Page 52 of 59 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 587

Thread: Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

  1. #511
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Only from their apologists.
    President Bush was one of their "apologists"?

    But whether you want to call him a combatant or an unlawful combatant, he's still a combatant and thus fair game.
    He isn't a combatant.



    Ooops. But isn't he encouraging combatism by wanting a 'brave Muslim' to murder 300,000 Americans? It seems in common law those who aid, abet and encourage criminal behaviour, especially on such a grand scale (even if it is just Americans) are also equally guilty of a crime. Have you not heard of this?
    Guilty of a crime =/= terrorism. Terrorism has a specific definition.


    Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is an ideology?
    Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is a goal realted to an ideology.

    Oh, Thanks. I'll have to follow that more closely.
    No problem.


    So we let him continue his search for a brave Muslims and then hope to discover who it might be before he/she kills 300,000 Americans. Is that your plan? You want to catch him/her in the act? I hope they don't think to hide it under a burka or we'll never catch them.
    We can negate the effectiveness of his rhetoric by incorporating counter-measures. As far as catching terrorists prior to an attack happening, there is ample evidence to suggest this is possible.

    I find this a little risky for some reason. For example, what if we don't catch him with the anthrax and 300,000 Americans die? What's your follow-up plan?
    It seems as though you think killing the professor in will magically prevent anyone form carrying out such an attack. I don't think that there is any reason to assume this is true. Even if this professor is dead, the things I'm talking about must occur to try and prevent such an attack because there is the video of the speech that we are discussing. Him being dead cannot possibly prevent anything.

    What's very risky, IMO is assuming that killing him would magically prevent someone from carrying out the type of attacks he described. It's veryrisky to treat killing him as though it is a preventative measure because it lets the guard down after such a fruitless action is engaged in.
    If we find him, or her. Do you think that will be easy?
    It isn't going to be any easier with him dead.

    You seems to be making up some very strict rules for the Americans that the unlawful combatants don't have to follow at all.
    I'm not making them up. And the reason they are called "unlawful"combatants is pretty much because they don't follow the same types of rules.

    Is that fair?
    What could fairness possibly have to do with it?



    But you want to wait until a combatant has enough anthrax to kill 300,000 Americans and then they should make their move, right?
    No. they don't even have to get it. The attempt to get anthrax at any quantity alone is enough.

    I think I've sufficiently outlined the flaws in this plan.
    You haven't outlined any flaws at all. You've comitted quite a few, though.


    Thanks
    No need to thank me for stating that which is obvious.

    Are you sure you're responding to the right post??
    Quite sure.

    No, of course not. Words can mean exactly what you want them to mean. Nothing more and nothing less.
    Words mean what they are defined to mean. Perhaps the fact that you think you can have them mean whatever you would like them to mean is why your argumetns have so many equivocations.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #512
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Dropping the bombs on Japan is the exact definition of terrorism. It was used to terrorize the Japanese into surrendering. Hence terrorism.

    You can try and justify it all you want, but the shear power, size, and eventually civilian causality loss was far beyond simply a "military target". It was meant to terrorize and it worked.

    I don't doubt for a second that if Al-Qaeda got their hands on a full nuke and detonated it in Ft. Bragg or Ft. Hood (a military target) that killed millions of civilians outside the base, you would be ranting and raving it was a terrorist attack.
    Just like Pearl Harbor

  3. #513
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post

    So you haven't sat here justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki repeatedly? Has someone else been posting under your username?
    Ummm....Our motivation for area and firebombing? Sure, why not...

    1- We took the war to the people of Japan to cripple, the industrial capacity of the Japanese to wage war...not because, we wanted to personally incinerate 800,000 Japanese civilians. We have to be very clear and serious about this

    2- We tried to use the same tactics against Japan as the AAF did against Germany...namely daylight precision bombing against industrial and transportation type targets. This was the doctrine espoused by the ACTS and pretty much was the accepted doctrine of the AAF during the majority of WWII.

    But due to a number of issues, including weather, altitude and the jet stream, precision bombing was mostly unsuccessful, the US noted some key differences between Japan and Germany. While Japan did have "industrial" sections of cities, generally speaking, the Japanese had less separation and zoning of residential, commercial and industrial sectors than European cities. In addition, the Japanese had done a pretty good job of dispersing much of their industrial capabilities into the urban sections of cities. Finally, the construction of Japanese cities was much more flammable and susceptible to firebombing....and lastly

    3 - Civ deaths have occurred when the enemy deliberately places military equipment/troop/hardware among civilians so as to produce the civilian casualties.


    I don't think you have an understanding of the "arab" mindset at all given what you say here. Why should I believe that you can "educate" me when I see no evidence that would support such a hypothesis?

    You realize that this type of reasoning could be used to justify 9/11 right? It's also the essential argument provided by the advocates of terrorism.

    I'm sure that you have a theory on when the fight between the US and the ME actually began, since you place a primacy on it. Perhaps you can share it. I'd love to see what you feel the "beginning" was.

    If the definition of terrorist that you are using is devoid of logical consistency, then eventually you will become one yourself and will use the same rationalizations to justify your own acts of terror.
    1- I don't know about you, but I am an advocate of pre-emptive operations in the right circumstances. A dead jihadi is a good jihadi. He won't kill civilians or our troops or set off anymore bombs, and (if he's correct, which I don't believe) he's in heaven with his 72 virgins. Sounds like a win/win result to me.

    2- IMO, we should have gone to a war footing after the 93 bombing at the very latest. The very idea that we are going to arrest and try these assholes is ridiculous beyond all belief. Locking these sons of bitches up is a complete waste of time. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood's history in Egyptian jails. 10-15-20-25 years doesn't even phase them...

    3 Again, it is a marksmanship issue, there should never be any such thing as a "wounded" tango. Shoot them right the first time and you don't have to worry about shooting them again.
    Last edited by ric27; 09-28-10 at 12:59 AM.

  4. #514
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Ummm....Our motivation for area and firebombing? Sure, why not...

    1- We took the war to the people of Japan to cripple, the industrial capacity of the Japanese to wage war...not because, we wanted to personally incinerate 800,000 Japanese civilians. We have to be very clear and serious about this

    2- We tried to use the same tactics against Japan as the AAF did against Germany...namely daylight precision bombing against industrial and transportation type targets. This was the doctrine espoused by the ACTS and pretty much was the accepted doctrine of the AAF during the majority of WWII.

    But due to a number of issues, including weather, altitude and the jet stream, precision bombing was mostly unsuccessful, the US noted some key differences between Japan and Germany. While Japan did have "industrial" sections of cities, generally speaking, the Japanese had less separation and zoning of residential, commercial and industrial sectors than European cities. In addition, the Japanese had done a pretty good job of dispersing much of their industrial capabilities into the urban sections of cities. Finally, the construction of Japanese cities was much more flammable and susceptible to firebombing....and lastly

    3 - Civ deaths have occurred when the enemy deliberately places military equipment/troop/hardware among civilians so as to produce the civilian casualties.
    Then that makes your statement of "I would never 'off' an "innocent" especially kids. Thats the difference " absolutely false.



    1- I don't know about you, but I am an advocate of pre-emptive operations in the right circumstances. A dead jihadi is a good jihadi. He won't kill civilians or our troops or set off anymore bombs, and (if he's correct, which I don't believe) he's in heaven with his 72 virgins. Sounds like a win/win result to me.

    2- IMO, we should have gone to a war footing after the 93 bombing at the very latest. The very idea that we are going to arrest and try these assholes is ridiculous beyond all belief. Locking these sons of bitches up is a complete waste of time. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood's history in Egyptian jails. 10-15-20-25 years doesn't even phase them...

    3 Again, it is a marksmanship issue, there should never be any such thing as a "wounded" tango. Shoot them right the first time and you don't have to worry about shooting them again.
    This is interesting and all, but it doesn't really address what was beign talked about with my post.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #515
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    [QUOTE=Tucker Case;1059008335]President Bush was one of their "apologists"?

    On occasion, certainly.

    He isn't a combatant.
    Of course he is. He's a recruiter. He serves a function in terrorism just as the moneymen or their Imam issuing Fatwas. You don't actually have to be the person placing the bomb under the bus seat or the one shooting a little girl though the head, or the ones spraying bullets through an airport lounge in order to e involved in terrorism. There is no reason why the American people, or anyone, should allow him to continue his search for that 'one brave Muslim' who will kill 300,000 Americans.

    In any war you have to changing tactics according to the terrain, and not making those changes have usually spelled defeat. The Western Democracies therefore have to begin using terrorist tactics and begin issuing fatwas of their own.

    They can put a reward of $1 million on this guys head, for example, and anyone else who makes threats to the American people. The British, French, Dutch, Canadians, Australians and anyone else can do the same. Fatwas don't just have to work in one direction. Of course the push against Al-`Qaeda and any terrorist organization would continue. But eliminating the preachers of hate would go a long way in bringing down the recruitment program.
    Guilty of a crime =/= terrorism. Terrorism has a specific definition.
    Crime has specific definitions. One of them is called aiding and abetting. Masterminding the crime is another. There are many levels of involvement.

    Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is a goal realted to an ideology.
    Right, and not an ideology in itself as you previously stated. This ideology must be stopped as well as the consequent murdering of innocent people.
    We can negate the effectiveness of his rhetoric by incorporating counter-measures. As far as catching terrorists prior to an attack happening, there is ample evidence to suggest this is possible.
    Certainly it is possible, but I want more assurance that "it is possible" to stop them if my family was being threatened. If they were actually carry out these mass killings what do you think would happen next?

    The West has become so disgustingly weak.

    A formerly unknown preacher from Florida becomes internationally famous for threatening to burn pages of the Koran. he gets a phone call from the US President, military heads, and even movies stars. He is vilified to the point where they called in the mortgage to his Church, cut off his Internet page and made him a non person.

    Meanwhile, a Muslim who wants to kill 300,000 Americans, not just burn the Bible, gets no attention at all. In fact you claim, and there are many like you, who say he is not a terrorist, he is a combatant, unlawful combatant, etc. hoping to find the right euphemism that will make this guy appear as non threatening as possible and reminding others to watch over his legal rights, while the rights of the preacher in Florida have been trampled upon. First Amendment figuratively set ablaze.

    It seems as though you think killing the professor in will magically prevent anyone form carrying out such an attack.
    Forget the "it seems" silliness and go with what I say. This is old left wing response is always used when they are stuck for any meaningful response, which is why I often have to ask them for quotes.
    I don't think that there is any reason to assume this is true. Even if this professor is dead, the things I'm talking about must occur to try and prevent such an attack because there is the video of the speech that we are discussing. Him being dead cannot possibly prevent anything.
    I'm saying we issue a fataw on all those who advocate violence against the West. $1 Million a pop. That should slow down the recruitment process a great deal.

    What's very risky, IMO is assuming that killing him would magically prevent someone from carrying out the type of attacks he described. It's veryrisky to treat killing him as though it is a preventative measure because it lets the guard down after such a fruitless action is engaged in.
    This is war and of course it is risky. But relying on the good will of terrorists with hopes of appeasing them somehow only makes you appear more weak and leads to them becoming more bold.


    It isn't going to be any easier with him dead.
    It won't just be him. Just as they concentrating on the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan, rather than killing a lot of innocent people, so should we concentrate on these recruiters, and anyone who makes similar threats..

    I'm not making them up. And the reason they are called "unlawful"combatants is pretty much because they don't follow the same types of rules.
    Well you can continue your struggle to find the right euphemism while these guys are planning on the murders of hundreds of thousands of people. You'll be on the back lines of defense, just as are most Lefties. continuing to seek out words that will cause terrorists as little offense as possible.

    What could fairness possibly have to do with it?
    Do you think that fighting fire with fire is fair? That if the West adopts the tactics of the Islamic terrorists you'd be cool with that?
    No. they don't even have to get it. The attempt to get anthrax at any quantity alone is enough.

    And it's at that point that you hope to catch them? But according to you they are still "non combatants" They haven't really done anything yet. Only when they are caught dumping the stuff, as described in the instructions in the video, can they be held accountable. Right?

  6. #516
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The Western Democracies therefore have to begin using terrorist tactics and begin issuing fatwas of their own.
    Then I was right and you do support terrorism. Thank you for at least admitting it.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #517
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Then that makes your statement of "I would never 'off' an "innocent" especially kids. Thats the difference " absolutely false.
    Hmmmm......Only one problem with your "reasoned" approach. There are almost no innocents other than small children. 99% of the population may not actively attack us, but they won't help us because we're infidels and the terrorist are muslim. That's just the way it is.

    I say, if you sleep with the dogs, you wake up with fleas. If they want to support the terrorists, actively or passively, then they deserve what happens. I'm in favor of a 5000 degree response. Teach them what a real crispy critter is.



    This is interesting and all, but it doesn't really address what was beign talked about with my post.
    Take a step back. Terrorists have figured out the rules better than we have. As long as play by the "rules", their tactic will win. We cannot defeat this mindset unless we change the rules by which we play.

    Now, take a look at history. How long has it taken them to come to this mindset? A generation. They weren't blowing themselves up in 1948. They weren't blowing themselves up in the 60's. It wasn't really until the '80s that intentionally suicidal tactics started to appear. I haven't done any kind of a historical search, but I'm thinking of the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. While the Battle of Mogadishu wasn't deliberately "suicidal", they didn't really care about the casualties they took.

    So if you look at the timeline, that is how long it has taken to get to this "worship of death". The question is, how widespread will it get? Mothers having children just to be suicide killers seems to be limited mainly to Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. When you see it being widely taught in the other Muslim countries, then we'll know that the problem is REALLY big. I don't think that is the case however.

    I don't think you'll see a shift in our rules until the attacks start happening in the US on a regular basis. Right now, the pacifist left can continue their misguided rhetoric that if we only pulled out of the ME, if we only stopped our support of Israel, we wouldn't have a problem. Until there is no longer any physical avenue of retreat, the national mindset can't be changed.

    It will probably be another 8-14 years before we start to see suicide attacks in the US, increasing until they are occurring on a regular basis. It will be 25 years before the national mindset will change to the point that collateral damages merit a shrug or less.

  8. #518
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Hmmmm......Only one problem with your "reasoned" approach. There are almost no innocents other than small children. 99% of the population may not actively attack us, but they won't help us because we're infidels and the terrorist are muslim. That's just the way it is.
    So, using your logic from before, you would therefore be OK with offing 99% of their population as long as it doesn't involve the small children? Is that correct?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #519
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Then I was right and you do support terrorism. Thank you for at least admitting it.
    You still don't understand the meaning of terrorism, do you?

    Please look it up in the dictionary before you contribute any further posts on the subject.

  10. #520
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You still don't understand the meaning of terrorism, do you?

    Please look it up in the dictionary before you contribute any further posts on the subject.
    Please look up the definition of "terrorist tactics" before you pretend that I don't know the definition.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 52 of 59 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 ... 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
  •