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

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
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.

That would depend on the context. If you point out motivation, but say nothing negative about the act, it could be seen as not condemning it.

 

[Liar]

Well, this is a ecent post by you:

<my post, snipped for brevity>

Why, yes it is. I know it is. I know it is because I wrote it.

It is also in no way, shape or form apologist towards terrorism.

If you believe it is, please explain how.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why, yes it is. I know it is. I know it is because I wrote it.

It is also in no way, shape or form apologist towards terrorism.

If you believe it is, please explain how.

You are justifying random attacks against a civilian population and abductions of members of that population by equating it with precise stikes against known terrorists and arrests of criminal suspects. They are not at all the same thing.

I'm not entirely justifying what Israel does, but I am also not calling it terrorism.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not entirely justifying what Israel does, but I am also not calling it terrorism.

So, when Israel engages in random attacks against civilians and abduction of members of the Palestinian population, you condemn it, right? Good. 'Cause it has happened. And, yes, I'll leave it to you to look that up--I know it's happened because I've been there and reported it--I'll not waste my time on you looking it up. It's enough to get a pledge from you that you would condemn that too--because that's the sort of thing missing from what you slather on this forum.

 

[Liar]

You are justifying random attacks against a civilian population and abductions of members of that population by equating it with precise stikes against known terrorists and arrests of criminal suspects. They are not at all the same thing.

No, I'm not.

But if you actually believe I am, it kind of explains this bizarro conversation.

I'm not entirely justifying what Israel does, but I am also not calling it terrorism.

But calling what they do "precise stikes against known terrorists and arrests of criminal suspects" in one breath and saying "I'm not entirely justifying what Israel does" proves you are so neck deep in apologism for one side that you can't see straight.

Both sides are doing serious unforgiveable wrongs. Period.

One side does it with a multi-billion dollar war machine, a 20 feet concrete wall, enough barbed wire to reach the moon and the economic leverage to starve the other side into oblivion. The other side does it with a box of C4, a roll of duct tape and nothing left to lose. That's the main difference. And that's the main cause for different choice of atrocities.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I'm not entirely justifying what Israel does, but I am also not calling it terrorism.

So, when Israel engages in random attacks against civilians and abduction of members of the Palestinian population, you condemn it, right? Good. 'Cause it has happened. And, yes, I'll leave it to you to look that up--I know it's happened because I've been there and reported it--I'll not waste my time on you looking it up. It's enough to get a pledge from you that you would condemn that too--because that's the sort of thing missing from what you slather on this forum.

If you can prove that Israel engages in random attacks against civilians. including abductions, I will condemn them as much as I do Muslim terorists or Timothy McVeigh or the KKK or similar groups. However, that would have to be RANDOM attacks on civilians, not attacks on suspected terrorists, or ammo dumps in residences or mosques or rocket emplacements on roofs, etc.

In this thread, you accuse me of making unfounded attacks. The only group or groups I attacked were the Muslim terrorists in Mumbai, and they have been proven to be Muslims. It appears you are doing here what you accuse me of doing.

ETA: Even if an occasional wrong is committed against one Palestinian, how can you compare that with the mass murders perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, such as the ones that led to this thread?

 

[sr71plt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I'm not entirely justifying what Israel does, but I am also not calling it terrorism.




If you can prove that Israel engages in random attacks against civilians. including abductions, I will condemn them as much as I do Muslim terorists or Timothy McVeigh or the KKK or similar groups. However, that would have to be RANDOM attacks on civilians, not attacks on suspected terrorists, or ammo dumps in residences or mosques or rocket emplacements on roofs, etc.

In this thread, you accuse me of making unfounded attacks. The only group or groups I attacked were the Muslim terrorists in Mumbai, and they have been proven to be Muslims. It appears you are doing here what you accuse me of doing.

ETA: Even if an occasional wrong is committed against one Palestinian, how can you compare that with the mass murders perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, such as the ones that led to this thread?

So, that is a yes? That if you found the Israelis had done/were doing the same as the the Arab examples you have brought up, you would condemn them equally? That was the only question here. All I was asking was if you thought you had it in you to be objective about your condemnations.

I explicitly said I wouldn't dredge any instances up because you, quite frankly, aren't worth my time and effort. I am just testing whether you would declare you would condemn the act equally without prejudice on who was doing it. There have, in fact, been reams of such examples brought to you--not only on the Arab issue but on domestic U.S. politics too--and you never would do what you now indicate you can be called on if you don't do.

Frankly, though, I don't believe you can do that. You start with your prejudice and look only for what supports it.

 

[Guest]

Ugh.

He gives me a headache.

I've realized it is from gritting my teeth with frustration.

 

[DeeZire]

Ugh.

He gives me a headache.

I've realized it is from gritting my teeth with frustration.

With Amicus gone, someone must fill the void. It's like water seeking its own level.

 

[Guest]

With Amicus gone, someone must fill the void. It's like water seeking its own level.

Most apt.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, that is a yes? That if you found the Israelis had done/were doing the same as the the Arab examples you have brought up, you would condemn them equally? That was the only question here. All I was asking was if you thought you had it in you to be objective about your condemnations.

I explicitly said I wouldn't dredge any instances up because you, quite frankly, aren't worth my time and effort. I am just testing whether you would declare you would condemn the act equally without prejudice on who was doing it. There have, in fact, been reams of such examples brought to you--not only on the Arab issue but on domestic U.S. politics too--and you never would do what you now indicate you can be called on if you don't do.

Frankly, though, I don't believe you can do that. You start with your prejudice and look only for what supports it.

I have certainly condemned McVeigh, and he's the only one I know of who has done anything even close to the scale of Muslim terrorists. I would condemn the actions of the ATF or FBI at the Branch Dravidians in Waco about 16 years ago, although I doubt if their actions were deliberate. I would condemn the actions of Jim Jones in Guyana, but that was even longer ago, and was more murder and suicide than terrorism. Several times, I have condemned the actions of the Weather Undergound, although they were active over 30 years ago. I have also condemned the Phelps family and the KKK, although I don't consider either group to be terrorists.

If anybody else can show me any recent excamples where terorists who were not Muslims have crashed airplanes into large buildings or blown up crowded night clubs or done the other things of that nature, I will condemn them also.

The fact that some drunken bigot assaults a gay man is reprehensible, but probably not terrorism.

If I have an opinion or make a comment, I will usually look for reliable links that support it. I believe everybody does that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

All this to-ing and fro-ing is obscuring the fact that there is a serious problem with Muslim extremism that we're not seeing with other religions, and something has to be done about it. Religion, while maybe not the cause of it, is an integral part of it. In his own rather clumsy way, I think this is what Boxlicker was trying to say. And for three or four pages we've been managing to avoid the issue.

Now, as I say, something has to be done. The problem isn't religious, but it is cultural and economic, which is almost just as bad. What are we going to do about it?

 

[gauchecritic]

Now, as I say, something has to be done. The problem isn't religious, but it is cultural and economic, which is almost just as bad. What are we going to do about it?

Take the money out of defence and put it into economic aid?

Re-build the infrastructure of many of the second world countries that the west has destroyed?

Stop propping up countries and governments that promise a fast buck?

Let people drive politics instead of companies?

Use intelligence gathering as an aid to growth instead of 'enemy spying'?

Restrict consumerism?

Take a lesson from the Roman empire and use local people/economics to defend their own growth?

and for the conspiracy theorists: don't allow stoppable terrorism.

 

[SlickTony]

I think consumerism has been greatly reduced by the current state of the economy.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

*closing in on the finish line, stopped for a few days of hipthrusting at the referee on turn three*

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

All this to-ing and fro-ing is obscuring the fact that there is a serious problem with Muslim extremism that we're not seeing with other religions, and something has to be done about it. Religion, while maybe not the cause of it, is an integral part of it. In his own rather clumsy way, I think this is what Boxlicker was trying to say. And for three or four pages we've been managing to avoid the issue.

Now, as I say, something has to be done. The problem isn't religious, but it is cultural and economic, which is almost just as bad. What are we going to do about it?

How do you distinguish between culture and religion, especially in the Middle East, where they are so closely intertwined? They are in other places too, but especially there.

I have read over this whole thread and I don't understand your animosity toward Boxlicker. He started the thread about an attack by terrorists. He called them Muslim terrorists and he is technically right but their motivation may have been territory instead of religion. Boxlicker condemns all terrorism, as we all should.

In the last ten years has there been any acts of terrorism to compare with what Muslims have done? McVeigh would be about the same but that was more than ten years ago.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

How do you distinguish between culture and religion, especially in the Middle East, where they are so closely intertwined? They are in other places too, but especially there.

I have read over this whole thread and I don't understand your animosity toward Boxlicker. He started the thread about an attack by terrorists. He called them Muslim terrorists and he is technically right but their motivation may have been territory instead of religion. Boxlicker condemns all terrorism, as we all should.

In the last ten years has there been any acts of terrorism to compare with what Muslims have done? McVeigh would be about the same but that was more than ten years ago.

And this analysis on the BBC is particularly pertinent. When one is hopeless, powerless, futureless and sociopathic it doesn't matter what religion one belongs to and that happens, unfortunately, to describe a large, rootless section of the Middle Eastern and Southern Asian young, male population.

 

[Liar]

SweetPrettyAss, let me ask you what I asked Box, but he didn't reply to.

A vast majority of all terrorism in the last ten or even twenty years is male. It is instigated, planned and for the most part carried out by men. If you look at the numbers, I'm certain that you'll see that the percentage of men among all terrorist are larger than the percetage of muslims.

Then why are you not talking about Male Terrorism instead of Muslim Terrorism as the great bogeyman? The only reason I can think of is that you actually think it's the islamic religion that is to blame.

It's the whole I'm not against Islam, I'm just sayin' rethorics that annoys the crap outta me. It reeks of the good old I'm not a racist, but them niggers hypocricy.

 

[Liar]

*closing in on the finish line, stopped for a few days of hipthrusting at the referee on turn three*

Dude, I don't even remember what the hell you won.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

SweetPrettyAss, let me ask you what I asked Box, but he didn't reply to.

A vast majority of all terrorism in the last ten or even twenty years is male. It is instigated, planned and for the most part carried out by men. If you look at the numbers, I'm certain that you'll see that the percentage of men among all terrorist are larger than the percetage of muslims.

Then why are you not talking about Male Terrorism instead of Muslim Terrorism as the great bogeyman? The only reason I can think of is that you actually think it's the islamic religion that is to blame.

It's the whole I'm not against Islam, I'm just sayin' rethorics that annoys the crap outta me. It reeks of the good old I'm not a racist, but them niggers hypocricy.

This is disingenuous, Liar. We know there is a religious factor that gives shape and rationale to these attacks and this philosophy of jihad, and it comes from the extremes of Islam. Islam isn't the problem, but this faction of Islam is being used to structure and shape and give impetus to the problem. For their soldiers on the ground, it's the language the war's being fought in.

The analogy that all terrorists are male is too general to be of any use. The statement that all Muslims are terrorists is just patently false. But the fact that by far most modern terrorism directed against the west originates in Muslim countries is neither too general nor is it false and so is most certainly significant.

That doesn't mean it's time for war against Islam, but to say that Islam doesn't matter in the current struggle ignores the very language the battle's being fought in.

Gauche already listed a bunch of points for serious engagement with the Muslim world that should be addressed. None of them are religious, but all will affect the expression of religious outlook.

 

[oggbashan]

India and Pakistan have a real problem with religious terrorism BOTH Muslim and Hindu.

They need a coordinated response with political backing across the board from both countries. Unfortunately India seems unwilling to tackle terrorism effectively and seems to condone extremism because of political weakness. Pakistan does not rule major parts of its country and as a result extremists can take refuge there despite the government who are outgunned and out-manoeuvered by extremists hiding behind apparently-religious organisations.

Whether either country can solve the problem alone is doubtful. Blaming Pakistan for factions it cannot control will not help India solve the problem of its own "religious" terrorists.

And in Africa this weekend Christians and Muslims attacked each other burning Mosques and Churches.

Religion is the excuse. Hatred is the real cause.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, that is a yes? That if you found the Israelis had done/were doing the same as the the Arab examples you have brought up, you would condemn them equally? That was the only question here. All I was asking was if you thought you had it in you to be objective about your condemnations.

I explicitly said I wouldn't dredge any instances up because you, quite frankly, aren't worth my time and effort. I am just testing whether you would declare you would condemn the act equally without prejudice on who was doing it. There have, in fact, been reams of such examples brought to you--not only on the Arab issue but on domestic U.S. politics too--and you never would do what you now indicate you can be called on if you don't do.

Frankly, though, I don't believe you can do that. You start with your prejudice and look only for what supports it.

I actually googled "Israeli Terrorists" and I found a lot of hits, but most of them were blogs or Islamic propaganda sheets or other unreliable reports. I also found this one. It was printed by the NY Times, which is not encouraging, but it is probably tue, since it is an actual news item.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DD113EF934A15751C1A966958260

The release from prison was 18 years ago and the actual events were about 28 or so years ago. Besides that, it was pretty small potatoes, compared to the random murders in Mubai, the genocide in Darfur and the other events that I have mentioned.

I'm not sure that events in Darfur would be called "terrorism" or not. One large group, The Janjaweed (sp?) attacks small towns in Darfur and the neighboring nation of Chad and rapes and kills, but this might be considered to be the acts of the government of Sudan.

 

[Boxlicker101]

India and Pakistan have a real problem with religious terrorism BOTH Muslim and Hindu.

They need a coordinated response with political backing across the board from both countries. Unfortunately India seems unwilling to tackle terrorism effectively and seems to condone extremism because of political weakness. Pakistan does not rule major parts of its country and as a result extremists can take refuge there despite the government who are outgunned and out-manoeuvered by extremists hiding behind apparently-religious organisations.

Whether either country can solve the problem alone is doubtful. Blaming Pakistan for factions it cannot control will not help India solve the problem of its own "religious" terrorists.

And in Africa this weekend Christians and Muslims attacked each other burning Mosques and Churches.

Religion is the excuse. Hatred is the real cause.

Og

I totally agree that hatred is the cause. However, a large part of that hatred is religion based. Except for religion, would there be any major difference between an Indian and a Pakistani?

 

[GratefulFred]

Damn I can't cut and post enough of these shots taken against my country.

Terrorism isn't about point of view or else it's just a general word referred to your enemy.

Let me define Palestinian terrorism, something we face every day especially from Gaza with the Hamas calling the shots. There children watch TV showing martyrs and know us as "dogs" as part of their first vocabulary words. Even if the story was fabricated and staged of a Palesinian getting killed there's never a retraction. The secular teachers have been sacked in favor of religious education. They want to kill civilians whenever they can and randomly shoot at the boarder towns. They fire from behind civilians. They use Red Cross ambulances to transport weapons. They will reward families of those who strap a bomb to themselves and inflict casualties. A map with us doesn't exist.
They've kidnapped one of our boys and never show him to any interantional body.

Are we perfect? No, but we are at war. It's been a 60 year war and it's for our survival. In one of those tunnels coming in from Egypt will one day be a dirty bomb. How we differ from the terrorist we fight is that our children are not brainwashed to hate Arabs, and in fact have to learn Arabic and their religion and culture. We have laws and soldiers or individuals that break those laws can be jailed whereas they do not enforce laws in the same manner. We defend our borders with an army and seperate splinter groups acting on their own do not exist or if found they get squashed. We try to avoid civilian casualties and many stories are not reported about. Our news reports things that are not always positive but it's the publics right to know things. Are we starving the Palestinians out or perhaps they hoard the electricity attack the distribution points and will do everything in their power to make us look bad and at the same time keep our precious Gilad hostage?

How would any of you feel if you were the only country singled out by the fucked up United Nations, not once but over and over again? How would you feel if the Hezbollah in Lebannon, against a UN resolution has stockpiled four times the number of missiles from what they had before their last attack on us?
How would you feel if Iran was threatening not your military targets but your civilian centers and no matter how many companies went around the sanctions, no one was doing anything to stop them?

The muslim terrorists killed innocent people including a group of religious jews who were helping out people dealing in poverty. Thinking Israel needs to be brought up in this thread just shows total ignorrance. We have nothing to do with what went on in India.

The UN passed last year in a 40-2 vote that we were the only country in the world to abuse women. Granted we only had Golda Meir as our PM because she was a hottie and may have another one any day now. Joe Wordy, the stupid sprinter, can go take his girl friend/lover/wife to Pakistan and wait only two hours and watch her get raped, and only eight hours before he can watch her get gang banged. With any luck they'll take you along as well.

By the way, though we have lots of problems we value life like there is no tomorrow.

Here's Robert Zimmerman's take on us... (you can sing along on his Bob Dylan website)

Well, the neighborhood bully, hes just one man,
His enemies say hes on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
Hes criticized and condemned for being alive.
Hes not supposed to fight back, hes supposed to have thick skin,
Hes supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
Hes wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
Hes always on trial for just being born.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That hell live by the rules that the world makes for him,
cause theres a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he dont get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he wont be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

Well, hes surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldnt hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

Every empire thats enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and rome, even the great babylon.
Hes made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no ones command.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

Whats anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin, they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
Hes the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think you're stuck on what terrorism is defined as Box.

A few years ago I watched a programme which included 'gang' footage of some random guy being beaten in the street, apparently just for being there.

I call that terrorism. One group of people being randomly violent to others and the rest of the neighbourhood being in fear of their safety.

The gang are sending a message by perpetrating these acts. The message they send is firstly to each other. Secondly to other gangs, and third to the neighbourhood at large.

The apologists (as far as I can tell and I don't know if I'm included in that group) seem to me to be looking beyond the act itself and trying to determine a cause and thereby a solution.

11 September (which is known world wide as 9/11) was met with a knee jerk reaction; fight back.

America saw that as an attack on themselves. The rest of the world saw it as stated, an attack on a symbol (the World trade centre) of the capitalist, godless west. If that's apologising for the action then I'm an apologist.

The very fact that the world knows the attack as 9/11 was just one more mistake by the powers that were, in identifying the problem, by further spreading what was the target. ie Amercanism which is the greatest symbol of capitalism measured by its own success.

If you get bullied and hit back then who is the wrongdoer?