody
else.) So, their message came through not because the messengers had
confessed after they were caught or killed but, rather, because of the
inescapable conclusion one draws from the terrorism they perpetrated.
Finally, regarding your accusation in the other follow-up that they
slit their friends' throats and therefore they could not have been the
"kind hearted" guys I had referred to them as, all I can say is that
we don't have the fact nor was it brought up in Dzhokhar's trial. But
it is easy to understand why the federal government might want to
spread that kind of stuff around to "inflame" the public - to exploit
the tragedy to ensure that it continues to have the American public's
support for its ongoing "War on Terror" projects.
lo yeeOn
lo yeeOn
May 12, 2015, 1:20:43 AM5/12/15
to
In article <b90e5c94-c443-4b34...@googlegroups.com>,
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>The drug-related murders were also a protest against American hegemony
>by this kind-hearted soul. Yeah, that's it...
Never said that and it's not clear that they ever happened.
And iirc, trial-by-newspaper is not so American anyway. This whole
'drug deal gone bad' line is meant to inflame rather than to inform or
reason.
And finally, the original thread was my response to a CNN headline
screaming:
Russia as good. Thus, what the prosecutor said could only convey the
idea of a transformation from good to bad.
Now since the kid grew up in the new world, it's therefore natural for
anyone with a modicum of education to wonder what did happen in
America during that decade in which he and his brother were growing up
in Boston that could have brought about such a tragic transformation.
Some of us would just like to deny causality its rightful place in a
transformation such as that with the brothers. But I think that's
just so much like the neocons: they go around the world to kill, maim,
and destroy and turn around to tell us that the suffering and the
ensuing anger from the people on the receiving end has nothing to do
with our bombs and missiles. So, not surprising, you are sprouting
that sort of nonsense.
lo yeeOn
Subject: "News of the terrible consequences of the atom bomb attacks
of what a nun might say to the American people!
In article <876182p...@wintersun.localdomain>,
Our government had no qualms about killing its targets in mass but it
didn't want them to know what horrible things it had done to them!
What kind of a message is that?
If any, such a message is far from clear.
Otoh, you know, the Tsarnaev brothers would've never been able to send
out their message (about their disapproval of our "War on Terror") if
they hadn't surreptitiously committed their act first (before it could
be discovered), given the enormous asymmetric disadvantage they had to
face before a government as powerful as ours.
In fact, individually committed terrorist acts are almost invariably
parts of an asymmetric warfare against a government, whether it is
what has been happening in the Middle East or what was happening in
the 19th century czarist Russia or what was happening when the
Zionists were fighting against the British colonialists in Palestine
for independence.
Of course, it would have been infinitely better for those whom they
had harmed (and for themselves too), if they had been meek. But it
would have certainly conflicted with the macho self-image they had
seen in themselves, I am sure. So, they braved themselves to become
murderers, even though they would have otherwise never done even such
a thing as to hurt a dog, a cat, or a little hamster. But as murder
goes, our government has been cold and calculating, and has been many
you seemed to suggest. Rather they were clearly chasing martyrdom, if
you may.
>They didn't express anything, they retreated to their normal lives
>after the bombings, their actions had absolutely NO EFFECT on US
>policy, none! They killed and maimed merely for the pleasure of
>doing so.
That their action didn't have an effect on US policy was entirely
expected. Those guys were just naive. But I take issue with your
speculation that they killed and maimed merely for pleasure. One
cannot say that about the anarchists in the 19th century Czarist
Russia; nor can one say that about the retailed terrorism committed in
the Middle East or Central Asia today - whether it is Baghdad, Kabul,
or Grozny.
bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>by this kind-hearted soul. Yeah, that's it...
Never said that and it's not clear that they ever happened.
And iirc, trial-by-newspaper is not so American anyway. This whole
'drug deal gone bad' line is meant to inflame rather than to inform or
reason.
And finally, the original thread was my response to a CNN headline
screaming:
Prosecutor: Tsarnaev cried for 'The Lion King,' but not for bomb
victims
I think most would see the young kid's emotional reponse back in
victims
Russia as good. Thus, what the prosecutor said could only convey the
idea of a transformation from good to bad.
Now since the kid grew up in the new world, it's therefore natural for
anyone with a modicum of education to wonder what did happen in
America during that decade in which he and his brother were growing up
in Boston that could have brought about such a tragic transformation.
Some of us would just like to deny causality its rightful place in a
transformation such as that with the brothers. But I think that's
just so much like the neocons: they go around the world to kill, maim,
and destroy and turn around to tell us that the suffering and the
ensuing anger from the people on the receiving end has nothing to do
with our bombs and missiles. So, not surprising, you are sprouting
that sort of nonsense.
lo yeeOn
Subject: "News of the terrible consequences of the atom bomb attacks
on Japan was deliberately withheld from the Japanese public by US
military censors during the Allied occupation" Re: Uncle Sam is afraid
of what a nun might say to the American people!
In article <876182p...@wintersun.localdomain>,
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
>> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
>> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
>> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
>> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
>> of night?
>>
>> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
>> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
>
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
>> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
>> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
>> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
>> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
>> of night?
>>
>> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
>> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
>
>I don't think this argument holds water. The nuking of Japan, for
>instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
>message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
>horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
>will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
>Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
>message it sent was *very clear*.
So your idea is that the United States sent a message by nuking Japan
but the Tsarnaev brothers' act of terrorism, using their home-made
bombs in downtown Boston was without a purpose or message?
What sort of message did Uncle Sam send by dropping the A bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki again??
The terrorism our military chose to mete out against the innocent
Japanese people was enormous, disproportionate, and inhumane. Have
you no feeling for the sheer number of those who were either killed
instantly and those who died a painful death months or years later?
And have you not heard of the horrific effects of radiation sickness
such as nausea, vomiting, spontaneous bleeding, severe and sometimes
bleeding diarrhea, ulcers in various parts of the body and eventually
>instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
>message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
>horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
>will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
>Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
>message it sent was *very clear*.
So your idea is that the United States sent a message by nuking Japan
but the Tsarnaev brothers' act of terrorism, using their home-made
bombs in downtown Boston was without a purpose or message?
What sort of message did Uncle Sam send by dropping the A bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki again??
The terrorism our military chose to mete out against the innocent
Japanese people was enormous, disproportionate, and inhumane. Have
you no feeling for the sheer number of those who were either killed
instantly and those who died a painful death months or years later?
And have you not heard of the horrific effects of radiation sickness
such as nausea, vomiting, spontaneous bleeding, severe and sometimes
didn't want them to know what horrible things it had done to them!
What kind of a message is that?
If any, such a message is far from clear.
Otoh, you know, the Tsarnaev brothers would've never been able to send
out their message (about their disapproval of our "War on Terror") if
they hadn't surreptitiously committed their act first (before it could
be discovered), given the enormous asymmetric disadvantage they had to
face before a government as powerful as ours.
In fact, individually committed terrorist acts are almost invariably
parts of an asymmetric warfare against a government, whether it is
what has been happening in the Middle East or what was happening in
the 19th century czarist Russia or what was happening when the
Zionists were fighting against the British colonialists in Palestine
for independence.
Of course, it would have been infinitely better for those whom they
had harmed (and for themselves too), if they had been meek. But it
would have certainly conflicted with the macho self-image they had
seen in themselves, I am sure. So, they braved themselves to become
murderers, even though they would have otherwise never done even such
a thing as to hurt a dog, a cat, or a little hamster. But as murder
orders of magnitude worse than these guys.
By the way, the Tsarnaev brothers were planning to do more in NYC, if
you would recall. So, I don't think they had the idea of running
away, retreating to "their normal lives" and not to be heard again, as
By the way, the Tsarnaev brothers were planning to do more in NYC, if
you would recall. So, I don't think they had the idea of running
you seemed to suggest. Rather they were clearly chasing martyrdom, if
you may.
>They didn't express anything, they retreated to their normal lives
>after the bombings, their actions had absolutely NO EFFECT on US
>policy, none! They killed and maimed merely for the pleasure of
>doing so.
expected. Those guys were just naive. But I take issue with your
speculation that they killed and maimed merely for pleasure. One
cannot say that about the anarchists in the 19th century Czarist
Russia; nor can one say that about the retailed terrorism committed in
the Middle East or Central Asia today - whether it is Baghdad, Kabul,
or Grozny.
>> Of course, all of these terrorist acts, whether carried out by two
>> brothers or by state-sponsored machineries, have purposes and carry
>> messages.
>
>> brothers or by state-sponsored machineries, have purposes and carry
>> messages.
>
>Again, no message was made until after they had been discovered.
>
>>
>
>>
>> If the Tsarnaev brothers' act were without purpose, the trial would
>> have declared that they were deranged, I am sure!
>
>> have declared that they were deranged, I am sure!
>
>Why are you so sure of that? It's far more advantageous for the US to
>characterize them as terrorists instead of the callous sociopaths they
>really were.
>
>>
>characterize them as terrorists instead of the callous sociopaths they
>really were.
>
>>
>> The truth is, without so many words, the brothers were expressing
>> their repugnance of the so-called "War on Terror" waged against
>> innocent people around the world, many of them have been Muslims,
>> people whom the brothers naturally felt dear to.
>
>> their repugnance of the so-called "War on Terror" waged against
>> innocent people around the world, many of them have been Muslims,
>> people whom the brothers naturally felt dear to.
>
lo yeeOn
May 12, 2015, 1:35:31 AM5/12/15
to
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>>
>> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
>> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
>> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
>> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
>> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
>> of night?
>>
>> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
>> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
>
>I don't think this argument holds water. The nuking of Japan, for
>instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
>message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
>horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
>will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
>Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
>message it sent was *very clear*.
>
>>
>> Now, sir, when it comes to the issue of killing "indiscriminately",
>> how should we compare its extent (using IEDs) with that of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki (using the world's only two atom bombs that existed at
>> the time) or with the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq,
>> using the world's most advanced missiles and missile-delivery systems
>> today, and white phosphor, and the biggest bombs that could be carried
>> over thousands of miles and dropped from a stealth plane in the death
>> of night?
>>
>> You say the Tsarnaev brothers' act did not have "any sort of message
>> or purpose..."! What sort of message or purpose was the nuking of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rape of Iraq?
>
>I don't think this argument holds water. The nuking of Japan, for
>instance, *was* intended to send a message and indeed did send a
>message. Despite the fact the fire bombings were probably just as
>horrific and deadly, it was the message that the US could drop bombs at
>will that would level entire cities that helped end the war.
>Additionally, there was no mystery who dropped the bombs, and the
>message it sent was *very clear*.
again, as you seemed to suggest. Rather they were clearly chasing
martyrdom, if you will.
>They didn't express anything, they retreated to their normal lives
>after the bombings, their actions had absolutely NO EFFECT on US
>policy, none! They killed and maimed merely for the pleasure of
>doing so.
jdeluise
May 12, 2015, 2:32:15 AM5/12/15
to
Doesn't matter, the truth is you alone claimed that the brothers were
"kind-hearted souls". Well, to any well-adjusted human being clearly
they are not that. Doesn't matter how many excuses you make for them.
Perhaps you need a bit of critical self-reflection... I dare you :)
"kind-hearted souls". Well, to any well-adjusted human being clearly
they are not that. Doesn't matter how many excuses you make for them.
Perhaps you need a bit of critical self-reflection... I dare you :)
lo yeeOn
May 12, 2015, 11:03:52 PM5/12/15
to
In article <87a8xa8...@wintersun.localdomain>,
First, congratulations to you for being such a "well-adjusted human
being". :)
Second, your "kind-hearted souls" was taken totally out of context.
My "kind-hearted souls" was in reference to the initial state of an
astounding transformation in the behavior of these brothers. I have
been talking over and over about a particular _transformation_ and
asking about the cause or causes behind such a drastic change. To be
was widely perceived as kind or kind-hearted by those who have had a
chance to observe him up close.
Just yesterday, the CNN which first brought us the "Lion King" story
had this to report:
His teachers and high school and college friends say they never
suspected the "laid-back," "kind," and "caring" Tsarnaev they knew
was steeping himself in jihad and plotting mayhem.
I think the adjectives "laid-back," "kind," and "caring" say it all.
I was just relaying what was said about him from those who knew him.
So, it seems like there is some kind of head-buried-in-the-sand going
on here. ;)
It's really sad to see that you're confusing sombody's inability to
adapt to a new and extremely difficult environment with that person's
character, i.e., his mental and moral qualities, particularly those
that have been objectively perceived by others.
You should try to tell your objection to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's teachers,
classmates, and personal friends, instead of proclaiming it in a
newsgroup.
Talking about maladjustment, go talk to the many African American kids
who have grown up in the last decade and half in Ferguson, a suburb of
St. Louis, Missouri, in Baltimore, Maryland, in Oakland, California,
in NYC, and many other places where people live with little hope.
And just today, the BBC News has an article screaming:
"US Christians numbers 'decline sharply', poll finds"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32710444
The number of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen nearly
eight percentage points in only seven years, according to a new
survey.
Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans identified as
Christian in 2014 - down from 78% in 2007.
In the same period, Americans identifying as having no religion grew
from 16% to 23%.
Fifty-six million Americans do not observe any religion, the second
largest community after Evangelicals. ...
If you would recall, we had such a "devout Christian" in G W Bush who
lied to us and the rest of the world to go to war against Iraq.
Not only that, he co-opted thousands of Christian ministers to tell
their flocks that the Iraq War was actually a "just war". There was
really nothing "just" about it. And even today, our government
continues to have to deal with G W Bush's cynical and cruel legacy in
Afghanistan as well as Iraq. So, I'm not surprised that such a
"devout Christian" who has been let off the hook for his high crimes
has failed not only to inspire but also created so much cynicism as to
drive people away from the Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ!
Maybe you will also observe that the millions who are dropping out
every year in the past decade and a half are maladjusted souls too,
no?
My position is straigtforward: Between state A in which Tsarnaev was
found to be such a gentle and caring kid, as observed by those who
have interacted with him, and state B in which Tsarnaev was found to
have perpetrated a terrorist act, what was the transformation that
brought him from one to the other? I just don't think "maladjustment"
can explain it!
I think children growing up in America lately have had a hard time
reconciling what our leaders have been doing - killing, maiming, and
destroying other people - with what we expect of them as leaders.
lo yeeOn
being". :)
Second, your "kind-hearted souls" was taken totally out of context.
My "kind-hearted souls" was in reference to the initial state of an
astounding transformation in the behavior of these brothers. I have
been talking over and over about a particular _transformation_ and
asking about the cause or causes behind such a drastic change. To be
specific, I said:
To the contrary, most educated people should be able to draw the
conclusion that the dramatic transformation of these two from a
couple of kind-hearted souls to a couple of terrorists who are
destined to be losers _must necessarily_ have a cause.
And while it might not matter to you ... at least the younger brother
To the contrary, most educated people should be able to draw the
conclusion that the dramatic transformation of these two from a
couple of kind-hearted souls to a couple of terrorists who are
destined to be losers _must necessarily_ have a cause.
was widely perceived as kind or kind-hearted by those who have had a
chance to observe him up close.
Just yesterday, the CNN which first brought us the "Lion King" story
had this to report:
His teachers and high school and college friends say they never
suspected the "laid-back," "kind," and "caring" Tsarnaev they knew
was steeping himself in jihad and plotting mayhem.
I think the adjectives "laid-back," "kind," and "caring" say it all.
I was just relaying what was said about him from those who knew him.
So, it seems like there is some kind of head-buried-in-the-sand going
on here. ;)
It's really sad to see that you're confusing sombody's inability to
adapt to a new and extremely difficult environment with that person's
character, i.e., his mental and moral qualities, particularly those
that have been objectively perceived by others.
You should try to tell your objection to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's teachers,
classmates, and personal friends, instead of proclaiming it in a
newsgroup.
Talking about maladjustment, go talk to the many African American kids
who have grown up in the last decade and half in Ferguson, a suburb of
St. Louis, Missouri, in Baltimore, Maryland, in Oakland, California,
in NYC, and many other places where people live with little hope.
And just today, the BBC News has an article screaming:
"US Christians numbers 'decline sharply', poll finds"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32710444
The number of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen nearly
eight percentage points in only seven years, according to a new
survey.
Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans identified as
Christian in 2014 - down from 78% in 2007.
In the same period, Americans identifying as having no religion grew
from 16% to 23%.
Fifty-six million Americans do not observe any religion, the second
largest community after Evangelicals. ...
If you would recall, we had such a "devout Christian" in G W Bush who
lied to us and the rest of the world to go to war against Iraq.
Not only that, he co-opted thousands of Christian ministers to tell
their flocks that the Iraq War was actually a "just war". There was
really nothing "just" about it. And even today, our government
continues to have to deal with G W Bush's cynical and cruel legacy in
Afghanistan as well as Iraq. So, I'm not surprised that such a
"devout Christian" who has been let off the hook for his high crimes
has failed not only to inspire but also created so much cynicism as to
drive people away from the Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ!
Maybe you will also observe that the millions who are dropping out
every year in the past decade and a half are maladjusted souls too,
no?
My position is straigtforward: Between state A in which Tsarnaev was
found to be such a gentle and caring kid, as observed by those who
have interacted with him, and state B in which Tsarnaev was found to
have perpetrated a terrorist act, what was the transformation that
brought him from one to the other? I just don't think "maladjustment"
can explain it!
I think children growing up in America lately have had a hard time
reconciling what our leaders have been doing - killing, maiming, and
destroying other people - with what we expect of them as leaders.
lo yeeOn
0 new messages