NationStates Jolt Archive

This is easy, select one of the reasons why all terrorists are Muslim

Currently, the modifier you're looking for is "most".

Not all.

Why don't you ask a good question.
Such as:
'why is it only Foundamentalists who do funny stuff with airplanes?'

This is easy, select one of the reasons why all terrorists are Muslim
IRA/RIRA/CIRA/UVF/UFF/LVF are Muslim?
ETA are Muslim?
Timothy McVeigh was Muslim?

This is easy, select one of the reasons why all terrorists are Muslim
They aren't, and even those regularly denounced as "Muslim bashers" know it. Prepare for a lock, maybe a ban.

Why don't you ask a good question.
Such as:
'why is it only Foundamentalists who do funny stuff with airplanes?'


"funny stuff" ?

The IRA are Muslims?



You gonna tell them or shall I?

Photocopying threads, are we?

Please do not feed the troll.

Why don't you ask a good question.
Such as:
'why is it only Foundamentalists who do funny stuff with airplanes?'
I don't think the PFLP was fundamentalist. Nice try though.

The IRA are Muslims?



You gonna tell them or shall I?
The important thing they want to know before you join is if you're a Catholic Muslim or Protestant Muslim.

for goodness sakes not all terrorists are muslim!!

I don't think the PFLP was fundamentalist. Nice try though.


PFLP was muslim, but you haven't seen 'em do hijackings lately, have you?

Unlike the foundamentalists...

Its because muslim terrorists have no goal other than to kill people, they dont want independence or stuff like that, they just want to kill everyone. they give all terrorists a bad (well worse) name. This is why the IRA gave up; any act of terror can no longer be seen as an act of protest, or a cry for freedom, terrorism now just stands for mindless murder. And only the Islamic terrorists benefit from that.

Its because muslim terrorists have no goal other than to kill people, they dont want independence or stuff like that, they just want to kill everyone. they give all terrorists a bad (well worse) name. This is why the IRA gave up; any act of terror can no longer be seen as an act of protest, or a cry for freedom, terrorism now just stands for mindless murder. And only the Islamic terrorists benefit from that.

So you're saying that when a muslim performs a terrorist attack, there is no political motivation behind it? Madrid train bombings perhaps?

the answer is that the coorsran declares that anyone who engages in terrorism has become muslim, despite any previous, current, or future religious beliefs (or lack there of), or any objections they may have to being classed as such.

I don't think you people get it: this is demonstrating the absurdity of believing that all muslims are terrorists. It's a way to poke fun at the jingoistic, xenophobic nonsense.

PFLP was muslim, but you haven't seen 'em do hijackings lately, have you?
The PFLP were not Muslim.
Nor were the fundamentalists.

The PFLP were Marxist-Leninist and were in fact founded by a Christian.

They started the whole plane hijacking 'funny stuff' as you call it.

You're wrong.

IRA/RIRA/CIRA/UVF/UFF/LVF are Muslim?
ETA are Muslim?
Timothy McVeigh was Muslim?

No they are not muslims. But they kill less people
and most of them are today inactive.
The IRA said they want to stop war with weapons.
Could Al Qaida say something like this?
NEVER!

No they are not muslims.
Which was my point. Thus disproving the flimsy baitish title of this thread.

But they kill less people
and most of them are today inactive.
The IRA said they want to stop war with weapons.
Could Al Qaida say something like this?
NEVER!
All irrelevant to the thread.

No Christian has ever killed civilians bombing an abortion clinic
I don't care if this is true or not, but tere has been a christian who used chemicals to gas the people in a porn shop. and that IS terrorism.

The PFLP were not Muslim.
Nor were the fundamentalists.

The PFLP were Marxist-Leninist and were in fact founded by a Christian.

They started the whole plane hijacking 'funny stuff' as you call it.

You're wrong.


I note the term 'were'. Past tense.
I am right. Present.
You WERE right - in a past millenium.

I don't care if this is true or not, but tere has been a christian who used chemicals to gas the people in a porn shop. and that IS terrorism.
Christians have killed people shooting up abortion clinics.

Christians have killed people shooting up abortion clinics.

Christians who randomly kill people (for any reason) are not good Christians- for they have broken a BIG commandment- Thou Shalt Not Murder (though I must say, Abortion clinics are much more guilty of breaking that commandment than the guy who killed them, but, then again, they aren't Christian, are they?)

Christians have killed people shooting up abortion clinics.
Blowing up, usually. But that sort of thing has faded out in recent years. More of a late 1990s thing.

Nowadays, the more radical churches have been turning in their wackos before the trouble starts.

There was one recently in Bowie, Maryland. His family and church turned his ass in.

Which is what they should do. The moment that someone starts planning that shit, their friends, relatives, and religious associates need to beat their asses and take the unconscious asshat to the police station.

I don't think you people get it: this is demonstrating the absurdity of believing that all muslims are terrorists. It's a way to poke fun at the jingoistic, xenophobic nonsense.


sssshhh.. Do not make the ignorant xenophobes any wiser ;)

sssshhh.. Do not make the ignorant xenophobes any wiser ;)

Yes... PLEASE don't dispense your "wisdom" to me. I couldn't bear the stupidity.

Christians who randomly kill people (for any reason) are not good Christians- for they have broken a BIG commandment- Thou Shalt Not Murder (though I must say, Abortion clinics are much more guilty of breaking that commandment than the guy who killed them, but, then again, they aren't Christian, are they?)
Em, isn't the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" ?

This is the most stupidist poll i have ever seen in my life. When has anyone ever said that all terrorists are muslims?

Christians have killed people shooting up abortion clinics.
i din't think that poll option was true either. why does that guy fall for so many urban legends??

Em, isn't the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" ?

Yeah.

Hence the lack of brotherly love betwixt mainstream Christians and those fuckwits ( my curse for the day ) who think that tossing bombs into clinics is a good thing...

I note the term 'were'. Past tense.
I am right. Present.
You WERE right - in a past millenium.
The PFLP are still around. They are currently the second largest faction in the PLO behind al-Fatah. Are/were is interchangable.

You were wrong in saying the PFLP were/are fundamentalist or Muslim.
You were wrong in alluding to the fact that only fundamentalists carry out plane hijackings or other attacks via planes.

This is the most stupidist poll i have ever seen in my life. When has anyone ever said that all terrorists are muslims?

Haven't said that myself. I will say, however, that the vast majority of today's terrorist acts, and terrorist organizations, base their rationale for direct action on radical Islam.

Em, isn't the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" ?

Not if the Hebrew word is translated correctly- not "kill" (Hebrew "Nakah") but the Torah says "ratshach" or "murder".

Yes... PLEASE don't dispense your "wisdom" to me. I couldn't bear the stupidity.


There has been a lot of ranting about Muslims, by people that have no clue whatsoever about the diversity that is found within Islam. Also the historical knowledge of some may be flawed to say the least. If you agree with any of the poll options, you will have some more reading and travelling to do. ;)

There has been a lot of ranting about Muslims, by people that have no clue whatsoever about the diversity that is found within Islam. Also the historical knowledge of some may be flawed to say the least. If you agree with any of the poll options, you will have some more reading and travelling to do. ;)

I'm well aware of the heterodoxy within Islam. I don't have any flawed historical knowledge about them (to the best of my knowledge).

Care to ask a question?

Its because muslim terrorists have no goal other than to kill people
They do have goals. Political goals are what defines terrorism from plain mass murder.

There has been a lot of ranting about Muslims, by people that have no clue whatsoever about the diversity that is found within Islam. Also the historical knowledge of some may be flawed to say the least. If you agree with any of the poll options, you will have some more reading and travelling to do. ;)

Honestly, I didn't find an option that really reflects what I think, so I just went with the bottom one.

My historical knowledge is not flawed. I've done plenty of reading in my life, and plan to do more travelling in my life.

But go ahead, dispell our "doubts".

I'm well aware of the heterodoxy within Islam. I don't have any flawed historical knowledge about them (to the best of my knowledge).

Care to ask a question?

Google is your friend ;)

Haven't said that myself. I will say, however, that the vast majority of today's terrorist acts, and terrorist organizations, base their rationale for direct action on radical Islam.

Exactly, how can anyone who isn't an absolute idiot deny that?

They do have goals. Political goals are what defines terrorism from plain mass murder.

I can tell you the Terrorists' goals

1. Kill you
or
2. Convert you.

It's as simple as that. The terrorists want you to either join their form of Islam, or be dead. They will kill anyone who gets in their way, including other Muslims who don't adhere to their ideals. It's their way, or no way.

Google is your friend ;)

Yeah, so.

I'm well aware of the heterodoxy within Islam.
Then why do you generalise them as all being murderous bigots?

Google is your friend ;)
Not only that, but there are plenty of great books on the subject.

I'm well aware of the heterodoxy within Islam. I don't have any flawed historical knowledge about them (to the best of my knowledge).

Care to ask a question?


It is not very helpful to test knowledge with questions...

all right

what do you know about the bab al-ijtihad?

for example...

The PFLP are still around. They are currently the second largest faction in the PLO behind al-Fatah. Are/were is interchangable.

You were wrong in saying the PFLP were/are fundamentalist or Muslim.
You were wrong in alluding to the fact that only fundamentalists carry out plane hijackings or other attacks via planes.


And exactly when was the last PFLP stunt?

Then why do you generalise them as all being murderous bigots?
Show me where I said they were all murderous bigots?

I think that you are confused as to why I would be willing to move to a final solution to the Islamic problem.

It has nothing to do with bigotry, or racism, as many seem to think.

It has to do with the concept of civilization survival, and how, in modern times, with modern weapons, or even without weapons - with mere ideas - a civilization can be wiped out.

This is a clash of civilizations. Either they assimilate to some accomodation of Western beliefs (as Christianity has acceded largely to a secular world), or it will be necessary to remove them entirely.

In a world where technology will make it possible to remove another civilization within a day, the risk is too great to ignore.

You might say, "well, these are individuals, and small groups of people, and not nation-states". Iran is a nation-state, with the avowed aim of destroying Israel by force, of inciting global violence in order to bring about the return of the hidden Imam, and bringing "a light greater than any before" over the city of Jerusalem.

If our world were confined to conventional weapons alone, I wouldn't care. But it's not.

They do have goals. Political goals are what defines terrorism from plain mass murder.


That's true, now I would like to hear an intelligent vision on the political goals of al-qaida... Anyone? :p

The Muslim ones are just more famous these days. Give it a few years and people on the internet will be asking the same question about some other religion.

And exactly when was the last PFLP stunt?
Stunt? I don't know.

The last attack was in May 2002.

The Muslim ones are just more famous these days. Give it a few years and people on the internet will be asking the same question about some other religion.
It'll be the Buddhists next.

Show me where I said they were all murderous bigots?

I think that you are confused as to why I would be willing to move to a final solution to the Islamic problem.

It has nothing to do with bigotry, or racism, as many seem to think.

It has to do with the concept of civilization survival, and how, in modern times, with modern weapons, or even without weapons - with mere ideas - a civilization can be wiped out.

This is a clash of civilizations. Either they assimilate to some accomodation of Western beliefs (as Christianity has acceded largely to a secular world), or it will be necessary to remove them entirely.

In a world where technology will make it possible to remove another civilization within a day, the risk is too great to ignore.

You might say, "well, these are individuals, and small groups of people, and not nation-states". Iran is a nation-state, with the avowed aim of destroying Israel by force, of inciting global violence in order to bring about the return of the hidden Imam, and bringing "a light greater than any before" over the city of Jerusalem.

If our world were confined to conventional weapons alone, I wouldn't care. But it's not.

Wait a second, what?

What is your "final solution".

Stunt? I don't know.

The last attack was in May 2002.


And you attribute the latest events in London to the PFLP?

And you attribute the latest events in London to the PFLP?
Em..... no.

What has London got to do with your comment that it is only Islamic fundamentalists that use planes?

'why is it only Foundamentalists who do funny stuff with airplanes?'

Em..... no.

What has London got to do with your comment that it is only Islamic fundamentalists that use planes?

Everything? I don't see non-foundamentalist groupings doing funny things with airplanes.

Where you got the PFLP from is kinda hazy.

Reading the Day of the Jackal?

This is easy, select one of the reasons why all terrorists are Muslim
All terrorists are Muslim because then it's okay for me to be racist.

It'll be the Buddhists next.

A buddhist would blow just himself up. :)

Wait a second, what?

What is your "final solution".

I believe that if radical Islamists are ever successful in deploying something like smallpox, and killing billions of people, that we should remove them and their religion and all of its texts from the face of the Earth.

Simply as a matter of survival.

A buddhist would blow just himself up. :)

OH COME ON!!! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

He'd pour gasoline on himself... THEN light himself on fire. (maybe even the building next to him if he was REALLY pissed :p )

That's WAY different than blowing yourself up. Next time, mind your p's and q', cross your T's and dot your i's.

A buddhist would blow just himself up. :)

Incinerate himself, more likely.

I believe that if radical Islamists are ever successful in deploying something like smallpox, and killing billions of people, that we should remove them and their religion and all of its texts from the face of the Earth.

Simply as a matter of survival.

Do you mean, after they have killed billions of people?

Why target all muslims when it will only be a few that are responsible. And a only a few that would ever want to do something like that again?

I believe that if radical Islamists are ever successful in deploying something like smallpox, and killing billions of people, that we should remove them and their religion and all of its texts from the face of the Earth.

Simply as a matter of survival.

I could go for that.

Everything? I don't see non-foundamentalist groupings doing funny things with airplanes.

Where you got the PFLP from is kinda hazy.

Reading the Day of the Jackal?
No, reading history.

1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome.

Here I'll break it down for you:
PFLP hijack plane.
PFLP are not and were not Islamic or Fundamentalist. They were/are Marxist-Leninist since their inception.

Therefore your assertation that non-fundamentalist groups don't "do funny things with planes" is incorrect.

I believe that if radical Islamists are ever successful in deploying something like smallpox, and killing billions of people, that we should remove them and their religion and all of its texts from the face of the Earth.

Simply as a matter of survival.


Exactly my opinion!

:fluffle:

It'll be the Buddhists next.
A career in terrorism would get you off the wheel of life pretty quickly.

You might say, "well, these are individuals, and small groups of people, and not nation-states". Iran is a nation-state, with the avowed aim of destroying Israel by force, of inciting global violence in order to bring about the return of the hidden Imam, and bringing "a light greater than any before" over the city of Jerusalem.



Iran is a nation state true, but you act as though the destruction of Israel on the top of their list... It is not, they have better things to do

Moreover, they foremost want the destruction of the state Israel which they consider a threat, this does not mean blowing up all the Muslims living there.

Even more important; Israel has got many Nukes and is developing second strike capabilities... The Iranian regime does not want to risk the destruction of Iran by bombing Israel. For whom? The Palestinians The Lebanese??!

Not to forget that the regime does not act irrational; many groups share power and influence. A single madman would not be able to bomb Israel without the support of these groups.

As Khomeini used to say: The Shari'a can wait, the Islamic state is more important...

They are not unlike other leaders, you simply think they are because they appear strange to you

No, reading history.

1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome.

Here I'll break it down for you:
PFLP hijack plane.
PFLP are not and were not Islamic or Fundamentalist. They were/are Marxist-Leninist since their inception.

Therefore your assertation that non-fundamentalist groups don't "do funny things with planes" is incorrect.


And then again: what's the last time it happened?
For I don't see non-Foundamentalists doing funny stuff these days.
It's 2006 - and not 1968.

And then again: what's the last time it happened?
For I don't see non-Foundamentalists doing funny stuff these days.
It's 2006 - and not 1968.
Then why did you say

why is it only Foundamentalists who do funny stuff with airplanes?

considering you were giving yourself a cutoff to exclude documented and historical facts that contradict you?

A clear cut case of 'shifting the goalposts'.

Originally Posted by Deep Kimchi
I believe that if radical Islamists are ever successful in deploying something like smallpox, and killing billions of people, that we should remove them and their religion and all of its texts from the face of the Earth.

Simply as a matter of survival.

Exactly my opinion!

:fluffle:

Ah how sweet, the Nazi's have found each other in their "endlösung"

You fear that what you do not understand so much that you would kill humans, no different from those you hold dear.

We can do little about that, for predudice starts at an early age, mostly through the parents. Sadly, later experiences that falsify these beliefs do not change these beliefs.

Then why did you say



considering you were giving yourself a cutoff to exclude documented and historical facts that contradict you?

A clear cut case of 'shifting the goalposts'.

Post 3, methinks.

I'm using present tense, continuously.

What matters it the war now, and not the old one.

I mean, if some loopy General suggested in 1940 that we send an expedionary Force to Spain to stop the French, ( and not send the BEF off to fight the Boche ), we would retire the fruitbat, or give him command of a latrine-building-unit.

I'm saying that your blathering about the acts of the heinous PFLP is an exercise in irrelevance.

The cutoff, as you call it, is a matter of operational relevance.

We can do little about that, for predudice starts at an early age, mostly through the parents. Sadly, later experiences that falsify these beliefs do change these beliefs.

It was the other way around for me.

I started as a nice little Democrat, and then I met reality.

Also, the desire for a final solution is arrived at by quite different paths. I could care less if they were any other political or religious belief - it's just an unacceptable risk to allow the possibility for them to use something apocalyptic like smallpox.

Also, I understand Islam quite well.

Post 3, methinks.

I'm using present tense, continuously.

What matters it the war now, and not the old one.

I mean, if some loopy General suggested in 1940 that we send an expedionary Force to Spain to stop the French, ( and not send the BEF off to fight the Boche ), we would retire the fruitbat, or give him command of a latrine-building-unit.

I'm saying that your blathering about the acts of the heinous PFLP is an exercise in irrelevance.

Ah, so your point was:

"Post -1968 (after the incident that proves my point incorrect) it is only fundamentalist Muslims that hijack planes"

Gotcha.

Ah how sweet, the Nazi's have found each other in their "endlösung"

You fear that what you do not understand so much that you would kill humans, no different from those you hold dear.

We can do little about that, for predudice starts at an early age, mostly through the parents. Sadly, later experiences that falsify these beliefs do not change these beliefs.

Only in this virtual scenario I would kill them.
When starts communist thinking please?

I'm NOT a National socialist, I'm a member of the ILI Community
(I Like Israel) and I'm pro Bush. Just conservative. NO FUCKING NAZI!

Also, I understand Islam quite well.

Do you? For I think you simply see in Islam what you want to see...

And then again: what's the last time it happened?
For I don't see non-Foundamentalists doing funny stuff these days.
It's 2006 - and not 1968.

Also the PFLP didn't used to slaughter everyone on the plane. In fact, they used to blow the planes up after the passengers got off.

Obviously for some people that's a subtle distinction. But it's one worth noting.

Do you? For I think you simply see in Islam what you want to see...

I really learned a lot about Islam. Islam discriminates woman and girls
(Mohammed had a 9 year old woman...) and I think intollerance
against intollerance might help!?!

Also the PFLP didn't used to slaughter everyone on the plane. In fact, they used to blow the planes up after the passengers got off.

Obviously for some people that's a subtle distinction. But it's one worth noting.
That was when they were more motivated by what they learned in class at Patrice Lumumba University (for budding terrorists) and concepts of class warfare, rather than religious fatwas.

Also the PFLP didn't used to slaughter everyone on the plane. In fact, they used to blow the planes up after the passengers got off.

Obviously for some people that's a subtle distinction. But it's one worth noting.
Why?

Because they weren't Islamic fundamentalists.

But they hijacked planes.

But BogMarsh said only Islamic fundamentalists hijack planes....

*head explodes*

It was the other way around for me.

I started as a nice little Democrat, and then I met reality.

Also, the desire for a final solution is arrived at by quite different paths. I could care less if they were any other political or religious belief - it's just an unacceptable risk to allow the possibility for them to use something apocalyptic like smallpox.

Exact.

Only in this virtual scenario I would kill them.
When starts communist thinking please?

I'm NOT a National socialist, I'm a member of the ILI Community
(I Like Israel) and I'm pro Bush. Just conservative. NO FUCKING NAZI!


Then do not speak of genocide against a millions of people based on their Religion, simply because you believe that individuals which hapen to be of that religion might harm you.

Only the group has changed...
If you do not understand that then you are capable (as every man is) of these horrific crimes like the Holocaust

Why?

Because they weren't Islamic fundamentalists.

But they hijacked planes.

But BogMarsh said only Islamic fundamentalists hijack planes....

*head explodes*

So you're arguing it ain't true because it wasn't true at another instant?

Ergo hoc, propter hoc?

Then do not speak of genocide against a millions of people based on their Religion, simply because you believe that individuals which hapen to be of that religion might harm you.

Only the group has changed...
If you do not understand that then you are capable (as every man is) of these horrific crimes like the Holocaust

Actually, you're ignoring my point.

The thing that has changed that actually can make a small group with support from a large population a real threat is something like smallpox as a weapon.

Iran is a nation-state. They are trying to make nuclear weapons, and instead of making pronouncements about mutually assured destruction (which are acceptable concepts), they are talking publicly about "bringing a light greater than any before" over Jerusalem, and internally talking about developing nuclear weapons to destroy the Jew.

Hey. Nuclear weapons are one thing, but the risk inherent in something like smallpox is unacceptable. And al-Q has explicitly mentioned it in their documents.

You want to roll those dice?

SNIP
If you do not understand that then you are capable (as every man is) of these horrific crimes like the Holocaust

I'm reminded of that Nazi ex-mayor somewhere in Bavaria who protested that it ( the holocaust ) could easily have been done by Americans, or British, or whatever.
As I recall, the American SHAEF-officer replied: 'but it never happened...'

I really learned a lot about Islam. Islam discriminates woman and girls
(Mohammed had a 9 year old woman...) and I think intollerance
against intollerance might help!?!

Because you feel Islam discriminates against women, you save these women by talking about killing them???

I do not think these women appreciate that..

So you're arguing it ain't true because it wasn't true at another instant?

Ergo hoc, propter hoc?
I believe you are arguing that only Islamic fundamentalists hijack planes.

I have shown you an example where this is not true.

Therefore, it's not only Islamic fundamentalists that hijack planes.

QED.

I'm reminded of that Nazi ex-mayor somewhere in Bavaria who protested that it ( the holocaust ) could easily have been done by Americans, or British, or whatever.
As I recall, the American SHAEF-officer replied: 'but it never happened...'

Well I think we both know who first used concentration camps...

Because you feel Islam discriminates against women, you save these women by talking about killing them???

I do not think these women appreciate that..

I think he's talking about killing off the islamist men who do the oppressing.
Yep - might be appreciated.
Haven't met many jews moaning about those EBIL British who bombed Hamburg during the 2nd World War..

I believe you are arguing that only Islamic fundamentalists hijack planes.

I have shown you an example where this is not true.

Therefore, it's not only Islamic fundamentalists that hijack planes.

QED.

Well, Cubans who wanted to flee Cuba used to hijack planes.

A few Americans, including D.B. Cooper hijacked planes.

Generally speaking, in modern times, it's mostly Arabs and Islamic fundamentalists. Gone are the days of the Red Army Faction and other graduates of the Patrice Lumumba School For Wayward Teenagers With Extra Angst.

Because you feel Islam discriminates against women, you save these women by talking about killing them???

I do not think these women appreciate that..
It's not a matter of "feeling". It's a fact.

I don't hear Afghan women complaining about the removal of the Taliban.

Well I think we both know who first used concentration camps...

And also who stopped them....

Emily Hobhouse, anyone?

I'm reminded of that Nazi ex-mayor somewhere in Bavaria who protested that it ( the holocaust ) could easily have been done by Americans, or British, or whatever.
As I recall, the American SHAEF-officer replied: 'but it never happened...'


That we might all be capable of mass murder is no excuse for this mayor


But if we do not acknowledge this can and did happen more than once and we are also capable. We will simply join in the next time. We do not need that!

It's not a matter of "feeling". It's a fact.

I don't hear Afghan women complaining about the removal of the Taliban.


Wait....

You did acknowledge the diversity in Islam.

Still, now you make the sudden step back to the horrific regieme of the Taliban to show the discrimination in Islam...

That we might all be capable of mass murder is no excuse for this mayor


But if we do not acknowledge this can and did happen more than once and we are also capable. We will simply join in the next time. We do not need that!


We've ALL been capable of wiping out a couple of million jews.
Yet most of us didn't - somehow.
And some did.

Morale: it's not about those who didn't, it is about those who did.
So, you can stop wasting your time investigating those who didn't, and get busy investigating those who did.

And also who stopped them....

Emily Hobhouse, anyone?

Indeed.

Who would most likely be branded as a horrible scumsucking liberal these days...just as she was back then by the establishment.

Ah...Its because she actually was a Liberal!

/slight hints of sarcasm here

Indeed.

Who would most likely be branded as a horrible scumsucking liberal these days...just as she was back then by the establishment.

Ah...Its because she actually was a Liberal!

/slight hints of sarcasm here

And then there was a certain Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
The one to whom the King confided: 'you should be in high office, and soon too!'

Yes, a good old-fashioned UK-liberal, and not some detestable moral-relativist US Libbie.

We've ALL been capable of wiping out a couple of million jews.
Yet most of us didn't - somehow.
And some did.

Morale: it's not about those who didn't, it is about those who did.
So, you can stop wasting your time investigating those who didn't, and get busy investigating those who did.


Yeah why ask how this happened, they were Germans and other Europeans that's explanation enough...

Besides the matter is not realy important what are the chances of History repeating itself...

:rolleyes:

Yeah why ask how this happened, they were Germans and other Europeans that's explanation enough...

Besides the matter is not realy important what are the chances of History repeating itself...

:rolleyes:


How it can repeat itself?

Genocide a few more million Jews?

Oh... I dunno... allowing Iran to have nukes?

How it can repeat itself?

Genocide a few more million Jews?

Oh... I dunno... allowing Iran to have nukes?
Why do people assume that the moment Iran gets nuclear weapons, they're gonna nuke Israel?

It dosent make sense people

If they did that, then Israel would counter-attack, attacking with an estimated 200+ nuclear warheads.

This means that Iran would be destroyed, then Israel, or whats left of it, would take the opportunity to destroy Syria and whoever else they feel like blowing up.

If you look at the nuclear powers, and use the reasoning that BogMarsh is using, why din't the Soviets nuke the crap out of Afgahnistan? Why din't China turn Taiwan into the largest island made solely of nuclear slog? Why havent the Indians and the Pakistani blown each other to bits? Why hasen't the USA blwo several countries to bits? And I'm sure that France and Britian have this type of question somewheres.

Why do people assume that the moment Iran gets nuclear weapons, they're gonna nuke Israel?

It dosent make sense people

If they did that, then Israel would counter-attack, attacking with an estimated 200+ nuclear warheads.

This means that Iran would be destroyed, then Israel, or whats left of it, would take the opportunity to destroy Syria and whoever else they feel like blowing up.

If you look at the nuclear powers, and use the reasoning that BogMarsh is using, why din't the Soviets nuke the crap out of Afgahnistan? Why din't China turn Taiwan into the largest island made solely of nuclear slog? Why havent the Indians and the Pakistani blown each other to bits? Why hasen't the USA blwo several countries to bits? And I'm sure that France and Britian have this type of question somewheres.

They are simply frightened by the unknown..

The problem is that these people think Iran is different....
They think Muslims are an irrational bunch...

The do not see how people are similar everywhere

And then there was a certain Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
The one to whom the King confided: 'you should be in high office, and soon too!'

Yes, a good old-fashioned UK-liberal, and not some detestable moral-relativist US Libbie.

hmmm I suspect we disagree on as much as we agree...

Why do people assume that the moment Iran gets nuclear weapons, they're gonna nuke Israel?
SNIP
.

Because Iran is governed by sick bags of suck who think the grandest thing to do is hang a 16 year old girl in public?

Yes - we're counting on their common sense.

The supposition of this thread is so full of crap I don't even know where to start.

As pointed out before, most definitely not all terrorists are muslims, and the choices given in the poll are really poor.

Bah. Next. Try again later.

hmmm I suspect we disagree on as much as we agree...

Is that so bad a thing?

Wait a second, what?

What is your "final solution".

dk is a couple steps past being a 'good german'. shit, he makes eichmann look like a fucking champion of human rights.

Because Iran is governed by sick bags of suck who think the grandest thing to do is hang a 16 year old girl in public?

Yes - we're counting on their common sense.
My dear sir, try to put this in prespective,

Lots of countries have done this, past and present, and do we see them hurling nukes at each other?

No, no we don't

dk is a couple steps past being a 'good german'. shit, he makes eichmann look like a fucking champion of human rights.

*sigh*

I noticed

The supposition of this thread is so full of crap I don't even know where to start.

As pointed out before, most definitely not all terrorists are muslims, and the choices given in the poll are really poor.

Bah. Next. Try again later.

I'm pretty sure It was meant as a joke personally, A poor one to be sure but I doubt it was meant to be taken seriously. I mean the IRA being muslim is ridiculous unto itself, and most of the options followed that train of thought. I personally think it's an elaborate ruse to wead out the crazies but thats just me.

Well I think we both know who first used concentration camps...
Probably some small tribe somewhere, once they attacked the other tribe, and herded everyone they dint kill into some sort of prision-area.

Therefore consentrating them in a "camp".

My dear sir, try to put this in prespective,

Lots of countries have done this, past and present, and do we see them hurling nukes at each other?

No, no we don't

My dear sir, try to put this in perspective:

decent folks are unwilling these days to suffer such things to be in their own country.

The Iranians are cool with it.

Hence, the Iranians fail to qualify for decency - nor for common sense.

Send the follow-my-fatwa-ayatollahs and capital-I Imams to hell, and don't suffer 'em to get nukes. Probably saves us a genocide or two.

Well, it probably could have been phrased a wee bit more elequently, but I suspect the original poster was trying to say, by way of sarcasm, how a large portion of terrorists are not Muslims. He was attempting to demonstrate that to those who might think most terrorists are Muslims and whatnot.

My dear sir, try to put this in perspective:

decent folks are unwilling these days to suffer such things to be in their own country.

The Iranians are cool with it.

Hence, the Iranians fail to qualify for decency - nor for common sense.

Send the follow-my-fatwa-ayatollahs and capital-I Imams to hell, and don't suffer 'em to get nukes. Probably saves us a genocide or two.
Ok, using your views, the Iranians are not using comman sense and are crazy bastards.

Lets walk a bit in the shoes of the average Iranian, he belives what they are doing is common sense, obtaining a way to defend their country.

Points of view differ,

As I said before, there have been much "crazier" regiemes along the course of history, and they did not employ nukes or the historical equivalent.

Ok, using your views, the Iranians are not using comman sense and are crazy bastards.

Lets walk a bit in the shoes of the average Iranian, he belives what they are doing is common sense, obtaining a way to defend their country.

Points of view differ,

As I said before, there have been much "crazier" regiemes along the course of history, and they did not employ nukes or the historical equivalent.


Since I don't 'do' cultural relativism, I consider your experiment every bit as relevant as an experiment into phlogiston.

Is that so bad a thing?

I suspect it makes for a strong and vibrant society...

Ok, using your views, the Iranians are not using comman sense and are crazy bastards.

Lets walk a bit in the shoes of the average Iranian, he belives what they are doing is common sense, obtaining a way to defend their country.

Points of view differ,

As I said before, there have been much "crazier" regiemes along the course of history, and they did not employ nukes or the historical equivalent.


Since I don't 'do' cultural relativism, I consider your experiment every bit as relevant as an experiment into phlogiston.

NB. That the madman thinks he's sane has no bearing on his madness - nor on his sanity.

Since I don't 'do' cultural relativism, I consider your experiment every bit as relevant as an experiment into phlogiston.
Then it seems that you are triying to impose your views on others, because you don't like theirs, and you assume you have the moral high ground

I suspect it makes for a strong and vibrant society...

Jolly good. G&T?

NB. That the madman thinks he's sane has no bearing on his madness - nor on his sanity.
Or does it?
he belives hes sane, I think thats good enough for him
I also suspect that others think hes sane
and then you don't, they'll think you're insane

Then it seems that you are triying to impose your views on others, because you don't like theirs, and you assume you have the moral high ground

And what is the relevance of your observation here?

I mean, apart from the fact that you're assuming the point of view of someone who thinks that snuffing some 16 year old girl out in public, and call that justice.

Indeed, most certainly when compared with the likes of you and Iran, I am the paragon of moral high ground.

Sir, everlasting shame on you for ever having spoken about those Iranians without vituperating them!

As I said before, there have been much "crazier" regiemes along the course of history, and they did not employ nukes or the historical equivalent.

Take North Korea Whole lot of crazy and some nuclear potential. Oh wait bad example.
How about the US, quite a few crazy people, nukes and....Hmmm bad example there too...
Wait I know The French they have nukes and haven't blown anything up.... exept a few islands in paradise... Thats no good either.

Damn There are a whole lot of crazies with nukes out there aren't there.

As for Bogmarsh not "Doing" cultural relativism... Hmmm, well that leaves us with an interesting dilemma, Does that mean anyone who isn't living his life exactly like your own countrymen is backwards and fundementally wrong?

So many questions so little answers.

And what is the relevance of your observation here?

I mean, apart from the fact that you're assuming the point of view of someone who thinks that snuffing some 16 year old girl out in public, and call that justice.

Indeed, most certainly when compared with the likes of you and Iran, I am the paragon of moral high ground.

Sir, everlasting shame on you for ever having spoken about those Iranians without vituperating them!
Well, what did the girl do? I think that bears some revelance on this discussion

And I don't like the current Iranian regime, I would like it if it was more democratic.

I think that you are confused as to why I would be willing to move to a final solution to the Islamic problem.

It has nothing to do with bigotry, or racism, as many seem to think.

It has to do with the concept of civilization survival, and how, in modern times, with modern weapons, or even without weapons - with mere ideas - a civilization can be wiped out.

This is a clash of civilizations. Either they assimilate to some accomodation of Western beliefs (as Christianity has acceded largely to a secular world), or it will be necessary to remove them entirely.

In a world where technology will make it possible to remove another civilization within a day, the risk is too great to ignore.

You might say, "well, these are individuals, and small groups of people, and not nation-states". Iran is a nation-state, with the avowed aim of destroying Israel by force, of inciting global violence in order to bring about the return of the hidden Imam, and bringing "a light greater than any before" over the city of Jerusalem.

If our world were confined to conventional weapons alone, I wouldn't care. But it's not.
You are using the same kind of vocabulary and reason that the nazis used to justify what they did. Nice going, DK. Keep it up and I'll see you at Nürnberg II.

I wonder - if you look in the mirror, does it resemble anything like http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/tyrant16bq.gif yet?

Well, what did the girl do? I think that bears some revelance on this discussion

And I don't like the current Iranian regime, I would like it if it was more democratic.

Appearently she was accused of having prostituted herself at the age of 23...

That was - admittedly - 7 years into the future - if true.

Still, it seems a bit harsh to hang a 16 year old girl for acts of prostitution which she was to commit some 7 years AFTER her hanging.

But I'm sure that's quite alright, if only you do a bit of moral and cultural relativism, and see things from their point of view.

Appearently she was accused of having prostituted herself at the age of 23...

That was - admittedly - 7 years into the future - if true.

Still, it seems a bit harsh to hang a 16 year old girl for acts of prostitution which she was to commit some 7 years AFTER her hanging.
They probably have very stict laws on prostitution, and the age thing was either a way to proably try her as an adult, or your source is wrong.

They probably have very stict laws on prostitution, and the age thing was either a way to proably try her as an adult, or your source is wrong.

Yes, and we should not judge those laws, because they are alright, if only one considers their point of view.

You are using the same kind of vocabulary and reason that the nazis used to justify what they did. Nice going, DK. Keep it up and I'll see you at Nürnberg II.

I wonder - if you look in the mirror, does it resemble anything like http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/tyrant16bq.gif yet?

Nope. If it does happen, there won't be a Nuremburg Trial. Because we'll win.

No trial for the winners.

Yes, and we should not judge those laws, because they are alright, if only one considers their point of view.
yay for sarcasm!

Jolly good. G&T?

Sadly G&T's give me such gas that it makes the Iranians nervous and the Iraqi's jealous.

Nope. If it does happen, there won't be a Nuremburg Trial. Because we'll win.

No trial for the winners.
Overconfidence can be quite crippling

Appearently she was accused of having prostituted herself at the age of 23...

That was - admittedly - 7 years into the future - if true.

Still, it seems a bit harsh to hang a 16 year old girl for acts of prostitution which she was to commit some 7 years AFTER her hanging.

But I'm sure that's quite alright, if only you do a bit of moral and cultural relativism, and see things from their point of view.
I think thats more than a little harsh personally, actually it's criminal. Some crimes deserve a death sentence, or at least a bit of poetic justice, this is not one of those times.

There's a good chance most of the people of Iran don't support that kind of thing. I mean lets take Afghanistan as an example. The Taliban was hanging women for basicly no good reason, as in your example, but when they were deposed everyone but the most extreme fundementalist cheered. Course now the Canadian army is stuck in there trying to clean up (mostly unsuccesfully, but things are moving forwards) while the US military is having a bang up time in Iraq.

Yes, and we should not judge those laws, because they are alright, if only one considers their point of view.


We should, but the death sentence says little about the use of Nuclear weapons. And the suicide mission against Israel.

We all know the track record of the current US president on the death sentence.

yay for sarcasm!


And everlasting shame and dishonour for every vile person who tries to do moral or cultural relativism.

You, sir, are a disgrace to whatever family you came from.

Nope. If it does happen, there won't be a Nuremburg Trial. Because we'll win.

No trial for the winners.

Course, War crimes can now be tried by your own side. Take the three or four american soldiers being charged with raping a 15 year old Iraqui girl and killing her and her whole family. Yeah that deserves a court marshial and a death sentence.

And everlasting shame and dishonour for every vile person who tries to do moral or cultural relativism.

You, sir, are a disgrace to whatever family you came from.
/engages defense mode

You sir, are a pompus piece of doo-doo, and are quite dispicable. Shame to those that cannot see more than one side of the argument.

I shall not insult your family, because I consider that not to be the most honorable way to attack a person.

Course, War crimes can now be tried by your own side. Take the three or four american soldiers being charged with raping a 15 year old Iraqui girl and killing her and her whole family. Yeah that deserves a court marshial and a death sentence.
of the untold hundreds, maybe thousands, that commit crimes, maybe not of that degree, but crimes non the less, who get off scot-free.

We should, but the death sentence says little about the use of Nuclear weapons. And the suicide mission against Israel.

We all know the track record of the current US president on the death sentence.

The only matter at hand here is.... genocide.

The Americans don't. The Iranians sho'nuff are hell-bent on it.

Every word you utter in their defense, may it count as evidence against you on that final day for which Ahmad-whatshisname says he's preparing for.

Sadly G&T's give me such gas that it makes the Iranians nervous and the Iraqi's jealous.

Please - for the good of Mankind?

Warned. The thread is trolling.
Not all terrorists are Muslim.