Where I live - Center of Terror?

[sub_zer0]

Hey all, in case you didn't know I live in Seattle with a liberal and down right idiotic government at times, although it was good to see the Supreme Court shoot down gay-marriage to where it is supposed to be, un-constitutional.

Anyway, point is, today there was a terrorist act, immediately what I thought before it was confirmed. It happened at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, right smack dab in downtown, about 15 minutes away from my house!

This crazy act in the name of Allah was done by a 31 year old Pakistani man stormed in there announcing, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel."

A hospital spokesman said five women were brought in, and three of them are in critical condition. Three are in their 20s, one is 19 and the other is 43. The 43-year-old was shot in the abdomen. One of the victims is in her 17th week of pregnancy.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51293

What is disturbing is that I was thinking that terrorists, or homegrown not necessarily connected with al Qaeda just share their ideology terrorist, were gonna start hitting "soft targets", which will literally cripple our economy if coordinated enough.

[JoeR]

Gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. It was ruled that making it legal was constitutionally acceptable. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do though.

What is the point you are trying to make?

[sub_zer0]

Gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. It was ruled that making it legal was constitutionally acceptable. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do though.

What is the point you are trying to make?

The court said it was un-constitutional, sorry.

Read my topic...

Anyway, point is, today there was a terrorist act, immediately what I thought before it was confirmed. It happened at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, right smack dab in downtown, about 15 minutes away from my house!

[JoeR]

The court said it was un-constitutional, sorry.

No, gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. It's just not constitutionally required to be legal. Do you not understand this?

So are you just reporting an attack or using this as an indictment of Muslims?

[Zephyr]

No, gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. It's just not constitutionally required to be legal. Do you not understand this?

So are you just reporting an attack or using this as an indictment of Muslims?
The source itself seems pretty damn pro-jew, anti-muslim.

[Lumpen Prole]

Liberty and equality are not unconstitutional.

[sub_zer0]

No, gay marriage isn't unconstitutional. It's just not constitutionally required to be legal. Do you not understand this?

So are you just reporting an attack or using this as an indictment of Muslims?

My goodness, read what I said. I said Seattle supreme court just ruled that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I was only stating that to reflect the suprise decision made as Washington is a liberal state.

[sub_zer0]

Are people really hating onthis board about the source reporting on the incident instead of stating outrage of this terrorist attack in our own country?

Seattle PI - HERE (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/popup.asp?gtitle=Shooting%20at%20the%20Seattle%20J ewish%20Federation&SubID=1614&page=0&css=gtitle.css&pubdate=07/28/06)

[Lumpen Prole]

My goodness, read what I said. I said Seattle supreme court just ruled that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I was only stating that to reflect the suprise decision made as Washington is a liberal state.

Source, please. We don't really like to make a habit of believing things you say. :flowers:

[sub_zer0]

Source, please. We don't really like to make a habit of believing things you say. :flowers:

HAHA, source. Why would I be lying?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/278896_samesex26ww.html

[Zephyr]

Are people really hating onthis board about the source reporting on the incident instead of stating outrage of this terrorist attack in our own country?

Seattle PI - HERE (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/popup.asp?gtitle=Shooting%20at%20the%20Seattle%20J ewish%20Federation&SubID=1614&page=0&css=gtitle.css&pubdate=07/28/06)
Yeah, Seattle is a big city. I've been lost there many many many times. There was a shooting there. Big deal. Crimes in big cities is nothing new dude.

[Lumpen Prole]

HAHA, source. Why would I be lying?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/278896_samesex26ww.html

Learn to read. Same source:

She wrote that the same-sex couples failed to prove that they had a fundamental right to marry, or that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.



The ruling was that the Defense of Marriage Act wasn't unconstitutional, not that gay marriage is unconstitutional.

[sub_zer0]

Learn to read. Same source:



Is that clear enough, or do I need to put in bold and enlarge the font? The Defense of Marriage Act was ruled to be unconstitutional. Do you know what that is? Here:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act


:lol:

I know: "First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state."

The court denied what is in bold and reinforced marriage between a man and a woman.

[Zephyr]

EDITTTTTTTTTT
Don't worry. Happens to the best of us, and sometimes to me.

[sub_zer0]

Yeah, Seattle is a big city. I've been lost there many many many times. There was a shooting there. Big deal. Crimes in big cities is nothing new dude.

This is a terrorist act in our COUNTRY!

Terrorist = hates Jews and Israel
Person who did the crime in my state = hates Jews and Israel so he killed Jews.

Why is it a terrorist act by Hizbollah when they get two soldierd but not when this guy trys to murder Jews?

[Lumpen Prole]

I know: "First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state."

The court denied what is in bold and reinforced marriage between a man and a woman.

Re-read my post; it's edited.

[sub_zer0]

Learn to read. Same source:



The ruling was that the Defense of Marriage Act wasn't unconstitutional, not that gay marriage is unconstitutional.


I'm wondering what about, "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," is saying gay marriage is constitutional.

[Lumpen Prole]

This is a terrorist act in our COUNTRY!

Terrorist = hates Jews and Israel
Person who did the crime in my state = hates Jews and Israel so he killed Jews.


This guy shot some people. If that makes someone a terrorist (and I'm certainly not arguing that it doesn't), then hundreds of terrorists attacks occur in our country every single day.

[Zephyr]

This is a terrorist act in our COUNTRY!

Terrorist = hates Jews and Israel
Person who did the crime in my state = hates Jews and Israel so he killed Jews.

Why is it a terrorist act by Hizbollah when they get two soldierd but not when this guy trys to murder Jews?
I hate Israel with a passion (I'm a bit more neutral towards the Jews). Am I a terrorist? What makes that man attacking them any different from the craploads of other hate crimes that happen around here?

[sub_zer0]

This guy shot some people. If that makes someone a terrorist (and I'm certainly not arguing that it doesn't), then hundreds of terrorists attacks occur in our country every single day.

Did you not see what the guy had in common with terrorists? Not only does he hate Jews, he kills them and is a Muslim!

[sub_zer0]

I hate Israel with a passion (I'm a bit more neutral towards the Jews). Am I a terrorist? What makes that man attacking them any different from the craploads of other hate crimes that happen around here?

No, but when you kill Jews with that hate for Israel YOU ARE!

If you can't see the difference between gunning for Jews and just saying something, You need HELP!

[Zephyr]

Did you not see what the guy had in common with terrorists? Not only does he hate Jews, he kills them and is a Muslim!
Ok, so he's a terrorist cause he's a muslim criminal :lol:

Gotcha.

[dittohead not!]

What connection could there possibly be between a nutcase Muslim shooting at Jews and homosexual marriage? Why obfuscate what is a terrible crime by adding in some unrelated political issue?

Was this guy a homosexual frustrated by lack of marriage, or was he a deranged man who went off the deep end and started shooting?

[Lumpen Prole]

I'm wondering what about, "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," is saying gay marriage is constitutional.

Once again, the ruling was that the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional. That means a state can legally deny a gay couple marital rights if it chooses to.

[sub_zer0]

Ok, so he's a terrorist cause he's a muslim criminal :lol:

Gotcha.

No, he is a terrorist because he is muslim, says he hates israel (obviously agrees with Hizbollah as they hate Israel), so he KILLED JEWS!

See the diff? HE KILLED JEWS. He isn't just a criminal, but a murderer.

[Lumpen Prole]

Did you not see what the guy had in common with terrorists? Not only does he hate Jews, he kills them and is a Muslim!

Hating someone doesn't make you a terrorist. Being Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist. A white protestant could be a terrorist.

[sub_zer0]

Once again, the ruling was that the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional. That means a state can legally deny a gay couple marital rights if it chooses to.

EXACTLY! Doesn't mean they said that gay marriage is constitutional or that it ever was to begin with.

[sub_zer0]

Hating someone doesn't make you a terrorist. Being Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist. A white protestant could be a terrorist.

What don't you get about him KILLING Jews and how that seperates him from regular Muslims?

[Lumpen Prole]

No, he is a terrorist because he is muslim, says he hates israel (obviously agrees with Hizbollah as they hate Israel), so he KILLED JEWS!

See the diff? HE KILLED JEWS. He isn't just a criminal, but a murderer.

No, he's a terrorist because he KILLED SOMEONE. It could've been a black guy who hated Jews, or a white guy who hated children.

[Zephyr]

No, he is a terrorist because he is muslim, says he hates israel (obviously agrees with Hizbollah as they hate Israel), so he KILLED JEWS!

See the diff? HE KILLED JEWS. He isn't just a criminal, but a murderer.
Yes, he's a murderer. There are many murderers. There are many murderers who kill people because they don't like their race, religion, or something else.

I hate Israel, but I don't necesarily agree with Hizb'allah.

[sub_zer0]

No, he's a terrorist because he KILLED SOMEONE. It could've been a black guy who hated Jews, or a white guy who hated children.

Terrorist is the one who uses terror, terror is:
1 : a state of intense fear

If they cause that, they are a terrorist, since that guy shot at Jews he causes not only them, but the entire Jewish community of Seattle to be in terror.

[Lumpen Prole]

What don't you get about him KILLING Jews and how that seperates him from regular Muslims?

You can be Muslim and hate Jews and not be a terrorist. A Muslim who hates Jews and then kills some (like this guy) is a terrorist.

[Lumpen Prole]

Terrorist is the one who uses terror, terror is:
1 : a state of intense fear

If they cause that, they are a terrorist, since that guy shot at Jews he causes not only them, but the entire Jewish community of Seattle to be in terror.

You still don't understand. I agree that this guy is a terrorist. He's a terrorist for murdering people, though--not for being a Jewish-hating Muslim.

[sub_zer0]

You can be Muslim and hate Jews and not be a terrorist. A Muslim who hates Jews and then kills some (like this guy) is a terrorist.

I don't remember using the word hate, I think I used KILL this whole time, I have associated the word kill with muslim and terrorist, that is what he is, you have said nothing new.

[Zephyr]

Terrorist is the one who uses terror, terror is:
1 : a state of intense fear

If they cause that, they are a terrorist, since that guy shot at Jews he causes not only them, but the entire Jewish community of Seattle to be in terror.
Then just about every murderer is a terrorist to those in his area.

[sub_zer0]

You still don't understand. I agree that this guy is a terrorist. He's a terrorist for murdering people, though--not being a Jewish-hating Muslim.

I don't understand, yet you are agreeing with what I have been saying this whole time? lol

[sub_zer0]

Then just about every murderer is a terrorist to those in his area.

EXACTLY! What a waste of 3 pages.

[Zephyr]

I don't remember using the word hate,
Posts 1, 15, 20, and 25. I hope I got those numbers right. Not a big deal, just pointing it out.

[Lumpen Prole]

No, he is a terrorist because he is muslim, says he hates israel (obviously agrees with Hizbollah as they hate Israel), so he KILLED JEWS!

See the diff? HE KILLED JEWS. He isn't just a criminal, but a murderer.

You said that. I assumed that, in your view, being Muslim and hating Jews were both prerequisites for being a terrorist. I agreed that killing Jews (or anyone) was an act of terror, but not that being a Jewish-hating Muslim was.

[sub_zer0]

You said that. I assumed that, in your view, being Muslim and hating Jews were both prerequisites for being a terrorist. I agreed that killing Jews (or anyone) was an act of terror, but not that being a Jewish-hating Muslim was.

I guess you missed where I capitalized KILLED! I even said the differencee was he is killing them.

[Zephyr]

EXACTLY! What a waste of 3 pages.
Yet you treat it as if it were something big and special. Using the definition we have here (which I will accept), there are terrorist acts all the time around here.

[Lumpen Prole]

I guess you missed where I capitalized KILLED! I even said the differencee was he is killing them.

No, I didn't.

[JoeR]

so are we just using terrorist as a synonym for murderer now?

[sub_zer0]

Posts 1, 15, 20, and 25. I hope I got those numbers right. Not a big deal, just pointing it out.

Check where killed is usually found close by.

[sub_zer0]

so are we just using terrorist as a synonym for murderer now?

No, one who puts somebody in a state of fear.

[Zephyr]

so are we just using terrorist as a synonym for murderer now?
Apparently so.

Man, this thread is moving fast.

[sub_zer0]

Yet you treat it as if it were something big and special. Using the definition we have here (which I will accept), there are terrorist acts all the time around here.

Let me be clear, ISLAMOFACISM!

[Zephyr]

No, one who puts somebody in a state of fear.
Sounds like pretty much every murderer I've heard of, other than maybe those who are caught quickly.

[sub_zer0]

Apparently so.

Man, this thread is moving fast.


No, one who puts somebody in a state of fear.

[sub_zer0]

Sounds like pretty much every murderer I've heard of, other than maybe those who are caught quickly.

But it isn't limited to murder, get it?

[Lumpen Prole]

No, one who puts somebody in a state of fear.

Yes, but you said he was a terrorist for "KILLING JEWS" (and being Muslim and hating Jews). Can you prove that he intended to instill fear in the Jewish community? He may very well have, but by your defintion any killing of anyone would be a terrorist act.

[Zephyr]

Let me be clear, ISLAMOFACISM!
So it's special because it's a muslim and not a neonazi or other extremist?

Ok then.

[sub_zer0]

Yes, but you said he was a terrorist for "KILLING JEWS" (and being Muslim and hating Jews). Can you prove that he intended to instill fear in the Jewish community. He may very well have, but by your defintion any killing of anyone would be a terrorist act.

No, if you instill fear, I am not saying killing is terrorism. But he obviously instilled fear by, shooting five and killing 1.

[dittohead not!]

Let me be clear, ISLAMOFACISM!

If the deranged murderer that started this whole thread is a part of an organized group, then he is part of the so called "Islamofacist" threat, ie, radical islam bent of killing anyone who is different from themselves. If not, he is just a nutcase who killed someone.

You still haven't told us what homosexual marriage has to do with this murder.

[Zephyr]

LOL, instill fea? HELLO, HE SHOT FIVE OF THEM AND KILLED ONE!
I CAN TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

Chill out dude. Murder is nothing uncommon. I mean, seriously, it's Seattle.

[Lumpen Prole]

LOL, instill fea? HELLO, HE SHOT FIVE OF THEM AND KILLED ONE!

I'm not arguing that he wasn't trying to instill fear, you half-wit. I'm simply pointing out that anyone who ever shoots anyone for any reason is, by your defintion, a terrorist.

[sub_zer0]

If the deranged murderer that started this whole thread is a part of an organized group, then he is part of the so called "Islamofacist" threat, ie, radical islam bent of killing anyone who is different from themselves. If not, he is just a nutcase who killed someone.

You still haven't told us what homosexual marriage has to do with this murder.

I didn't hijack the thread, check the first topic and you will realize it. Try reading it first.

[sub_zer0]

I'm not arguing that he wasn't trying to instill fear, you half-wit. I'm simply pointing out that anyone who ever shoots anyone for any reason is, by your defintion, a terrorist.

Actually, no. Sorry you are wrong. Our military are not terrorists, unless this is Cindy Sheehan I am talking to?

[Zephyr]

You still haven't told us what homosexual marriage has to do with this murder.
I think it was just a little extra tidbit about Western WA being so liberal.

[Zephyr]

Actually, no. Sorry you are wrong. Our military are not terrorists, unless this is Cindy Sheehan I am talking to?
If I were in Iraq right now I'd sure be scared ****less of them.

[Lumpen Prole]

Actually, no. Sorry you are wrong. Our military are not terrorists, unless this is Cindy Sheehan I am talking to?

Learn to read. I was using your definition of terrorism. Unless you can prove that someone who kills someone else is not trying to instill any fear, then they are a terrorist (by your definition).

[sub_zer0]

If I were in Iraq right now I'd sure be scared ****less of them.

I don't the Iraqi's agree with you, they know what we are doing is helping them.

[sub_zer0]

Learn to read. I was using your defintion of terrorism. Unless you can prove that someone who kills someone else is not trying to instill any fear, then they are a terrorist (by your definition).

Listen you have to draw your own lines here man.

[Lumpen Prole]

Listen you have to draw your own lines here man.

I haven't drawn any lines, that's the point. I was illustrating why your original definition of terrorist was absurd. I never provided a definition of my own.

[dittohead not!]

I think it was just a little extra tidbit about Western WA being so liberal.

Oh, now I see. Western Washington is largely Liberal, therefore they support gay marriage and oppose the war against Iraq. Since many people there oppose the war against Iraq, a terrorist has struck Washington by killing Jews. Therefore, Western Washington is a bastion of liberalism and a center of terror because this particular murder was a Muslim killing Jews. Yes, yes, perfectly logical. :rolleyes:

[sub_zer0]

I haven't drawn any lines, that's the point. I was illustrating why your original definition of terrorist was absurd. I never provided a definition of my own.

I am saying you need to draw your own lines, I can't for you.

I will stick with the definition I used, in that they instill fear. Then I will draw my own lines to determine if the person intended to do so.

[sub_zer0]

Oh, now I see. Western Washington is largely Liberal, therefore they support gay marriage and oppose the war against Iraq. Since many people there oppose the war against Iraq, a terrorist has struck Washington by killing Jews. Therefore, Western Washington is a bastion of liberalism and a center of terror because this particular murder was a Muslim killing Jews. Yes, yes, perfectly logical. :rolleyes:

Actually you are wrong, I stated they DON'T support gay marriage and how it suprised me because this government is so liberal. Try reading it.

[Lumpen Prole]

I will stick with the definition I used, in that they instill fear. Then I will draw my own lines to determine if the person intended to do so.

Learn to read. I said your original definition was absurd. The original definition said nothing about fear.

[sub_zer0]

Learn to read. I said your original definition was absurd. The original definition said nothing about fear.

That is because I wasn't meaning it to be a definition, I was merely stating things that Muslim terrorists have in common.

[Zephyr]

I will stick with the definition I used, in that they instill fear. Then I will draw my own lines to determine if the person intended to do so.
Then can we agree that most murderers are terrorists? If someone were to murder someone anywhere around me, I'd probably afraid.

[sub_zer0]

Then can we agree that most murderers are terrorists? If someone were to murder someone anywhere around me, I'd probably afraid.

Sure, most but not all. It depends if the person he murdered was going to murder somebody else, doesn't it? ;p don't answer that... lol

[dittohead not!]

Actually you are wrong, I stated they DON'T support gay marriage and how it suprised me because this government is so liberal. Try reading it.

Hmmmm... Now you really have me confused. I thought I was following your line of reasoning. Perhaps if Washington had gay marriage, then they wouldn't be subject to a terrorist attack. Now do I get it?

[Zephyr]

Hmmmm... Now you really have me confused. I thought I was following your line of reasoning. Perhaps if Washington had gay marriage, then they wouldn't be subject to a terrorist attack. Now do I get it?
This is getting way confusing. The gay marriage dealy has nothing to do with the attack, and I think (hopefully) sub-zer0 agrees. I don't know why it was posted, but maybe we should just let it be.

[sub_zer0]

This is getting way confusing. The gay marriage dealy has nothing to do with the attack, and I think (hopefully) sub-zer0 agrees. I don't know why it was posted, but maybe we should just let it be.

Of course I do, I posted it to show how liberal my state is then contrasted it with that decision, that is all. Don't let him pull your leg Zephry, he is playing dummy. I was clear to differentiate my main point.

[Zephyr]

Why is this in Religion & Philosophy?

[dittohead not!]

Of course I do, I posted it to show how liberal my state is then contrasted it with that decision, that is all. Don't let him pull your leg Zephry, he is playing dummy. I was clear to differentiate my main point.

It's your main point that isn't any too clear, and adding a homosexual marriage red herring just obfucates if further.

And, come to think of it, just what does this have to do with religion and philosophy?

[sub_zer0]

It's your main point that isn't any too clear, and adding a homosexual marriage red herring just obfucates if further.

And, come to think of it, just what does this have to do with religion and philosophy?

I guess you missed where he killed Jews, or that he was a muslim (adherent to Islam).

I also guess you missed the deep questions one comes to when thinking about the actions of taking a life.

[Zephyr]

I guess you missed where he killed Jews, or that he was a muslim (adherent to Islam).

I also guess you missed the deep questions one comes to when thinking about the actions of taking a life.
Seriously, this sounds more like a Current Event to me, but oh well, no big deal.

Strip away all the little things (religions of those involved) and what you have is one dude hating some other dudes and attacking. Fairly common.

[dittohead not!]

Seriously, this sounds more like a Current Event to me, but oh well, no big deal.

Strip away all the little things (religions of those involved) and what you have is one dude hating some other dudes and attacking. Fairly common.

Way too common.

[Zephyr]

Way too common.
Seriously. I don't like big cities. I rarely go to Seattle unless it's to catch a sweet concert or I'm just passing through.

Go go paranoia.

[Nuke the Oil]

Your right, the Washington State government is not doing enough to control terrorists! Let's bomb Seattle!

[Soren]

What is the point you are trying to make?Good question. I noticed at least four.

[brainpan]

Yeah, Seattle is a big city. I've been lost there many many many times. There was a shooting there. Big deal. Crimes in big cities is nothing new dude.A bug-eyed lunatic shoots up a convention of Jews for no better reason than he hates them. But that is no big deal. Er... :confused:

[Zephyr]

A bug-eyed lunatic shoots up a convention of Jews for no better reason than he hates them. But that is no big deal. Er... :confused:
It's not like this is the first time something like this has happened or anything.

[Soren]

A white protestant could be a terrorist.In the nineties they were the most likely terrorists in America.
Let me be clear, ISLAMOFACISM!The fog in this thread is getting thicker.
I am saying you need to draw your own lines, I can't for you.

I will stick with the definition I used, in that they instill fear. Then I will draw my own lines to determine if the person intended to do so.And in a debate others are perfectly free to point out when a definition is ridiculous and when a different definition is more likely to lead to a more fruitful debate. If you persist defending in a ridiculous definition others will think you to be ridiculous. Ordinary murder does cause fear--I don't deny it--but terrorism usually includes crimes of murder committed for the express purpose of causing destruction of life and great fear--fear which is often used for achieving political aims. If this act was indeed perpetrated for such a purpose, it is terrorism. If not, it could more accurately be referred to as a hate crime.

If I am to believe David Gomez, this sounds more like a murderous hate crime, not an act of terrorism.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14082298/
David Gomez, an FBI assistant special agent in charge of counterterrorism, said investigators believe the gunman targeted the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

“We believe at this point it’s a lone individual acting out antagonism toward this particular organization,” Gomez said.

[sub_zer0]

Naveed Afzal Haq apparently is his name.

[sub_zer0]

As Robert Spencer over at Jihadwatch.org states:
So that is what the focus will be upon: mental illness and lewd conduct. And once again the media will ignore the question of why a man who describes himself as a Muslim American angry at Israel would think that murder of innocents was an appropriate outlet for his anger. No one will ever consider whether such behavior is encouraged by the texts and atmospherics of Islam, and if so, what can be done about it.

...

When (if ever) will law enforcement officials realize that it is enough for Zawahiri and others to say this sort of thing? That that in itself is enough to move some Muslims to act? There doesn't need to be any organizational connection for there to be an ideological connection, an identity of motive and goal.

Read the rest: HERE (http://jihadwatch.org/)

[steveksux]

Is this the guy that has a history of exposing himself or something like that? So he has a long history of instilling fear in the community. :rolleyes:

Randy

[Soren]

sub_zer0:
Yes,yes, they're all loose cannons because they're Muslim. :mad: What a crock! I am amazed that you would act so offended if anyone come close to the implication that Christian doctrine could lead to the same thing, but you don't hestitate to paint all Muslims as extremists. Shame! Shame!

[steveksux]

Seems I remember a Jew a while ago shooting up a Mosque. I suppose he was a terrorist? Instead of a deranged nut mouthing slogans as he commits a garden variety hate crime? He didn't have the history of exposing himself, is that what makes the difference between simply nuts and a terrorist?

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Though I would agree that not every attack by a muslim could be characterized as a terrorist action, unfortunetly I think that American politics will be politically correct in the sense that any violent actions taken by muslims in America will be treated with kid gloves in a sense of admitting that it is a terrorist action.

Case in point, the D.C. sniper case was treated as a run of the mill crime, rather than a ongoing terrorist action on American soil by muslims.

How about the muslim that fragged his own American troops with grenades and such, that was downplayed as well.

What about the bus that was hijacked by the muslim a couple of years back with a knife to the throat of the driver, that was downplayed as being a terrorist action as well.

The only time any event will be characterized as a terrorist action is if the terrorist explicitly writes it down and the public is informed of it. Example, bomb goes off and then somebody calls up and takes credit and threatens more of the same if XYZ doesn't occur.

[dittohead not!]

Though I would agree that not every attack by a muslim could be characterized as a terrorist action, unfortunetly I think that American politics will be politically correct in the sense that any violent actions taken by muslims in America will be treated with kid gloves in a sense of admitting that it is a terrorist action.

Case in point, the D.C. sniper case was treated as a run of the mill crime, rather than a ongoing terrorist action on American soil by muslims.

How about the muslim that fragged his own American troops with grenades and such, that was downplayed as well.

What about the bus that was hijacked by the muslim a couple of years back with a knife to the throat of the driver, that was downplayed as being a terrorist action as well.

The only time any event will be characterized as a terrorist action is if the terrorist explicitly writes it down and the public is informed of it. Example, bomb goes off and then somebody calls up and takes credit and threatens more of the same if XYZ doesn't occur.

On the other hand, is it to be called a terrorist act every time a Muslim commits a violent crime?

[neo of the mind]

No. I just think there are more reasons out there for the powers that be to have any violent actions by muslims in America, not classified as terrorism.

In America, we have not had any terrorist incidents since 9/11, at least that is what we are told and that is one reason to ensure that stays the case. Don't get me wrong, there are actions being taken to prevent another "attack" on Americans, it's just that if one does occur and it can be parlayed as not being a terrorist act, it will. The track record must be maintained even if it doesn't reflect reality, it's the perception that counts.

There is also the Political Correctness in America that does not want any backlash on muslims in our country for any reason and downplaying any violent actions that are in fact terroristic, would be beneficial to that cause.

I am not suggesting that I have any hard evidence for this, it's just my opinion so far based off of the reactions of events that I am aware of.

[dittohead not!]

The term "war on terror" is really a misnomer since it implies that we are at war with a form of warfare. Terrorism is a particularly evil form of warfare, but one that has been employed for millennia nevertheless, and not one we are likely ever to stamp out.

So, the question becomes, just who is the enemy? Is Islam the enemy? It's tempting to think so, but it is very dangerous to lump all of the Muslims together and lable them as the enemy. Perhaps it is too PC to go the other way entirely and try to ignore crimes committed by Muslims, but, on the other hand, it would be a tragedy to classify all Muslims as the enemy.

The enemy in this war is first Al Qaeda, then other radical groups (Hamas, Hezbolla) and not the Muslim world in general. An all out religious war would be a total disaster for civilization.

That said, do you really think we're safe from attacks by Al Qaeda and their ilk?

How about safer than we were before having invaded Iraq?

Or are you fully grounded in reality?

[neo of the mind]

That said, do you really think we're safe from attacks by Al Qaeda and their ilk?

How about safer than we were before having invaded Iraq?


My answer to the first question is no, but I am a lot more likely to die from a lot of other reasons, most of them mundane, then I would from a terrorist attack.

I think the only way that America could reasonably have been made "safe" from another attack would be to remove all muslims from the United States and prevent any further muslims from entering after 9/11. That of course would not happen and therefore we are not "safe" and nothing really prevents any terrorist attack by people with that "ideology" from occuring on America's soil. My comments of course are limited to the scope of the terrorist threat of that "ideology" and does not encompass any other type of terrorism, such as environmental agendas or the unabomber's of the world, etc.

As far as your second question, nobody else on the planet will ever be harmed by the terrorists that were killed in Iraq again. So we are safe from them.

[dittohead not!]

As far as your second question, nobody else on the planet will ever be harmed by the terrorists that were killed in Iraq again. So we are safe from them.

How about the ones who became terrorists as a result of their experience of having their country invaded and loved ones killed, might they eventually harm someone?

[neo of the mind]

So your saying the terrorists in Iraq that have been kidnapping and lopping off heads of people, who have been placing and blowing up bombs at weddings, funerals, police recruitment lines, mosques, etc. all of a sudden became that way as the result of the U.S. led occupation of Iraq?

Sorry, not buying it, those people are insane and it would have come out some time anyway. They would have had some excuse to become the monsters they are and those specific people have a hatred of America for the simple truth that it is not a muslim nation. So unless we became a muslim nation, in their minds we are infidels and deserving of actions such as 9/11.

[Soren]

My answer to the first question is no, but I am a lot more likely to die from a lot of other reasons, most of them mundane, then I would from a terrorist attack. A good reason to view this problem with some degree of rational, restraint, no? This is not, however, the view of the website you posted from which appears to be a board where people mutter and post endlessly about the impending threat of jihad lurking in the most minor of incidents.
Sorry, not buying it, those people are insane and it would have come out some time anyway. They would have had some excuse to become the monsters they are and those specific people have a hatred of America for the simple truth that it is not a muslim nation. So unless we became a muslim nation, in their minds we are infidels and deserving of actions such as 9/11.I disagree. Our policy can help determine whether many "nutcases" decide to attack us or another target. If we didn't give them a pretext it is plausible that they would attack leaders of their own nation or settle scores in their own region which don't concern us or our safety. We provided ourselves as a target of opportunity.

[steveksux]

Sorry, not buying it, those people are insane and it would have come out some time anyway. They would have had some excuse to become the monsters they are and those specific people have a hatred of America for the simple truth that it is not a muslim nation. So unless we became a muslim nation, in their minds we are infidels and deserving of actions such as 9/11.If Mexico invaded the US and overthrew the US govt, of course at first we'd be grateful to be rid of Bush. We might even throw candy and flowers at them.

But if they continued to occupy our country for 3 years, bust into our homes in the middle of the night to take away any military age men for indefinite prison stays, do you really think that we would not take up arms against them? That is extremely naive.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

naive eh.

There is a difference between taking up arms against an army, which they had a chance to do in the beginning, but were cowards or wanted their country to change, and what they are doing now.

I tend to think that the people that wanted the Americans to remove Saddam and clean house, stayed in their houses and did not resist.

Those that didn't were cowards and did not defend their country, but rather waited so that they could kidnap innocent people, many that came there for humanitarian reasons, to cut their heads off, like they are super warriors.
They purposely attack civilians at weddings, funerals and other places that should be the last place for that.

They are murdering, insane thugs that do not deserve any respect.

You can choose to give them respect if you wish, but I won't.

[neo of the mind]

A good reason to view this problem with some degree of rational, restraint, no? This is not, however, the view of the website you posted from which appears to be a board where people mutter and post endlessly about the impending threat of jihad lurking in the most minor of incidents.
I disagree. Our policy can help determine whether many "nutcases" decide to attack us or another target. If we didn't give them a pretext it is plausible that they would attack leaders of their own nation or settle scores in their own region which don't concern us or our safety. We provided ourselves as a target of opportunity.

yup, let's just build a wall and keep ourselves safe and the hell with everybody else. Thing is, eventually they will come knocking at the wall.

[Soren]

yup, let's just build a wall and keep ourselves safe and the hell with everybody else. Thing is, eventually they will come knocking at the wall.You seriously think me an isolationist. :lol: Your loss I guess. Read posts I've made about Sudan or in support of our invasion of Afghanistan. It might disabuse you of this particular notion, or are people who oppose this war just isolationist by default? :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

I'll take your word for it that your not. However, I don't think it is correct to think that anything can happen in the middle east that doesn't affect us economically and indirectly our safety.

Like Mars needs women, America needs oil.

[Soren]

I'll take your word for it that your not. However, I don't think it is correct to think that anything can happen in the middle east that doesn't affect us economically and indirectly our safety.

Like Mars needs women, America needs oil.And how did this war help us in this? Supply has been constricted by this war's effects. This gives problematic states like Iran more leverage over us.

[sub_zer0]

And how did this war help us in this? Supply has been constricted by this war's effects. This gives problematic states like Iran more leverage over us.

Indeed, exposing Iran for what it is, a state that sponsors terror.

[burntgorilla]

Thanks, guys, this thread has been hilarious.

[Soren]

Indeed, exposing Iran for what it is, a state that sponsors terror.I could have told you that prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Thanks, guys, this thread has been hilarious."Tiresome" would be the word I'd use. I've about had enough of these fascile assumptions myself.
Bye now, sub_zer0. We'll continue this discussion another time in another thread I imagine. I don't look forward to it.

[steveksux]

naive eh.

There is a difference between taking up arms against an army, which they had a chance to do in the beginning, but were cowards or wanted their country to change, and what they are doing now.

I tend to think that the people that wanted the Americans to remove Saddam and clean house, stayed in their houses and did not resist.

Those that didn't were cowards and did not defend their country, but rather waited so that they could kidnap innocent people, many that came there for humanitarian reasons, to cut their heads off, like they are super warriors.
They purposely attack civilians at weddings, funerals and other places that should be the last place for that.

They are murdering, insane thugs that do not deserve any respect.

You can choose to give them respect if you wish, but I won't.If it makes you feel better to lump them all into the group doing that sort of thing, be my guest. Its your fantasy, who am I to intrude?

Randy

[steveksux]

Thanks, guys, this thread has been hilarious.
Yup... "Center of terror"... :lol:

Terror doesn't ooze up between your toes when you're standing in the middle of it. Doesn't look like shinola either.... what could it be????

Randy

[burntgorilla]

"Tiresome" would be the word I'd use. I've about had enough of these fascile assumptions myself.
Bye now, sub_zer0. We'll continue this discussion another time in another thread I imagine. I don't look forward to it.

I don't know about that. I read through the first six pages or so quite quickly and it was quite amusing:

"he's a terrorist because he's Muslim and hates Jews!"
"But what's that got to do with anything? White protestants etc..."
"He created fear, so he's a terrorist"
"So, like any murderer then?"
"..."

Paraphrasing sub_zer0 slightly there, of course.

[Alvin T. Grey]

So. Tell me, what the heck has this to do with Religion?

Oh, and while we are at it, what has Gay Marraige got to do with Millitant Islam (other then both rabid Islam, and rabid Christanity, are firmly against it.)

[burntgorilla]

So. Tell me, what the heck has this to do with Religion?

Oh, and while we are at it, what has Gay Marraige got to do with Millitant Islam (other then both rabid Islam, and rabid Christanity, are firmly against it.)

The two people involved were both in religions, I guess.

[Dangerrmouse]

The two people involved were both in religions, I guess.

Religion as a cause of terrorism....surely not? ;)

If I say "Boo!" and frighten someone, does that make me a terrorist? ("He created fear, so he is a terrorist")

[steveksux]

Mel Gibson driving drunk could kill people. Mel Gibson hates Jews at least when he's drunk.

MEL GIBSON IS A TERRORIST!!!!! My GOD! They're EVERYWHERE!!!!

Randy

[JoeR]

Mel Gibson - The terrorist equivalent of Jackie Chan's Drunken Master?

[sub_zer0]

Mel Gibson driving drunk could kill people. Mel Gibson hates Jews at least when he's drunk.

MEL GIBSON IS A TERRORIST!!!!! My GOD! They're EVERYWHERE!!!!

Randy

No he didn't kill any Jews. See the difference?

[SuperJames]

So. Tell me, what the heck has this to do with Religion?

Oh, and while we are at it, what has Gay Marraige got to do with Millitant Islam (other then both rabid Islam, and rabid Christanity, are firmly against it.)


Wow! Eight pages, and this is the only intelligently, honestly worded post here! Thanks, Alvin! I'm going back into hibernation for a few more weeks. Every time I come here(WhistleStopper), I am always very amazed and disappointed that there are so many people here in the name of free debate who are so unwilling to speak honestly and to the point! :mad: :confused:

[dittohead not!]

No he didn't kill any Jews. See the difference?

But he could have. Had he crashed into a van headed for a bar mitzvah, would he then have been a terrorist?

[sub_zer0]

But he could have. Had he crashed into a van headed for a bar mitzvah, would he then have been a terrorist?

More so than less, yes.

[burntgorilla]

No he didn't kill any Jews. See the difference?

Can't you be a terrorist without attacking Jews?

[steveksux]

:laughter: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/279424_convert30ww.html

He told friends he felt alienated from his own family, in part because his career had disappointed his father and also because he had disavowed Islam last year, converting to Christianity.

So just checking, is he still a terrorist since he's Christian instead of a Muslim?

Let me be clear, ISLAMOFACISM!So does this new development make this an instance of CHRISTOFACISM!!!

Randy

[Zephyr]

What a twist!

[FlyingGuineapig]

:laughter: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/279424_convert30ww.html

Huh - that story is worth checking out, kind of, just for the irony in it.

He [the shooter] recently won an essay contest for a U.S. Institute of Peace scholarship.

Frankly, this guy doesn't seem much like an Islamofascist or religous crusader - seems more like the Columbine kids or other young adults that can't get their lives together and decide that pumping bullets into others is an easy way out of their messed up life.

[steveksux]

Huh - that story is worth checking out, kind of, just for the irony in it.

He [the shooter] recently won an essay contest for a U.S. Institute of Peace scholarship.

Frankly, this guy doesn't seem much like an Islamofascist or religous crusader - seems more like the Columbine kids or other young adults that can't get their lives together and decide that pumping bullets into others is an easy way out of their messed up life.I had to doublecheck that the link didn't reference a story from The Onion myself....

Randy