The true "religion of peace"

Veritas1204

CAGiversary!
Feedback
8 (100%)
From a news source in Thailand:



"Teachers have one of the deadliest jobs in southern Thailand, with 44 killed by the bombs and bullets of an Islamic insurgency since 2004.
So the teachers are learning how to shoot back.
The Chulabhorn naval base, on the Gulf of Thailand in Narathiwat province, opened its heavily guarded gates on a recent Sunday to a training course for 100 public school teachers, mostly Buddhist men and women who say bringing a gun to school has become essential.
"You'd never see a teacher anywhere else in Thailand carrying a gun," said Sanguan Jintarat, head of the Teachers' Association that oversees the 15,000 teachers in the villages and towns of the restive south. "But, we need them, or we'll die."
That teachers -- not to mention Buddhist monks, bank tellers and motorcycle mechanics -- have become targets in the insurgency illustrates how badly law and order has degenerated in southern Thailand since the violence flared in January 2004.
At first insurgents targeted mainly civil servants, soldiers and police officers. Attacks then spread to businesses that serve soldiers: restaurants, outdoor markets, garages. And now come attacks that seem to have no rationale at all, such as the murder last month of an elephant trainer who was shot seven times by gunmen who had lined up with children to buy tickets for a show.
More than 1,700 people have been killed across Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat -- the only Muslim-majority provinces in this otherwise peaceful, tourist-friendly Buddhist country.
Among them was a teacher gunned down at his blackboard in July as his 4th graders watched in shock, and a Buddhist art teacher clubbed by a village mob in May until her skull shattered.
Teachers may be targets, officials say, because they are symbols of the central government's authority, or be taken hostage to be traded for captured insurgents, or because the militants want to do away with secular schools, sending the message that only Islamic schools -- which have been spared violence -- are safe.
But almost everything about this insurgency is a mystery. It isn't clear whether the militants want a separate Islamic state in what was a Malay sultanate where insurgent violence has waxed and waned over the past century. No goals are stated, no responsibility is claimed for attacks, and no allegiance to foreign Islamic groups is declared. Authorities insist the uprising is purely domestic, but have been unable to arrest any leaders. They have flooded the area with 20,000 troops, but some local officials compare the predicament to that of the U.S. military in Iraq."


Their motives are a mystery only to those who are determined to avoid the motive the murderers proudly declare themselves.

They do not hate you because of Iraq.

They do not hate you because of Kyoto.

They do not hate you because of "US foreign policy."

They do not hate you because of "American hegemony."

They do not hate you because of globalization -- at least as that term is typically understood.

They hate you because their lunatic understanding of their religion compels them to hate you, and to murder you, and to convert the world to Allah, and murder those unwilling to accept his Religon of Extortion.

They hate you because Allah, they believe, has dictated that the most fanatical, most piously murderous of Muslims shall be the kings of the earth and the masters of all creation, and your very existence -- free, prosperous, technologically advanced, happy -- is a blasphemy to them.

They cannot hope to overtake the West, or even the modernizing parts of Thailand, in fifty years, or even a hundred years, or even in five hundred years, through attempts to raise the Islamic world up.

Which means they are commanded to lay the Western world down low.

The West is despised because it offers an alternative to the thuggish, primative, barbarous, woman-enslaving, honor-killing culture-cum-twisted-religion in which they believe. And which therefore threatens the power of the lunatic theocrats to keep control over their populations.

You can't keep them down on the madrassa once they've seen the big city.

They don't hate you because of your freedom -- not exactly.

They hate you because you are a living demonstration that freedom works, and that their ways are backwards and barbarous.

And they will not stop hating you until you are either dead or enslaved along with them in their dark death-cult.

But let's go back to pretending Islamofacism doesn't exist; it worked so well...

...right?
 
Sorry. Meant to edit and accidentally deleted my previous post

It said for those interested That i disagree with Veritas. It is because of tax cuts for the rich.



Obviously i was being sarcastic. He hits the nail on the head.
 
The paradox of your attitudes towards the middle east reigns supreme yet again. You and yours chastise and entire religion as worthy of fear, suspicion, and vengeance at the same time that you demand that you want to help and protect them (yet have taken no strides in identifying which muslims are likely to be terrorists and which are likely to be the deferential kind, grateful to their american masters for bringing them the democracy they've been clamoring for. It's that "kill them all, and give the rest the vote; not that I have any intention of discerning between the two" mentality that's just simplistic to the point of being sickening.

I'm particularly bothered by the "they want to kill us because of our freedom" rhetoric. Somebody better warn Switzerland and Sweden. They're even more free and liberal than us! Send Jerry Falwell over, to let the people know that the ACLU, abortionists, and liberals are responsible for the downfall of society, and Allah demands that Amsterdam be brought down!

(for the record, I know that Amsterdam isn't in Switzerland or Sweden, so don't bother going there)
 
myke, lets get a few things straight:

1. I do not have a "kill 'em all" mentality. This statement is facetous on its face, as it means to negate the crux of my arguement. And while posting threads comparing America to the USSR, and bush to hitler may make the other kids on here giggle, I really did expect more from you than writing my well reasoned posts off as calls for extermination of muslims.

2. Understand that my post did NOT say " they want to kill you for your freedom"; rather I make the claim that it is NONE of the things listed (i.e. hegemony, US forign policy, etc.) that compels them to call for our blood. If you presume to deconstruct my post and restate it in a different way, at least have the courtesy to RETAIN THE GENERAL IDEA, and leave utter false dilemas and "creative editing" to Michel Moore; that's his area of expertise.

In short myke, I have come to respect your well-reasoned, generally respectful comments. You are one of the few here that can actually stand up to opinions different than yours, and debate without flaming and running like a coward. I hold out hope that you can understand that, while we may disagree about most things, I am just like you in that I give respect to those who deserve it.

IOW, if you don't like my opinons, fine. At least have the decency to debate me on the strength of them, and leave the goalpost-shifting bullshit to cowards like Msut and Cheese; for when they do it I feel sorry for them similar to the sorrow I feel for a mentally challanged boy trying to talk with adults.

You, OTOH are a rationally thinking educated adult. And I have found myself seeing your side of the arguement more times than I will admit; so I hope we can come to an understanding that I am not some kind of racist calling for the wholesale extermination of an entire culture because I do not subscribe to the "lets put flowers in gun barrels" mantra of peace that seems to be the liberal thought du jure.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']myke, lets get a few things straight:

1. I do not have a "kill 'em all" mentality. This statement is facetous on its face, as it means to negate the crux of my arguement. And while posting threads comparing America to the USSR, and bush to hitler may make the other kids on here giggle, I really did expect more from you than writing my well reasoned posts off as calls for extermination of muslims.[/quote]

Alright, touche. I still stand by some of it, however: the sense that because those in the middle east worthy of "saving" and those worth "exterminating" are not discernible to most, it is impossible to not have suspiscion for all of them as potential terrorists. It's difficult, if not damn near impossible, to reconcile fear and suspicion with "wanting a better life" or installing a democratic system over there. While I certainly think that many conservatives do want that better life, the lack of sophistication in determining who could and could not be a potential terrorist puts us on tenuous ground in acheiving our goals.

2. Understand that my post did NOT say " they want to kill you for your freedom"; rather I make the claim that it is NONE of the things listed (i.e. hegemony, US forign policy, etc.) that compels them to call for our blood. If you presume to deconstruct my post and restate it in a different way, at least have the courtesy to RETAIN THE GENERAL IDEA, and leave utter false dilemas and "creative editing" to Michel Moore; that's his area of expertise.

[quote name='Veritas1204']They don't hate you because of your freedom -- not exactly.

They hate you because you are a living demonstration that freedom works, and that their ways are backwards and barbarous.[/quote]

Perhaps I was exagerrating what you did say, but nevertheless, there are ample accounts of very free nations who do not view the middle east as a threat. I don't buy the whole "freedom" argument. You could argue me by saying "well, it's not as if those in the Middle East are exposed to Swedish culture to degree to which American ivolvement in the middle east is a constant reminder of what they are not." You may be onto something there; however, such as argument may only partially satisfy what it is that motivates them.

In short myke, I have come to respect your well-reasoned, generally respectful comments. You are one of the few here that can actually stand up to opinions different than yours, and debate without flaming and running like a coward. I hold out hope that you can understand that, while we may disagree about most things, I am just like you in that I give respect to those who deserve it.

IOW, if you don't like my opinons, fine. At least have the decency to debate me on the strength of them, and leave the goalpost-shifting bullshit to cowards like Msut and Cheese; for when they do it I feel sorry for them similar to the sorrow I feel for a mentally challanged boy trying to talk with adults.

You, OTOH are a rationally thinking educated adult. And I have found myself seeing your side of the arguement more times than I will admit; so I hope we can come to an understanding that I am not some kind of racist calling for the wholesale extermination of an entire culture because I do not subscribe to the "lets put flowers in gun barrels" mantra of peace that seems to be the liberal thought du jure.

Is there a blush emoticon? I have my crabby moments, much as I would prefer not to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The paradox of your attitudes towards the middle east reigns supreme yet again. You and yours chastise and entire religion as worthy of fear, suspicion, and vengeance at the same time that you demand that you want to help and protect them (yet have taken no strides in identifying which muslims are likely to be terrorists and which are likely to be the deferential kind, grateful to their american masters for bringing them the democracy they've been clamoring for. It's that "kill them all, and give the rest the vote; not that I have any intention of discerning between the two" mentality that's just simplistic to the point of being sickening.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Veritas, you need to learn how to differentiate those fascist, machine gun carrying, "death to america" chanting fanatics. It's important to know which are the brown eyed murders and which are the blu-eyed ones. There are, after all, many catagories of people who hate us and it's important to ascribe the correct label to the correct america hater. And remember, Myke has an affinity for the brown-skinned ones, so be careful that you treat them with more respect than the white or yellow ones, becuase they have been disinfranchised and unfairly portrayed by types like you for centuries and now need to be gien favors to be deemed "fully respected" american haters.

I'm particularly bothered by the "they want to kill us because of our freedom" rhetoric. Somebody better warn Switzerland and Sweden. They're even more free and liberal than us! Send Jerry Falwell over, to let the people know that the ACLU, abortionists, and liberals are responsible for the downfall of society, and Allah demands that Amsterdam be brought down!

Of course Myke has a problem with your "they hate our freedom" stance. You see, this is what ties him and the terrorists in an unescapable moral similarity. Myke despises the fact that we can choose to think for ourselves. He cannot accept that we choose to dispose of our own private property at our own discretion, hire whomever we choose, spend our money they way we choose. Had he his way, myke would install a green candidate to protect the environment from freedom, ensure that the rich be stripped of their wealth(and freedom) to pay for the necessities of the poor, becuase we are too free and ignorant to spend it properly, and appoint a fairness czar to ensure we are treating our fellow man in a pollitically correct manner in the name of peace and equality. The only difference between myke's kind and the islamic-fascists is that they worship allah and their status is determined in their piety. In Myke's new world order, your status is determined to your alliegence to the party, your outward display of altruism and your pious commitment to the common good.

And don't forget to warn the danes and the irish too. Just wait, myke, when we're finally destroyed (allah be praised) and the only unbelievers left are the swiss and the sweeds, they'll be next. After they rape the women and kill the men and the children, (allah be praised) they can murder those white sweedish sluts for tempting them into evil sexual acts.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, Veritas, you need to learn how to differentiate those fascist, machine gun carrying, "death to america" chanting fanatics. It's important to know which are the brown eyed murders and which are the blu-eyed ones. There are, after all, many catagories of people who hate us and it's important to ascribe the correct label to the correct america hater. And remember, Myke has an affinity for the brown-skinned ones, so be careful that you treat them with more respect than the white or yellow ones, becuase they have been disinfranchised and unfairly portrayed by types like you for centuries and now need to be gien favors to be deemed "fully respected" american haters. [/quote]

Are just being obtuse to be a nuisance, or can't you read? I ask you to explain to me how to differentiate between those in the middle east (read: the brown-eyed people you mention above) into two categories: those terrorists with whom you would like to kill, and those nonterrorists with whom you would like to share freedom. Until you can explain to me how you accomplish this, I remain fully convinced that freedom is not possible in a region where you are suspicious of every living person's potential to be a terrorist, and regard them as such. The very existence of a place like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the secret CIA prisons are indicative of this distrust of the collective populace in that part of the world.

I just ought save my breath, really, since you can't even deal with this argument. How do you discern between those in Iraq deserving of freedom and those terrorists deserving of death? That's the short version, and I anticipate your response.

Of course Myke has a problem with your "they hate our freedom" stance. You see, this is what ties him and the terrorists in an unescapable moral similarity. Myke despises the fact that we can choose to think for ourselves. He cannot accept that we choose to dispose of our own private property at our own discretion, hire whomever we choose, spend our money they way we choose. Had he his way, myke would install a green candidate to protect the environment from freedom, ensure that the rich be stripped of their wealth(and freedom) to pay for the necessities of the poor, becuase we are too free and ignorant to spend it properly, and appoint a fairness czar to ensure we are treating our fellow man in a pollitically correct manner in the name of peace and equality. The only difference between myke's kind and the islamic-fascists is that they worship allah and their status is determined in their piety. In Myke's new world order, your status is determined to your alliegence to the party, your outward display of altruism and your pious commitment to the common good.

And don't forget to warn the danes and the irish too. Just wait, myke, when we're finally destroyed (allah be praised) and the only unbelievers left are the swiss and the sweeds, they'll be next. After they rape the women and kill the men and the children, (allah be praised) they can murder those white sweedish sluts for tempting them into evil sexual acts.

This isn't even worth dignifying due to its absurdity. You seem to prefer attacking me for having a different social philosophy than you, instead of providing a cogent explanation as to why the terrorists hate us. I don't think that the difference between being on and off the terrorists' radar has anything to do with the difference between free-market capitalism and a more socialist-style capitalism; honestly, I can't believe that you would either.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are just being obtuse to be a nuisance, or can't you read? I ask you to explain to me how to differentiate between those in the middle east (read: the brown-eyed people you mention above) into two categories: those terrorists with whom you would like to kill, and those nonterrorists with whom you would like to share freedom. Until you can explain to me how you accomplish this, I remain fully convinced that freedom is not possible in a region where you are suspicious of every living person's potential to be a terrorist, and regard them as such.[/quote]

You can diferentiate them by the ones who make videos proclaiming their hatred for america. You can tell them apart from law abiding and respecting citizens by their cowarice of having to weare a mask on their faces as they threaten to behead an american. You knoe they are the enemy when they march in a parade with a machine gun in one hand and a burning american flag in the other. You can tell the terrorists when they exclaim on national television that they declare war on us and want to "wipe us off the map". It's not hard, myke, they advertise the fact that they are terrorists, although some wear masks, hide in cemeteries mosques, and other highly populated areas behind women and children. In those cases, I guess it gets really hard to tell the difference. But, unlike you, I would tend to give our millitary the benefit of the doubt when they kill one of them instead of accusing them of indiscriminate murder of innocents at every turn.

I just ought save my breath, really, since you can't even deal with this argument. How do you discern between those in Iraq deserving of freedom and those terrorists deserving of death? That's the short version, and I anticipate your response.

Everyone is deserving of freedom, myke. It's the ones who choose to strap bombs to themselves and walk into a shea mosque and blow themselves up who deserve to be killed before they can pull the trigger.

How do you tell a racist person, myke? Do they look different? Do they blend in to society making it that much harder to single them out and persecute them for their beliefs? Yet you come across them frequently and are able to point fingers at them. Unfortunately you are sometimes too quick to judge and point at the wrong person, ahem, quite often. I hope our millitary has a better success rate than you.

The very existence of a place like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the secret CIA prisons are indicative of this distrust of the collective populace in that part of the world.

Surely you can't be so naive to think that this is the only time in history that such places have existed. Maybe you're right - Bush has caused the moral degredation of all freedom loving countries and our whole society of freedom is crumbling becuase of one man. Thank god for such a man that has the backbone to lock up people who would take up arms against americans and try to destroy us. Were it not for people like this, our world would be crumbling a lot faster.

This isn't even worth dignifying due to its absurdity. You seem to prefer attacking me for having a different social philosophy than you, instead of providing a cogent explanation as to why the terrorists hate us. I don't think that the difference between being on and off the terrorists' radar has anything to do with the difference between free-market capitalism and a more socialist-style capitalism; honestly, I can't believe that you would either.

The terrorists hate freedom, myke. You obviously also have a reading problem. They hate the fact that we are free to worship whomever we choose instead of subscribing to their interpretation of the koran. Becuase of this, they want to kill you. Perhaps it is too simple for you to grasp. After all, things are always more complicated than they seem, right? Or at least thats what the acedemics love to say when they can't give you a straight, or real answer about something.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You can diferentiate them by the ones who make videos proclaiming their hatred for america. You can tell them apart from law abiding and respecting citizens by their cowarice of having to weare a mask on their faces as they threaten to behead an american. You knoe they are the enemy when they march in a parade with a machine gun in one hand and a burning american flag in the other. You can tell the terrorists when they exclaim on national television that they declare war on us and want to "wipe us off the map". It's not hard, myke, they advertise the fact that they are terrorists, although some wear masks, hide in cemeteries mosques, and other highly populated areas behind women and children. In those cases, I guess it gets really hard to tell the difference. But, unlike you, I would tend to give our millitary the benefit of the doubt when they kill one of them instead of accusing them of indiscriminate murder of innocents at every turn.[/quote]

You've managed to define a terrorist by what they do. You're amazing sometimes, I swear. Let's take a walk down the streets of Al-Anbar together. I'll point to people at random and you can say "terrorist" or "not terrorist." We'll then compile the data and see how accurate you are.

Either you're willfully ignoring my point, or I had far more faith in your cognitive abilites than I ought to.

Everyone is deserving of freedom, myke. It's the ones who choose to strap bombs to themselves and walk into a shea mosque and blow themselves up who deserve to be killed before they can pull the trigger.

How do you tell a racist person, myke? Do they look different? Do they blend in to society making it that much harder to single them out and persecute them for their beliefs? Yet you come across them frequently and are able to point fingers at them. Unfortunately you are sometimes too quick to judge and point at the wrong person, ahem, quite often. I hope our millitary has a better success rate than you.

Well, the racism statement seems to show that you do, in fact, grasp my point (yet at the same time that you try to answer the question, peculiarly enough, you recognize the paradox it presents sufficient enough to twist it and try to throw it back in my face! :rofl: )

You still deny that you're a racist. That's fine, if you want to talk about that start another thread. The thing about the paradox I've suggested is that it still works in the case of "racists." You can't tell them apart from other people visually (Klan hoods and Confederate Battle Flag paraphernalia notwithstanding). You can only recognize them after the fact of a racist act occurring.

Similarly, one can only recognize a terrorist after the fact of a terrorist act, or when they decide to publicly take up symbols of being a terrorist (which, let me assure you, does not include carrying a gun on the street; that's more common among ordinary, non-terrorist folk than you know). As it follows, logically you have two choices: wait for a terrorist to out themselves and then have them face the consequences, or be suspicious of everybody. If you support George Bush's preemptive war, you clearly support the latter, since it necessarily involves trying to stop terrorist cells before they act. I certainly don't propose advocating a post hoc approach to fighting terrorism, but I just as certainly don't endorse such a dunderheaded approach to preemptive war, completely devoid of an understanding of the cultural nuances and conflicts, and how that relates to terrorism.

You know that I'm right when it comes to your "presumed guilty" approach, since (1) you know nothing about the region, and can't even begin to entertain the very question (who is likely to become a terrorist and who is not?) that would make your job that much easier, and (2) you have given the military and the government a free pass with regards to torture and confinement, presuming that every last person in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is there for good reason, and has been tortured for good reason. You take no interest in the welfare of the people who you want to provide "freedom" for. You're full of shit.

Surely you can't be so naive to think that this is the only time in history that such places have existed. Maybe you're right - Bush has caused the moral degredation of all freedom loving countries and our whole society of freedom is crumbling becuase of one man. Thank god for such a man that has the backbone to lock up people who would take up arms against americans and try to destroy us. Were it not for people like this, our world would be crumbling a lot faster.

Again, you're giving the military the benefit of the doubt, ironically enough, on the same day that our Congress is debating a bill that would legalize their captives' torture, *retroactively* (which, of course, means that they are admitting what they have done is quite illegal, and what they have done is so widespread and institutionalized that it is easier to pass a law allowing such behavior than it is to quash the "few bad apples at Abu Ghraib" (remember that gem of rhetoric from your kind?).

Again, we are not supposed to be terrorists, yet you justify actions and behaviors that are unbecoming of civilized nations. I am glad that your ignorant barbarism is not in any position of importance or power, since you evidently want to make Abu Ghraib look like fat kid camp by comparison. Well, I suppose it wouldn't matter if you were in that position of power; it's not like Rumsfeld has ever heeded the requests for additional troops, so you'd not be able to do much more if you wanted, right?

The terrorists hate freedom, myke. You obviously also have a reading problem. They hate the fact that we are free to worship whomever we choose instead of subscribing to their interpretation of the koran. Becuase of this, they want to kill you. Perhaps it is too simple for you to grasp. After all, things are always more complicated than they seem, right? Or at least thats what the acedemics love to say when they can't give you a straight, or real answer about something.

Please tell me why they haven't taken up arms against Switzerland and Sweden. Why haven't they sent hijacked planes into Belfast? Or Montreal? Surely we are not the only free society in the world (contrary to your belief)? Why do you buy into such an obvious line of bullshit, when there are so many cases contradictory to what your claim is?
 
They handed over Abu Graib back to the Iraqis, myke. Inmates were pleading for the americans to come back.

I wonder why...

And the Swiss thing is mind boggling to me. C'mon, myke, for someone like you, who's relatively politically astute, you could possibly come up with a reason why they aren't bombing the swiss or the irish, right ?

I guess that's too much to ask, or not really worthy of much scrutiny. There's certainally not much to gain in making an effort.

Oops... I think I just let the answer slip. Okay, I'll still give you half credit for a good answer.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And the Swiss thing is mind boggling to me. C'mon, myke, for someone like you, who's relatively politically astute, you could possibly come up with a reason why they aren't bombing the swiss or the irish, right ? [/QUOTE]

So you don't know the answer either? Gotcha.
 
Ok, since I am throughly enjoying the debate going on above, let me make a simple observation that I hope can clarify a few things.

As far as the whole "how do you tell a terrorist from a civilian" meme goes, I believe that we first have to realize that our main obsticle in this process is not ourselves, but the Muslim population, through their seemingly utter refusal to cooperate with police and military officials in the capture of terrorists known to them, that binds our hands in that area.

Myke, unless I am completely misreading bmulligan here, I really don't think he believes in the wholesale slaughter of all muslims anymore than you believe the murder of American soliders is ok as long as it makes Bush look bad; (IOW not at all).

While we will probably never agree if it was right to go into Iraq, I think we can all agree to a certain extent that war in Iraq has been handled poorly. But just as you point out a paradox in my post myke, I have to say that it is hard for me to understand where you are coming from when you say that Iraq would be better if Saddam were still in power, (given the millions of HIS OWN PEOPLE he murdered), yet turn around and seemingly protect the same people you were pretty much willing to sell back to a murdering despot against precieved racism by mulligan.

And, as for the torture question, I simply cannot believe giving a muslim prisioner a mat to pray on, a recording to pray to 5 times a day, a sign in the cell pointing to mecca, foods that adhere to their strict religious diets, a copy of the Q'uran untouched by infidels (the soldiers have to wear gloves at all times when handling the book) can in any way be precieved as the actions taken by a group who would turn around and torture said individuals.

And please, whatever you do, do not tell me that listening to loud music, sleep deprevation, and having women interrogate you is considered torture. I have a fucking 9 month old daughter, and a wife that works nights at a radio station; thats not torture, that's my typical thursday.
 
Well, myke is not as politically mature as I once thought. His subscription to Marx and other communist ideals was my first clue, this is the nail in the coffin.

I can give you one good reason the Swiss aren't being targeted, Myke. There's no political benefit to it. That's day one in Democrat party tactics 101. You must have been a transfer and missed orientation day. I'm very disappointed in you, myke. It's the basis for all action by a politically motivated group.

The Islamo-baddies can engender the kindlings of hate for the most sucessfull nation in all corners of the globe when they pick a target that big. Everyone harbors at least SOME hate for the best, most powerful, richest, most successful businessman, country, company, industry, right ? I know YOU do, myke. And when they force the strongest nation to retreat, they can claim victory and prove to the nay-sayers within their own ranks that they are truly blessed by allah as the greatest power on earth.

It's probably also why you couldn't come up with the answer - becuase you refuse to see it in your own democrat party. For some odd reason you are always blind to your own shortcomings.

And this holy grail quest you have for being able to tell the difference between regular middle-easterners and terrorists is an odd one. Are you just race baiting me again or are you just gathering as much data from your superiors as possible for your up and coming dissertation? Blah, blah, blah, we can never win if we're suspicious of everyone. I swear that's gin talking and not the real myke.

Let me know how it goes becuase when you find this secret formula to identify baddies before they actually commit crimes, you could wipe out undeserved sucpicion before any crime has been committed. Why, you could re-define the term "justice", perhaps eliminate the word "suspect" from our vocabularies, and maybe even eliminate the need for millitary force or the CIA altogether ! Tom Cruise did a movie on this already, didn't he?

I swear to the almighty, I'll personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize if you can answer your own hypothesis on this one, becuase you will have dumped society on it's ear and made the world safe from any potential threat from bank robberies, to suicide bombings - and the world must reward you for it. You better work quickly too, becuase since you and your peace-at-all-costs friends are getting their way and we won't be able to coerce confessions out of those formerly known as terrorists, now known as guests of Guantanamera who are being unfairly detained.
 
I look over that post of yours, and I can't help but giggle about how I'm the one accused of baiting you. :lol:

So, you're at least beginning to admit that you do regard each and every resident of the mideast as suspicious, since you can't discern between who is likely to enter into a terrorist organization and who isn't. Good. That's a starting point for something.

Do *I* have the answer? No. Sure don't. OTOH, I'm not the one who supports, without question mind you, the endeavors that began in March 2003. I did not support entering into a country that did not harbor terrorists and posed no immediate threat to the United States. Why should I be the one held to task for the poor planning of others?

Let's start with a simple fact: 16 (give or take 1) of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian. That is, bare minimum, 75% of that group. bin Laden himself is of Saudi descent. Why didn't we start there? There is no certainty that al qaeda is limited to Saudi Arabia, but they certainly had an easy time recruiting terrorists from there.

So, start there. Dig deeper. What kinds of patterns emerge? Do they all come from urban or rural regions? What "class" were they? Do they all come from the same kind of Muslim backgrounds? What sorts of choices did they make in life that might have made a suicide mission a plausible option?

Well, of course human error will get in the way. If we show the sophistication that we are capable of predicting who is and isn't likely to join a terrorist sect, and act based upon that (and this isn't necessarily predicting future behavior, but searching for intelligence of current and active terrorists in the regions in which they are likely to emerge, where you're more likely to get information than you would in a region that doesn't produce as many terrorists (or any at all), then we might have more clout in the region, and in the international community.

That clout counts for something, right? Well, if we work on the premise that such clout makes out presence in the mideast more understandable and appealing to those people who are there, and we aren't regarding as suspect every person out there, well, that should have an impact on diminishing hostilities to the United States occupation of Iraq. In other words, if we could have taken measures to gain the respect of the residents in the region, we could have made a dramatic impact on reducing people who have since joined terrorist organizations.

So, that's my response. Let me give you a list of words that I predict you'll include in yours:
commie
Marx
academia
naive
race-baiting
hate
liberal
freedom-hater
capitulate
toffee
lovely

Can you use all ten? You may win a prize!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, you're at least beginning to admit that you do regard each and every resident of the mideast as suspicious, since you can't discern between who is likely to enter into a terrorist organization and who isn't. Good. That's a starting point for something.[/quote]

Why is it so important to you to label me "suspicious" of all middle-easterners? Surely you don't need cause to label me a racist as you so carelessly do so without cause on a regular basis.

Who is more likely to enter into a street gang? The child of two parents in a suburban setting or the one parent household of an inner city teenager? I guess it depends on the individual and the circumstances. We wouldn't want to start profiling people based on race or socio-economic backgrounds, now would we? That would be such an incensitive thing to do, and we all know what a caring, sensitive person you are, myke.

Do *I* have the answer? No. Sure don't. OTOH, I'm not the one who supports, without question mind you, the endeavors that began in March 2003. I did not support entering into a country that did not harbor terrorists and posed no immediate threat to the United States. Why should I be the one held to task for the poor planning of others?

That's a false premise, myke. I don't support the president and the administration without question, but I did support the invasion of Iraq for many reasons - most of them political. Not political in the american party sense, but in the realm of world political posturing.

And Saddam did harbor terrorists. Hell, he trained them and hired them to carry out his execution orders, not to mention the checks he wrote to suicide bombers' families. Who knows what else he did while illicit cash was being funneled through "oil for food?" I suppose you know all the details.

Let's start with a simple fact: 16 (give or take 1) of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian. That is, bare minimum, 75% of that group. bin Laden himself is of Saudi descent. Why didn't we start there? There is no certainty that al qaeda is limited to Saudi Arabia, but they certainly had an easy time recruiting terrorists from there.

I guess we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, or at least now we know that you're suspicious of all Saudi Arabians. In fact, you're starting to show your true racist colors...

So, start there. Dig deeper. What kinds of patterns emerge? Do they all come from urban or rural regions? What "class" were they? Do they all come from the same kind of Muslim backgrounds? What sorts of choices did they make in life that might have made a suicide mission a plausible option?

Easy there, you're starting to sound like a full fledged racial profiler. Keep it up !

Well, of course human error will get in the way. If we show the sophistication that we are capable of predicting who is and isn't likely to join a terrorist sect, and act based upon that (and this isn't necessarily predicting future behavior, but searching for intelligence of current and active terrorists in the regions in which they are likely to emerge, where you're more likely to get information than you would in a region that doesn't produce as many terrorists (or any at all), then we might have more clout in the region, and in the international community.

Glad to know you now understand and support the war in Iraq, myke. Good to have you aboard.

That clout counts for something, right? Well, if we work on the premise that such clout makes out presence in the mideast more understandable and appealing to those people who are there, and we aren't regarding as suspect every person out there, well, that should have an impact on diminishing hostilities to the United States occupation of Iraq. In other words, if we could have taken measures to gain the respect of the residents in the region, we could have made a dramatic impact on reducing people who have since joined terrorist organizations.

You are clueless as to the cultural differences between our liberty-centric moral foundation and theirs which requires subjugation of will to a superior authority who speaks for god on earth. Read that last sentence again c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. Now you know where we need to start looking for terrorists. For a sociologist, you get an "F" in philosophy.

So, that's my response. Let me give you a list of words that I predict you'll include in yours:
commie
Marx
academia
naive
race-baiting
hate
liberal
freedom-hater
capitulate
toffee
lovely

Can you use all ten? You may win a prize!

You forgot "philosophy", myke. But then again, you always seem to forget about that one. I guess they don't teach that in acedemia anymore, eh? You Marxist-commie-liberal-freedom-hating-race-baiter, you !
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Why is it so important to you to label me "suspicious" of all middle-easterners? Surely you don't need cause to label me a racist as you so carelessly do so without cause on a regular basis.[/quote]

Speaking quite frankly, I'm not doing any race baiting here. If terrorists are more likely to emerge from Saudi Arabia than Iraq, then it's foolish to expend the amount of financial and military effort in the former while doing none of that, save for intelligence gathering (and that's just speculative) in the former.

Who is more likely to enter into a street gang? The child of two parents in a suburban setting or the one parent household of an inner city teenager? I guess it depends on the individual and the circumstances. We wouldn't want to start profiling people based on race or socio-economic backgrounds, now would we? That would be such an incensitive thing to do, and we all know what a caring, sensitive person you are, myke.

Let me get this straight: if I tried telling you that patterns emerge that show children from the inner city in the US are *FAR* more likely to end up incarcerated or involved in gangs, you'd say that makes me a racist, or guilty of profiling? That just shows you haven't the slightest fucking idea what it is that I do. I somehow wonder if you intentionally play the role of a fool, since your foolhardy embrace of laissez-faire capitalism is premised upon the notion that certain patterns of behavior and activity are likely to be rewarded in a certain way, while others rewarded (or punished) in a different way, that you find consistent with your concept of "deserving" and "undeserving."

Your naievete is boundless, and echoes by the kinds of dipshit politicians who would distribute Homeland Security budgeting equally across the nation, with no regard for the kinds of targets (e.g., New York, and San Francisco) that are expontentially more likely to get hit than whatever podunk town you come from.

That's a false premise, myke. I don't support the president and the administration without question, but I did support the invasion of Iraq for many reasons - most of them political. Not political in the american party sense, but in the realm of world political posturing.

And Saddam did harbor terrorists. Hell, he trained them and hired them to carry out his execution orders, not to mention the checks he wrote to suicide bombers' families. Who knows what else he did while illicit cash was being funneled through "oil for food?" I suppose you know all the details.

That last sentence is a classic bmullgian misdirection, while the rest is just untrue. You think he was an asshole, you think he was a power monger, and it's undeniable that he was a dictator and a tyrant. You have no proof that he worked with the kinds of Muslims terrorists that attacked us five years ago. Those are the guys that got away, as a matter of fact.

I guess we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, or at least now we know that you're suspicious of all Saudi Arabians. In fact, you're starting to show your true racist colors...

Easy there, you're starting to sound like a full fledged racial profiler. Keep it up !

Are you stupid or just trying to take the piss? You can call me a racist all you want, but say we had data and intelligence that showed citizens of a certain country were not likely to join terrorist groups, or just didn't participate. Should we get as involved in that nation as we would Saudi Arabia? Again, you're the fucker who seems to want to race bait *me* (which shows fascinatingly psychological implications, since you can't wait to jump up and down and point the finger at me and say "racistracistracist!!!" if I try to say that patterns emerge in the world in which we live, and our antiterror policy should be guided by those patterns. Somehow, I'm racist because I want to find out if Saudis are more likely to join terror groups than Pakistanis, yet you and yours escape racial profiling, despite the blanketing of people as "islamofascists."

I'm the racist for wanting to refine a disturbingly ethnic stereotype to a point where we can identify which kinds of muslims join these groups; you cower in fear of every fucking one of them, and now *I'm* the racist? I really ought to put you on my ignore list, because you're just being reallyreallyreally fucking stupid now. I could play nice and say I respectfully disagree and we should have discourse about it.

No. You're being fucking stupid. There's no mincing words here.

Glad to know you now understand and support the war in Iraq, myke. Good to have you aboard.

You are clueless as to the cultural differences between our liberty-centric moral foundation and theirs which requires subjugation of will to a superior authority who speaks for god on earth. Read that last sentence again c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. Now you know where we need to start looking for terrorists. For a sociologist, you get an "F" in philosophy.

Sorry, when offered "Armchair Philosophy With Which to Overgeneralize Nations and Groups in One Sentence 250," I decided I'd rather take a different course.

You forgot "philosophy", myke. But then again, you always seem to forget about that one. I guess they don't teach that in acedemia anymore, eh? You Marxist-commie-liberal-freedom-hating-race-baiter, you !

No prize for you! fucking couldn't finish the job, could ya! Cut-and-runner! ;)
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']And, as for the torture question, I simply cannot believe giving a muslim prisioner a mat to pray on, a recording to pray to 5 times a day, a sign in the cell pointing to mecca, foods that adhere to their strict religious diets, a copy of the Q'uran untouched by infidels (the soldiers have to wear gloves at all times when handling the book) can in any way be precieved as the actions taken by a group who would turn around and torture said individuals.

And please, whatever you do, do not tell me that listening to loud music, sleep deprevation, and having women interrogate you is considered torture. I have a fucking 9 month old daughter, and a wife that works nights at a radio station; thats not torture, that's my typical thursday.[/quote]

*yuk yuk*

JAMES YEE: Some detainees had the privilege of having a styrofoam cup. Sometimes they ended up with two, one for drinking, one for hygiene purposes. The second styrofoam cup was unauthorised by the regulations and therefore technically could be called illegal contraband. Now, illegal contraband meant that you had to spend some time in solitary confinement, the guards would call an (inaudible word) team and the guards would come one after the another, line up in one in front of the prisoner's cell. After the prisoner is doused with pepper spray, the door is quickly unlocked and the these six to eight men rushed into the prisoner's cell, man-handled the prisoner down to the ground as forcibly as possible.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1489665.htm

Is that part of your typical Thursday? Is it still funny to you, family man?
 
No, but let me know when our soldiers start sawing off the heads of innocent civilians with machetess on videotape, or behead 16 year old girls on their way home for the crime of being a christian.

Getting sprayed with pepper/mace is not fun, but it certainly doesn't constitute torture. If it did, it wouldn't be an approved police tactic that the officers themselves have to experience before being allowed its use.

IOW, take your santimonious bullshit and shove it up your ass, anyone who can cry "torture" in the wake of a quote like yours, KNOWING that our captured soldiers (or even people unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) are put through the worst pain known to man before recieving death (Nick Berg, anyone?) has no business whatsoever representing this country or what it stands for.

Kid, I spent 2 years in Iraq cleaning up acid torture pits, and a 6 month rotation in afghanistan, where I got to see the aftereffects of Al Queda's interrogation tactics. People like you have no fucking concept of evil, and are so far removed from any of the violence that you presume to sit on your throne of ignorance and denounce American interrogation techniques.

Well, excuse me if I laugh in your fucking elitist face.

And sleep well tonight camoor; lest we give in to your way of thinking and one day YOU get to be on the recieving end of REAL torture, the Al Queda way.

yuk yuk is right.
 
I know this is moot since you dont understand what it means anyway but it is spelled "Elitist".

P.s. Pepper spray isnt fun? Who knew?
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']Seriously man, is spellchecking the best you can do, Msut?

If so, that's pathetic, even for an internet troll.[/QUOTE]


The only response worth making to your drivel is to point out your idiocy.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']No, but let me know when our soldiers start sawing off the heads of innocent civilians with machetess on videotape, or behead 16 year old girls on their way home for the crime of being a christian.

Getting sprayed with pepper/mace is not fun, but it certainly doesn't constitute torture. If it did, it wouldn't be an approved police tactic that the officers themselves have to experience before being allowed its use.

IOW, take your santimonious bullshit and shove it up your ass, anyone who can cry "torture" in the wake of a quote like yours, KNOWING that our captured soldiers (or even people unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) are put through the worst pain known to man before recieving death (Nick Berg, anyone?) has no business whatsoever representing this country or what it stands for.

Kid, I spent 2 years in Iraq cleaning up acid torture pits, and a 6 month rotation in afghanistan, where I got to see the aftereffects of Al Queda's interrogation tactics. People like you have no fucking concept of evil, and are so far removed from any of the violence that you presume to sit on your throne of ignorance and denounce American interrogation techniques.

Well, excuse me if I laugh in your fucking elitist face.

And sleep well tonight camoor; lest we give in to your way of thinking and one day YOU get to be on the recieving end of REAL torture, the Al Queda way.

yuk yuk is right.[/QUOTE]

Brav-fucking-O. I can't remember the last post that was so enjoyable to read. You've just been VERITASSED, BITCH!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Brav-fucking-O. I can't remember the last post that was so enjoyable to read. You've just been VERITASSED, BITCH![/quote]

LoL - OMFG M4J0R PWN4G3

I'm glad I took a break from this board - what a waste of time.
 
bread's done
Back
Top