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

[sr71plt]

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.

Oh, vomit, again. You are just showing your prejudice (and, again, your fear of what you don't know/understand). I have worked in counterterrorism--and we had to look in all directions. Hate is hate; it has no specific--or even "most"--political leaning. I wouldn't be much surprised to learn that you had terrorist tendencies--you certainly have the propaganda part of it down pat.

You continue to avoid answering the question of why you have used the despicable smearing technique of damning by innuendo in posting this thread to begin with.

 

[Guest]

Agreed.

You rarely post links, Box. You rarely offer proof of your accusations.

And you generally dismiss the links offered by others.

Why should we bother to take you seriously?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Agreed.

You rarely post links, Box. You rarely offer proof of your accusations.

And you generally dismiss the links offered by others.

Why should we bother to take you seriously?

I often post links. I included one on the first post, referring to Muslim terrorists. I did so because it was so close to a certainty that the attackers were just that. That is judging by the enormity of it and the organization and the targets and the questions they asked some who later escaped or were released. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is pretty safe to say it is a duck.

I also posted links about Irish and Greek terrorists when somebody hinted that those nationalities were as bad as Muslims.

Here is another link. According to this one, a Muslim terrorist group has now taken credit or blame for the attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_india_shooting

 

[sr71plt]

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

Answer the question--which I am sure will tell you something about yourself you'd rather not face.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

What was your purpose in posting this innuendo here in the first place?

Answer the question--which I am sure will tell you something about yourself you'd rather not face.

I'm not sure if you would call it innuendo or not. It is a news article, and apparently a true one, and I offered an opinion that seemed almost certain to be right. As it turned out, it WAS right.

As for my purpose, there are so many on this forum who are apologists for Muslim terrorists, such as you and SSS and some others, that I wanted to push your buttons. You are apologists, you know, like bleeding heart liberals who think vicious criminals are misunderstood victims of Society. You justify atrocities such as those I have mentioned or, at least, don't condemn them.

 

[sr71plt]

Nope, that's a mealy mouthed response. The suppositions (and innuendo) given in your initial post were yours alone. They didn't come from the news report at all. You are just totally blind to your provincial prejudices. And very nasty in your choice of smear tactics.

I'd stick to writing smut if I were you. You don't seem to have an objective bone in your body, and you're a poster child for what is causing your country to disintegrate into hateful little camps.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nope, that's a mealy mouthed response. The suppositions (and innuendo) given in your initial post were yours alone. They didn't come from the news report at all. You are just totally blind to your provincial prejudices. And very nasty in your choice of smear tactics.

I'd stick to writing smut if I were you. You don't seem to have an objective bone in your body, and you're a poster child for what is causing your country to disintegrate into hateful little camps.

I just answered your question and, if you don't like it, then fuck you.

 

[sr71plt]

I just answered your question and, if you don't like it, then fuck you.

No, you responded to the question in your usual scheming innuendo technique.

The question was what motivates you to make these nasty assertions that reveal your ignorance and fear and prejudice. You can't answer that question, because you can't face what that reveals about you.

(And you can forget fucking me--I have higher standards than you. )

 

[xssve]

There's a buttload of Muslims, if they all hated us, we would be in deep shit.

My question, I suppose, would be, what exactly do you think should be done about the unavoidable fact that Muslims exist there boxy?

I mean, other than stirring up more hate and discontent - you seem to have that angle covered.

 

[Liar]

Race, religion and nationality would not matter.

So this has nothing to do with religion then? Then why do you intentionally bring up and attempt to demonize one particuar one?

 

[Liar]

I'm not sure if you would call it innuendo or not. It is a news article, and apparently a true one, and I offered an opinion that seemed almost certain to be right. As it turned out, it WAS right.

You offered no opinion in your first post. You just repeated that there is a larger percentage of Muslim terrorist than other kinds.

Which may be true. But is also irrelevant, unless you try to adress 1) why. And 2) what can be done to change the why.

You didn't. You just vented contexually ignorant islamophobia.

Most murderers by far are men. I don't see you calling any special attention to the evil that is the Y chromosome. Why is that?

----
I am aware that the vast majority of Men are not violent killers. However, I will say this: Of any large group, such as a religious denominations, races, gender, etc., The percentage of Men who are robbers, rapists and murderes 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.
-----

Would you think this was a totally fair and reasonable statement?

As for my purpose, there are so many on this forum who are apologists for Muslim terrorists, such as you and SSS and some others, that I wanted to push your buttons. You are apologists, you know, like bleeding heart liberals who think vicious criminals are misunderstood victims of Society. You justify atrocities such as those I have mentioned or, at least, don't condemn them.

This however is a bold faced and downright insulting lie.

 

[rgraham666]

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.

Hmmm. Matthew Sheppard? The KKK? The Weathermen? The 4,200 black men lynched between then end of the Civil War and the start of The Great Depression?

None of those are terrorist acts or terrorist organizations, Box?

 

[slyc_willie]

As for my purpose, there are so many on this forum who are apologists for Muslim terrorists, such as you and SSS and some others, that I wanted to push your buttons. You are apologists, you know, like bleeding heart liberals who think vicious criminals are misunderstood victims of Society. You justify atrocities such as those I have mentioned or, at least, don't condemn them.

Ah, so you admit that your initial post was intended to be inflammatory tripe, and not a basis for true discussion?

Hmm. "You are apologists, you know, like bleeding heart liberals who think vicious criminals are misunderstood victims of society."

That's quite a blanket statement. Given the way you presented that statement, it suggests an inherent adherence to right-wing conservative philosophy, further suggesting that you wouldn't want to listen to the other side of the fence since it conflicts with what you already believe. Presentation of bias before a discussion means no discussion at all, only argument.

Which, in turn, translates to a waste of time.

 

[rgraham666]

Hmmm. We 'bleeding heart liberals' don't condemn these acts as we should? How about you, Box?

I remember a couple of years ago you said you 'understood' why McVeigh did what he did. The tone of your post was 'he went a bit too far, but I understand him'.

Pot, kettle.

If I don't get bent completely out of shape by what's happening in Mumbai, Box, it's because I try to live by Matthewson's 23rd Edict. "To be angered by evil is to partake of it, stupid."

 

[Guest]

I'm a Muslim apologist?

And that means - what, exactly? I'm daring to explain away the terroristic acts of a few and not blaming the entire religion?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm a Muslim apologist?

And that means - what, exactly? I'm daring to explain away the terroristic acts of a few and not blaming the entire religion?

Is that the new math?

This whole thread is insane. As if one group of people has cornered the market on hate??

As for my purpose, there are so many on this forum who are apologists for Muslim terrorists, such as you and SSS and some others, that I wanted to push your buttons. You are apologists, you know, like bleeding heart liberals who think vicious criminals are misunderstood victims of Society. You justify atrocities such as those I have mentioned or, at least, don't condemn them.

And what does this say about you?

You like pushing other people's buttons? You assume you know better than other people, that your opinion matters more? That your view is the only and "right" view of the world?

Terrorism starts with the belief "I am right and you are wrong."

Seems to me you got that one nailed down, don'tcha?

 

[Guest]

Box, I've read enough of your myopic ramblings.

I took you off ignore after the election, hoping that things had improved.

But they haven't, and now you've begun to personally attack those who don't share your warped beliefs.

Fuck off. You're on ignore to stay.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm a Muslim apologist?

And that means - what, exactly? I'm daring to explain away the terroristic acts of a few and not blaming the entire religion?

Most Muslims don't need apologists. What I said is that you are an apologist for Muslim terrorists. I don't believe anybody in their right mind blames the entire faith for the acts of a (relative) few. I certainly don't, as I have said many times.

If you try to justify evil deeds, you are an apologist for the ones committing those evil deeds.

 

[cloudy]

Most Muslims don't need apologists. What I said is that you are an apologist for Muslim terrorists. I don't believe anybody in their right mind blames the entire faith for the acts of a (relative) few. I certainly don't, as I have said many times.

If you try to justify evil deeds, you are an apologist for the ones committing those evil deeds.

You hate just as much as those you accuse of it.

I'm with sarah - you're nothing but a old man that hates anything that isn't exactly like you.

Back on ignore you go.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hmmm. We 'bleeding heart liberals' don't condemn these acts as we should? How about you, Box?

I remember a couple of years ago you said you 'understood' why McVeigh did what he did. The tone of your post was 'he went a bit too far, but I understand him'.

Pot, kettle.

If I don't get bent completely out of shape by what's happening in Mumbai, Box, it's because I try to live by Matthewson's 23rd Edict. "To be angered by evil is to partake of it, stupid."

I have roundly condemned McVeigh, and have said that he got what he deserved when he was put to death, although I would have preferred that he had been hanged.

Can you show me the post when I implied any such thing? If you can't, then Hello, Joe McCarthy.

I do remember saying one time that I knew his motivation, but I certainly never got even close to approving of it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You hate just as much as those you accuse of it.

I'm with sarah - you're nothing but a old man that hates anything that isn't exactly like you.

Back on ignore you go.

An old man, yes. However, I only hate those who perpetrate evil, such as Muslim terrorists, the KKK, the late T. McVeigh and Ted Bundy, etc. Whether they are similar to me is of no consequence.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Race, religion and nationality would not matter.

So this has nothing to do with religion then? Then why do you intentionally bring up and attempt to demonize one particuar one?

You're quoting me out of context.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hmmm. Matthew Sheppard? The KKK? The Weathermen? The 4,200 black men lynched between then end of the Civil War and the start of The Great Depression?

None of those are terrorist acts or terrorist organizations, Box?

Mathew Sheppard was a victim of bigoted thugs, not a terrorist. I know nothing about the man, except he was said to be gay. I don't know anything about his political beliefs or those of the thugs who murdered him.

The KKK is a racist organization that targets Blacks and Jews. They probably had a lot of involvement in the lynchings you mention. They have always been active in intimidation, but I'm not sure if you can call it terrorism. Until the 1960's, the southern parts of the KKK and the majority of southerners in general voted Democat. They used to refer to "The Solid South."

The only genuine for certain terrorist organization you listed is the Weathermen. I'm surprised you included them, because many liberals feel they were justified, and that the bombings and killings and destruction they perpetrated were no more than anti-war demonstrating.

BTW, I wonder how many white men were lynched duing that same time period. There were some, but I don't know just how many. I don't think anybody actually kept track.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You offered no opinion in your first post. You just repeated that there is a larger percentage of Muslim terrorist than other kinds.

Which may be true. But is also irrelevant, unless you try to adress 1) why. And 2) what can be done to change the why.

You didn't. You just vented contexually ignorant islamophobia.

Most murderers by far are men. I don't see you calling any special attention to the evil that is the Y chromosome. Why is that?

----
I am aware that the vast majority of Men are not violent killers. However, I will say this: Of any large group, such as a religious denominations, races, gender, etc., The percentage of Men who are robbers, rapists and murderes 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.
-----

Would you think this was a totally fair and reasonable statement?

Quote:
As for my purpose, there are so many on this forum who are apologists for Muslim terrorists, such as you and SSS and some others, that I wanted to push your buttons. You are apologists, you know, like bleeding heart liberals who think vicious criminals are misunderstood victims of Society. You justify atrocities such as those I have mentioned or, at least, don't condemn them.



This however is a bold faced and downright insulting lie.

Well, this is a recent post by you:

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.

But then all it comes down to is "but you started it", "no, you did", "no, you", "no, you".

Because that's EXCATLY what the Palestinian Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah and up until lately, the PLO are doing towards Israel. Defending themselves against a violent invasion. From their perspective.

So they're not terrorists then?


Quote:
Let's face it. Kidnapping your citizens or shooting at you with rockets or guns would be considered attacking you. This is the kind of thing that elicits a retaliatory attack.

How about helicopter airstrikes and preemptive arrests? I call that shooting with rockets and kidnapping.

Not defending either side here, just saying that your view is simplistic and biased.

 

[DeeZire]

I do remember saying one time that I knew (Tim McVeigh's) his motivation, but I certainly never got even close to approving of it.

So when others point out the motivation of Muslim terrorists, they're apologists, but when you point out the motivation of a non-muslim terrorist, you're not an apologist? Can you see the hypocrisy in this?

If you dig your hole any deeper, it will collapse upon your head. Have fun down there in the dirt.