Yikes- 2 bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon

[awakenedsoul]

I don't have t.v. anymore, but in one of the articles I read it said that he believed that "Americans use the Bible to invade other countries." Although I feel the death penalty is appropriate in this case, I also see his point. I think this is an insight into why so many people in other countries hate Americans.

A lot of people that come to America from places like Croatia have had their country invaded...sometimes three times! It can destroy them, psychologically. The man I'm thinking of hated everybody and didn't speak to anyone at work. The uncle of these boys described them the same way. "They hated everybody." I've seen this with one of my Russian ballet teachers. He came here, and worked here, but he despised us. I think it's more common in subcultures than we know.

I had another ballet teacher who was from Egypt, but trained at the Kirov school from age 9-17 in Russia. He is Muslim, and extremely talented. He really resented American women who were powerful and succesful. His idea of a woman's place was very, very low. Even though he lived here, his ideas and beliefs reflected a society where women have no rights. They bring all that with them when they come here. It's no wonder we have so much conflict. It's perfectly fine to beat up your wife and children in a lot of these countries.

[Zoebird]

that's just the diversity argument, again, though.

it isn't just diversity. there is diversity here (particularly in our main cities). We also have a lot of racism and other problems here -- problems that exist in the US. We also have gangs and a drug problem, too -- and also domestic violence, rape, etc.

And yet, we don't have bomb threats and the last massacre was 1997 (source). And here are our crime statistics (or some of them). I won't bother mentioning terrorism per se, because I don't see NZ as much of a target compared to the US in terms of political power/etc.

And, it might be noted that Australia also hasn't seen a massacre since 1996 (source). Australians also have an intense history of racism and a diverse population, as well as a large population spread across a large land mass. And, they have more "anti-immigrant" sentiment than NZ does overall. In NZ, over 60% of people polled felt that immigration was positive and immigrants of other nationalities (predominately asians) were an asset to the nation, whereas in AUstralia, like much of Europe, that is around and often below 50%.

[SteveinMN]

I had another ballet teacher who was from Egypt, but trained at the Kirov school from age 9-17 in Russia. He is Muslim, and extremely talented. He really resented American women who were powerful and succesful. His idea of a woman's place was very, very low. Even though he lived here, his ideas and beliefs reflected a society where women have no rights. They bring all that with them when they come here. It's no wonder we have so much conflict. It's perfectly fine to beat up your wife and children in a lot of these countries.

American exceptionalism.

There is nothing wrong with conflict when it is directed toward creating a better society for all. Bludgeoning one's fellow Americans into submission with bombs (Tsarnaev) or bombast (Gingrich)? Not the way to do it. But challenging assumptions that we tend to make in the U.S. -- with valid studies and factual arguments and a genuine interest in assessing positives and negatives -- is not a bad thing. The discussion ought to be what is best for everyone, not just the 1% -- or the 80% who have pretty much won the lottery just by being born middle-class and white in America.

I'm not at all suggesting that America is better off reducing women to housekeepers and baby machines. And I do have a very hard time imagining that there is a positive to beating up wives and children (though Americans are surprisingly okay with mental abuse). But does any American ask why civilizations much older than ours have persisted despite maintaining these traditions/laws? No, we simply act appalled and, typically, don't even bother to ask the question.

In the Egyptian teacher's case, he grew up in a society in which women had no rights. For him, it is normal. When he moved to Russia, he brought with him a lifetime of that kind of training and "normal". If an American were to move to Egypt and proclaim that headgear on women was useless and that, despite what the predominant religion "says", women should have just the same rights as men and, oh, by the way, there's no reason to make alcohol or paying interest on loans illegal, you can guess what the reaction would be. It's no different here. Exceptionalism exists in most places. And it is a common cause of conflict, often not carried out peacefully.

[ApatheticNoMore]

And I do have a very hard time imagining that there is a positive to beating up wives and children (though Americans are surprisingly okay with mental abuse).

I tend to think beating up wives and children is pretty common in the U.S. anyway. It doesn't necessarily have the legal ok though (well spanking might, but domestic violence doesn't) and making it illegal is a form of saying it's not ok.

[Spartana]

I think he just went through the normal process of becoming a naturalized citizen. I heard today that he will be tried in civilian court, which I think is appropriate.

Thanks. I also think it's good that he'll be tried in civilian court as I personally wouldn't consider him an enemy combatant. Actually, now that I have coffee in me and can think straight, even if they did try him as an enemy combatant he wouldn't be tried under the UCMJ since that is specificly for US military members. It would probably be according to the Geneva Convention law or international treaty laws. They probably still have that option to bring charges under that as a civilian acting as an enemy combatant but can still bring federal as well as state charges too.

[Spartana]

that's just the diversity argument, again, though.

it isn't just diversity. there is diversity here (particularly in our main cities). We also have a lot of racism and other problems here -- problems that exist in the US. We also have gangs and a drug problem, too -- and also domestic violence, rape, etc.

And yet, we don't have bomb threats and the last massacre was 1997 (source). And here are our crime statistics (or some of them). I won't bother mentioning terrorism per se, because I don't see NZ as much of a target compared to the US in terms of political power/etc.

And, it might be noted that Australia also hasn't seen a massacre since 1996 (source). Australians also have an intense history of racism and a diverse population, as well as a large population spread across a large land mass. And, they have more "anti-immigrant" sentiment than NZ does overall. In NZ, over 60% of people polled felt that immigration was positive and immigrants of other nationalities (predominately asians) were an asset to the nation, whereas in AUstralia, like much of Europe, that is around and often below 50%.

New Zealand: Where men are men and sheep are afraid :-)! Just teasing!

My sister lived in New Zealand for a year and had much the same sentiments as you do - a fairly peaceful place with some crime, some racial issues, and yet very few violent crimes or terrorist activities and really no need for any kind of heavy police or military intervention in day to day life (until those millions of sheep run amok!!).

However I lived in Europe at different periods in my life - for instance Spain for almost a year, Germany (6 months) and North Ireland (Belfast for a couple of months when in the coast guard - during the Bobby Sands hunger strike - you oldsters will remember that) and in almost all of Europe there are (or were) constant terror attacks. They were usually done by local rebel Seperatrist groups like Basque Seperatists in Spain and the IRA in Belfast and Red Army in Germany rather than international groups - although that happens there also. When I was in Spain almost all of the train stations had been bombed at one time or another, and they had permanently closed the baggage storage locker areas and some of the waiting areas to reduce that. And it was very common to have heavily armed security teams, with bomb sniffing dogs, board trains or buses at random points enroute to search for explosives. That was actually fairly common in much of Europe - even in the northern countries. And of course in Belfast it was basicly in a permanent lock down. Fenced off areas in the city where you had to go thru a turnstile to get around in - and searched by heavily armed British soldiers - and even in the countryside you'd see soldiers at all the cross roads (amongst the cows and green farm fields) that would stop vehicles to inspect them.

Personally I understood that was needed in Europe at those times I lived there, but would find it not only prohibitive here in the USA and a big overkill based on the number of "terror-type" of instances we have had historicly - as well as a huge violation of my rights. I would definetly consider that a police state. I'd rather we keep it like you have it in New Zealand and not turn this into a Belfast (which has been back to normal now for years) with heavy police and military security at every corner, curfews and city lockdowns. No need IMHO - unless OUR sheep run amok that is :-)!

[IshbelRobertson]

the IRA did not confine their bombings to Northern Ireland, unlike the Loyalists, they also bombed the UK mainland. I know that from personal experience as I was living in London during the height of their bombing campaign.

Perhaps we in Europe have lived with internal terrorists for such a long time, we mourn, then move on... And await thenext atrocity.