NationStates Jolt Archive

I must admit he's done quite a good job painting these.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0412-06.htm

:rolleyes:

His next work will be a portrait of Daniel Pearl after he was the victim of Muslim human sacrifice.

Oops, I forgot: they weren't real Muslims, and you can't say anything negative about Muslims anyway or they'll riot and kill everyone in sight, and Mr. Big Artist isn't that brave, is he?

BTW: Abu Ghraib was a good thing and we should have kept at it. No apologies!

Not my cup of tea.

Woohoo, it's officially my brutality now!

Reproductions of paintings like these should go one wide-scale public display.

People need to be reminded of ugly and disgusting american brutality is, and these images convey that well.

I wish I had the funds to put these on billboards.

Reproductions of paintings like these should go one wide-scale public display.

People need to be reminded of ugly and disgusting american brutality is, and these images convey that well.

I wish I had the funds to put these on billboards.

Yea, America is the problem, not the "peaceful" muslium. I should make a painting of Muslium shooting a nun in the head, I wonder how well that'll go over. hmmmm.

Reproductions of paintings like these should go one wide-scale public display.

People need to be reminded of ugly and disgusting american brutality is, and these images convey that well.

I wish I had the funds to put these on billboards.

Generalization is a very bullshit thing to do, kid.

Somewhat ironically, had he painted that sort of thing in an Islamic country about their government, he'd have gotten his throat slit.

Yea, America is the problem, not the "peaceful" muslium. I should make a painting of Muslium shooting a nun in the head, I wonder how well that'll go over. hmmmm.

Personaly I would like to see both sides reminded that such reprehensable acts are not ever justified

I love it how a thread about Abu Ghraib gets turned into a muslim-bashing fest.

Reproductions of paintings like these should go one wide-scale public display.

People need to be reminded of ugly and disgusting american brutality is, and these images convey that well.

I wish I had the funds to put these on billboards.

Then naturally, we also get to put up images of French troops allowing Hutus into Tutsi refugee camps, images of Islamic radicals beheading and torturing random innocents, images of North Korean soldiers torturing and killing random people on the roadside.

Then naturally, we also get to put up images of French troops allowing Hutus into Tutsi refugee camps, images of Islamic radicals beheading and torturing random innocents, images of North Korean soldiers torturing and killing random people on the roadside.

I would support this.

I love it how a thread about Abu Ghraib gets turned into a muslim-bashing fest.

Word. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the nature of the mistreated prisoners.

I love it how a thread about Abu Ghraib gets turned into a muslim-bashing fest.

Umm, just to be clear, I was the only one who made a muslium post, I doubt that makes it a "muslim-bashing fest".

:rolleyes:

His next work will be a portrait of Daniel Pearl after he was the victim of Muslim human sacrifice.

Oops, I forgot: they weren't real Muslims, and you can't say anything negative about Muslims anyway or they'll riot and kill everyone in sight, and Mr. Big Artist isn't that brave, is he?

BTW: Abu Ghraib was a good thing and we should have kept at it. No apologies!

Somewhat ironically, had he painted that sort of thing in an Islamic country about their government, he'd have gotten his throat slit.

Yea, America is the problem, not the "peaceful" muslium. I should make a painting of Muslium shooting a nun in the head, I wonder how well that'll go over. hmmmm.

Umm, just to be clear, I was the only one who made a muslium post, I doubt that makes it a "muslim-bashing fest".

really?

really?

Ok, I was wrong. Carry on.

:rolleyes:

His next work will be a portrait of Daniel Pearl after he was the victim of Muslim human sacrifice.

Oops, I forgot: they weren't real Muslims, and you can't say anything negative about Muslims anyway or they'll riot and kill everyone in sight, and Mr. Big Artist isn't that brave, is he?

BTW: Abu Ghraib was a good thing and we should have kept at it. No apologies!

Yea, America is the problem, not the "peaceful" muslium. I should make a painting of Muslium shooting a nun in the head, I wonder how well that'll go over. hmmmm.


I love it how a thread about Abu Ghraib gets turned into a muslim-bashing fest.

Don't you, though? Because remember: if they are Muslim, and prisoners, they are evil, baby-raping, suicide-bombing Terrorists.

Ok, I know some of them got beaten...but the pictures and evidence just seems to indicate we stripped most of them naked...personally, I like being tied up naked :p

And yes, I know...that definitely crossed some lines there

Ok, I know some of them got beaten...but the pictures and evidence just seems to indicate we stripped most of them naked...personally, I like being tied up naked :p

We? We? Last I checked it was a handful of soldiers who were acting on their own volition, who have since been in the deep shit trouble zone because of their actions.

Hell, I wasn't even old enough to vote when it happened, I had nothing to do with it.

Yea, America is the problem, not the "peaceful" muslium. I should make a painting of Muslium shooting a nun in the head, I wonder how well that'll go over. hmmmm.

or slitting the throats of their own women for marrying a catholic...or dragging bodies thru the streets to the utter joy of the uneducated masses...dont worry..they are american...so all is well.

the more people make excuses for their barbaric behaviour to justify their hatred of america...this will never end.

and trust me...the blind hatred of america(no matter what good we do in the world)will always be outweighed by the love of the enemy of my enemy.

i sometimes think that islamist extremists could incinerate baby jesus..but if he was born in america...oh well...

but god forbid we kill a hadji..that beheads a innocent irish girl...it is americas fault...lol

the left is as fucked up or worse then the right.......the right is the fundies...and newsflash...so is the left!

The diffrence between Aubi Grab and the muslium is that at least we know we were wrong, and the parties involved were tried and convicted. Has any of the mulisum that killed innocent people been called wrong, tried and convicted?

the left is as fucked up or worse then the right.......the right is the fundies...and newsflash...so is the left!

That's why I'm a Libertarian.

The diffrence between Aubi Grab and the muslium is that at least we know we were wrong, and the parties involved were tried and convicted. Has any of the mulisum that killed innocent people been called wrong, tried and convicted?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the people at Abu Ghraib?

The diffrence between Aubi Grab and the muslium is that at least we know we were wrong

Oh, we do? So why are so many people trying to portray Muslims (apparently, everyone who is a Muslim) as evil in this thread? I'll tell you why - because people believe it's okay to beat, sodomize and torture prisoners if they're Muslims, because the underlying assumption is that all Muslims are guilty of terrorism. Because people are making excuses for Abu Graib. Because people DON'T know we were wrong.

Has any of the mulisum that killed innocent people been called wrong, tried and convicted?

Or any of the christians or jews, eh? Oh wait, those aren't guilty. Of being Muslims.

Oh, we do? So why are so many people trying to portray Muslims (apparently, everyone who is a Muslim) as evil in this thread? I'll tell you why - because people believe it's okay to beat, sodomize and torture prisoners if they're Muslims, because the underlying assumption is that all Muslims are guilty of terrorism. Because people are making excuses for Abu Graib. Because people DON'T know we were wrong.

If you willing to torture someone because of their religion, then your certainly willing to kill them, if your willing to kill someone because of their religion, then certainly your willing to exterminate the religion itself. There is going to be a genocide, possibly holocaust size, if your a muslim living in a western country I advise you to leave, it isn't safe anymore.

If you willing to torture someone because of their religion, then your certainly willing to kill them, if your willing to kill someone because of their religion, then certainly your willing to exterminate the religion itself. There is going to be a genocide, possibly holocaust size, if your a muslim living in a western country I advise you to leave, it isn't safe anymore.
What a completely ridicolous and laughable statement.

If you willing to torture someone because of their religion, then your certainly willing to kill them, if your willing to kill someone because of their religion, then certainly your willing to exterminate the religion itself. There is going to be a genocide, possibly holocaust size, if your a muslim living in a western country I advise you to leave, it isn't safe anymore.

I dunno about genocide specifically, but if there's another 9/11 sized terrorist attack against USA? Especially one involving nukes. Then you'll see mass murder and religious persecution become official, popularly-sanctioned Policy.

But, maybe I'm just making "excuses" for "anti-Americanism" because I am a "terrorist apologist" or maybe just a "terrorist."

Oh, we do? So why are so many people trying to portray Muslims (apparently, everyone who is a Muslim) as evil in this thread? I'll tell you why - because people believe it's okay to beat, sodomize and torture prisoners if they're Muslims, because the underlying assumption is that all Muslims are guilty of terrorism. Because people are making excuses for Abu Graib. Because people DON'T know we were wrong.



Or any of the christians or jews, eh? Oh wait, those aren't guilty. Of being Muslims.

Actually I do think the prison scandal was wrong, and I don't support it. I also don't support the beheading, the dragging, the shooting, the burning, the suicide bombing, and crashing airplanes into building actions of the Muslium community. Also no, Jews and Christian can't be Muslium because Muslium refers to the pratictioner of the religion of Islam!

Oh, I don't know, maybe the people at Abu Ghraib?

Well most of them probably weren't given a trial so....

I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't embarrassed by the actions of those soldiers.

However, to say Muslims are just being singled out as opposed to Jews or Catholics? The latter two religions got over the whole "DIE, NON-BELIEVER" thing quite a while ago.

What a completely ridicolous and laughable statement.

Why?

Look at the people on this thread, they all have no problem with Abu Ghraib, because the victims are muslims. I ask myself, what would be the reaction if the torturers were muslims and the tortured were US soldiers, given the exact same torture methods?

Why?

Look at the people on this thread, they all have no problem with Abu Ghraib, because the victims are muslims. I ask myself, what would be the reaction if the torturers were muslims and the tortured were US soldiers, given the exact same torture methods?

and no one reads my post...

if the torturers were muslims and the tortured were US soldiers

... are you joking?

... are you joking?

Nope, apparently he forgot about the hanging on the bridge, or the beheading, or dragging through the streets, the suicide bombings....

I think atrocities will always happen as long as there is war going on, but while we leave this problem of american brutality, it'll make american troops believe that its ok, and who knows how many more atrocities are going on that we dont know about?

We can always justify it by saying that muslims are more brutal in their punishments, but going into a country and forcing our social beliefs upon them is wrong. If we think this is wrong, we shouldnt go into a country and do it ourselves, and when we leave iraq, however far away that might be, and they still want to have women wearing viels, and chopping off peoples hands for stealing, then what right do we have to make them stop?

As far as im concerned, if we think brutality is wrong, our troops in iraq should represent us in this, but what they're doing at the minute is discusting, and hopefully we'll put a stop to it soon.

Why?

Look at the people on this thread, they all have no problem with Abu Ghraib, because the victims are muslims. I ask myself, what would be the reaction if the torturers were muslims and the tortured were US soldiers, given the exact same torture methods?
I see no substantial evidance of this. One person (not you wilogrove) says that Abu Ghraib was necessary, so the 1billion muslims in the world should be located in Muslim only countries? No, very very wrong. Heck, even the Bush administration has shown regret in multiple speaches for what happened. US soldiers have been tortured and killed by terrorists. I saw no rounding up of Muslims. No firing squads, my neighbors were not pulled from their houses and dragged through the streets. I fail to see any genoicides in any western nations in the forseeable future.

Nope, apparently he forgot about the hanging on the bridge, or the beheading, or dragging through the streets, the suicide bombings....

I have a feeling they're one of those "... holocaust? what holocaust?" people.

... are you joking?

I am talking specifically, if Abu Ghraib were a terrorist run torture center.

I have a feeling they're one of those "... holocaust? what holocaust?" people.

The President of Iran post on here? :eek:

Yes, because everytime people speak against a particular group, genocide is bound to become a problem. That explains why all of us white crackers, all those dirty Mexicans, those barbaric blacks, etc. are all on the verge of being murdered for what we are.:rolleyes:

Yes, because everytime people speak against a particular group, genocide is bound to become a problem. That explains why all of us white crackers, all those dirty Mexicans, those barbaric blacks, etc. are all on the verge of being murdered for what we are.:rolleyes:

LOL! Zing! *gives thumbs up to Aelae Vaerendri*

I am talking specifically, if Abu Ghraib were a terrorist run torture center.

Oh, so all the atrocities listed above are null and void because the bastards were too cheap to build a facility. Damn.

Why?

Look at the people on this thread, they all have no problem with Abu Ghraib, because the victims are muslims. I ask myself, what would be the reaction if the torturers were muslims and the tortured were US soldiers, given the exact same torture methods?

Who was defending the torturers most of the people were bitching that the phrasing made it sound like Abu Ghraib was something that most Americans agreed with when most condemed it, although I still say they should have investigated it further, and than point out how people react when similar generalizations are made about muslims, well didn't so much point it out as provoke said reactions, but what ever. The point is its bull shit to generalize in either of those ways.

Oh, so all the atrocities listed above are null and void because the bastards were too cheap to build a facility. Damn.

I'm well aware of the atrocities committed by islamic extremists thank you.

Yes, because everytime people speak against a particular group, genocide is bound to become a problem. That explains why all of us white crackers, all those dirty Mexicans, those barbaric blacks, etc. are all on the verge of being murdered for what we are.:rolleyes:

Last I heard, no one is invading a "black country" or blaming "the white community." Last I heard, no one ever talked about "nuking Africa" and gotten sage-like nods. Maybe you weren't around in the days following 9/11 when "killing all the ragheads" was socially correct.

LOL! Zing! *gives thumbs up to Aelae Vaerendri*
Thanks, what can I say? I try.

I am talking specifically, if Abu Ghraib were a terrorist run torture center.

Five bucks say they would do the same to us if they had the chance. I mean afterall, the people who commited the crime at Abu graibab didn't rep. the entire militatry force, they were a small minority. The muslium extremtist are also a minority, so given that fact. Yea, I say the muslium extremist would do the same to us, if not worse.

Who was defending the torturers most of the people were bitching that the phrasing made it sound like Abu Ghraib was something that most Americans agreed with when most condemed it, although I still say they should have investigated it further, and than point out how people react when similar generalizations are made about muslims, well didn't so much point it out as provoke said reactions, but what ever. The point is its bull shit to generalize in either of those ways.

I agree 100% generalization is wrong. I'm sure a lot of Americans are appalled by Abu Ghraib.

I am talking specifically, if Abu Ghraib were a terrorist run torture center.

What people would want the ones responsible held to acount?

Last I heard, no one is invading a "black country" or blaming "the white community." Last I heard, no one ever talked about "nuking Africa" and gotten sage-like nods. Maybe you weren't around in the days following 9/11 when "killing all the ragheads" was socially correct.
Yes, and let's remember what led to that public opinion after 9/11.

Those particular "ragheads" thought it socially correct to fly a plane into two towers in New York City as a strike against Americans.

I'm well aware of the atrocities committed by islamic extremists thank you.

Evidently not, since you feel their entire culture was wronged because some immature assholes decided to take unathorized n00dz of the captives and posting them on Myspace. While shameful, yes, I'm going to have to say "big fucking deal" by comparison. I'd rather be an Arab taken prisoner by Americans than an American captured by an Arab.

Last I heard, no one is invading a "black country" or blaming "the white community." Last I heard, no one ever talked about "nuking Africa" and gotten sage-like nods. Maybe you weren't around in the days following 9/11 when "killing all the ragheads" was socially correct.
Apparently I wasnt either. I remember unecessary and stupid outlash agiasnt innocent Muslims but nothing about "killing all the ragheads" being socially correct.

Five bucks say they would do the same to us if they had the chance. I mean afterall, the people who commited the crime at Abu graibab didn't rep. the entire militatry force, they were a small minority. The muslium extremtist are also a minority, so given that fact. Yea, I say the muslium extremist would do the same to us, if not worse.

Correct.

Yes, and let's remember what led to that public opinion after 9/11.

Those particular "ragheads" thought it socially correct to fly a plane into two towers in New York City as a strike against Americans.

What exactly is your point here? Two wrongs make a right?

Apparently I wasnt either. I remember unecessary and stupid outlash agiasnt innocent Muslims but nothing about "killing all the ragheads" being socially correct.

I guess my memory is just clearer. Because I remember even arguing against that sort of thing got me called a terrorist Muslim-lover myself.

Last I heard, no one is invading a "black country" or blaming "the white community." Last I heard, no one ever talked about "nuking Africa" and gotten sage-like nods. Maybe you weren't around in the days following 9/11 when "killing all the ragheads" was socially correct.

Yes, I remember I pointed out is was a stupid idea since most people killed would have been complely innocent. However you seem to be missing the point that despite the fact hat people were pissed off and acting irrationaly, as angry people are want to do, those comments never amounted to anything.

What exactly is your point here? Two wrongs make a right?

I believe the implied point was that if one doesn't want to be thought of as an asshole, one shouldn't act like one.

For lack of better terminology.

What exactly is your point here? Two wrongs make a right?
No, my point is, it's a fight of survival. Personally, I'd rather it be them, than me. But what is you are proposing, might I ask? Continue to allow them the chances to fly more planes into American landmarks?

You might disagree with the war, but hey, it's working.

Not another terrorist attack has occured on American soil.

((Notice I'm saying AMERICAN soil here, not Italian, or British.))

What exactly is your point here? Two wrongs make a right?

Maybe that there is a big diference between talking about doing something irrational in the heat of the moment and acctualy doing it?

Five bucks say they would do the same to us if they had the chance. I mean afterall, the people who commited the crime at Abu graibab didn't rep. the entire militatry force, they were a small minority. The muslium extremtist are also a minority, so given that fact. Yea, I say the muslium extremist would do the same to us, if not worse.

I understand that

What I dont see is why people get so upset when we call out and try to hold the men and women that are suposedly fighting in our name with our money with our lives at stake to a higher standard then a bunch of scum terrorists

I understand that

What I dont see is why people get so upset when we call out and try to hold the men and women that are suposedly fighting in our name with our money with our lives at stake to a higher standard then a bunch of scum terroristsBecause its painting them all with the brush of blame for the actions of a small group of individuals, assuming of course the event didn't reach higher up the chain of command but even then you can't blame people for shit they had no part in.

I understand that

What I dont see is why people get so upset when we call out and try to hold the men and women that are suposedly fighting in our name with our money with our lives at stake to a higher standard then a bunch of scum terrorists

I don't either, and personally I agree with you. I didn't find the acts at the prisons funny because, well to be honest, I thought that it would get someone killed in Iraq. I mean that may make me sound like an ass, but that was my first though. We should run our POW camps the same way we run our own prisions here in the states, then that way, when a muslium extremist does another beheading or similiar acts, then everyone will see that they can't blame it on us.

I guess my memory is just clearer. Because I remember even arguing against that sort of thing got me called a terrorist Muslim-lover myself.
Hmm, well I remember my school having an assembly about how outlash agiasnt Muslims was wrong and that they in no way represented the government.

No, my point is, it's a fight of survival. Personally, I'd rather it be them, than me.

And that kind of idiotic thinking is just perfect for the pro-genocide/mass murder movement.

But what is you are proposing, might I ask? Continue to allow them the chances to fly more planes into American landmarks?

I guess I'm proposing morality and reason, as opposed to "hey, we gotta kill them all, otherwise we all DIE!"

You might disagree with the war, but hey, it's working.

Not another terrorist attack has occured on American soil.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nor is it proof of anything.

You really think there will NEVER be another terrorist attack on American soil? Living in a fucking dream world, you are.

I believe the implied point was that if one doesn't want to be thought of as an asshole, one shouldn't act like one.


I take it to mean, if you don't want to be thought of an asshole, don't be a member of a religion that has assholes in it.

Yes, I remember I pointed out is was a stupid idea since most people killed would have been complely innocent. However you seem to be missing the point that despite the fact hat people were pissed off and acting irrationaly, as angry people are want to do, those comments never amounted to anything.

Right, which is why I haven't said we ARE committing genocide, just that it won't take much more of 9/11 type things for those "irrationals" to have their way.

Right, which is why I haven't said we ARE committing genocide, just that it won't take much more of 9/11 type things for those "irrationals" to have their way.
I'm not so sure, most of those I know who respond that way mellowed out eventually, well at least to the extent that they realized anything that drastic was excessive. Besides there is a diference between what the emotional man on the street might want to do in the heat of the moment and what the goverment will do, and hopefully an even bigger one in a few weeks.

Wow, yes, you figured me out. Because i support killing Muslim Extremists, i support genocide.

Of course, if i say Muslim Extremists, this is politically incorrect, and i should include all extremists, Christian, Jewish, etc.

But then if I only choose extremists, I'm still being politically incorrect, as the extremists still hold the same religion as the non-extremist neighbors.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's that there is no winning with people like you. You view the world in black and white, minus the shades of gray.

Because its painting them all with the brush of blame for the actions of a small group of individuals, assuming of course the event didn't reach higher up the chain of command but even then you can't blame people for shit they had no part in.

Well of course I am not advocating coloring all our service men and women the same as thoes scum but every time I express disapointment or disgust in what some of them did I am all the sudden anti solder

Or if I disagree with isreal all the sudden anti semetic.

I mean I dont paint everyone with the racist brush

I'm not so sure, most of those I know who respond that way mellowed out eventually, well at least to the extent that they realized anything that drastic was excessive. Besides there is a diference between what the emotional man on the street might want to do in the heat of the moment and what the goverment will do, and hopefully an even bigger one in a few weeks.

That sorta assumes that the government doesn't have the power for an angry, irrational man in charge to do somethign that drastic. But with the increased centralization of authority in US government, I'm not keen on making that assumption. And the main point is a lot of people DIDN'T mellow out, and the mellow-out factor would be more or less nonexistent if the catalyst event (say, a nuclear 9/11) was more so.

In fact, in the case of WMDs, it is already government policy to respond in kind. All that's left is who to bomb... well, hey, pick a Muslim country.

Hey, I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm being overreactive. I hope we don't have to have the world prove it either way.

I take it to mean, if you don't want to be thought of an asshole, don't be a member of a religion that has assholes in it.


Your response would have been valid had we rounded up all Muslims and put them in little camps in a "revisiting life for American Japanese during WWII" sort of thing. The people who believe all Muslims are inherently evil are a very small minority, and their views are certainly not reflected in our government.

The people who wound up in American prisoner camps aren't exactly poor innocents.

Wow, yes, you figured me out. Because i support killing Muslim Extremists, i support genocide.

It's a short step from killing anyone whose views you deem to be "extreme" to anyone you feel like. In fact, they're largely the same thing. And I doubt you'd let a court determine and a judge sentence whether someone is guilty of Extreme Islam either. Who needs proof?

Of course, if i say Muslim Extremists, this is politically incorrect, and i should include all extremists, Christian, Jewish, etc.

But then if I only choose extremists, I'm still being politically incorrect, as the extremists still hold the same religion as the non-extremist neighbors.


Nice strawmen.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's that there is no winning with people like you. You view the world in black and white, minus the shades of gray.

I see the world in black, white, and gray. I just prefer the white. As for winning with me, I guess that depends on how you'd define a Win.

Yes, I remember I pointed out is was a stupid idea since most people killed would have been complely innocent. However you seem to be missing the point that despite the fact hat people were pissed off and acting irrationaly, as angry people are want to do, those comments never amounted to anything.
Er, I'm pretty sure the multiple people who were murdered after 9/11 just for looking "arabic" would say otherwise.

Er, I'm pretty sure the multiple people who were murdered after 9/11 just for looking "arabic" would say otherwise.
Yes, but we didn't nuke them which were the comments being discussed.

Yes, but we didn't nuke them which were the comments being discussed.

The majority of the American public did not condone this violence as was apparently stated.

Well of course I am not advocating coloring all our service men and women the same as thoes scum but every time I express disapointment or disgust in what some of them did I am all the sudden anti solder

Or if I disagree with isreal all the sudden anti semetic.

I mean I dont paint everyone with the racist brush

Oh, I'm not saying you are I'm saying that seems to be what is upsetting those critizing the article, that it seems to be blamin gthe many for the actions of the few.

The majority of the American public did not condone this violence as was apparently stated.

They did, however, condone an invasion of Iraq (killing how many tens of thousands?) based on even the suggestion that Iraq had some connection to 9/11. And even though people have - "mellowed out" - about that invasion since, most still condone the continuing occupation.

It's a short step from killing anyone whose views you deem to be "extreme" to anyone you feel like. In fact, they're largely the same thing. And I doubt you'd let a court determine and a judge sentence whether someone is guilty of Extreme Islam either. Who needs proof?
An extremist, in my opinion, would be someone who is bent on killing me, my family, and every other person who lives in the western world. Though, personally, I'd rather see them caught and put in prisons, as we were doing, rather than seeing them all killed. But since the incident at Abu Ghraib, all prisons will be viewed with overall distrust, even though those were isolated events.


Nice strawmen.
Why, thank you.



I see the world in black, white, and gray. I just prefer the white. As for winning with me, I guess that depends on how you'd define a Win.
So, basically, you say I live in a dream world, where i believe another terrorist attack will never happen on American Soil... i find this much more probable than what you believe.

If the world is too harsh for you, i suggest you find a place amongst the It's A Small World ride at Disney theme parks. Others of us who realize the world isn't so pretty will keep you safe in your fantasy land.

But to answer your prior question on if i believe America will never face another terrorist attack...
Yes, i believe we WILL face more attacks; not just that, we'll fall to them. No civilization lasts forever. America has had its Carthage (The USSR) and now we have our barbarians.

You might disagree with the war, but hey, it's working.

Not another terrorist attack has occured on American soil.

Al-Qaeda manages a major terrorist attack about every six years. Now, with this knowledge, comprehend why your post was stupid and ill-thought out.

They did, however, condone an invasion of Iraq (killing how many tens of thousands?) based on even the suggestion that Iraq had some connection to 9/11. And even though people have - "mellowed out" - about that invasion since, most still condone the continuing occupation.
The invasion of Iraq does not equate to genocide of muslims in western nations. We were lied to about Iraq having WMD's and as we have "mellowed down" a majority do not in fact condone the occupation, I'm surprised you arent tap-dancing over the polls against the cabinent.

I love it how whenever you point out the atrocities of one group they think you believe the other group is blameless.

Yes, Islamic extremists are responsible for ungodly things... murder, rape, torture, religious and racial persecution. But then again, so are the American army and a number of American civilians.

You're both as bad as each other. Grow up

Al-Qaeda manages a major terrorist attack about every six years. Now, with this knowledge, comprehend why your post was stupid and ill-thought out.

Every 6 years, except now, they are financially crippled. We'll see; give them another couple years.

So to say what i said was 'stupid and ill-thought out' is pretty stupid and ill-thought out in itself, since when you offically declare your jihad, i'd assume attacks would become more frequent, and that average would rise, rather than staying about the same, or sink, as that might happen as well.

I love it how whenever you point out the atrocities of one group they think you believe the other group is blameless.

Yes, Islamic extremists are responsible for ungodly things... murder, rape, torture, religious and racial persecution. But then again, so are the American army and a number of American civilians.

You're both as bad as each other. Grow up

I wouldn't say that what america has done in Iraq or in Abu Ghraib was as bad as what the Jihadists have done.

An extremist, in my opinion, would be someone who is bent on killing me, my family, and every other person who lives in the western world.

So they need... motive. Presumably, expressed intent. Or am I presuming too much? Is it enough to just assume they have that intent? How do you propose on killing people based purely on what thoughts they have?

So, basically, you say I live in a dream world, where i believe another terrorist attack will never happen on American Soil... i find this much more probable than what you believe.

Heh. "Never" is a very, very long time. What you and I find probable are, needless to say, rather different.

If the world is too harsh for you, i suggest you find a place amongst the It's A Small World ride at Disney theme parks. Others of us who realize the world isn't so pretty will keep you safe in your fantasy land.

Ah yes. You're "awake" to the danger, and I'm "asleep." That must be it. Keep dreaming!

But to answer your prior question on if i believe America will never face another terrorist attack...
Yes, i believe we WILL face more attacks; not just that, we'll fall to them. No civilization lasts forever. America has had its Carthage (The USSR) and now we have our barbarians.

If that's what you believe, how can you be so secure in your assumption that the lack of major post-9/11 terrorist attacks against US is indication that anything we are doing is "working?"

I wouldn't say that what america has done in Iraq or in Abu Ghraib was as bad as what the Jihadists have done.

Who said I was just talking about Abu Gharib and Iraq? Note the use of the word "civilians"

The invasion of Iraq does not equate to genocide of muslims in western nations. We were lied to about Iraq having WMD's and as we have "mellowed down" a majority do not in fact condone the occupation, I'm surprised you arent tap-dancing over the polls against the cabinent.

So what's to stop people from accepting another lie used to justify an invasion?

And yes, invading Iraq doesn't equate to genocide. It does, however, equate to killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Let me ask you this, if you believed that the government of, say, Canada "had WMDs" (which, hypothetically, they weren't supposed to), and if you believed that they had a "connection" to 9/11, would you support the invasion of Canada, the occupation of Canada, and the creation of a "new Democratic government" in Canada by the US?

Would most Americans?

I'm going to hesitate a guess and say, NO. Because Canadians don't dress differently, talk differently, or believe in a different religion.

So they need... motive. Presumably, expressed intent. Or am I presuming too much? Is it enough to just assume they have that intent? How do you propose on killing people based purely on what thoughts they have?
Or go with the ones who are armed, the ones who are apart of organizations such as the Taliban, Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc.


Heh. "Never" is a very, very long time. What you and I find probable are, needless to say, rather different.
As i stated before, i don't really believe we will never face another terrorist attack. It was more of a "I think this is more probable than that" situation.


Ah yes. You're "awake" to the danger, and I'm "asleep." That must be it. Keep dreaming!
We see 2 different dangers, so in truth, neither of us is truly asleep. To not acknowledge both dangers, though, would be foolish. I do see your points, but I believe mine to be more of a threat. (And i would actually assume this is vice versa.)


If that's what you believe, how can you be so secure in your assumption that the lack of major post-9/11 terrorist attacks against US is indication that anything we are doing is "working?"
I can believe what we're doing right now is currently working. The fall of Rome wasn't just about the barbarians. It was also internal, and those internal affairs are starting to take place in the United States. Eventually, we'll be too wrapped up on dealing with things on the inside,that our screen against terrorism drops enough for another attack to take place... then another, then another.

So what's to stop people from accepting another lie used to justify an invasion?

And yes, invading Iraq doesn't equate to genocide. It does, however, equate to killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Let me ask you this, if you believed that the government of, say, Canada "had WMDs" (which, hypothetically, they weren't supposed to), and if you believed that they had a "connection" to 9/11, would you support the invasion of Canada, the occupation of Canada, and the creation of a "new Democratic government" in Canada by the US?

Would most Americans?

I'm going to hesitate a guess and say, NO. Because Canadians don't dress differently, talk differently, or believe in a different religion.
While your point is indeed valid, we did not invade Pakistan (a primarily Muslim nation) when they tested nuclear weapons. Why? because we felt they had a stable regime and were not an immiediate threat to any one nation with their weapons.

So what's to stop people from accepting another lie used to justify an invasion?

And yes, invading Iraq doesn't equate to genocide. It does, however, equate to killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

Let me ask you this, if you believed that the government of, say, Canada "had WMDs" (which, hypothetically, they weren't supposed to), and if you believed that they had a "connection" to 9/11, would you support the invasion of Canada, the occupation of Canada, and the creation of a "new Democratic government" in Canada by the US?

Would most Americans?

I'm going to hesitate a guess and say, NO. Because Canadians don't dress differently, talk differently, or believe in a different religion.
Or, perhapse, because Canada isn't ruled by a dictator who dosen't particularly like us, although the religion bit is a bit more on target since Iraq's Islamic population made it a bit more believable that they could act as a recruiting ground for radical Islamic terrorists, or at least terrorists manipulating Islam for their own ends.

Every 6 years, except now, they are financially crippled. We'll see; give them another couple years.

So to say what i said was 'stupid and ill-thought out' is pretty stupid and ill-thought out in itself, since when you offically declare your jihad, i'd assume attacks would become more frequent, and that average would rise, rather than staying about the same, or sink, as that might happen as well.

They declared jihad years ago. That's why they've been attacking on an average of once every six or so years. They take time to organise and carry out.

They declared jihad years ago. That's why they've been attacking on an average of once every six or so years. They take time to organise and carry out.
Yes, terrorist attacks on the whole, sure, every six years. I can believe that. But Al Queda attacks every six years? The next terrorist attack to occur on US soil will not be done by Al Queda.

Yes, terrorist attacks on the whole, sure, every six years. I can believe that. But Al Queda attacks every six years? The next terrorist attack to occur on US soil will not be done by Al Queda.
Yeah, it'll probably be another American. And then it'll be Al Qaeda.

Yes, terrorist attacks on the whole, sure, every six years. I can believe that. But Al Queda attacks every six years? The next terrorist attack to occur on US soil will not be done by Al Queda.

No, Al Qaeda has been performing terrorist attacks every six or so years.

No, Al Qaeda has been performing terrorist attacks every six or so years.
Do you have a soarce?

Do you have a soarce?
The first bombing (according to Wikipedia, as always. Viva la Wikilution!) was 1992, hotel bombings in Yemen. Then the American embassies in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, WTC and Pentagon in 2001, Madrid in 2004. There were a number of thwarted attacks in between and since. A number of incidents have also been blamed on al Qaeda, but they have not taken responsibility.

The first bombing (according to Wikipedia, as always. Viva la Wikilution!) was 1992, hotel bombings in Yemen. Then the American embassies in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, WTC and Pentagon in 2001. There were a number of thwarted attacks in between. A number of incidents have also been blamed on al Qaeda, but they have not taken responsibility.
Then i stand corrected.

Pakistan? A stable regime?

Sure it's stable, but only superficially Western friendly. Pakistan merrily turns a blind eye to the fact that there are Islamic fundamentalist cells in the mountain border with Afghanistan.

Why does Pakistan do nothing about this? Pakistan is next to India, a huge enemy Nation who it clashes with regularly. It doesn't want to alienate sectors of it's own population by attacking other muslims in the mountains or by letting Westerners do this. This would destabilise the Nation and they don't trust India not to make a move in Kashmir.

Why does the US do nothing about Pakistan? Pakistan is a 'friendly' Islamic state. The US cannot wage a war against Islam. There are sizeable Islamic minorites within the US, but more importantly this would alienate factions such as the UN and UK. To prove it is not wageing a war against Islam, it must have friendly Islamic states around it, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the US misjudged the Iraq situation badly. They cannot pull out for risk of a fundamentalist state along the lines of Iran emerging. However, they also have no further troops to send overseas, without instituting a draft. Tacking an oponent such as Pakistan or indeed North Korea would require considerably more equipment or manpower than the US can send.

And while we're on North Korea, is Korea planning to send nuclear missiles around the world? Probably not. Why is it building a bomb? It knows the US won't attack it, it is hoping for some kind of bribe.

Pakistan? A stable regime?

Sure it's stable, but only superficially Western friendly. Pakistan merrily turns a blind eye to the fact that there are Islamic fundamentalist cells in the mountain border with Afghanistan.

Why does Pakistan do nothing about this? Pakistan is next to India, a huge enemy Nation who it clashes with regularly. It doesn't want to alienate sectors of it's own population by attacking other muslims in the mountains or by letting Westerners do this. This would destabilise the Nation and they don't trust India not to make a move in Kashmir.

Why does the US do nothing about Pakistan? Pakistan is a 'friendly' Islamic state. The US cannot wage a war against Islam. There are sizeable Islamic minorites within the US, but more importantly this would alienate factions such as the UN and UK. To prove it is not wageing a war against Islam, it must have friendly Islamic states around it, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the US misjudged the Iraq situation badly. They cannot pull out for risk of a fundamentalist state along the lines of Iran emerging. However, they also have no further troops to send overseas, without instituting a draft. Tacking an oponent such as Pakistan or indeed North Korea would require considerably more equipment or manpower than the US can send.

And while we're on North Korea, is Korea planning to send nuclear missiles around the world? Probably not. Why is it building a bomb? It knows the US won't attack it, it is hoping for some kind of bribe.
Well, I'm not sure if you read all of our bickering but you did in fact help illustrate my point that, the united states will not launch a war agaisnt Islam. Whether Pakistan is stable or not, they are a Muslim nation with nuclear weapons and no authoirtative US response has been conducted, thus proving my point US is not at war with Islam.

Do you have a soarce?

Turns out to be a bit more frequent than six years. Attacks have actually been increasing in frequency.

1992 - December 29th hotel bombings in Yemen; 2 deaths
1993 - World Trade Center bombing; 6 deaths
1998 - August bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 200+ deaths (Fatwa was declared in this year)
2000 - USS Cole bombing on October 12; 17 deaths
2001 - September 11th attacks; ~3000 deaths
2002-2003 - Numerous terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East
2004 - March 11th train bombings in Madrid; 191 deaths
2005 - July 7th London bombings; 52 deaths
2005 - Sharm el-Sheikh attacks in Egypt on July 23; ~90 deaths
2005 - November 9th Amman, Jordan attacks; 57+ deaths

This does not include failed attacks. The list would double easily if those were added.

Note that it took 8 years for the next attack on the U.S. mainland to occur. To say that al-Qaeda has been defeated just because it has targeted other places besides targets on the U.S. mainland after the September 11th attacks is somewhat... callous.

And while we're on North Korea, is Korea planning to send nuclear missiles around the world? Probably not. Why is it building a bomb? It knows the US won't attack it, it is hoping for some kind of bribe.
North Korea has been bribed. Nuclear weaponry prevents any country in the world from invading.

Then naturally, we also get to put up images of French troops allowing Hutus into Tutsi refugee camps, images of Islamic radicals beheading and torturing random innocents, images of North Korean soldiers torturing and killing random people on the roadside.

In france, sure.

My point, which seemed clear from my post, is that we should by no means sweep our dirty deeds under the rug, so to speak.

It is far too easy to dismiss things like abu ghraib and whatever other tortures we're responsible for if they lack a human face.

Especially with an election coming up, and a congress which recently passed a torture & detainee bill liable to being thrown out, these sorts of things need to be brought to the front of public discourse.

I love it how a thread about Abu Ghraib gets turned into a muslim-bashing fest.

Better that than an America-bashing fest from my point of view.