Poll: Who is a terrorist?

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: maluckey

You don't see us spending a trillion dollars with hundreds of thousands of troops in Darfur. You see them in the oil region.

Chad is CHOCK FULL of oil...what's the U.S. doing there?

EXACTLY!

I'm unclear whether your post is serious, referring to the US involvement in Chad with the Exxon-led pipeline and the US-led World Bank's funding of that pipeline, since military forces are not what are needed there for US interests to be protected, or whether your post is a misguided attempt at sarcasm out of ignorance of the preceding US role with Chad.

Reportedly, in the coming decade the US will begin to get 25% of its oil from Africa; watch for more US activities.

 

[Nitemare]

I think all fundamentalists regardless of religion should just be shipped off to somewhere like Greenland and we could wall them in.

It's not surprising how 27% of P&N view the killing of an insurgent trying to kill our troops is unjustified...

way to go team.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He believes in the fundamental teachings of Islam (he is non violent)

Lost me, since its fundamental teachings are violent.

Why aren't the millions of Muslims in the US committing acts of violence then - much less, committing fewer acts than the acerage non-Muslim? You sound quite ignorant.

Fallacy.

You set precedent for the generalizing statement that the American muslim populous are not committing violent acts. What you fail to understand is that Islamic fundamentalist does not revolve around exploding buses or crashing buildings. It's only when a foreigner (non-muslim) integrates or exists within the community do problems arise.

The overwhelming migration of muslim refugees into Europe has upheeved many western citizens. These people are unable to adjust to *gasp* freedom of speech and civil rights.

Why do you think every community inhabited by a muslim majority turns to stone?

Sure you have the culturally based muslims, but there is something inherently wrong with Islamic society.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He believes in the fundamental teachings of Islam (he is non violent)

Lost me, since its fundamental teachings are violent.

Why aren't the millions of Muslims in the US committing acts of violence then - much less, committing fewer acts than the acerage non-Muslim? You sound quite ignorant.

Fallacy.

You set precedent for the generalizing statement that the American muslim populous are not committing violent acts. What you fail to understand is that Islamic fundamentalist does not revolve around exploding buses or crashing buildings. It's only when a foreigner (non-muslim) integrates or exists within the community do problems arise.

The overwhelming migration of muslim refugees into Europe has upheeved many western citizens. These people are unable to adjust to *gasp* freedom of speech and civil rights.

Why do you think every community inhabited by a muslim majority turns to stone?

Sure you have the culturally based muslims, but there is something inherently wrong with Islamic society.

So, now you have abandoned the claim I responded to that 'Islam's fundamental teachings are violent' which justified the position that it's *OK TO MURDER* anyone who is Muslim, and you are off in some new mealy-mouthed bigotry trying to claim something about how it's not Muslims or Islam, it's when they get a majority that there's a problem.

How convenient that that just happens to map, as I posted elsewhere recently, to the differences explained by other factors - that people treated well in the wealthier, more powerful nations (e.g., the US) tend not to act violently, while people who are more oppressed tend to do so, just as African-Americans rioted in the 1960's, but most are treated more fairly now and are much less likely to do so, with some remaining pockets of concentrated poverty remaining, such as the area in the LA Rodney King riots.

These nations in the Middle East have many problems not just from the Islamic fundamentalists, but from the west who meddles and either creates destabilization (for a policy to divide the society and weaken its ability to resist outside influence) or to install a dictatorial, west-friendly regime as in Iran in 1953-1978 or in Saudi Arabia.

Saying that the issues are simply something inherent in Islam - not only ignoring the other factors, but the history of violence in other religions' nations - well, my first post concluded by saying "You sound quite ignorant", and I see no reason to change a word in response to this attempt at spinning the anti-Muslim nonsense.

There's room for criticizing a lot in the Muslim world, but that's a far cry from the religious bigotry here, and fails to address that *we* have a lot of wrongs, too..

 

[Noobtastic]

So, now you have abandoned the claim I responded to that 'Islam's fundamental teachings are violent' which justified the position that it's *OK TO MURDER* anyone who is Muslim

Uh, I didn't read any previous responses. Maybe you have me confused with another poster. XD

and you are off in some new mealy-mouthed bigotry trying to claim something about how it's not Muslims or Islam, it's when they get a majority that there's a problem.

No?

How convenient that that just happens to map, as I posted elsewhere recently, to the differences explained by other factors - that people treated well in the wealthier, more powerful nations (e.g., the US) tend not to act violently

You CLEARLY have no knowledge of Islamic society. You seem bent on associating everything fundamentalist with violence, when that is NOT the case.

Muslims function perfectly fine in Kuwait, does that make them secular? NO.

You mix in a little Jews, maybe some freedom of expression, a Jesus shirt...Paris Hilton, and then you have an open fundamentalist community. Take a gander at all the news European islamic communities. The Netherlands, Sweden, and even Britain are being screwed - yet the world refuses to recognize.

while people who are more oppressed tend to do so, just as African-Americans rioted in the 1960's, but most are treated more fairly now and are much less likely to do so, with some remaining pockets of concentrated poverty remaining, such as the area in the LA Rodney King riots.

Um, okay.

These nations in the Middle East have many problems not just from the Islamic fundamentalists, but from the west who meddles and either creates destabilization (for a policy to divide the society and weaken its ability to resist outside influence)

Uh? Every country that operates under an Islamic government is royally f**ked. If you think whatever slight western interference justifies or resulted in their current state, you are deluded. These countries have been like this since the dawn of Islamic, 6th century.

or to install a dictatorial, west-friendly regime as in Iran in 1953-1978 or in Saudi Arabia.

Iran was way better off with the Shah, and SA was way better off before the monarchy took total control. Pakistan is going to turn into an Islamic fundamentalist regime. I guess that's teh evil doers fault to, no?

Saying that the issues are simply something inherent in Islam - not only ignoring the other factors, but the history of violence in other religions' nations - well, my first post concluded by saying "You sound quite ignorant", and I see no reason to change a word in response to this attempt at spinning the anti-Muslim nonsense.

Heh.

There's room for criticizing a lot in the Muslim world, but that's a far cry from the religious bigotry here, and fails to address that *we* have a lot of wrongs, too..

Bigotry, intolerant, fear mongering, war mongering, republican, Christian..blah blah blah.

go spread your partisan zealotry somewhere else.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I think all fundamentalists regardless of religion should just be shipped off to somewhere like Greenland and we could wall them in.

It's not surprising how 27% of P&N view the killing of an insurgent trying to kill our troops is unjustified...

way to go team.

Again, ever consider the situation the Iraqi people are put in, with a foreign occupier? You would not take any action against a foreign occupier of *your* neighborhood?

Sorry, but our bad policy created a lot of situations where people you can hardly blame are suddenly the enemies of our troops. Imagine another bad policy, if Bush tried to use the forces of the US against political dissidents here in the US; you would have good people (dissidents) at odds with good people (troops).

That's why the policy has to be identified as the problem, and corrected, rather than some one-sided nonsense of 'support the troops' designed to distract from the policy problem.

Sorry, but while there are some nasty people in the Iraq insurgency, I think many are simply people who are reacting to the situation the same way many Americans would.

That hardly means people want our troops shot at by those people, it means that people want our troops not put in the position of occupying some land in an illegal war.

And it means that when they are, it's hard to say that those people defending their homes from a foreign, illegal occupation should be killed for it.

The war creates a problematic question; it's like asking if a police chief decides to stop following the law and sends police out on missions which often send them unannounced into people's homes, do we think it's ok for the police to shoot the residents who try to shoot them when they enter. Well, it's not that we want the police shot - it's that we also can hardly condone the shooting of the residents, but the question doesn't distinguish between 'pro shooting police' and 'anti policy putting police in that situation'.

It's the damned righties who refuse to deal with the policy issue who are the cause of the continuing problem.

Some have made a halfway gesture of saying 'however wrong the policy, we need to deal with the current environment', but it falls short of what's needed in terms of figuring out how to prevent the same thing from happening another time. Giving the wrongdoers what they wanted with a slap on the wrist and leaving the situation ready to happen again is inadequate. Unfortunately, the liberal leadership has yet to identify any clear plan to fix it, as they did following republican abuses in the 1970's, with new laws that lasted until Bush.

(And it should be noted that Cheney was right in the middle of the 1970's battle, and much of his desire for putting the president above the law stems from his losses then).

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I think all fundamentalists regardless of religion should just be shipped off to somewhere like Greenland and we could wall them in.

It's not surprising how 27% of P&N view the killing of an insurgent trying to kill our troops is unjustified...

way to go team.

Again, ever consider the situation the Iraqi people are put in, with a foreign occupier? You would not take any action against a foreign occupier of *your* neighborhood?

Sorry, but our bad policy created a lot of situations where people you can hardly blame are suddenly the enemies of our troops. Imagine another bad policy, if Bush tried to use the forces of the US against political dissidents here in the US; you would have good people (dissidents) at odds with good people (troops).

That's why the policy has to be identified as the problem, and corrected, rather than some one-sided nonsense of 'support the troops' designed to distract from the policy problem.

Sorry, but while there are some nasty people in the Iraq insurgency, I think many are simply people who are reacting to the situation the same way many Americans would.

That hardly means people want our troops shot at by those people, it means that people want our troops not put in the position of occupying some land in an illegal war.

And it means that when they are, it's hard to say that those people defending their homes from a foreign, illegal occupation should be killed for it.

The war creates a problematic question; it's like asking if a police chief decides to stop following the law and sends police out on missions which often send them unannounced into people's homes, do we think it's ok for the police to shoot the residents who try to shoot them when they enter. Well, it's not that we want the police shot - it's that we also can hardly condone the shooting of the residents, but the question doesn't distinguish between 'pro shooting police' and 'anti policy putting police in that situation'.

It's the damned righties who refuse to deal with the policy issue who are the cause of the continuing problem.

Some have made a halfway gesture of saying 'however wrong the policy, we need to deal with the current environment', but it falls short of what's needed in terms of figuring out how to prevent the same thing from happening another time. Giving the wrongdoers what they wanted with a slap on the wrist and leaving the situation ready to happen again is inadequate. Unfortunately, the liberal leadership has yet to identify any clear plan to fix it, as they did following republican abuses in the 1970's, with new laws that lasted until Bush.

(And it should be noted that Cheney was right in the middle of the 1970's battle, and much of his desire for putting the president above the law stems from his losses then).

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Vic]

I voted "no" to all but the last. Terrorism is crime, and crime is action, not thought or affiliation.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

So, now you have abandoned the claim I responded to that 'Islam's fundamental teachings are violent' which justified the position that it's *OK TO MURDER* anyone who is Muslim

Uh, I didn't read any previous responses. Maybe you have me confused with another poster. XD

The quotes are right in the brief quotes you posted.

and you are off in some new mealy-mouthed bigotry trying to claim something about how it's not Muslims or Islam, it's when they get a majority that there's a problem.

No? [/quote]

Yes? Let's quote you from your own post HERE:

"Every country that operates under an Islamic government is royally f**ked... These countries have been like this since the dawn of Islamic, 6th century. "

I'd say, "yes".

How convenient that that just happens to map, as I posted elsewhere recently, to the differences explained by other factors - that people treated well in the wealthier, more powerful nations (e.g., the US) tend not to act violently

You CLEARLY have no knowledge of Islamic society. You seem bent on associating everything fundamentalist with violence, when that is NOT the case.

Muslims function perfectly fine in Kuwait, does that make them secular? NO.

You mix in a little Jews, maybe some freedom of expression, a Jesus shirt...Paris Hilton, and then you have an open fundamentalist community. Take a gander at all the news European islamic communities. The Netherlands, Sweden, and even Britain are being screwed - yet the world refuses to recognize.

You completely lost me here. It's as if you are responding to the wrong thread. I did not 'associate everything fundamentalist with violence', for a start.

while people who are more oppressed tend to do so, just as African-Americans rioted in the 1960's, but most are treated more fairly now and are much less likely to do so, with some remaining pockets of concentrated poverty remaining, such as the area in the LA Rodney King riots.

Um, okay. [/quote]

No interest in the root causes, eh? I guess that says a lot about your position.

or to install a dictatorial, west-friendly regime as in Iran in 1953-1978 or in Saudi Arabia.

Iran was way better off with the Shah, and SA was way better off before the monarchy took total control. Pakistan is going to turn into an Islamic fundamentalist regime. I guess that's teh evil doers fault to, no?

Putting aside the Shah vs. current debate, Iran was better off with democracy before the Shah, than with either the Shah or the current regime that replaced him.

Note that the Saudi regime has a long history of being empowered by the west - in particular, the Nixon/Kissinger administration responded to the oil embargo that pressured the US economy by entering into a secret agreement guaranteeing Saudi security in exchange for guaranteed access to oil, putting the US again into the role of being the 'muscle' for tyrants.

Ever notice how who the government demonizes has more to do with our economic interest than the actual issues, os that we're silent on the Saudis incubating the 9/11 terrorists, while our government constantly condemns anyone who actually tries to represent the Palestinians near Israel as radicals, terrorists, etc.?

There's room for criticizing a lot in the Muslim world, but that's a far cry from the religious bigotry here, and fails to address that *we* have a lot of wrongs, too..

Bigotry, intolerant, fear mongering, war mongering, republican, Christian..blah blah blah.

go spread your partisan zealotry somewhere else.
[/quote]

The truth can hurt, I see.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

So, now you have abandoned the claim I responded to that 'Islam's fundamental teachings are violent' which justified the position that it's *OK TO MURDER* anyone who is Muslim

Uh, I didn't read any previous responses. Maybe you have me confused with another poster. XD

The quotes are right in the brief quotes you posted.

and you are off in some new mealy-mouthed bigotry trying to claim something about how it's not Muslims or Islam, it's when they get a majority that there's a problem.

No?

Yes? Let's quote you from your own post HERE:

"Every country that operates under an Islamic government is royally f**ked... These countries have been like this since the dawn of Islamic, 6th century. "

I'd say, "yes".

How convenient that that just happens to map, as I posted elsewhere recently, to the differences explained by other factors - that people treated well in the wealthier, more powerful nations (e.g., the US) tend not to act violently

You CLEARLY have no knowledge of Islamic society. You seem bent on associating everything fundamentalist with violence, when that is NOT the case.

Muslims function perfectly fine in Kuwait, does that make them secular? NO.

You mix in a little Jews, maybe some freedom of expression, a Jesus shirt...Paris Hilton, and then you have an open fundamentalist community. Take a gander at all the news European islamic communities. The Netherlands, Sweden, and even Britain are being screwed - yet the world refuses to recognize.

You completely lost me here. It's as if you are responding to the wrong thread. I did not 'associate everything fundamentalist with violence', for a start.

while people who are more oppressed tend to do so, just as African-Americans rioted in the 1960's, but most are treated more fairly now and are much less likely to do so, with some remaining pockets of concentrated poverty remaining, such as the area in the LA Rodney King riots.

Um, okay. [/quote]

No interest in the root causes, eh? I guess that says a lot about your position.

or to install a dictatorial, west-friendly regime as in Iran in 1953-1978 or in Saudi Arabia.

Iran was way better off with the Shah, and SA was way better off before the monarchy took total control. Pakistan is going to turn into an Islamic fundamentalist regime. I guess that's teh evil doers fault to, no?

Putting aside the Shah vs. current debate, Iran was better off with democracy before the Shah, than with either the Shah or the current regime that replaced him.

Note that the Saudi regime has a long history of being empowered by the west - in particular, the Nixon/Kissinger administration responded to the oil embargo that pressured the US economy by entering into a secret agreement guaranteeing Saudi security in exchange for guaranteed access to oil, putting the US again into the role of being the 'muscle' for tyrants.

Ever notice how who the government demonizes has more to do with our economic interest than the actual issues, os that we're silent on the Saudis incubating the 9/11 terrorists, while our government constantly condemns anyone who actually tries to represent the Palestinians near Israel as radicals, terrorists, etc.?

There's room for criticizing a lot in the Muslim world, but that's a far cry from the religious bigotry here, and fails to address that *we* have a lot of wrongs, too..

Bigotry, intolerant, fear mongering, war mongering, republican, Christian..blah blah blah.

go spread your partisan zealotry somewhere else.
[/quote]

The truth can hurt, I see.[/quote]

:wine:

 

[alejandroAT]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Lemon law has the sort of reason and logic that america needs right now to save itself from the moral downhill and isolation its "patriots" are leading her to.

Palehorse74...i bet you wear that hat in real life and you drive a pick-up and your best friend's name is Skitter.

"Bring the dogs Skeeterr , We gat us ah'coupl'ah 'arabs"

lol... wtf?!

1 - As a soldier, I've proudly worn "that hat" for years. You have a problem with that?

2 - I drive a BMW.

3 - I'm an educated, well-read, and well-traveled city boy - living just outside of Washington DC, to be exact - after being raised on a Northeastern beach.

4 - I'm also one of the few folks around here who recognizes that terrorists do not represent the majority of Muslims, and that most Muslims are not even Arab.

good calls Nostradamus! you're on point tonight!

Please aim your poo elsewhere Mr. Eurotrash...

Why, I do apologize for misunderstanding the depths of your wisdom but I can assure you they are not evident in your use of the language. Maybe by being a soldier you often let your sentiments overpower you and i got that wrong as an expression of mindless hate and anger. I will try and be more careful with my poo in the future lest i get some on your posts.

Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

In any case I know now (as you say) that you are educated and I will not use any Skitter remarks from now on

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic
I voted "no" to all but the last. Terrorism is crime, and crime is action, not thought or affiliation.

Are you going to call hell to see if they have frost or should i?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Lemon law has the sort of reason and logic that america needs right now to save itself from the moral downhill and isolation its "patriots" are leading her to.

Palehorse74...i bet you wear that hat in real life and you drive a pick-up and your best friend's name is Skitter.

"Bring the dogs Skeeterr , We gat us ah'coupl'ah 'arabs"

lol... wtf?!

1 - As a soldier, I've proudly worn "that hat" for years. You have a problem with that?

2 - I drive a BMW.

3 - I'm an educated, well-read, and well-traveled city boy - living just outside of Washington DC, to be exact - after being raised on a Northeastern beach.

4 - I'm also one of the few folks around here who recognizes that terrorists do not represent the majority of Muslims, and that most Muslims are not even Arab.

good calls Nostradamus! you're on point tonight!

Please aim your poo elsewhere Mr. Eurotrash...

Why, I do apologize for misunderstanding the depths of your wisdom but I can assure you they are not evident in your use of the language. Maybe by being a soldier you often let your sentiments overpower you and i got that wrong as an expression of mindless hate and anger. I will try and be more careful with my poo in the future lest i get some on your posts.

Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

In any case I know now (as you say) that you are educated and I will not use any Skitter remarks from now on

Your misunderstanding Palehorse does not excuse your blatant bigotry.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic
I voted "no" to all but the last. Terrorism is crime, and crime is action, not thought or affiliation.

Are you going to call hell to see if they have frost or should i?

Huh?

This is the core of my worldview FYI. Believe what you want. Associate as you want. One is only responsible for one's actions. Or as Huxley said, "Do what you will, should be the whole of the law, until you violate the rights of another."

 

[alejandroAT]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: alejandroAT

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Lemon law has the sort of reason and logic that america needs right now to save itself from the moral downhill and isolation its "patriots" are leading her to.

Palehorse74...i bet you wear that hat in real life and you drive a pick-up and your best friend's name is Skitter.

"Bring the dogs Skeeterr , We gat us ah'coupl'ah 'arabs"

lol... wtf?!

1 - As a soldier, I've proudly worn "that hat" for years. You have a problem with that?

2 - I drive a BMW.

3 - I'm an educated, well-read, and well-traveled city boy - living just outside of Washington DC, to be exact - after being raised on a Northeastern beach.

4 - I'm also one of the few folks around here who recognizes that terrorists do not represent the majority of Muslims, and that most Muslims are not even Arab.

good calls Nostradamus! you're on point tonight!

Please aim your poo elsewhere Mr. Eurotrash...

Why, I do apologize for misunderstanding the depths of your wisdom but I can assure you they are not evident in your use of the language. Maybe by being a soldier you often let your sentiments overpower you and i got that wrong as an expression of mindless hate and anger. I will try and be more careful with my poo in the future lest i get some on your posts.

Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

In any case I know now (as you say) that you are educated and I will not use any Skitter remarks from now on

Your misunderstanding Palehorse does not excuse your blatant bigotry.

Shouldn't you be busy trying to fend off some imaginary propaganda from the enemies of the free world?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: alejandroAT

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Lemon law has the sort of reason and logic that america needs right now to save itself from the moral downhill and isolation its "patriots" are leading her to.

Palehorse74...i bet you wear that hat in real life and you drive a pick-up and your best friend's name is Skitter.

"Bring the dogs Skeeterr , We gat us ah'coupl'ah 'arabs"

lol... wtf?!

1 - As a soldier, I've proudly worn "that hat" for years. You have a problem with that?

2 - I drive a BMW.

3 - I'm an educated, well-read, and well-traveled city boy - living just outside of Washington DC, to be exact - after being raised on a Northeastern beach.

4 - I'm also one of the few folks around here who recognizes that terrorists do not represent the majority of Muslims, and that most Muslims are not even Arab.

good calls Nostradamus! you're on point tonight!

Please aim your poo elsewhere Mr. Eurotrash...

Why, I do apologize for misunderstanding the depths of your wisdom but I can assure you they are not evident in your use of the language. Maybe by being a soldier you often let your sentiments overpower you and i got that wrong as an expression of mindless hate and anger. I will try and be more careful with my poo in the future lest i get some on your posts.

Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

In any case I know now (as you say) that you are educated and I will not use any Skitter remarks from now on

Your misunderstanding Palehorse does not excuse your blatant bigotry.

Shouldn't you be busy trying to fend off some imaginary propaganda from the enemies of the free world?

Nope, I'm having more fun calling you out as a bigot in this thread, and a liar in another thread....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

I said "just outside of Washington DC" for a reason... The suburbs are just peachy!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

I said "just outside of Washington DC" for a reason... The suburbs are just peachy!

Pff, DC isn't dangerous...certain parts of DC are dangerous if you're a drug dealer or a gang member (south-east, for example). Given the amount of localized gang/drug activity in large American cities, alarming looking murder rates are a little bit misleading. If you're just some random resident in a random part of the city, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over getting murdered.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic
I voted "no" to all but the last. Terrorism is crime, and crime is action, not thought or affiliation.

Are you going to call hell to see if they have frost or should i?

Huh?

This is the core of my worldview FYI. Believe what you want. Associate as you want. One is only responsible for one's actions. Or as Huxley said, "Do what you will, should be the whole of the law, until you violate the rights of another."

As in has hell frosen over because we agree for once?

You seem very very well educated, you could probably slap my fingers on a few quotes i have used in the past, but you seem to lack the ability to see the outcome of the actions you propose which is kinda strange to me since you obviously know history very well, you have a problem seeing what was and applying it to what is, don't you? I've seen you make historical references that made no sense more than once.

But hey, you know shit.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Oh and I must add here that being a Washington DC resident is not to your defense:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm

I said "just outside of Washington DC" for a reason... The suburbs are just peachy!

Pff, DC isn't dangerous...certain parts of DC are dangerous if you're a drug dealer or a gang member (south-east, for example). Given the amount of localized gang/drug activity in large American cities, alarming looking murder rates are a little bit misleading. If you're just some random resident in a random part of the city, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over getting murdered.

Depends on what you are comparing it to, hell you could probably compare anything to Brixton and even downtown Baghdad would come out on top.

London though, is a nice city where crimes are few and it's also taken the crown as the financial headquarter of the world.

You've never had a good one until you've had a Londoner.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Vic
I voted "no" to all but the last. Terrorism is crime, and crime is action, not thought or affiliation.

Ever heard of organized crime? Organized by thought and affiliation.

Now when it is a foreign affiliation, then it?s an act of war in my book.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Vic
I voted "no" to all but the last. Terrorism is crime, and crime is action, not thought or affiliation.

Ever heard of organized crime? Organized by thought and affiliation.

Now when it is a foreign affiliation, then it?s an act of war in my book.

Organized crime is organized through collusion, conspiracy, and an actual formalized structure, ie. actions instead of just thinking the same thoughts.

An act of war though? Who has declared this war, and who should we invade and destroy to win it?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
An act of war though? Who has declared this war, and who should we invade and destroy to win it?

Your questions themselves are as dated as the last century. Warfare has evolved, your understanding of it should evolve as well.

If you insist on thinking invasion, think of invading the Islamic culture and society, specifically on our own soil. If you think of destroying something to win, think of removing by force its supremacists.

Something its own moderates would be doing, if they had any strength in comparison to its supremacists.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
An act of war though? Who has declared this war?

AQ officially did so in 1996.

and who should we invade and destroy to win it?

Anywhere/anyone who harbors AQ "and friends." But we don't need to destroy nations, just the AQ personnel themselves - one or ten at a time.

there, that was easy.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

30 people voting to kill someone for having an OPINION against America? I am not sure what to make of that.