(Yawn) So, vat else is new? (Kind of political)

[sr71plt]

I agree about definition, but I think most reasonable pesons would agree that defending yourself by attacking those who are attacking you is not terorism.

Well, that throws the whole issue of terrorism out of the window then. The foundation of any terrorist group you could name predicates its "response" on a "they are attacking us" supposition.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, that throws the whole issue of terrorism out of the window then. The foundation of any terrorist group you could name predicates its "response" on a "they are attacking us" supposition.

Terrorism assumes that there are no innocent bystanders and that anyone, clear down to a babe in arms, who doesn't march to your particular drummer is an enemy and therefore open to slaughter. Calling any other attitude 'terrorism' is propaganda used to justify more terrorism.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So, basically, Joe is right and I should take my victory lap now?

*Chariots of Fire themesong going down*

 

[Boxlicker101]

Thanks Box. For showing that the Right in America and the Islamists are now objective allies. They need each other to stay in existence. Without the other they would fade into history.

(snip)
'

That's ridiculous. The two groups have some things in common, except the Miuslims are much worse. The main thing they have in common is that the virulent hatred they have for each other. Nazis and KKK and Islamist terrorists all hate Jews but the American political right does not, in particular.

They are as far from being allies as it is possible to get. They are sworn enemies of each other.

 

[sweetness6280]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8

How did I know that would be the clip?

 

[xssve]

That's ridiculous. The two groups have some things in common, except the Miuslims are much worse. The main thing they have in common is that the virulent hatred they have for each other. Nazis and KKK and Islamist terroists all hate Jews but the American political right does not, in particular.

They are as far from being allies as it is possible to get. They are sworn enemies of each other.

Uh, Nazis and KKK and Islamist terroists (sic) are the American right.

 

[freshface]

That's ridiculous. The two groups have some things in common, except the Miuslims are much worse. The main thing they have in common is that the virulent hatred they have for each other. Nazis and KKK and Islamist terroists all hate Jews but the American political right does not, in particular.

They are as far from being allies as it is possible to get. They are sworn enemies of each other.

Sworn enemies perhaps, but they have a synergistic relationship. Radical Muslims and neoconservatives feed off of each other to advance their own agendas. Each uses the actions of the other to justify its own actions and increase its support from its base.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh and to answer your original post...

Ok, so it seems like there's an over representation of religious fanatism in the Muslim world at this day and age. Have you even bothered to devote two brain cells and as many seconds to the question why?

Because they're Ragheads and Ragheads are Evil? Because the Koran is al "Kill Kill Kill AAAAREGH!" and every other religion is all about peace, love, unicorns and rainbows and shit? Because the moon is in Uranus? What?

Come on, I'm waiting.

There definitely is such an over representation.

To say "ragheads" are evil would be an oversimplification. Most of those whom you describe in that racist way are not. I would never refer to anybody in such a way, but I do say there is a higher proportion of fanatical terrorists among Muslims than among any other large group.

As for why? Well, I suppose it goes back to Mohammed and the Koran. Beginning with the conquest of Mecca, he led his followers in an almost constant state of war until he died, exhorting his lieutenants to continue with the bloodletting, which they did. Islam is said to be a religion of peace, and it is, but only toward other Muslims. Toward non-Muslims, unbelievers, heretics and infidels, it preaches enslavement and/or death.

Except for Islam, major religions, generally speaking, preach l"ove thy neighbor." One exception to this is the Christian attitude toward Wiccans, which is illogical, but it exists. There are probably other exceptions.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I agree about definition, but I think most reasonable persons would agree that defending yourself by attacking those who are attacking you is not terorism.

Well, that throws the whole issue of terrorism out of the window then. The foundation of any terrorist group you could name predicates its "response" on a "they are attacking us" supposition.

I did say "reasonable person." Terrorists are not reasonable persons.

 

[freshface]

There definitely is such an over representation.

To say "ragheads" are evil would be an oversimplification. Most of those whom you describe in that racist way are not. I would never refer to anybody in such a way, but I do say there is a higher proportion of fanatical terrorists among Muslims than among any other large group.

As for why? Well, I suppose it goes back to Mohammed and the Koran. Beginning with the conquest of Mecca, he led his followers in an almost constant state of war until he died, exhorting his lieutenants to continue with the bloodletting, which they did. Islam is said to be a religion of peace, and it is, but only toward other Muslims. Toward non-Muslims, unbelievers, heretics and infidels, it preaches enslavement and/or death.

Except for Islam, major religions, generally speaking, preach l"ove thy neighbor." One exception to this is the Christian attitude toward Wiccans, which is illogical, but it exists. There are probably other exceptions.

Ironic, isn't it, that during Europe's Dark Ages it was the Muslims who advanced knowledge and learning, preserved libraries and lived at peace with both Christians and Jews in their lands? In fact, Muhammad taught that Christians and Jews were people of the book and should be respected and allowed to live in peace. I mean, the Christians of the Dark Ages would never have dreamed of persecuting Jews and Muslims, right? In fact, the Muslims existed peacefully with Christians right up until the Crusades. You can, perhaps, forgive them for being a trifle sensitive about the Crusades.

 

[freshface]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I agree about definition, but I think most reasonable persons would agree that defending yourself by attacking those who are attacking you is not terorism.


I did say "reasonable person." Terrorists are not reasonable persons.

But who gets to define who's reasonable? The terrorists consider themselves to be perfectly reasonable people with a righteous cause, at least at first.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But who gets to define who's reasonable? The terrorists consider themselves to be perfectly reasonable people with a righteous cause, at least at first.

Don't be ingenuous. You and I and vitually eveybody know what would be meant by "reasonable person.

Some little children think it's reasonable to stuff themselves with candy.

 

[freshface]

Don't be ingenuous. You and I and vitually eveybody know what would be meant by "reasonable person.

Some little children think it's reasonable to stuff themselves with candy.

But I wasn't being ingenuous. We might think it's perfectly reasonable to live in peace and harmony. Jim Jones thought it was reasonable to move to Guyana and teach his followers to drink cyanide. Charlie Manson's followers thought it perfectly reasonable to kill people to start the revolution. My point is that it doesn't matter what you or I consider reasonable. It matters what the terrorist organization thinks is reasonable.

 

[Liar]

Because Mohammed needed allies and the closest ones he could find were Bedouins who, like the European Medieval nobility, considered warfare a grand sport. So he built into his theology approval for the conquest of Unbelievers and promised them dominion over the world, the fat, soft Townies, if you will.

For nearly a thousand years the Moslem conquests seemed to be following that promise and then, about the Battle of Tarento, things began to go seriously, terribly wrong for them. After WWII oil seemed to be the key to world domination but that all ended up in the hands of the ruling elite of the Arab world and True Believers weren't getting much of it and now that the industrial world is rapidly aiming its intellect towards the elimination of oil as a necessity, the Islamic world is once again headed into the backwaters of civilization. Its birthrate is falling at the fastest rate of any group, its princes are turning out to be just as decadent as the Khalifes of old and the promise of world dominion is fading.

What causes Islamic Fundamentalist jihadees? Frustration.

Frustration indeed. But do you honestly think that it is frustration of not being able to keep the proverbial califate down that is top-of-mind for a young aspiring suicide bomber. Wouldn't you agree there are much more pressing things closer to home to be frustrated about if you're a young palestinian of the West Bank?

 

[Liar]

As for why? Well, I suppose it goes back to Mohammed and the Koran. Beginning with the conquest of Mecca, he led his followers in an almost constant state of war until he died, exhorting his lieutenants to continue with the bloodletting, which they did. Islam is said to be a religion of peace, and it is, but only toward other Muslims. Toward non-Muslims, unbelievers, heretics and infidels, it preaches enslavement and/or death.

Wrong, and right. But mostly wrong. The Koran preaches tolerance and charity, non-violence and peace. It also teaches bigotry, oppression, enslavement and death.

So does the bible. The question is not what the scriptures teach.The question is what the current predominant interpretors of those scriptures preach. A radical extremist mullah will preach exactly what you said. A moderate mullah will not.

The question then is: Why are there so many radical extremist mullahs? I strongly disagree with you that the answer is in the Koran. The answer is in history. And pretty recent history.

Don't be ingenuous. You and I and vitually eveybody know what would be meant by "reasonable person.

White, christian americans who have never had their relatives killed by "retaliatory" airstrikes or been driven from their homes by occupants?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Frustration indeed. But do you honestly think that it is frustration of not being able to keep the proverbial califate down that is top-of-mind for a young aspiring suicide bomber. Wouldn't you agree there are much more pressing things closer to home to be frustrated about if you're a young palestinian of the West Bank?

Given:
1. As a young Arab, you have no future because either your country has no economy or it is parasitic on oil. There is no job for you, anywhere.

2. As a young Arab, all the money in the country is locked up either in the military of some tin-horn dictator or the decadance of your royal family. You have no future because you are and cannot ever be, either.

3. As a young Arab male, your ability to encounter women is strictly limited by the girls family. Unless your family arranges a marriage for you, you have no future and no way of passing on your genes to some future generation. You don't even have a biological future.

4. All the world's goodies are either produced by the West and traded back and forth among those countries or scarfed up by the tin-horn dictators and their toadies or the decadant royal family and their todies. You not only have no future, you don't have any toys either.

5. Said tin-horn dictators and the mullahs approved by the decadant rulers over you blame all your problems and failures on the aforementioned West and its colony in the Levant called Israel.

Therefore: You vent all your pent up frustration (most of which you can't even verbalize) on Westerners and to the young Arab, that includes the Israeli's. QED

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

*almost done*

 

[Liar]

*almost done*

The victory lap is usually one round around the stadium. Not another marathon.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The victory lap is usually one round around the stadium. Not another marathon.

Laps take longer when you're strutting the whole time. Very "Saturday Night Fever".

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I agree about definition, but I think most reasonable pesons would agree that defending yourself by attacking those who are attacking you is not terorism.

White, christian americans who have never had their relatives killed by "retaliatory" airstrikes or been driven from their homes by occupants?

Race, religion and nationality would not matter. Just outsiders who look on with an uncommitted eye. That would include most, maybe all, on this forum.

 

[gauchecritic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_india_shooting

I am aware that the vast majority of Muslims are not fanatical terorists. However, I will say this: Of any large group, such as a religious denominations, races, nationalities, etc., The percentage of Muslims who are fanaticasl terrorists is probably far and away the largest. I have no solid proof of that; it is strictly an observation from reading about so many things such as this, and not reading about as many incidents, or incidents as bloody, that are pepetrated by any other group of people.

Could it be that there is simply much more reportage about muslim terrorism than any other kind?

I really can't see that out of a population of about one and a half billion people that more than a fractional percentage would be terrorists.

Even one percent gives over 15 million terrorists. Really? Actual terrorists?

In Britain over the summer one of the big headlines was "Knife Crime Doubles", whoever was responsible for spinning that made a large number of people afraid because they told a very tiny portion of the whole.

The headline was true. What they didn't say was that the figures for British knife crime rose only in the greater London area. It actually decreased in other regions. And the doubling was not thousands or hundreds, it was tens of incidents, which occurred in the capital.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Could it be that there is simply much more reportage about muslim terrorism than any other kind?

I really can't see that out of a population of about one and a half billion people that more than a fractional percentage would be terrorists.

Even one percent gives over 15 million terrorists. Really? Actual terrorists?

In Britain over the summer one of the big headlines was "Knife Crime Doubles", whoever was responsible for spinning that made a large number of people afraid because they told a very tiny portion of the whole.

The headline was true. What they didn't say was that the figures for British knife crime rose only in the greater London area. It actually decreased in other regions. And the doubling was not thousands or hundreds, it was tens of incidents, which occurred in the capital.

I realize there is more reportage, but there are more incidents to report. If some other group had perpetrated the outrage that is the subject of this thread, or bombed a night club in Bali, or hijacked airplanes and flew them into large buildings or bombed the subway system in a major city or took over a school and murdeed so many of the students, it would be big news, but no othe group has done anything even close to any of those things. Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in KC, and that got as much news play as any of the Muslim actions. BTW, McVeigh was a lone wolf, not a member of a group.

Sometimes the news services does a disservice by describing rare events as commonplace. At the same time, there are bad people around, and we should be aware of their presence. Terrorist events such as the ones I mentioned are rare acts, but they do happen. The public is aware of their rarity, so they watch out, but do not let fear run their lives(hopefully)

Actually, there are about 1.2 billion Muslims, and I doubt if anywhee near 1% of them ae terrorists. However, probably a higher percentage is in sympathy with their actions, and would join or emulate them if they had a chance. I will see if I can come up with an actual figure or percentage.

 

[sr71plt]

I did say "reasonable person." Terrorists are not reasonable persons.

Oh, vomit. Your "they are so much worse than anyone else" isn't reasonable--and I laughed at your suggestion that no one on the political right has the same sort of hate you attribute to those you obviously hate (and fear) and therefore lump into a claimed evil "them." Gawd, you are a trip. As someone asked up front, why did you start this thread at all? (To spread your hate of that which you don't know/understand, of course.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh, vomit. Your "they are so much worse than anyone else" isn't reasonable--and I laughed at your suggestion that no one on the political right has the same sort of hate you attribute to those you obviously hate (and fear) and therefore lump into a claimed evil "them." Gawd, you are a trip. As someone asked up front, why did you start this thread at all? (To spread your hate of that which you don't know/understand, of course.)

No one on the political right is anywhere near as bad as the Muslim Terroisats who are responsible for the atrocities I mentioned in my previous post. There are those on the religious right or racists who come fairly close, but even they aren't as bad. An anti-abortionist might blow up a clinic at night when there is almost nobody there. That is a targeted act, not random murder of hundreds of persons. The Phelps clan are assholes in a class by themselves, but they have never committed wholesale murder. Timothy McVeigh was as bad as the Muslim terrorists, but that was an isolated act.

 

[xssve]

Given:
1. As a young Arab, you have no future because either your country has no economy or it is parasitic on oil. There is no job for you, anywhere.

2. As a young Arab, all the money in the country is locked up either in the military of some tin-horn dictator or the decadance of your royal family. You have no future because you are and cannot ever be, either.

3. As a young Arab male, your ability to encounter women is strictly limited by the girls family. Unless your family arranges a marriage for you, you have no future and no way of passing on your genes to some future generation. You don't even have a biological future.

4. All the world's goodies are either produced by the West and traded back and forth among those countries or scarfed up by the tin-horn dictators and their toadies or the decadant royal family and their todies. You not only have no future, you don't have any toys either.

5. Said tin-horn dictators and the mullahs approved by the decadant rulers over you blame all your problems and failures on the aforementioned West and its colony in the Levant called Israel.

Therefore: You vent all your pent up frustration (most of which you can't even verbalize) on Westerners and to the young Arab, that includes the Israeli's. QED

A cogent analysis.