Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 152

Thread: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

  1. #141
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I made nothing up, you've offered NOTHING but what I described. You are simply mincing words in order to be argumentative and conveniently avoid defending your post. But I get the gist of what you are saying...you simply have no intelligent response so you'll yet again refuse to actually explain your point.

    and the mantrum begins....


    And you are in complete denial of your own words. I quoted you, I made nothing up, you said what you said. Run from it now that it's exposed. If I had put my junk on the table and got it smacked with a hammer I'd tuck and run too.

    More worthless ad homs. junk is a good word though, that is all you post, loud mouthed "junk", so far two paragraphs where you claim victory for posting contradictory nonsense and baiting trolling. you rawk!




    Oh looky, more mincing words by Reverend Hellhound! This is the best you have? Complete avoidance of the issue?
    If you remove a nations sovereignty in any way you have "stripped it, taken, removed it, done away with it, etc." You know what the word means, you said they would not be considered sovereign...which entails discarding their sovereignty. I pinned you, you know it. So rather than actually debate your "solution" you will hide behind this milktoast "when did I say strip" defense. I'll accept your surrender on this point.

    Now an intellectually wanting semantics post. You do know when you "scapel" your little hammer into other countries without thier permission you are breaking that county's sovereignty.


    at your "e-command pressence"


    You fail on so many levels.....


    Yeah, when was the last time I challenged you to a...oh wait, not up here.
    Why are you bringing up the basement? I am simply refering to your little mantrums up here. and if you are going to violate vegas, perhaps you should try to at least be honorable about it and not lie.

    No, I know what you claimed you did in the Air Force.

    Like I said, we can compare dd214's any time you want. keep trolling though.



    Are you serious? Like how? You want hypothetical scenarios? What is it about surgical overt operations or covert operations that you don't understand? Why do you need examples? I thought you were high speed low drag and all that, you know you hang out with "operators" and whatnot. This is yet more of your avoidance of actually talking about your solution. I've put my ideas on the table...you've said you'd simply send in more troops and invade more countries. Nothing more. You've yet to provide a single specific.

    yeah I am not going to comment here because I have what cops should have, it is called "self control". this is a vegas violation. Please show some self control



    I know for a fact we can conduct MOUT operations without knocking out power grids and water treatment plants, we can do it without leveling entire city blocks or sections of neighborhoods. Do you know what the **** MOUT actually means? Apparently you read the acronym somewhere because your position here is absolutely lacking in credibility.

    You are losing all self control kid, every paragraph of yours contains a little personal attack or two. is this how you "debate"? pathetic.

    But I love how you think we should send in small man teams without softening up an area as an ONLY solution.


    I think you are more worries about the terrorists and what france thinks of us than the safety of those who serve. shame on you.




    MOUT does not require widespread paths of destruction. MOUT is building to building, room to room, street to street warfare conducted primarily by dismounted troops in an urban environment. The very nature of MOUT is to avoid leveling a city, otherwise we wouldn't send in ground troops until after we had carpet bombed the place into rubble. You really need to just stop. Seriously. I've been there, you obviously have not.
    Again with the personal attacks, give it up kid, all I am doing is laughing at you. See I could come back and slam you left and right, But I wont. Why? because I have what is called self control....


    And you fail as usual... "MOUT" is all military actions that are planned and conducted on a terrain complex where man-made construction affects the tactical options available to the commander.

    perhaps you should be the one "looking it up".....

    FAIL



    No, you are suggesting a one dimensional approach. I'm not. In fact I'm apparently speaking at a macro level that you refuse to rise to.

    FAIL. If you are going to lie, try not to make it so blatant.



    No, you didn't propose anything in detail at all. You said "we invade." I described a multi-dimensional approach. You want to stay the course.
    Fail again. lying gets us nowhere.

    No, I said that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do...did I not? How do you just forget this stuff? I mean seriously, I actually typed out that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, yet here you are asking if I'm suggesting that we should have asked the Taliban for permission? What is wrong with your memory?

    How did we invade Afghanistan without violating sovereignty? you talk out of both sides of your mouth.


    Why do you think I asked you to spell out precisely what nations you would have us invade and what the other stages of your solution would involve? Because I have already said that combat operations where necessary should be conducted. But I was clear that Iraq was an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that? You have yet to answer my question regarding who you think we should invade or on what scale. Why is that again? Do you not like specifics Mr. Reverend Hellhound? Do they bother you? You sure ask for a lot of them.


    simple, because it is a moronic question.... or maybe I should give you Obama's answer and say "Pakistan".... would that make you feel better?



    I wouldn't venture into the woods by myself either if I were you, best to avoid.

    ***yawn***



    Given your inability to actually carry on any form of substantial debate in this thread, I'll go ahead and save my energy. I can recommend some books for you, sorry...they don't have a lot of pictures.

    do you have how to "e-thug and be cool on the internet"?






    And you still haven't posted a single bit of substance to this argument.

    You're welcome.

    Just because you can't argue what I post, claiming that I have not posted a single bit of substance while posting pages of attakcs does not make it true.
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 01-14-09 at 09:03 AM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #142
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Of course, DEBATE AVOIDANCE MANEUVER ENGAGE!

    I ask for clarification and you post this dribble? you are the one avoiding not me...



    Yeah yeah yeah...skip goes the record.


    Your laughable, it throughout my posts. It was "in summary" meaning a summation of points I have brought up throughout. If you don't get what this means then you don't need to be debating me.



    Really? Now you agree with me?

    you call me one dimensional, but when I say that in some of your specifics I agree you think I am "now" agreeing with you? try again kid.

    You post contradictory dribble and ad homs, somewhere in your diarrreah of posts there was bound to be something I agreed with.




    I never proposed an "either or" proposition and you can't link to a single comment I have made that would back that up. You are lying. And I've already summarized. Apparently you can quote my posts but not actually read them.

    How am I lying. I don't expect you to back this up, but hey, worth a try.






    Really, because you've spent an inordinate amount of time saying I've offered up basically nothing. So what exactly about my proposal do you agree with?

    Your "proposal"? laughable, alll you dis was regurgitate some talking points....

    but lets see... we need to take the fight to them for one, engage in diplomatic relationships as another....

    Hell, I'd go back and try to find what you posted, but you post so much vitriolic crap it makes it not worth my time. the immaturity of your massice posts and the little actual substance it carries is not worth it. perhaps if you show a little restraint and stop acting like a kid we can have a good debate.

    Instead you want to lie, you want to attack my service, you want to bring up the basement, and you want to insult. I have been crossing out the useless parts of your posts and as you see what is 2 pages can usually be shortened to two paragraphs. What is your point. Why are you so angry at some dood on the internet?






    Okay, you prefer unilateral military operations. Fine, now I ask you again...what nations and why? On what scale?

    Wait, so when you say "take the fight to the enemy" you want a permission slip from france?

    See here is your problem. I could ask you the same question to figure out where you think that fight is.... but I don't as it is a stupid question. As for "preference" you are once again lying about my position to give yourself something to argue against.....

    It is a miserable failure.



    No, you called it a mini-cold war. That was your description and you said you had given an explanation. I'm an avid student of the Cold War. I would like to see your explanation, that's all. I absolutely understand the oil for food scandal, I understand the failure of the U.N. sanctions, I understand western foreign policy, and I understand the starvation situation in Iraq previous to the U.S. invasion. So, how does this relate to some "mini-cold war" and how does it relate to Islamic terrorism? Do you think that the oil for food program was more to blame for anti-west sentiment than the actual invasion and occupation of Iraq? Since you refuse to link your explanation of this point you've made I'm forced to continually ask you to break it down. Don't just say "oh you know." No, I don't. Not as you are presenting it because it doesn't make any sense.

    hmm. you know. if it were any other poster I would get into it. but naah. all you do is attack, bait and troll. so I will keep it short until you show me the rerspect you want to be treated with....


    suffice to say on this topic, yes the way it was portrayed as to how the "US sanctions" which were "un sanctions" added to anti-US sentiments among many other reasons. the issue was the un refusing to lift them even as we took baghdad because of the hussein kickbacks. had people in the UN, france germany, etc not have been making money, they would not have been so opposed.


    Regarding my "end game," I'm pretty sure in this case, since the topic is to counter the spread of radical Islamic militancy and safeguard our nation against terrorism, I would guess my end game would to counter the spread of radical Islamic terrorism and safeguard our nation against terrorism. That's just off the top of my head. Do you know what an "end game" is?
    Thank you for that beauty pageant response. Mrs. America would be proud....


    duh..... so your answer is to repeat the question as the answer..... laughable....



    Instead of asking me what historical evidence there is of my "end game" working (since that question is simply absurd) you should ask me "what historical evidence is there that your methodology has worked before?" To which I would respond "where have you been for this entire debate?" We have not employed the types of strategies I am suggesting and that is one of the main issue here. What do you think I have been saying? When I say we need to change our foreign policy because historically it's been a complete failure in this area, it's because we haven't ever tried doing it this way in the past and what we are and have been doing hasn't and isn't working. Get it?

    So like I said long ago through many of your winbagged posts..... You don't have an actual "end game" you have nothing but, "this is wrong", you offer no actual solutions but talking points and ambiguous generalities.





    Hahahahaha...omfg....oh you did it, oh my god....nice one! Should I actually answer your question since you are so afraid to answer mine? Sure, I'll answer this one...in the specific case of Afghanistan, more troops, more money, more resources...yes. In that specific instance. But then again, I think you already knew that as I have consistently stated Afghanistan was an example of where we should have gone all out to begin with.

    Good for you. where else? what was even the question, i grew tired of you personal attacks, your lies about me, and your general ethugging.

    Good, however I have never seen you suggest this in any detail. I'm operating in the confines of this discussion, and as far as that goes you have never offered anything of the sort. Point it out please...in this thread, show me where you suggested what I did.


    That's an easy answer and I have it. But this is a case of quid pro quo. You owe me some specific answers. It's pretty shallow of you to refuse to answer my questions, calling them a tangent just because I'm asking for details, and then ask me to oblige you. Drop your act and answer mine first, and I'll reciprocate.

    Please post up specific questions you would like for me to answer. I am not searching through pages of your e-thugging to find what you are talking about.... I will be happy to re-answer anything you ask.





    I didn't make a position and that you did not take, show me where I did. I asked if you understood the issue. I don't think you do. I do blame righty, the neo-con administration of GWB was responsible for Iraq. The new front, the one IN IRAQ, is one that did not exist previous to our invasion. Again, what is so hard for you to connect with here? How many Iraqi's were blowing themselves up or setting car bombs or throwing hand grenades at coalition forces or civilians in Iraq prior to our invasion. Hint...it's a trick question.

    ***yawn*** and if Clinton had the balls to go into Iraq like he claimed he wanted to you would be singing his praises.....


    your loaded question is ignorant to the reality there.


    What? You don't like it when I turn your own words on you? When I point out what a very poor job your doing within this debate and articulate that you have absolutely no command over the subject at hand? Yeah, it's drama right? Puerile and ignorant....big words huh Reverend Hellhound?

    ***yawn***


    please attempt to leave your puerile nonsense out of it. thanks
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #143
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    You are confusing the term "Islamic fundamentalism" with "Islamic extremism". Most "moderate" Muslims are fundamentalist in that they follow a fundamental interpretation of their religious text.
    I think many moderate Muslims are not following the fundamental interpretation of Islam because of the way they are breaking with tradition. As I see it, fundamentalism is a strict and literal adherence to teachings of the Quran and Islamic tradition (not necessarily extremism as I apply that term primarily to militant radicals...however one could argue that fundamentalism is extreme compared to moderate practice).

    In moderate Muslims you see many still proclaiming to follow Islam, yet they are modernizing and abandoning many of the traditional practices. You can see it in how they dress, how they interact with females in public, the fact that they don't pray five times a day, that they drink alcohol, that they are tolerant of other religions, etc. A key example would be that feel the call for armed jihad is simply a thing of the past. This is stark contrast with true fundamentalists live their life by the book.

    The vast majority of militant clerics are considered fundamentalists (although not all Islamic terrorists are fundamentalists). The clerics exploit the weakness of their followers fundamentalism by using the teachings in a way that convince them they must act out against the infidels if they are truly good Muslims.

    I understand what you are getting at, and in the context of the discussion perhaps more clarification should be given when using the terms extremist, fundamentalist, etc.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #144
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    and the mantrum begins....




    More worthless ad homs. junk is a good word though, that is all you post, loud mouthed "junk", so far two paragraphs where you claim victory for posting contradictory nonsense and baiting trolling. you rawk!






    Now an intellectually wanting semantics post. You do know when you "scapel" your little hammer into other countries without thier permission you are breaking that county's sovereignty.


    at your "e-command pressence"


    You fail on so many levels.....




    Why are you bringing up the basement? I am simply refering to your little mantrums up here. and if you are going to violate vegas, perhaps you should try to at least be honorable about it and not lie.




    Like I said, we can compare dd214's any time you want. keep trolling though.





    yeah I am not going to comment here because I have what cops should have, it is called "self control". this is a vegas violation. Please show some self control





    You are losing all self control kid, every paragraph of yours contains a little personal attack or two. is this how you "debate"? pathetic.

    But I love how you think we should send in small man teams without softening up an area as an ONLY solution.


    I think you are more worries about the terrorists and what france thinks of us than the safety of those who serve. shame on you.





    Again with the personal attacks, give it up kid, all I am doing is laughing at you. See I could come back and slam you left and right, But I wont. Why? because I have what is called self control....


    And you fail as usual... "MOUT" is all military actions that are planned and conducted on a terrain complex where man-made construction affects the tactical options available to the commander.

    perhaps you should be the one "looking it up".....

    FAIL

    The fail is in your inability to actually understand the context of the conversation we were in. Hence your perceived victory here. You simply don't get it. Just because you post an all inclusive definition does not mean you even grasp the concept of how MOUT warfare should be conducted let alone why we shouldn't just level whole neighborhoods. The FAIL here isn't on my part.






    FAIL. If you are going to lie, try not to make it so blatant.





    Fail again. lying gets us nowhere.




    How did we invade Afghanistan without violating sovereignty? you talk out of both sides of your mouth.






    simple, because it is a moronic question.... or maybe I should give you Obama's answer and say "Pakistan".... would that make you feel better?





    ***yawn***





    do you have how to "e-thug and be cool on the internet"?









    Just because you can't argue what I post, claiming that I have not posted a single bit of substance while posting pages of attakcs does not make it true.
    No explanations yet. Whining about ad hom while 90% of your post is nothing but. And still completely devoid of any talk of your expanding upon your solution, as I have repeatedly requested.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 01-14-09 at 11:12 AM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #145
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No explanations yet. Whining about ad hom while 90% of your post is nothing but. And still completely devoid of any talk of your expanding upon your solution, as I have repeatedly requested.



    Here let me try your method...

    "I think we should have world peace and people should just hug each other"?

    SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY OR YOU WOULD KNOW WORLD PEACE IS THE END GAME!!

    YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD KILL ALL ARABS. WHY WON'T YOU TELL ME WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULD KILL ALL ARABS!!!!

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....


    uhm yeah., I have better things to do than to deal with this sort of nonsense.


    How is that.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #146
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Here let me try your method...





    uhm yeah., I have better things to do than to deal with this sort of nonsense.


    How is that.
    If I were you I would start with simply explaining your "solution." So far all you have done is agree with mine after claiming I didn't have one. And now you are just getting mad.

    This whole thing can get back on track if you would simply substantiate what you claimed in this argument. It's all I've asked you to do. What you are doing is taking shots at me, and when I respond exposing your anemic tactic for what it is, you complain about me baiting and cat calling you.

    But if that is all you are interested in.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #147
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    If I were you I would start with simply explaining your "solution." So far all you have done is agree with mine after claiming I didn't have one. And now you are just getting mad.
    I am not like you lerxst, I don't get mad at the Internet.

    This whole thing can get back on track if you would simply substantiate what you claimed in this argument. It's all I've asked you to do. What you are doing is taking shots at me, and when I respond exposing your anemic tactic for what it is, you complain about me baiting and cat calling you.

    But if that is all you are interested in.

    Yeah are you serious? Are you suggesting that after pages of your ad homs, that I am the one taking shots at you?


    Please.


    I asked you last post, What specific questions do you want me to answer?


    As far as a solution goes, Id be happy to get into it once you provide your solution, other than regurgitating slogans and ambiguous goals as long as you leave out the nonsense that mucks up your posts.


    Like I said brother, you want respect you need to show some.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #148
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Wow...just wow. Okay, I see what you are doing. And that's fine. You're done. Whenever you are interested in actually debating and not making me repeat myself, you just let me know. The very specific questions I asked you are still here in the thread, my ideas (ones you have said you agree with already) are still right here in this thread. I don't know if your scroll button doesn't work or what, but I'm not doing this dance anymore.
    *insert profound statement here*

  9. #149
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Wow...just wow. Okay, I see what you are doing. And that's fine. You're done. Whenever you are interested in actually debating and not making me repeat myself, you just let me know. The very specific questions I asked you are still here in the thread, my ideas (ones you have said you agree with already) are still right here in this thread. I don't know if your scroll button doesn't work or what, but I'm not doing this dance anymore.

    I just have no interest in wading through your crap.

    Ah well

    buh Bye!
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #150
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    It is a fetish. And I don't deny that the concern with root causes is "real." Of course it's real. My problem is that the root causes fetish is dangerous as it leads us to avoid dealing with the real root cause...Islamic violence.
    Modern and moderate Islam is discarding the use of violence as a practice. I agree that there is still a fundamental application of violence within the religion as it is practiced by some, but not the majority.

    Instead, this root causes business has caused us to blame the victims rather than the perps.
    This reminds me of the "liberals empower terrorists" rhetoric. Your logic is wrong. The root causes analysis, when done with honesty, expose the culpability of all involved. Western interventionism in the Middle East has, for decades, been anything but benevolent. It has consistently been focused on forwarding U.S. interests and very rarely been focused on interests of the citizens of the nation being intervened within. The west absolutely has culpability in this situation.

    In other words, this root causes analysis typically leads to some vague notion of American or western culpability. I call it a fetish because it seems to be driven by some anti-American, anti-western attitude.
    Again I completely disagree with your. Your attitude is a prime example of the problem here. Complete denial of culpability in the face of decades worth of evidence to the contrary. Us against them, they are wrong, we are right.

    Colonialism, poverty, US troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.
    Those are actual contributing problems and they haven't gone away nor has the message changed.

    You're quibbling on the margins.
    Not at all. You're dismissing western transgressions for apparently no reason at all other than you view Islam negatively.

    The core reason politicians and scholars have settled on to explain Islamic terrorism is the Israel/Palestinian problem. That problem, they argue, is the reason why Muslims commit acts of terrorism against the US, Europe, and elsewhere...a form of protest against the West's support for Israel.

    But didn't you understand my point? I was arguing the falsity of that conclusion made by politicians and scholars by noting that Islamic terrorism occurs all over the world and in places where the Israeli/Palestinian problem is a not of any concern at all.
    I understand this point, but you didn't make it clear in your first comment. I agree that some scholars and many politicians pin the reason for Islamic terrorism on the Palestinian problem, and some scholars and almost all politicians shy away from the history of violence as taught by many fundamentalists and extremists within Islam. And I agree that they are wrong to place such a limited view on the problem.

    However I also think people with your mindset are also a big part of the problem as you seemingly refuse to recognize the west's culpability in the issue. The middle east, one of the most resource rich regions on the planet in terms of being able to produce monetary gain for the nations located there, is rife with economic disparity, corruption, and religious strife. Our interventionism in that region has had a direct impact on how the modern middle east has been shaped and how it's politics have played out.

    Moderate Islam is a minority, outside the mainstream.
    I disagree.

    Not at all. It's the realization that Islam promotes violence. It's from this core of Islam that Islamic extremism flows. Islam teaches that violence is an appropriate method to redress grievances.
    Modernist practice of Islam, and moderate thinking is shunning violence and encouraging tolerance. And it's spreading not only in the Middle East but throughout the nation of Islam as a whole. Like Christianity, Islam is turning the corner...it's just taken a long time to get going.

    I don't care if you don't find it clever.
    Yay.

    The fact is that terrorism is a manifestation of a disease, a symptom, not the disease itself.
    Your attitude is the manifestation of intolerance and bigotry towards Muslims.

    And the west's problem is it's unwillingness or inability to confront even the possibility that islaimic terrorism is, you know, at all connected to...~gasp~...Islam.
    No, the wests problem is it's inability to understand or care why there is such strife within the Muslim nations. Decades of oppression, repression, poverty, and dictatorial rule have a lot to do with why Islam has taken so long to modernize. Nobody argues that Islamic terrorism isn't associated with Islam. Your statement is absurd.

    The focus on so-called "root causes" leads to finding socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel.
    Because that is where much of the problem lies and why it's taken so long for Islam to begin modernizing.

    What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? If the problem is not connected to Islamic beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

    Well?
    Your logic depends entirely upon you setting up and framing your questions in such a way that no intelligent, objective answer can be given other than to say "that is a ridiculous statement." Western progressives do not pave the way for Islamic barbarity, to say so would require one to adopt your flawed point of view. Nobody argues that Islamic violence is not connected to Islam.

    Regarding your comment about "Christians" living among Muslims under identical circumstances I would challenge you to look up the Kataeb Party, otherwise known as the Christian Phalange, in Lebanon and then tell me Christians in the middle east don't practice violence and terrorism. I would also challenge you to look up the many years of Jewish terrorism in the region. Try Gush Emunim Underground, Terror Against Terror (formed by the Kach political movement), Egrof Magen (Defending Shield), Irgun, and the Stern Gang.

    In Ireland Catholics and Protestants both indulged in horrible acts of terrorism and violence. In central and south America where religion is predominantly Christian (Catholic dominated for the most part) terrorism gripped nations by the throat for decades.

    So tell me how Christians haven't resorted to terrorism. Christianity is the disease right? Judaism is the disease right?

    Terrorism is a methodology applied by religious and non-religious groups as well as governmental and non-governmental organizations.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 01-14-09 at 11:30 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •