Skip to main content

At least 25 dead. Multiple explosions reported.

Will update as major developments warranted.

This story is breaking as we speak.

Here is the latest info from the BBC. CNN just went off air covering this breaking story.

Update X 1: BBC reports 40 dead now in a "highly coordinated attack"-(BBC World Service TV)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

At least 25 people are reported to have been killed in an explosion on the Metro system in central Moscow, with a second blast coming shortly afterwards.

The first blast happened at the city's central Lubyanka station, reports quoting security sources said.

A second explosion happened at the Park Kultury station, Russian news agency Tass reported.

Ten people were injured in the first blast, Tass said, quoting the emergencies ministry.

There may have been multiple targets. What is very concerning is that this subway blast was near the Kremlin and Moscow has the 2nd largest subway system after Tokyo in the world, 2nd largest usage that is. Millions of people use the system.

Originally posted to Parker2001 on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:11 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (182+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pat K California, Garrett, Yosef 52, ogre, askew, Powered Grace, mattman, PeterHug, Debby, TheGreatLeapForward, Jay C, OLinda, eeff, dkistner, bethcf4p, Creosote, Gustogirl, bronte17, missLotus, sja, nargel, PeteZerria, wader, Texknight, dejavu, CitizenOfEarth, pat bunny, gmb, grannyhelen, NYFM, Chirons apprentice, defluxion10, barbwires, zett, Vicky, valadon, vacantlook, rapala, G2geek, sandblaster, radarlady, greycat, sc kitty, PBen, Alice Venturi, Omir the Storyteller, panicbean, basquebob, david78209, EJP in Maine, reflectionsv37, Annalize5, bleeding blue, cfk, majcmb1, skyounkin, Phil S 33, Isara, PinHole, rb608, mph2005, leftynyc, Dunvegan, Mother Mags, trashablanca, BachFan, iheartbooks, Kingsmeg, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, emeraldmaiden, koNko, euterpe, MTmofo, danktle, nonnie9999, max stirner, myrealname, Cenobyte, lazybum, rage, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, revgerry, poxonyou, markthshark, Nulwee, Pandoras Box, dmh44, edsbrooklyn, Matt Z, deepeco, davehouck, jnhobbs, uciguy30, BasharH, alba, rmonroe, trivium, GANJA, gimmeshelter, indyada, FarEasterner, Akonitum, beltane, Cassandra Waites, pademocrat, Jeff Y, Gemina13, glendaw271, petulans, luckylizard, Nona D Above, Guadalupe59, billmosby, satanicpanic, Ripeness Is All, LinSea, not a cent, juca, Shhs, Dopeman, notrouble, velvet blasphemy, Mercuriousss, VT ConQuest, Wit Whither Wilt, zizi, MKSinSA, soms, pnn23, realwischeese, rubthorn, Little Flower, sherijr, Sleepwalkr, ozarkspark, ppl can fly, icemilkcoffee, LaughingPlanet, drainflake77, amk for obama, JupiterIslandGirl, freeport beach PA, BonnieSchlitz, elginblt, SoCalHobbit, elengul, ssldenver, no way lack of brain, Colorado is the Shiznit, Byblis, I love OCD, BlueJessamine, ontheleftcoast, soothsayer99, Greek Goddess, susanala, BarackStarObama, teloPariah, dakinishir, tardis10, MRA NY, createpeace, antooo, Hayate Yagami, zenox, KingofSpades, LaurenMonica, Jellybeanie31, moonpal, Tom Seaview, Han Shot First, CalliopeIrjaPearl, pantherq, Nena20409, sjterrid, Just Keep it Simple Stupid, Flying Goat, OHknighty, a2nite, Socratic Method, the anti bigot
    •  yeah..US's ideological brother in heavyhandedness (20+ / 5-)

      Praying for safety and peace.

      Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

      by soms on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:13:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I profoundly disagree with that characterization. (11+ / 0-)

        Russia and the United States have virtually nothing in common.

        "All politics is local" is an inadequate statement. All politics is personal - one human being to another.

        by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:18:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The residents of Chechnya (17+ / 0-)

          would probably disagree with your disagreement.

          Ohio progressives: support Jennifer Brunner for Senate!

          by ppl can fly on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:21:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm at a complete loss as to your meaning. (5+ / 0-)

            "All politics is local" is an inadequate statement. All politics is personal - one human being to another.

            by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:27:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is what Russia did to (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman, gmb, lotlizard, Amber6541

              Ohio progressives: support Jennifer Brunner for Senate!

              by ppl can fly on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:29:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And that has what to do with the United States? (3+ / 0-)

                "All politics is local" is an inadequate statement. All politics is personal - one human being to another.

                by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:30:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heavyhandedness n/t (6+ / 0-)

                  Ohio progressives: support Jennifer Brunner for Senate!

                  by ppl can fly on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:31:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You think the United States is heavy-handed? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    burrow owl, Han Shot First

                    "All politics is local" is an inadequate statement. All politics is personal - one human being to another.

                    by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:32:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is a serious question? (10+ / 0-)

                      Of course the USA is heavy handed. See Iraq for an example.

                      Ohio progressives: support Jennifer Brunner for Senate!

                      by ppl can fly on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:36:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Use any example you like. (23+ / 0-)

                        There's no rational baseline of comparison that supports your claim, even if I accepted your premise that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were actions of the United States rather than a separate government occupying it at the time (which I don't).  

                        The invasion of Chechnya was, from top to bottom, barely shy of genocidal.  Even placing the two in the same league is a level of ignorant recklessness I'm not sure I know how to respond to.  But going beyond the two cases, you have no rational baseline of comparison.

                        The United States is not "heavy-handed."  We've proven that repeatedly throughout history, just as Russia has repeatedly proven the opposite throughout history, and reckless critics of the United States have repeatedly proven their unlimited capacity for equating night and day.  Don't tell me that explicit orders to exterminate villages and wipe out towns are morally equivalent to civilian casualties and refugee flight.

                        "All politics is local" is an inadequate statement. All politics is personal - one human being to another.

                        by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:47:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You nailed it... (52+ / 0-)

                          reckless critics of the United States have repeatedly proven their unlimited capacity for equating night and day.

                          I'm an Iraq vet. Did two tours, 04-05 and 08-09. During both tours, the understanding of most of the officers in command -- Republican, Independent or otherwise -- was that we were there to establish a stable, representative government and hand Iraq back to it's people. Now I read that the shi'ite coalition favored by Iran's theocratic junta are furiously fending off defeat to a secular challener. Just like Ahmedinejad last summer, it looks like they're trying to steal it.

                          That's hardly an ideal situation, but it would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. After the disaster that resulted from the neo-con policies of 2002-04, we have worked hard to salvage something from the mess Rumsfeld and company created. Do the critics care? Of course not. We are imperialist baby killers who have been defeated and should live out our lives in terrible shame.

                          I'm getting out now, and looking forward to new challenges as a civilian... college and all that. But looking back I feel alot of pride of what I've done. Yes, pride. I never mistreated any Iraqi civilians and never witnessed another US solider do so. I know it happened, but it was rare, and ROE violaters were routinely court-martialed. The angry left types so often found in these threads refuse to hear that. We are evil imperial opressors and that's that. I am really getting sick of their bullshit.

                          Criticism of US foreign policy is fair and often valid, it's always healthy to ask tough questions and condemn corruption. But reckless criticism is something else entirely. It is motivated by fear, paranoia and even hate. This type of slander is anything but constructive. It's way past time to call it for what it is. Bullshit.

                          This is a big fucking deal.

                          by Han Shot First on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:05:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you for that insight. (13+ / 0-)

                            While I myself must stipulate that I regard the invasion of Iraq as a war of aggression, and that I think soldiers should have refused orders to deploy as per the legal basis cited by Lt. Ehren Watada in his own refusal (a soldier whom I think deserves a medal), I do recognize that most troops and actions in the war were conducted impeccably in comparison to any other war in history.  

                            It is that which demonstrates the basic decency of the American people, and which makes the horrors that did occur in their name - the lies leading up to the war, the propaganda, the torture, etc. - so much more egregious.  Even the Bush regime didn't manage to push the war into the level of hell they wished, however much they tried - even their servile, irresponsible Pentagon leaders would have refused if they'd been ordered to do anything like what the Russians did in Chechnya as SOP.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:27:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of that there is no doubt. (24+ / 0-)

                            My understanding is that the neo-con inner circle wished to install a puppet regime in Iraq, but they planned and executed their intent with the competence and efficiency as they did with most of their projects... and so they failed miserably. They apparently trusted Ahmed Chalibi to help them in this, just to give an idea at how inept and uninformed they were.

                            The Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal never intended that there be elections, but there was a major shi'ite uprising in the spring of 2004, hundreds of our soldiers were killed and, for several weeks, our supply lines in Southern Iraq were cut leaving some remote FOBs dangerously low on fuel and ammunition. The uprising ended when Bush promised national elections within a year. A few weeks later, some of the more responsible leaders in the Pentagon leaked photos from Abu Ghraib to the Washignton Post and encouraged that they be published. Others pleaded with GOP leaders to remove Rumsfeld. Although Rumsfled hung on for two more years, he was at least weakened by these actions, there's no telling how many lives were ultimately spared because of these behind-the-scene actions by senior leadership.

                            I vehemently disagree with your opinion that we should have refused our orders. That was not possible. They were lawful orders, in every respect. The President said that Saddam Hussien's regime posed a threat to US security. Congress then confirmed that assertion, and gave it's blessing to his plans to remove Saddam from power and allocated funds for this purpose. I am aware of no legal challenges to this which were upheld by any federal court at any level. How could any soldier argue that these orders were illegal when the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of the US Government said otherwise? It would be the same as if I were to smoke weed and then try to argue our drug laws are unfair and based on false assumptions. I would be completely right, but the law is what the government says it is. Period. There were no legal grounds for refusing orders, in my mind. So, most of us, did the best we could.

                            I would encourage you to watch this video, General John Batiste was in Iraq around the same time I did my first tour there... it's long but informative. There was alot of stuff going on away from the spotlight usually reserved for Micheal Jackson, Bubble boys and tickle fights that had went a long way toward shaping the future of Iraq and US involvement there toward something other than the intractable nightmare scenario many feared would result from this reckless policy. Whatever our differences of opinion may end up being on this mattter, I greatly appreciate the fairness of your comment's and you willingness to examine the issue from all sides and to avoid the lazy arguments of binary thinking. I am grateful for the respect I so often get from the US public, irrespective of ideology or political persuasion, and hope I did enough to warrant that respect.

                            Again, I urge you you watch this video and reconsider your opinion of our senior leadership.

                            This is a big fucking deal.

                            by Han Shot First on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:20:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree with your assessment of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Han Shot First

                            the Inner Circle's intentions - they were intending to make Iraq an imperial possession (not of the US, but of their own private empire existing beyond the limits of the US Constitution; I'm writing a book that will explain this).

                            However plausible and understandable your arguments are for the legality of the orders, they are at best rationalizations that I would like to believe to give people the benefit of the doubt who clearly had no malicious intent, but I cannot accept them.

                            The United States of America had not been attacked by Iraq, beyond shooting at planes over No-Fly Zones that we had unilaterally imposed outside the confines of the Gulf War cease-fire.  No ally of the United States had been attacked by Iraq, nor indeed any other country since that cease-fire.  Not only was there no threat of imminent attack, as required by international law to validate preemption, the Bush regime explicitly admitted that the threat was not imminent and argued that imminence wasn't a necessary criteria.  The UN refused to endorse it, despite its own sanctions being the alleged legal basis of the invasion, and the American people were divided on it.

                            The soldiers should have refused, the officers should have resigned rather than carry out their orders, and if enough had done so, the war would never have happened and well over a million people who are now dead would still be alive.  Well over a trillion dollars would still exist in the US economy, and the United States would not have to still be climbing out of this deep well of international suspicion and hatred.  

                            I can't seriously blame anyone beneath high officer rank for not refusing - that kind of courage is rarer even than courage in battle - but America needed its soldiers to be citizens first, and they failed in that respect.  Which is to say, we failed in that respect, because soldiers come from the citizenry and reflect who we are as a people.  Again, I cannot blame the troops, because ordinary people can only go by what they hear and what their social environment guides them to do.  

                            But I cannot excuse the high officers for failing to resign: They are supposed to be learned, educated people with a knowledge and appreciation for the traditions and philosophy of this country, and to uphold them as they uphold our Constitution and our security.  They should have resigned in droves in 2003 rather than execute orders to invade and occupy Iraq, but so far as I can tell, there were virtually none (if not literally none).  Their failure is shameful.  An absolute disgrace, and I believe they share in legal culpability with the Bush regime for the invasion as per the standards established at Nuremberg.  

                            There is a line in a movie about Sophie Scholl - the German girl executed by the Nazis for opposing their war and racism - that pertains to this.  Through a series of provocative questions, her interrogator has gotten her to confess to handing out anti-Nazi leaflets, and provoked her into an incriminating political debate.  He insists that everything the Nazi regime has done has been in full accordance with the laws of Germany, and asks her what else there is to guide a person but law?  "Conscience," is her answer.

                            General John Batiste sounds like a very conscientious and professional person, and I would definitely acquit him if the charge were being evil, but the most conscientious general to participate in a war of naked aggression can expect nothing better than to be pitied for his crippled moral compass.  Erwin Rommel was a fine soldier, a gentleman, and a man of high ethics who disobeyed all orders to commit war crimes, but he chose to serve monsters.  He chose.

                            I can appreciate - at least intellectually - how difficult it is for any person to buck their environment and take a stand alone, and that it must be vastly more difficult for a soldier for whom solidarity is everything.  But that doesn't change the facts: Everyone is responsible for their decisions to the degree their knowledge and intelligence allows.

                            Were I a war crimes judge, I can't say how I would deal with a general like John Batiste, but whatever the result, I would still thank him for his service.  He did his best.  But sometimes one's best isn't good enough, and honor requires acknowledging that and accepting the consequences.  The few who did resign rather than participate in the Iraq War deserve Presidential Medals of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medals.  I would say they deserve Medals of Honor if that distinction were not explicitly limited to valor in combat.

                            That so few did refuse - in fact, other than Watada, I have never heard of a single one - is a stain that will live on this country forever.  Not a German-sized stain, but a stain nonetheless.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:34:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I completely disagree. (4+ / 0-)

                            But that is the nature of politics, isn't it? The law is the law. If the officials of all three branches of the United States government, duly elected or appointed in accordance with the United States Constitution, instruct the armed forces to carry out their a policy... that is a lawful order.

                            It is important to understand that many officers refused to violate the Geneva Conventions, even as Rumsfeld attempted to twist their arms into doing so. My understanding is that the neo-cons had to bring in contracters or use CIA agents in order to carry out their torture program. The uniformed military wouldn't do it. This is why investigations into Abu Ghraib only yeilded convictions against rogue enlisted soldiers. No one in their chain of command actually ordered them to do what they did. I may be wrong about this, but I gather they got the idea from contracters they worked with, and largely acted on their own initiative.

                            By your logic, every B-17, B-22 and B-29 commander (to include George McGovern) is guilty of war crimes for participating in strategic bombing of Germany and Japan. I believe hindsight has shown that the policy of "Total War" was unneccesary and ineefective from a military standpoint, and inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. This of course makes FDR a war criminal also. Without any doubt, Truman would qualify as a war criminal for the clearly unneccesary use of nuclear weapons against Japan, even after the Imperial Navy had been destroyed and Okinawa had been occupied, leaving Japan incapable of threatening US territory. The crew of the Enola Gay would also be culpable, as well as anyone who knew of the Manhattan Project.

                            But it's just not that simple. The fact is that as much as it sucks that out leaders refused to listen to the people who knew the invasion of Iraq was a horrible idea, and that the rationale for it was fabricated from false assumptions, conspiracy theories and deliberate lies... that doesn't make them criminals, just really bad leaders. I believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, along with a few others, are culpable for war crimes. But George W. Bush is probably just a really bad President, and most (with some exceptions) of the senior leadership were doing the best they could reasonably have been expected to do, especially when one considers the legal standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would also disagree with your assessment of Rommel, just on the grounds that he risked and ultimately lost his life in an attempt to remove Hitler from power, hardly the actions of an accomplice.

                            I think this is just the terrible cost of the flaws inherent in human nature and by extension our various systems of government. To be clear, I am not saying that President Bush is innocent in the sense that he commited no crimes, I mean only that a good lawyer could easily defend him with a combined defense of executive privledge, national security needs, states secrets and plausible deniability. I don't think he could be convicted in an actual trial. Good luck with your book, anyway. It was an interesting discussion. Much better than wasting my time with the angry ragers.

                            This is a big fucking deal.

                            by Han Shot First on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:19:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for that post. However... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dejavu, soms, CKendall

                            I do think the person was referring to the Shock and Awe campaign and invasion of Iraq as retaliation for 9/11 as being heavy-handed.

                            I think that should be interpreted as heavy-handed given they had nothing to do with 9/11.

                            The only way I can really relate to my everyday issues is there was an instance where my house was vandalized. There are some sketchy neighbors who have caused problems in the neighborhood on multiple occasions. I thought it was them, but I had no proof. As much as I wanted to retaliate I knew it wasn't right and I didn't know for sure it was them.

                            Well, I'm glad I didn't because it turned out it wasn't even them anyways.

                            But if I had given them the ultimatum to leave the neighborhood, or I would force them to leave that would be pretty heavy-handed, especially since they didn't do it. Then, what if I had, and they didn't leave, and I kicked in their door, beat them up and set the house on fire that would be really heavy-handed.

                            My point is I don't think people take issue with the troops, except some few bad apples. They take issue with the decision to invade Iraq, and when put in context I think it could be seen as heavy-handed. No, it is not like what other country's forces have done, not close. But we do react in disproportionate ways with disproportionate force.

                            I'm not saying nothing positive can be salvaged from the mistake, but it was a mistake and we had no business invading that country. That isn't your fault though, and it sounds like you were trying to do your job honorably regardless of the why, where and what that put you in the situation to need to do it.

                            Fox News and WWE: Because delusional people need news and sports also. -5.12/-5.28

                            by gimmeshelter on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:45:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Invading Iraq... (0+ / 0-)

                            was one of the most reckless acts in US military history, on a par with the attempted invasion of Canada during The War of 1812 and the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam circa 1964.

                            It didn't have to go as badly as it did, but had these gone down differently that wouldn't have made it any less of a reckless act. It would have just made us luckier.

                            This is a big fucking deal.

                            by Han Shot First on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:53:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you for your service (0+ / 0-)

                            It is deeply appreciated.  Also, as the mother in law of an active service member, thank you for sharing your first hand perspective of what our soldiers are truly about.  

                            You are my brother, my sister. (Duty calls; good men answer. May it ever be so. (blue aardvark, DKos, 1.14.10))

                            by RoCali on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:43:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We have killed more innocents around the world (0+ / 0-)

                            in the name of freedom than either of us could even imagine

                          •  yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            callmecassandra

                            as an Iraqi, I do believe you should live your life in shame.

                            You want to be commended for what you've done in Iraq? Laughable. Really. I mean, I'm fairly certain that Iraqis would disagree with your characterization, but what does it matter? You're proud of yourself, you're proud of your awful mission, and you're defending soldiers who routinely and in widespread fashion killed Iraqis.

                            I have no respect for you, your mission, or your bullshit, which is the thickest here.

                        •  Right-wing jingoist bullshit (16+ / 0-)

                          The United States is not "heavy-handed."  We've proven that repeatedly throughout history

                          We've proven the opposite. Iraq was just the most recent example. More than 500,000 children died from the sanctions, and at least that many from the invasion.

                          You should ask the parents of those dead Iraqi kids how much they care about moral equivalence. Just tell them we didn't intentionally do it, so it's not a problem. I'm sure they will be convinced.

                          Ohio progressives: support Jennifer Brunner for Senate!

                          by ppl can fly on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:09:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Why don't you just stop your raving? (5+ / 0-)

                            The things you're saying are reflexive, ignorant, and embarrassingly devoid of historical understanding.

                            We've proven the opposite.

                            Compared to whom?

                            More than 500,000 children died from the sanctions

                            So now trade sanctions are "heavy-handed"?  Be honest - you're just floundering for excuses to shore up an indefensible position.

                            and at least that many from the invasion.

                            Not according to any source I've seen.  The vast majority of Iraqi casualties were a result of internecine violence and deprivation following the invasion - disasters the Bush regime leadership was still culpable for incurring, but hardly equivalent to actively ordering the deaths of that many people.

                            You should ask the parents of those dead Iraqi kids how much they care about moral equivalence.

                            I'm sure plenty of them are rational enough that they do care about the difference between reality and rage-driven fantasy.  You, however, have no excuse to be so indifferent to the distinction.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:34:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More flag waving (12+ / 0-)

                            We are heavy handed compared to whom? Every powerful country has been involved in mass murder. Fuck them all. I don't like US foreign policy and I don't like Russian foreign policy either. Neither is better than the other. Both have murdered plenty enough people to be called "heavy handed."

                            You keep going on about moral equivalence. What difference does it make to a dead person if they were intentionally killed by Russians, or killed by Iraqi death squads unleashed by the USA? The end result is the same. Real world results are more important than intent.

                            Ohio progressives: support Jennifer Brunner for Senate!

                            by ppl can fly on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:48:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, to summarize your rant... (3+ / 0-)

                            "Heavy handed" means engaging in warfare.  At all.  And every human being on the fucking planet other than Mahatma Gandhi is going to burn in hell beside Pol Pot.  Got it.  

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:28:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When you off a million people with "good (6+ / 0-)

                            motivations", they're less dead than if you admit (as Russia has been wont to do) that you're killing them fulfill strategic objectives?

                            That seems to summarize your latest excuse for supporting wars of naked aggression and imperialist expansion, as far as I can tell.

                            My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

                            by JesseCW on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:10:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If your interpretation of what I've said so far (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soms, I love OCD

                            is that I "support wars of naked aggression and imperialist expansion," then you need to take a time-out and refresh your reading comprehension skills.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:41:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice job, people!!! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zett

                            Congrats for completely derailing this thread. Well done!

                            /snark

                            A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

                            by Timroff on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:28:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sanctions = Firebombing cities. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Troubadour

                            You're not getting the full flava of the stoopid.  The commenter also says that sanctions equals war equals total destruction of a capital city.

                          •  As I said downthread... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dejavu, MBNYC, soms, I love OCD

                            The US is much more powerful than Russia, and will naturally have more of an effect on other nation's, for good or for bad, than a smaller less powerful nation.

                            It would pop your brain to know that people in Africa love not just the US, but George W. Bush. People in Darfur name their sons after him.

                            You make blanket statements, and miss the many layers of complexity that is the world we live in.

                            It's. Just. Not. That. Simple.

                            This is a big fucking deal.

                            by Han Shot First on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:43:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Iraq dead (12+ / 0-)

                            The Johns Hopkins study was up to 1.2 million dead, and that was years ago. The British Government in a secret memo judged the metrics of that study "Robust," that is to say very sound. The Iraq war was a crime, and I believe if you commit a crime all the consequences that result from that crime, including deaths, are charged, quite rightly,to you. The Russians in Chechnya were,as you say,just short of genocidal," but over the last 70 years the deaths from US policies would dwarf Russian or Soviet crimes.Much better to have been a dissident in eastern Europe, for example, than say, central or South America for instance. In the former you were imprisoned, the latter, killed. Genocide in Guatemala, or just shy of it if you prefer, took 200,000 Indian lives. El Salvador was another butcher's shop. The moral equivalence argument is hardly an "indefensible position" unless the world began a year ago.

                          •  The Johns Hopkins study (0+ / 0-)

                            was deaths from all causes stemming from the invasion and occupation.  I.e., if a battle took place that severed a sewer line and nobody repaired it, causing residents to rely on a shitty, bacteria-infested well instead, and people died from drinking that water, those would be included.  

                            I would not compare that to Russian troops linine up and executing all the males in a village, randomly tossing hand grenades into every house they pass a "mop up" operation, and not even bothering to enter a city until it had been reduced to ashes.

                            Furthermore, I really don't think you understood the post you're responding to.  You restate things I had just said as if you were disagreeing with me.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:25:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, so if you kill lots of people (4+ / 0-)

                            but didn't mean to, it's totally different. I mean, it's not like you accept the consequences of going to war, no matter what.

                            Besides, what you describe sounds a lot like Vietnam, only we did our mass murdering with airplanes and napalm.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:31:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  All the world is evil except you. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Han Shot First

                            Thank you for your moral guidance, Mahatma Jyrinx.  Your hate-filled, rage-driven rhetoric has surely saved lives.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:39:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hate? Rage? Where? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            valadon, ppl can fly

                            I'm just describing the truth.

                            (I'd love to hear your defense of the conduct of Vietnam.)

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:59:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're not describing the truth (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wonderful world

                            you're railing in lieu of an argument and trying to change the subject.

                            The fact is we have had some incredibly delusional, Bizarro World commentary from people who seem to have trouble dealing with the complexities of moral judgment in the real world.

                            The Russian army after the 19th century has never risen to the moral standards of the worst atrocities ever committed by the United States Armed Forces.  If you were to put a Russian soldier who served in Chechnya into Iraq under US command during the worst of the violence, he would have considered himself on vacation and his American superiors as a bunch of bleeding-heart ponces for not just massacring every Iraqi who looked at them cross-eyed.

                            We called it the My Lai Massacre.  The Russian Army would have called it Tuesday Afternoon.  There's your truth.  If you can't deal with the idea that the universe is not divided into Gandhis and Hitlers, and that war is morally murky, then perhaps you should just stay away from the subject altogether because you're not contributing any deep thoughts or meaningful insights on the topic.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:36:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fine. Forget the massacre. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Arza

                            What about the bombings of villages? Was the Russians' sin the throwing of grenades by hand? Does the use of an airplane make it okay?

                            Of course war is morally murky. That's why they are generally to be avoided except as an absolute last resort.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:52:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  (BTW, the massacre *was* just another day (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Arza

                            until Sy Hersh dug it up. Who the fuck knows what we've done a better job of covering up?)

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:54:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well, uh, yeah (0+ / 0-)

                            intentions do in fact matter, go to a trial, see if intent is necessary for punishment (hint in 99 percent of the cases, it is, including murder).

                          •  I responded to this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wonderful world

                            So now trade sanctions are "heavy-handed"?  Be honest - you're just floundering for excuses to shore up an indefensible position.

                          •  Supposing that what you say about Russian methods (0+ / 0-)

                            is true: how many victims there were of these particular methods and how many of the general privation/wartime conditions? Methinks you're artificially exaggerating Russian atrocities and minimizing the American ones (Vietnam etc.).

                            So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

                            by skeptiq on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:44:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If they are tossing grenades into every house (0+ / 0-)

                            It's not random. Also that's how a house is cleared. Grenade first then walk in and shoot anything that moves.

                            the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

                            by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:43:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whether or not it's comparable to... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...anything the Russians do, your characterization of the Johns-Hopkins study, while technically accurate, distorts its actual findings:

                            Key points of the study include:

                            • Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006

                            • Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence

                            I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

                            by Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:38:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Even if I accept your assertion... (0+ / 0-)

                            the US does not equal Russia.

                            The US is much more powerful than Russia, and will naturally have more of an effect on other nation's, for good or for bad, than a smaller less powerful nation.

                            It would pop your brain to know that people in Africa love not just the US, but George W. Bush. People in Darfur name their sons after him.

                            You make blanket statements, and miss the many layers of complexity that is the world we live in.

                            This is a big fucking deal.

                            by Han Shot First on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:41:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stalin (0+ / 0-)

                            killed more people by himself through war and famine then we did as a nation over the entirety of time since he took over the Soviet Union long ago.

                          •  Your arguments in favor of the invasion and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ppl can fly

                            occupation of Iraq and the slaughter of its citizens sound an awful lot like your arguments in favor of the continued brutal occupation of Afghanistan.

                            My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

                            by JesseCW on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:07:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I disagree... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Troubadour, FreeLancer

                            with your argument that my mom should be eaten by cannibals.

                            What sort of monster would advocate such things?

                            This is a big fucking deal.

                            by Han Shot First on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:35:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your comment is lie compounded on lie. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC

                            I have been opposed to the Iraq War since the beginning, and your characterization of our NATO presence in Afghanistan due to 9/11 and with the full consent of the UN-recognized government as a "brutal occupation" is mendacious in the extreme.  You should be ashamed of yourself for that mindless, hate-driven, sick fantasy-world comment.  This is the reality-based community, and lies are fucking immoral regardless of whatever humanitarian agenda you think justifies them.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:47:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your post if very funny. (0+ / 0-)

                            "brutal occupation" is mendacious in the extreme.

                            It is not an occupation?
                            The occupation is not secured through brute force?

                            Brute force being people with guns....

                            I guess calling it a violent war would also be mendacious in your view.

                            Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

                            by catilinus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:53:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not an occupation. (0+ / 0-)

                            Never was an occupation.  The taliban were occupying Afghanistan, genius.  

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:55:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not an occupation? Ha ha ha. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

                            by catilinus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:24:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really. "Shock and awe" is not heavy-handed? (8+ / 0-)

                            And use of the term "heavy-handed" is now hide-rateable on Daily Kos?

                            And anyone who criticizes U.S. war policies or empire-building here is a "blame America firster" now, just as right-wing talk radio has always claimed?

                            Amazing, just amazing.

                            The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

                            by lotlizard on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:16:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Most amoral, thoughtless post today. (0+ / 0-)

                            Aerial phots show that Grozny was so destroyed that nobody could tell where the buildings ONCE WERE.  The only clues were tank treads in the dust.

                            Calling a decision to impose sanctions equivalent to THAT has to be the most amoral and unprincipled crock of shit served up on a long time.  And, of course, it simply encourages countries to bomb rather than try sanctions....them being the same to people like you.

                        •  i have lived in 3 different countries (26+ / 0-)

                          that have been bumfucked by the good old usa...

                          i lived in panama in the 90's not too long after bush's assault on panama city (operation just cause [you're black])in which the americans burned down an entire neighborhood full of poor panamanians...pentagon estimates of fatalities ran to 500+ - ramsey clark said 4,000

                          i now live in laos, where american secret bombing campaigns against a supposed ally wreaked untold death and destruction for years - a legacy that remains today in the unexploded ordinance that is still killing and maiming lao people

                          i also live in nicaragua...we were a little more subtle there - we mostly hired mercenaries to do our killing

                          speaking of subtle, who can forget the delicate whisper of hiroshima and nagasaki?

                          The United States is not "heavy-handed."  We've proven that repeatedly throughout history

                          have a rethink, pal

                          yes, i have accepted burt bacharach as my personal savior

                          by memofromturner on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:37:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Apples and oranges (0+ / 0-)

                            speaking of subtle, who can forget the delicate whisper of hiroshima and nagasaki?

                            I don't think it's fair to compare American action in Laos, Nicaragua or Panama to the use of atomic weapons in Japan.  One can debate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the key distinction is that those took place in a formally declared war.

                          •  i'm not comparing them (0+ / 0-)

                            i'm making a list of heavy handed actions by the US...dropping not one but two nuclear weapons on civilians qualifies, "formally declared war" or not

                            yes, i have accepted burt bacharach as my personal savior

                            by memofromturner on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:17:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Conventional weapons would have been better? (0+ / 0-)

                            I think you'd have a better argument with incendiary bombing of Tokyo.  Unless you have some thoughts on how fewer civilians would have been killed in a more conventional assault on the Japanese homeland?  Keep in mind that somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa - approximately 1/4 of the population.

                        •  The families of 1 million dead Iraqis (6+ / 0-)

                          likely disagree with your view.

                          My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

                          by JesseCW on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:04:32 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Ever hear of Falujah? (4+ / 0-)

                          Repent. The end is extremely f*cking nigh.--28 days later

                          by voroki on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:18:37 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Bad argument to take up .. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Troubadour, Han Shot First

                        I know it wasn't even your original comment that sparked this but REALLY not a good choice of comments to rise to the defense of.

                        As Troubadour appropriately pointed out, the false equivalency you are trying to defend is outrageous and replete with baseless and irresponsibly hyperbolic assertions.  That's all I will say, but I would advise you quietly back out of this debate, it ain't going to turn out pretty for you.

                      •  I Am "Shocked And Awed" That You Would (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JesseCW, sortalikenathan

                        post that!

                        Well, mostly, awed.

                        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can always be honest.

                        by mattman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:08:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  We try not to kill civilians, though. (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Heiuan, terrypinder, MBNYC, FreeLancer

                        Russia just doesn't give a shit.

                    •  oh id have to disagree with you troubadour (10+ / 0-)

                      there are some similarities. more than either the russians or americans would like to admit. both v large countries, with the big country attitude( we are right other people are wrong) both highly prideful about their nations, usually for less than stellar reasons. both societies heavily fixated on gaining material wealth... i could go on... i work for a russian company here in europe. as a consultant. there are def comparisions betwen russian personalities and american, that are created by the respective cultures...

                      Welcome to the empire. now run away if you can... life is not a dress rehearsal

                      by johnfire on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:24:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not to dismiss your observations (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        wonderful world

                        but I think the connections you're seeing are superficial, and don't really speak to the underlying character of a society.  

                        There are many forms of pride, but one can divide them into narcissistic - I am proud to be ___ because that's who I am - and instrumental (I am proud to be ____ because _____ achieved this, or upholds this set of virtues, etc.)  The two tend to be inversely proportional.  People with reasons to be proud of their heritage don't seek pride in identity, but in adding to those reasons.  

                        American narcissists exist, but ethnic narcissism is not the sole abode of national pride in this country, or even the main one.  We value things that are either ignored or discouraged in other countries, and that superficial appearances of petty materialism really don't take into account.  

                        Even where greed occurs, it's radically different - American greed is not materialistic, but capitalistic: The point is to profit for the sake of profit, not because you care about money or seek power.  This is a pernicious meme, to be sure, but radically different from the Old World ethos that still dominates in Russia and Arab states: The ethos of possession.  

                        Russia may no longer be Communist, but it certainly isn't capitalist - it's more feudal, like what Texas would be without the rest of the United States restraining it.  The point of business in Russia is power, which is why most of it occurs in things that can be tangibly controlled rather than abstract financial realms.

                        We are very much children of Britain in this respect, and Russia a child of Eurasia.  I also disagree that we care about being a "big country" - American standards don't work like that.  We were born as virtually defenseless colonies arrayed against the mightiest empire the world had ever known, and those initial conditions have stayed a part of our character.

                        Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                        by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:18:10 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Meteor Blades

                          "Even where greed occurs, it's radically different - American greed is not materialistic, but capitalistic: The point is to profit for the sake of profit, not because you care about money or seek power. This is a pernicious meme, to be sure, but radically different from the Old World ethos that still dominates in Russia and Arab states: The ethos of possession."

                          It is clearly necessary in your framework of argument to draw distinctions between the Russians and us, but you are clearly going to far. Your statement that we seek "profit for the sake of profit" and "not because [we] care about money" does not make an ounce of sense. You are essentially arguing that we Americans seek gains that are abstract, or in your words, "things that can be tangibly controlled rather than abstract financial [objects]," but are stocks really different from money? The status of being the sole superpower different from power?

                          And of course, the statement that we do not seek possession isn't true. Remember what was Bush's favorite maxim? "Ownership society". You would be hard-pressed to argue that Americans do not agree with the phrase "ownership society". Do you think Bush meant owning things that are not physical? What does he mean if he was not implying stocks, money, and land?

                          If there are ways to distinguish Russians from us, this isn't it.

                          •  I'm afraid if you're going to use GW Bush (0+ / 0-)

                            as the standard by which American civilization is judged, then we can't come to any level of consensus in a nontrivial amount of time.  That is just too far off the plane of observed reality from my perspective.

                            Change yourself, and you have already changed the world.

                            by Troubadour on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:00:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  ask the people of fallujah n/t (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lotlizard, OnlyZuul, JesseCW, ppl can fly

                      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

                      by wu ming on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:58:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You're not as familiar with US history (0+ / 0-)

                      as you think you are.

              •  you're right - those communters deserved to die.. (0+ / 0-)

                after all their government acted poorly. I guess we all deserve to die for the Bush years - or do we get a pass because we're good lefties?

              •  Yeah - all those people on the Subway (0+ / 0-)

                we're directly responsible.....don't even go there.

                The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                by ctexrep on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:18:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  palin saw the whole thing from her front porch... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Vicky, wonderful world

              Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.~Voltaire

              by Randy Flagg on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:46:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  nothing in common? (3+ / 0-)

          you can't mean that. that has to be some sort of shorthand. in what sense can you possibly mean that russia and the united states have nothing in common?

          here are just a few things they have in common:

          1. among countries with the largest and most diverse populations of all the countries in the world.
          1. major military powers.
          1. dominant cultural tradition european, but with many other strong influences.

          you could go on just as well i could. so i am just asking, what do you mean?

          Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

          by tamandua on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:21:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Anne Elk (6+ / 0-)

        Could you please explain your HR? I am confused.

        "They got the guns, but we got the numbers..."

        by danktle on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:09:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's cool at all... (0+ / 0-)

        but I'm a newbie and not really in any place to say such a thing. So I'll just say that I hope the best for all nations and that nowhere do I wish or excuse harm on anyone. A heavy-handed foreign policy can be changed from within. Terrorism has no place in a world of peace, and to excuse or even insinuate that it is naive to pray for those affected is not productive to the story at hand. The innocent victims have little or no control of the actions of their government. I may be a little out of line, and if so I apologize, but your comment struck me as over-the-top. Even though your sig line is hilarious. Just stating my peice. Cheers.

        "My idea of a nightmare is to wake up one day and do what everyone else is doing without any thought processes going on whatsoever." indiemcemopants

        by Socratic Method on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:03:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uprated for the most absurd HR yet. (7+ / 0-)

        What kind of a feverish mind could think that you can HR someone for saying that both the US & Russia have been heavyhanded?

        Drawing a parallel between Russia & the US hasn't been HR-able since the cold war ended-before this site began.

        Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

        by catilinus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:45:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stupid post (0+ / 0-)

        no one deserves to die on the morning rush - and this has NOTHING to do with America...

      •  up-rated (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, danktle, soms, Amber6541, Jyrinx

        In no way is this an HR-able comment. You may not AGREE with the statement (and lord knows I don't agree with it) but to hide-rate it is inexcusable.

        A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

        by Timroff on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:32:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  sometimes I type before I think. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sesquioxide, danktle, Amber6541

        Sorry that this comment hijacked the thread.

        Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

        by soms on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:55:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So you endorse terrorism? (0+ / 0-)
        That seems to be what you are saying. Did the victims of 911 have it comming just because they were Americans?

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:57:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nah ...i was talking about the response. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          danktle, Jyrinx, FreeLancer

          Did I condone the terrorism??
          Does my comment say that? Don't fucking pull words out of my fingers.

          Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

          by soms on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:59:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I asked questions (0+ / 0-)
            And recieved your answer. I really didn't know what to make of your comment which seemed to me, at best, to lack sympathy for the victims, and at worst, perhaps imply they somehow deserved what happened.

            What is the relevance of such remarks? If you don't condone their actions, why say such thing which trivializes the effect on the victims?

            My position is that regardles of what grievences Chechens have, their continued terrorist acts are no solution, counter-productive to their cause and simply horrible.

            And I didn't awear at you, HR you, or anything of the sort.

            Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

            by koNko on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:26:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have sympathy for the victims. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              koNko, danktle, Jyrinx

              But fear the Russians' response.

              Impeach Obama- some dkos clown (Jan 05, 2010)

              by soms on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:32:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's reasonable. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soms

                It will be another crackdown for sure.  So where does it end?

                I don't think suicide bombings will ever solve this problem but the Chechens don't seem to accept Russian rule eventhough a few year of peace would probably imprive their situation which is pretty hopless at this point and will continue to be so unless the vilence ends.

                Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

                by koNko on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  It would be (14+ / 0-)

    about rush hour there wouldn't it?

    This sucks.

  •  It's probably the Chechen rebels (15+ / 0-)

    The war has been going on for 15 years now:(

  •  Domestic terrorism in any country sucks. (23+ / 0-)

    It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.  I don't expect any happy conclusions.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:15:36 PM PDT

  •  Early speculation is Chechneyan (sp?) rebels (7+ / 0-)

    though it's too early to say; a lone explosion could have been caused by gas mains but a double explosion is looking very suspicious.

    The risk we take in opening our hearts to love, is learning to say goodbye.

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:16:34 PM PDT

  •  I Feel Bad (8+ / 0-)

    This is not the first time for something like this in Russia (or Moscow), obviously.  Somehow the idea that people there were not totally surprised is less than comforting.

    Adam and Eve had Iraqi birth certificates.

    by bink on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:17:45 PM PDT

  •  Chechens (7+ / 0-)

    They killed a school full of kids, so they would not have any problem doing this.

  •  BBC says the target could have been (9+ / 0-)

    the headquarters of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), which is located just above the station.

    Between birthers, deathers and mouth-breathers, the gop has got 'teh crazy' and 'teh stoopid' covered.

    by amk for obama on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:25:46 PM PDT

    •  I doubt the bombers are stupid enough to think (0+ / 0-)

      that the explosion in subway would have damaged the building. Maybe they thought some people who worked in the building will be among the dead. The second explosion was in another part of downtown that has nothing to do with FSB.

  •  I was in Moscow in 04 and 05.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, G2geek, iheartbooks

    And spent some time in the subway system. They had had bombings before that and I remember walking past all the tiny shops and kiosks they had in and around the subway access points wondering if something explosive had been hidden there. No problems, needless to say, but there was talk then of clearing all those businesses out so security could be made more effective. I don't know if they ever got around to doing that, though.

    I always felt a bit safer after getting to the closed cities we worked in, I can remember that.

    Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

    by billmosby on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:33:13 PM PDT

  •  My prayers for the Russian people and condolences (14+ / 0-)

    to the victims families.

    I remember that they were " there for us " in the aftermath of 911......

  •  Probaly the work of Chechen rebels. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, alpraz
  •  Funny how reports like this (9+ / 0-)

    bring out bands of instant experts.

  •  Whether it was or wasn't who they say it was.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greycat, nathguy

    Whether it was or wasn't who they say it was or wasn't
    I wouldn't like to be a Chechen today (or for the next couple of weeks for that matter), either in Chechnya or Russia......

    "Yeah Yeah. You vow - we MOVE!!" --Avery Schreiber

    by The Revenge of Shakshuka on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:55:02 PM PDT

  •  Radical Islam is no threat, or so someone was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AtomikNY

    just telling me in another thread. So there's nothing to worry about here.

    ---
    Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better

    by VelvetElvis on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:05:17 PM PDT

    •  The Chechens want a separate country (4+ / 0-)

      Religion has nothing to do with it.

    •  As an anti-theist myself... (17+ / 0-)

      I think all religion is a threat.

      Evangelicals want to convert the world to Christianity

      Extremists Muslims want to convert the world to Islam

      Yet everybody in Abrahamic religions believe in the same God... the difference is Muslims and Christians accept Jesus... Jews don't. Muslims accept Mohammed... Christians and Jews don't. Mormons accept Joseph Smith... Christians, Muslims and Jews Don't... Evangelicals accept Billy Graham... Jews, Catholics, and Muslims don't.

      Really people. Get it together... you all worship the same God.

      Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

      by jethrock on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:19:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that simple. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sacrelicious, G2geek

        There are lots of Christian denominations which believe that that God will condemn to hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. There are lots of Muslim denominations which believe that that God will condemn you to hell if you do accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. Both views have scripture to back them up. This is, to put it lightly, not a recipe for peace.

        "For every man the world is as fresh as it was at the first day, and as full of untold novelties for him who has the eyes to see them." --T.H. Huxley

        by AtomikNY on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:24:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Keyword: "denominations" (2+ / 0-)

          I could have easily expanded and confined my comment to strictly "Christian" denominations where Baptists think Pentecostals who speak in tongues are heretics... or The Apostolic Faith, that has differences with the Assemblies of God that has differences with Presbyterians...

          Literally... I dare you to go to in corner in America and they will tell why their church is more holy than the next one.

          Yet they all worship the same God.

          Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

          by jethrock on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:35:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  absolutist beliefs, like physical objects, (6+ / 0-)

          ... can't occupy the same spacetime coordinates.

          Yet they are each expansionistic.  And the inevitable outcome of that is various forms of warfare, including terrorism ("low-intensity conflict").  

          I'm going to assert right here, that the right to freedom of religion can no longer be interpreted to include the right to promote religious beliefs that are absolutist and expansionist, because promoting such beliefs carries the inevitable necessity that they will lead to violence.  

          Our answer to people who attempt to promote absolutist/expansionist religion in the US should be simple and blunt:  "That's un-American."  Let them try to argue otherwise, and let's place the burden of proof on them when they assert some kind of right to dominate the society.  

          Ultimately what I would do is sequester the absolutists in a confined space and let them fight each other to the death, thereby taking themselves out of the gene pool and leaving people who know how to practice their faiths with mutual respect for getting along peacefully.

          •  Amen and Hallelujah. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, G2geek, blueoasis, Grannus, Andhakari

            Can I get a witness?

            Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

            by jethrock on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:43:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah! Fuck the first amendment!! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, JesseCW, jethrock

            Wait, what?

            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

            by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:18:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, fuck people who abuse it as a means of... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Annalize5, blueoasis, Andhakari, jethrock

              ...promoting violence.  

              Can I have a machine gun?  

              No, there are limits on the 2nd also.  

              •  What you asserted blatantly contradicts (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis, JesseCW, jethrock

                the First Amendment:

                I'm going to assert right here, that the right to freedom of religion can no longer be interpreted to include the right to promote religious beliefs that are absolutist and expansionist, because promoting such beliefs carries the inevitable necessity that they will lead to violence.

                Sorry, no dice. The KKK gets to have their rallies even though they definitely promote such beliefs and they definitely tended to “lead to violence.” That's America.

                “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:33:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ooooo a debate between two people I like (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zett, G2geek, Andhakari, Jyrinx

                  I agree with both of you.

                  But as much as I may see any benefits from suppressing unhealthy propaganda...  I happen to agree  with Jyrinx much more.

                  You have to allow opinions you don't like and even may threaten the system into the public square.

                  I am a staunch Liberal that is opposed to any type of "Fairness Doctrine"

                  Although I wouldn't mind if networks that called themselves "News Channels" were required to report verifiable facts and forced to publish corrections when their report had been proven false.

                  Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

                  by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:47:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  there is an effective alternative to.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jethrock

                    ...the Fairness Doctrine, which is to require a certain percentage of local content origination on every broadcast station that is FCC-licensed.

                    Thus you wouldn't get wall-to-wall Rush in the rural parts.

                    But I would also supplement this with laws requiring a representative distribution of religious broadcasting.  Thus no more wall-to-wall rightwing religious extremism from multiple outlets of the same denomination in a given area, while other denominations (not to mention atheists!) went completely unserved.  

                    As for requiring "news" channels to report only verifiable facts, do you have any idea what kind of rabbit hole that leads to?   Who has the authority to determine what is and what is not a fact?   Propaganda can always be packaged up in the trimmings of a news program but be called, for purposes of compliance with a "facts in news" law, entertainment.  

                    BTW, according to Jyrinx' expansionist definition of the 1st Amendment, it should not be illegal for someone to call for Rupert Murdoch to be slipped a dose of arsenic in his lunch.  Now I personally would never call for such a thing.  But I would certainly do a Snoopy Dance if it actually happened, particularly if Faux Noize ran the video of Murdoch eating his lunch and then projectile-vomiting and turning purple as he dropped dead from the arsenic.  That and Glen Beck on LSD, swatting imaginary flies and mosquitos as he ranted even more incoherently than usual.  

                    •  Ha... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      G2geek

                      But I would certainly do a Snoopy Dance if it actually happened, particularly if Faux Noize ran the video of Murdoch eating his lunch and then projectile-vomiting and turning purple as he dropped dead from the arsenic.  That and Glen Beck on LSD, swatting imaginary flies and mosquitos as he ranted even more incoherently than usual.  

                      Thanks for the laugh... It's getting late and I'm running on empty.

                      Be seeing you

                      Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

                      by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:14:25 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Are you also asserting that.... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... it should be legal to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre, or call for the assassination of elected officials?

                  If so, why?

                  If not, why not?    

                  •  No. But the courts have repeatedly held (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zett, NDakotaDem

                    that the circumstances under which hate speech is deemed illegal are very narrow. “All black people should die” is protected. “We should kill black people” is protected. “We should kill that black man tomorrow” is not. It really is that narrow.

                    (This was roughly the spiel Ben Masel gave me at NN. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone better-versed in the intricacies of speech laws. Particularly someone with as much personal experience.)

                    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                    by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:05:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i know Ben's arguements well. (0+ / 0-)

                      Classic Ben Masel quote about hate speech:  "There he is! Get him now!"   He and I have a long-running and mostly friendly debate about some of these issues.   Welcome aboard!:-)

                      So let's zero in on this more closely:

                      Under what principle is it held that shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre is illegal?   Clearly, that panic is an emotional state that deprives individuals of their ability to reason such that their free will is circumvented to the extent that they engage in behavior that constitutes an immediate danger to life and limb, right?  

                      Is a person in a state of panic more likely or less likely to harm someone else, than a person in a state of rage?  

                      And under what principle is it held that calling for an assassination of an elected official is illegal?  Clearly, that such speech places our elected officials in danger for their lives, even if that danger is not immediate but may exist at some distance in time from the speech.

                      Does an elected official deserve greater protection from death threats than an average citizen?    Would you like to test that by sending me your home address and the hours when you are sleeping, so I can post them somewhere along with some inflammatory text?

                      And under what principle is it held that child pornography is illegal, even if the images do not involve photographic exploitation of actual children but are wholly artificial as through painting or drawing or computer graphics?  Clearly, that the emotion of lust, stirred up toward children, circumvents the reason and free will of the viewer, and thereby places children at risk of being raped, even if the rapes occur at some distance in time from the rapist viewing the images.  

                      Does lust toward children persist as long in the mind of a perpetrator, as hatred or the desire for revenge?  Do you know what a blood feud is?  

                      If we add together the bases of those three limits on speech, we find that:

                      a)  Immediacy is not relevant to two out of three cases: calls for assassination, and child pornography.  Both of those work at longer ranges in time than "There he is!  Get him now!"  

                      b)  Danger of harm to an innocent victim is relevant to all three cases.  

                      c)  Emotional circumvention of reasoning and free will, is relevant to two out of three cases (panic and lust toward children).  

                      If anything, the common denominator is not the element of time ("now" vs. "later") but the element of emotional circumvention of free will and reason.  

                      Whether from the perspective of deontology (first causes) or consequentialism (effects), any differentiation in the law between panic and rage, or between lust toward unwilling persons and hatred or revenge (both of which are by definition directed toward unwilling recipients), is purely arbitrary.  

                      Try arguing otherwise.  

                      •  Shouting fire is just an example of (0+ / 0-)

                        an obvious counterpoint to free speech. It's not supposed to define the exact nature of all exceptions to the First Amendment.

                        And your criteria are preposterously vague. How do you determine what speech causes the emotional circumvention of free will and reason? Couldn't one argue that any good politician's speech does exactly that?

                        And at any rate “There he is! Get him!” has nothing to do with panic or emotion or reason or free will. It could be very sound, soberly argumented reasoning that leads to that moment.

                        “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                        by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:03:24 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "There he is! Get him!" may or may not... (0+ / 0-)

                          It may come at the end of a long philosophical discourse where the speaker and the crowd maintain a tone of complete rationality, and the crowd is well and truly persuaded, of their own free will, that a certain person in town deserves to be lynched.  

                          However, Fire! in a crowded theatre, and child pornography, don't fit that model.   Nor does fraudulent commercial speech, which is also proscribed: it creates an emotion of trust that is obtained on false pretenses.  

                          But leaving aside commercial speech for the speaker's benefit, the emotional states that are known to produce harmful acts against others are fear, rage, hatred, and lust.  Each of these can cause a person to act aggressively in a manner that they otherwise would not, if they were in possession of their faculties.

                          This is not an abstraction; this is based on neuroscience that is every bit as solid as the climate science upon which we must now base major changes in our economy so as not to render ourselves extinct.  We can measure the neuropeptides and neurohormones that are the causes of the emotions in question.  

                          Yes, I am seeking to systematically define the boundary conditions of free speech, in a clear and unequivocal manner, based on the generalizations that follow from examples that are clear and incontrovertible.  

                          If we don't define the exact boundaries of free speech, what we are left with is a fuzzy border that will gradually be encroached based upon whatever expedience happens to rule the day.

                          The boundary I am defining is straightforward:  inducing an emotional state that circumvents an individuals's free will and ability to reason, in a manner that causes them to harm another person.  

                          And the standard I propose is that actions should have consequences.  1st Amendment protection should not be available to that type of speech when and if it leads to harm.  I wouldn't seek to a-priori muzzle it, since history shows that path to be fruitless.  I would simply open it up to full liability for consequences.  

                          Thus, Vanderboog's urging his audience to break Congressmembers' windows, would not be protected speech.  Nor would posting a Congressmember's brother's address, when doing so leads to an attempted multiple murder via severing a propane gas line.  Sarah Palin's target crosshairs on Congressional districts, if they resulted in assassinations, would also come in for strict liability.    

                          Or are you arguing for lifting the restrictions on shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre?   Are you arguing for legalizing kiddie porn?  

                          •  No, I'm for leaving the First Amendment (0+ / 0-)

                            the fuck alone. Again, your criteria are ludicrously broad. Just about any political speech meets  them.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:32:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

            Would it apply to missionaries?  I mean, isn't it the role of missionaries to convert people to their faith and to spread the message of their faith?  

            •  Poets and pickpockets. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              valadon, Andhakari, jethrock

              It's also the role of poets to write poetry, and pickpockets to steal.  

              So?   Shall we allow pickpockets on the same basis as poets?  

              Look up some history about what the missionaries did to the Native populations in the US.  

              You'll never think of "missionaries" in quite the same way again.  

              •  I'm talking about modern day missionaries... (0+ / 0-)

                And I'm sorry, but I'm not following what the comparison is by poets and pickpockets.  

                I only threw missionaries out there, because they do have a purpose of spreading their religion.  Yet, missionaries that I know don't do it in a violent way.  I mentioned in another comment on here that I live in a predominantly Mormon area (although I'm not Mormon) and I've seen many guys I know go off on their mission.  They weren't violent in the least about it though.  In fact every Mormon missionary I've ever run into (and I've run into a lot!) are always really nice.  I actually have a funny story about that.  One of my co-workers and I were taking our break and as we were walking back to work these 2 Mormon missionary came riding up to us on their bikes.  They tried to talk us into it all and what they failed to realize was that I'm Muslim and my co-worker is gay...it was kind of funny, but they had no idea so we just started messing with them acting as if we were so interested.

                •  there are a few missionaries I'd like to... (0+ / 0-)

                  .. throw out too, as in, right into the Dumpster.  

                  For the most part, your Mormon missionaries are innocent people engaged in nothing worse than persuasion, which is fine by me.

                  But when the LDS Church funded Prop8 in California, they overstepped the moral boundaries and engaged in promoting absolutism at the expense of civil rights.  For which they should have had their tax exemption yanked.  

                  And when the Vatican promotes laws around the world that deny people access to contraception, not only are they interfering with civil rights, they are condemning entire generations to the desperate poverty and starvation and deadly diseases that are the inevitable result when population overshoots ecological carrying capacity in a region.  

                  •  Definitely agree... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek, Floja Roja

                    But when the LDS Church funded Prop8 in California, they overstepped the moral boundaries and engaged in promoting absolutism at the expense of civil rights.  For which they should have had their tax exemption yanked.  

                    Their tax exemption should have been immediately taken away for that.  I think they definitely crossed the line with that as well.  

                    And when the Vatican promotes laws around the world that deny people access to contraception, not only are they interfering with civil rights, they are condemning entire generations to the desperate poverty and starvation and deadly diseases that are the inevitable result when population overshoots ecological carrying capacity in a region.  

                    And I agree with that as well.  

                    I'm somebody that simply believes in if somebody wants to know about my faith I'd gladly tell them all about it.  And if there are some questions I cannot answer, I'd give them resources for it.  But will I force my beliefs on to others?  Hell no!  I don't understand why people do not understand you cannot force others to believe in what you believe and you cannot force others to live by what you think is right or wrong.  That's exactly why I'm pro-choice.  I would never get an abortion, but I think it's up to every woman to make that decision herself.  Ugh...I wish I could find more people that belong to a religion (preferably one of the Abrahamic religions) that saw things like I did.  Unfortunately, these days we seemed to be consumed with those that have a twisted view of religion and are willing to force their beliefs on to others.

                    •  Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Medina Mahmoud

                      ...plenty of progressive activists from within all branches of the Abrahamic religions; those two being the ones that came to mind immediately.  

                      What's happened is that the nuts have for now captured the spotlight.  It's up to the rest of us to take it away from them.  

                      •  While those people are amazing figures (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        zett, G2geek

                        that represented progressive beliefs, I meant I wish I could meet people where I live.  That's quite difficult though.

                        You know what, I saw this really interesting video yesterday that was talking about Islam.  It said how when it was discovered, it was a progressive religion and was used as a tool to enlighten and progress society.  Yet, it seems as though many Muslims do not follow that progressive mentality.  And I realized maybe that's why I'm such a progressive...maybe that's exactly what I've taken away from my faith.  There are some things in the Holy Qur'an that is vague and it is said that maybe some things were left vague, because society as a whole is supposed to progress.  So those vague parts are supposed to be used to follow society's progressions.  It was quite interesting overall, because I never thought of it all like that until yesterday.  But I guess you learn something new everyday :)

        •  Most Muslims I know revere Jesus as (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Medina Mahmoud

          a Prophet that was god in the flesh... as Mohammed was.

          Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God... and believe Mohammed was a heretic.

          To those same Christians I ask why Billy Graham, or Hal Lindsay, or Jimmy Swaggert or Kenneth Copeland can be considered "prophets" but Mohammed can't?

          I know both Muslims and Christians will bash me for this... But the fact is you all worship the same God of Abraham.

          Apparently the God you worship is too petty to allow anyone except the chosen few into his kingdom.

          But hey, he created it... He created all us sinners too.

          Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

          by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:08:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "a Prophet that was god in the flesh" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eigenlambda, Andhakari

            You're confused. They obviously don't think that Jesus was God, in flesh or not, certainly not a manifestation of Allah.

            So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

            by skeptiq on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:16:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes you got me... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis, eigenlambda

              It was God speaking through the fleshy man.

              Sorry. So confusing, No wonder so many wars have broken out whether or not Jesus was the son of God.

              It is Muslims who believe  

              The Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be God's final revelation, mentions Jesus 25 times. It states that Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid him in his quest, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles, all by the permission of God.  

              Yet

              Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim, as he preached for people to adopt the straight path in submission to God's will. Islam rejects that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, stating that he was a mortal man who, like other prophets, had been divinely chosen to spread God's message.

              You got me... He was born of virginal birth by God... but not the Son of God.... II was way, way off.

              Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

              by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:29:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're right... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jethrock

                He is NOT the Son of God in Islam.  He was born by the virgin Mary.

                •  So confusing... Only God could have made (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Medina Mahmoud

                  that happen.

                  I wish he wrote a better book. One that wasn't so easy to misconstrue.

                  Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

                  by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:58:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think it's natural for people to question (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Annalize5, Grannus, jethrock

                    things...I know I do!  But our minds function differently.  I mean, if 5 people saw the same car accident, you're most likely going to get 5 different stories.  Perception and interpretation are key factors.  

                    As for Jesus in Islam, it's quite easy for people to find out information by simply reading the Holy Qur'an and if they don't want to do that, there are plenty of websites to look at.  I guess people are too lazy to find out what Muslims really believe.

                    •  It's easier that way. (3+ / 0-)

                      I guess people are too lazy to find out what Muslims really believe.

                      No problem with preconceptions being shattered and all that.

                      The problem with all the sons of Abraham is that each group has the TRUTH, and no one else.  Then those groups splinter, Sunni/Shia...Catholic/Protestant...Orthodox/Reform/Conservative, and THEY have the TRUTH.

                      No one knows THE TRUTH.  They all have beliefs, faith, and superstitions, but no TRUTHS.

                      Watch this space. -5.13/-3.38

                      by Grannus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:19:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I see what you mean... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dunvegan, Grannus, jethrock

                        But that's where belief comes into play.  I can't provide hardcore facts, but I believe what my faith teaches me.  It's interesting, because yesterday I was just sitting in my bedroom and thinking about some things.  I started to think about religion and God and I got this sensational feeling running through my body.  And while I can't necessarily describe exactly what it felt like, I just knew it was securing my belief in God and Islam.  It was an amazing feeling.  I'm not sure about others that belong to a certain faith, but that's what secures my beliefs.  I just feel it.  Again, it's hard to explain unless you feel it yourself.  However, I know many will do anything to get others to believe their truth.  But the way I see it is, you cannot force a belief or for someone to believe what you perceive to be the truth.  And for those that do not believe what I think is the truth, then so be it.  People can believe in whatever they want.  It's up to them.  I won't ever criticize or condemn anybody for what they want to believe.

                        •  I won't speak against anyone's faith. (3+ / 0-)

                          The "convert or die" crowd, no matter which religious group it may be, is lacking in faith.  The existence of someone who thinks differently than them causes them doubt, so they seek to destroy that which causes the doubt rather than ask themselves why it does so.  

                          That's why I capitalized "truth".  It's not a truth unless everyone recognizes it as such.  A belief system that is handed down orally for hundreds of years, and then revised to conform to current thinking (I'm looking at you Christianity), is so rigid that it can ignore actual history (yes that's you Islam.  Remember the Prophet's wife and how he treated her.), or has grown so paranoid, either with or without cause, that it becomes what it most hates (accept it Judaism), is one that needs to look at itself honestly.

                          I think I've insulted everyone equally.  I'll work on Hinduism next week.

                          Watch this space. -5.13/-3.38

                          by Grannus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:50:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well I don't know... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Grannus, jethrock

                            I mean, you have the truth that President Obama is an American citizen, yet birthers refuse to believe it.  So would that make it the truth since not everybody believes it?

                            I think I've insulted everyone equally.  I'll work on Hinduism next week.

                            LOL...While some (Muslims, Christians, and/or Jews) would have read what you said and gotten insulted, it doesn't insult me in the least.  I guess that ties right back into what you said in the beginning..."The existence of someone who thinks differently than them causes them doubt, so they seek to destroy that which causes the doubt rather than ask themselves why it does so."  I guess I have such a firm grasp on my faith and believe it wholeheartedly that what you said doesn't hurt me.  And those that want to take some sort of "action" against somebody that says what you said must not be so confident in what they believe.  I definitely agree with that!

                          •  I meant to say... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Grannus, jethrock

                            "So would that NOT make it the truth since not everybody believes it."

                          •  Sadly (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jethrock, Medina Mahmoud

                            not everyone is as secure in their faith as you.  Those are the ones that scare me.

                            Things can be a "truth" to someone, but that doesn't make it a "TRUTH" in my mind.  Perhaps I'm splitting hairs as well as infinitives.  Birthers believe that it is the TRUTH that the President is a Muslim, but the truth is that he is not.  A TRUTH requires no evidence.

                            Watch this space. -5.13/-3.38

                            by Grannus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:20:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm getting so confused with all of the... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Grannus

                            TRUTH/truth's lol...But I think I get what you mean.  

                        •  I get that feeling too about certain things... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...but I don't believe in any religion.

                          Fox News and WWE: Because delusional people need news and sports also. -5.12/-5.28

                          by gimmeshelter on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:21:56 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Goodness gracious... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Annalize5, ninkasi23, jethrock

        You seem to be the only person with a coherent understanding of the Abrahamic religions!  It's interesting how much people try to separate Islam, Judaism, and Christianity when we have more similarities than differences.  I remember having a long discussion once with a friend of mine that became a devout and very religious Christian.  We were able to point out way more similarities than differences between our faiths (by the way, I'm Muslim).  It is people that choose to focus on the differences rather than embrace the similarities.  I guess you can throw me into the minority then, because I choose to embrace similarities...and the biggest similarity is that we believe in the same God...only one God...that is all that should matter.

        •  I agree with you. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Grannus, ninkasi23, Medina Mahmoud

          I amazingly have zero qualms with anyone practicing their religion.

          I just try to understand them... in so doing I see the contradictions and the similarities.

          I am not an atheist but I am an anti-theist and see the problems with organized religion.

          --Best

          Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

          by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:03:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You see... (3+ / 0-)

            I love understanding all faiths (even if I don't agree with their teachings).  I live in an area that's predominantly Mormon and rather than listening to people's opinions of them, I go straight to the source to find out stuff about their faith.  You never know what you'll learn by speaking to those that know it better than anybody else, ya know?  It's not to say I agree with what Mormons believe, but it's nice to get an understanding of it all.  I enjoy doing the same thing with other faiths and groups as a whole.  Maybe if people could sit down and have civilized discussions we'd all be more understanding of each other.  Unfortunately, I think many would rather bicker and point out differences than ever try to understand each other.  I simply stand by this verse from the Holy Qur'an:

            "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

            •  When people start to use religion as a weapon (4+ / 0-)

              as opposed for a source of enlightenment or quest for knowledge or understanding that it becomes a problem.

              We have centuries of evidence of this.

              I'm not sure how to move forward... even the wealthiest societies have consistently used religion as a control mechanism throughout history.

              Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

              by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:16:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I totally agree... (3+ / 0-)

                I could never imagine God wanting people to use faith as a weapon.  What I take away from my religion is peace, respect and love for all.  Yet, that seems to go right over many people's head.  You'll find plenty of Muslims that say I'm not a real Muslim, because I believe in gay rights, I'm pro-choice, I don't wear a hijab (that's due to different interpretations and I don't believe women are required to wear it) and probably for plenty of other reasons.  But none of that stuff fazes me, because I'm confident in my beliefs.  And at the end of the day, I still believe that only God's judgments are the only ones that truly matter.  Forcing people to believe never worked and it never will.  Killing those that don't believe will never work either.  I'm believe it's all about your own personal relationship with God.  If your friend doesn't believe, then who cares?  Why is it your business?  As long as you're secure in whatever do or don't believe, then that's all that should matter.

                •  I almost forgot what this thread was about... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ninkasi23, no way lack of brain

                  and had to double check, because we got so into this discussion.

                  I didn't mean to hijack an otherwise important post.

                  It was great talking to you though.

                  Baby's on fire And all the laughing boys are bitching, Waiting for photos, Oh the plot is so bewitching-- Brian Eno

                  by jethrock on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:44:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I'm in Bolivia right now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Floja Roja

        and I agree that it's not that simple. The institutional church has much to atone for here. No doubt about it. But there are also many religious organizations that are daily saving lives - and I mean that quite literally.

        Like most human constructions, religion can do much good and it can do much evil.

        "Statistics are people with the tears washed away." Sociologist Ruth Sidel

        by Vicky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:30:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. Russia is about to fall and Chechan rebels (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dauphin, Fixed Point Theorem

      are less than 10 miles from nuclear weapons.

      Jeebus.

      My first choice is a strong consumer agency My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.~E. Warren

      by JesseCW on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:25:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Latest news from BBC World Service (7+ / 0-)

    Preliminary indications are that the bombings are the work of suicide bombers. No indication of who yet.

    You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children's children what it was once like in America when 25% of the population was batshit insane.

    by Omir the Storyteller on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:06:35 PM PDT

  •  My condolences to the Russian People (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, skeptiq

    and my hopes that the Chechens don't suffer further harsh retaliations.

    Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

    by valadon on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:41:39 AM PDT

  •  Not to make light of a terrible thing, but... (0+ / 0-)

    ... I can't wait for the teabaggers' response to "We are all Russians today."

    Let us discard all this quibbling about this man or the other man, this race or that race...Let us unite as one people declaring that all men are created equal

    by ThatTallGuy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:53:24 AM PDT

  •  Dear god (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, Dauphin, Shhs, Greek Goddess

    Why do people do this?  It doesn't work.

    Peace be upon the russian people.  

    "They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -Steve Gilliard.

    by demkat620 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:32:40 AM PDT

  •  I hope there aren't (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zett, Dauphin, Greek Goddess

    any further death or suffering by those that were attacked.  

    My condolences to those families and to the Russian people.

  •  America is one small step away (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, Apphouse50

    from similar events.

    Seeing that the feds finally took out a domestic christian militia in Michigan did wonders for my attitude yesterday. I suggest it is not enough. There are many more where they came from.

    Sarah continues to rouse the rabble, at the every time that she lies and denies doing so. Just like a good neocon, she tries to shift the blame (concerning the huge uptick in threats and acts of violence) on the targets: Liberals, progressives, and democrats.

    When people look to Russia for news about domestic terrorism, be aware, be  very very aware that it could easily happen here.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:56:34 AM PDT

    •  They're crying out to be walloped... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      agnostic

      ...and considering the fundamentalist mindset that bred them, it's really not surprising.

      A few well-planned, legally defensible roundups of these folks and a large number of them will stop playing these stupid, evil, destructive games.

      But there are also some who will hunker down -- the McVeighs of this world -- and they'll precipitate much uglier and more aggressive actions no one will like to watch. And then they'll blame us, and our government, the way they like to do whenever they get slapped down.

      They never minded Bush, Cheney, and the NSA breathing down all our necks. Let's see how they like it now that they know they're on the receiving end. And they'll never admit that they started this.

      Their only ability for self-examination is lifting their massive bellies up in front of a mirror so they can see if they still have genitalia to play with when they're not running around the woods playing war games or making threats on the internet.

      "Over and out, last call for sin, While everyone's lost, the battle is won" - The Killers, All These Things That I've Done

      by Apphouse50 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:12:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BBC Headline: "Putin vows to 'destroy' those (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, Shhs, LaurenMonica

    responsible".

    •  You betcha. And will our own terrorists... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bulldawg, Shhs

      ...the inbred militias, etc., applaud Putin if he "destroys" what we're being told are Muslim extremists even as they play the martyr for the crimes they have committed and are planning even as we speak?

      Highly doubtful. Their ability to see parallels is so primitive as to be reducible to calling HCR socialist and linking it to swastikas.

      "It's okay if you're an Amurikun."

      "Over and out, last call for sin, While everyone's lost, the battle is won" - The Killers, All These Things That I've Done

      by Apphouse50 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:18:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good luck then (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

      by LaurenMonica on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:18:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do female suicide bombers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bulldawg, Ky DEM, Moon Mop

    get virgins too?

    What a crazy, warped fucking movement.

    The only good thing that happens from these attacks are that the bombers die too.

    God bless those that were killed senselessly.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:25:45 AM PDT

  •  My heart goes out to the Russian people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    and to the victims and families of this tragedy.

    Do I dare disturb the universe?

    by Greek Goddess on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:34:16 AM PDT

  •  I used to ride that line all the time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave B, zett

    I lived near Park Kultury and rode that line all the time when I worked in Moscow in the early 90's. After I left, my old business partner and his family almost parked next to a car at a McDonalds that blew up a few minutes later.  Luckily, they couldn't fit the car in that spot and moved to another near the back of the building.  But they were inside the McDonalds when it exploded. He could barely talk to me on the phone when I called to check up on him.

  •  God...I have a friend who lives in Moscow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, revgerry

    she was on this line this morning, but (thank you, Facebook) she is ok.

    "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

    by Pandoras Box on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:53:59 AM PDT

Sharoney, sdf, Garrett, Mogolori, ogre, askew, Cali Scribe, Powered Grace, mattman, PeterHug, bosdcla14, Jay C, eeff, dkistner, object16, Creosote, Gustogirl, bronte17, missLotus, sja, macleme, boadicea, Jeffersonian, maven98, PeteZerria, danthrax, mwk, CitizenOfEarth, gmb, grannyhelen, Fyodor, jaywillie, NYFM, defluxion10, econlibVA, Kitsap River, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, lyvwyr101, valadon, rickeagle, vacantlook, Timroff, demkat620, G2geek, spiceagony, bloomer 101, radarlady, subtropolis, PBen, Alice Venturi, Tod, reflectionsv37, Annalize5, Viceroy, SaraBeth, Inland, Phil S 33, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, mph2005, Rogneid, Beezzley, Mother Mags, BachFan, irishwitch, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, Clytemnestra, ferallike, BlueInARedState, koNko, MTmofo, danktle, eglantine, nonnie9999, max stirner, myrealname, lazybum, revgerry, PoxOnYou, markthshark, Nulwee, Pandoras Box, nathguy, dmh44, ninkasi23, offgrid, edsbrooklyn, deepeco, Strabo, jayden, jnhobbs, uciguy30, JML9999, New Frontier, GANJA, weegeeone, ScottyUrb, RandySF, FarEasterner, Cassandra Waites, pademocrat, Jeff Y, Gemina13, glendaw271, petulans, luckylizard, CeeusBeeus, oldliberal, Fiddlegirl, satanicpanic, cameoanne, Ripeness Is All, LinSea, not a cent, juca, Shhs, Dopeman, Norm in Chicago, notrouble, Partisan Progressive, velvet blasphemy, DefendOurConstitution, Mercuriousss, soms, obscuresportsquarterly, jimmyd, The BBQ Chicken Madness, sfarkash, tote, sherijr, Tricky, ozarkspark, BrighidG, LaughingPlanet, freeport beach PA, BonnieSchlitz, elginblt, SoCalHobbit, Mariken, tellinya, Unenergy, elengul, ssldenver, Jane Lew, Colorado is the Shiznit, Medina Mahmoud, I love OCD, BlueJessamine, ontheleftcoast, The Clevelander, soothsayer99, page394, Greek Goddess, thethinveil, Escamillo, theone718, KVoimakas, Vtdblue, emilysdad, Marihilda, Hayate Yagami, zenox, KingofSpades, Tom Seaview, Han Shot First, CalliopeIrjaPearl, pantherq, Nena20409, KiB, Just Keep it Simple Stupid, Flying Goat, OHknighty, a2nite, Socratic Method, the anti bigot

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site