George Bush's Eve Of Destruction

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
No link , oh it must not have occured. Not all of us need the web.

Emmerging pattern?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
My primary textbook is Inside Terrorism written by a man named Bruce Hoffman. Hoffman is, in fact, considered to be one of the world's pre-eminent experts on terrorism. He is the director of the terrorism research division of the RAND Corporation in Washington D.C. His book, as well as my other textbook, discusses theories from leading experts across the spectrum.

..... the original "terrorists" were the people we call patriots. Terrorism started right here in America.

Terrorism originally was associated with democracy movements. Only later did it become what it is today. Religious terrorism didn't become a big deal until after World War II. The very first true act of international terrorism was the massacre of the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich in 1972. A good book on this event is The Blood of Israel by Serge Groussard.

I take issue with your broad characterization of my professors. The professor I have taken most of my upper level political science classes from is a Libertarian (so he won't be instilling any liberal propaganda, now will he?). My current professor has never really discussed his politics, so I can't say where he is on the spectrum.

Terrorism is a complex, difficult topic. There is no one simple solution.

acludem

You have proven my ponts:

1. you are getting an education which is false. If you even READ the koran, and LISTEN to anyone with KNOWLEDGE, they will tell you religious wars have been fought since the beginning of time. The koran, having been around longer than America is founded on principals of terrorism. The koran PREACHES terrorism.

2. You CHOOSE to be an idiot and defend these teachers blindly because they get you all fluffed up emotionally by showing you something you can relate to : namely Americans. You go and believe AMERICANS were the first terrorists and decide to filter all the rest of your information off of that while remaining a completely ignorant puppet of the socialist agenda.

3. You STILL do not READ, you still do not TURN OFF YOUR 27" SEWER PIPE, and avoid the influx of highly concentrated fertilizer that your mouth spews to degrade and erode our liberties. It is because of your socialist toxicity that you are part of the problem and NOT part of the solution. If I were a doctor, I would amputate you.

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

The koran PREACHES terrorism
Provide examples or back down.
Note that you're not the only one who's read it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
The koran PREACHES terrorism
Provide examples or back down.
Note that you're not the only one who's read it.

I don't know about 'terrorism', but it certainly promotes violence within the Muslim community - and quite a bit towards women. Go through the muslim forum just below this one and read some of the threads. I have provided many quotes from the Qu'ran and many words from muslims themselves.

Many muslim men have attributed the horrendous treatment of their women to teachings from the Qu'ran. In that forum you'll find a link to a video of a muslim man teaching others how to beat their wives. And where did he gain his knowledge? The Qu'ran.

Then again, maybe someone wants to start a thread in that section so that this thread doesn't get 'completely' hijacked?

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

So - you kill your neighbor because he hits his wife?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
So - you kill your neighbor because he hits his wife?

Other than banging your buddy in the shit pit there is nothing lower than a man who beats a woman. Well throw child molesters in there two. Should he get death? Not sure. Physically maimed for life? Absolutely.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
The koran PREACHES terrorism
Provide examples or back down.
Note that you're not the only one who's read it.

Gee, are you challenging me?

:cof:

I guess I open ANOTHER thread.

Hmmm. Everytime I do this, the jokers opposing me on the particular topic end up not even applying a logical train of thought to the argument.

Can you do this, or am I wasting my time.

As help, you may want to read the "Prove it" thread for examples in logic and taking things in context before we get started, it would be a good primer.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
So - you kill your neighbor because he hits his wife?

Why do you put words into peoples mouths? Is that how you win your debates?

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

Can't say you folks are deprived of a sense of humour. Both the coffee icon and 'banging your buddy in the shit pit' were pretty funny.

Of course, domestic violence is bad. But it's hardly the reason for occupying two countries. Anyway, the topic got rerouted: we were looking at how the Koran was preaching terrorism, not domestic violence. So far, my message still stands: by throwing all Islamic militant movements for all causes on a heap, you're making a mistake of judgement that will eventually work to your disadvantage.
Now where's that thread, NewGuy? Can't seem to find it.

Oh and sorry again Jim. I suppose I did that POV-thing again.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
So far, my message still stands: by throwing all Islamic militant movements for all causes on a heap, you're making a mistake of judgement that will eventually work to your disadvantage.
Now where's that thread, NewGuy? Can't seem to find it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4936

You certainly don't look very hard.

Maybe that is the whole reason for your viewpoint.

This thread ought to help.

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

Thanks NewGuy.
I'm on here for my second day so I don't know my way around here that well yet.

Please don't be so low as to project my unfamiliarness with usmessageboard.com on my political viewpoint. Speaking of which, what is my political viewpoint, do you think? And what is wrong with it?

EDIT: And what exactly did I need to read that thread for? It's all Constitution gibberish! Can we stick to the topic, please.

 

[acludem]

New Guy, pick up ANY and I mean ANY book on terrorism and it'll say exactly what I told you. What we now refer to as terrorism started with the American and French revolutions.

Religious war and terrorism are NOT the same thing. Please try and learn something about what terrorism is and where it comes from.

I'll admit, I haven't read the Koran. But you obviously haven't ever read a book on terrorism. You do realize that there is secular (that means not religious) terrorism I hope. The Irish Republican Army, and the Basque separatists have both committed terrorists acts, neither for religious reasons. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a religious terrorist either. Do you assume that the only terrorists in the world are Muslim extremists? Do you assume that all Muslims are terrorists?


acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
New Guy, pick up ANY and I mean ANY book on terrorism and it'll say exactly what I told you. What we now refer to as terrorism started with the American and French revolutions.

Acutally, you are quite uninformed. You must realize how stupid that statement Is. Even IF all books say what you told me, they ignore the most basic principle of any belief system and that is religion. Religion plays a large part in any idea, thought, or viewpoint. Extrapolate that into a lifestyle or war, and it becomes clear.

For the record, I have a few books on Islam, terrorism, various religious beliefs, and I have various books from various religions including their Bibles and such.

Make sure you are more than a student before saying something so dumb.

Religious war and terrorism are NOT the same thing. Please try and learn something about what terrorism is and where it comes from.

Ha!....Ok, yeah. When you learn how long the human race has been around, the history of it, the amount of time involved with the formation of religion AND terrorism, you have legitimacy to your point. -But again, you are uninformed.

I'll admit, I haven't read the Koran. But you obviously haven't ever read a book on terrorism. You do realize that there is secular (that means not religious) terrorism I hope.

-And which, pray tell, do you think came first? Do you even have clue one which religions are FOUNDED on terrorism? Of course not, that is why you continue to spout hot air.

The Irish Republican Army, and the Basque separatists have both committed terrorists acts, neither for religious reasons. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a religious terrorist either. Do you assume that the only terrorists in the world are Muslim extremists?

Are you dumb enough to ask that question after I have answered in multiple times in detail by the very explaination of the topic?

Do you assume that all Muslims are terrorists?

acludem

That is self explainatory. -AND, it doesn't matter what I think. You claim to know little about the koran, yet keep defending it has nothing to do with terrorism. I grow weary of telling you it is rooted in it when you refuse to read the freaking thing.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
Thanks NewGuy.
I'm on here for my second day so I don't know my way around here that well yet.

Please don't be so low as to project my unfamiliarness with usmessageboard.com on my political viewpoint. Speaking of which, what is my political viewpoint, do you think? And what is wrong with it?

Actually I don't care what your viewpoint is until you express it. Also, I don't care to assume what is wrong with it until you point it out by expressing it.

I don't know why you go down this path when the tropic was not a political viewpoint.

EDIT: And what exactly did I need to read that thread for? It's all Constitution gibberish! Can we stick to the topic, please.

1. It is NOT gibberish, it is the law of the land.
2. It WAS on topic, and if you had more than a 3 post attention span, you would remember the topic was me telling you what the koran is all about, and how to take it in context.
3. Since you refuse to read the "gibberish" and do not even respect our topic enough to view the "context" example, I will not waste my time with a new thread as discussed.

 

[acludem]

It's pretty hard to base a religion on a concept that didn't exist until several thousand years after you founded the religion. Evidently New Guy thinks Mohammed jumped into a time machine, met with Osama bin Laden, and then went back and wrote the Koran.

acludem

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

NewGuy,

It was a political subject from the outset. You may not have noticed, but I have been juggling with Mr. Bush's words, until his speech became a paranoid rant. This is called satire, and when the subject of satire is political, it's political satire.

1. It is NOT gibberish, it is the law of the land
I asked you a direct question on why you think the Koran is based on terrorism, and you still owe me an answer. The answer in not in that thread. If you think it is, would you please so kind as to show me where?
2. It WAS on topic, and if you had more than a 3 post attention span, you would remember the topic was me telling you what the koran is all about, and how to take it in context.
No, you directed me to this thread in a vain, paternalistic attempt -at showing me 'examples in Logic'.
Actually I don't care what your viewpoint is until you express it. Also, I don't care to assume what is wrong with it until you point it out by expressing it.
And you say my attention span is short? You even quoted my (repeated) viewpoint:

By throwing all Islamic militant movements for all causes on a heap, you're making a mistake of judgement that will eventually work to your disadvantage.

I'd like to add to that the following concept, which I've developed since coming here. It seems there is some misconception about this, too.

- Iraq had little to do with international terrorism when it was invaded.
- This fact was distorted by the US government when they used the WMD argument.
- Now that the WMD argument doesn't seem to hold water, the issue of Human Rights is suggested as a sort of revisionist cause.
- However, in their need to control the situation and deal with the enemy, the US are neglecting these same Human Rights in various places in the world.
- This display of using two standards is the reason there is so much resentment against the US.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
- Iraq had little to do with international terrorism when it was invaded.
- This fact was distorted by the US government when they used the WMD argument.
- Now that the WMD argument doesn't seem to hold water, the issue of Human Rights is suggested as a sort of revisionist cause.
- However, in their need to control the situation and deal with the enemy, the US are neglecting these same Human Rights in various places in the world.
- This display of using two standards is the reason there is so much resentment against the US.

-Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism pre-invasion.
- Nothing was distorted. Those who claim so most likely didn't comprehend what they heard or read. The WMD claim has not been proven and thus far appears to be bad intelligence. This does nothing to lessen or 'distort' the fact that Iraq was a terrorist haven and supporter.
- Human rights issues have been an issue and part of what the US and UN demanded be corrected from day 1 - you apparently chose to ignore that part. I suggest you read resolutions 687 and 1441. Demands to stop the oppression have been there since 1991.
- The US isn't neglecting anything. We can't solve all the worlds problems overnight. Iraq/WOT has the highest priority right now. Why don't some other countries from around the world assist with these human rights violations that you speak of?
- There have been a myriad of objectives as outlined in the resolutions since the beginning. Those that are naive enough to believe this was solely about WMD are those that either didn't follow close enough or couldn't comprehend.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
It's pretty hard to base a religion on a concept that didn't exist until several thousand years after you founded the religion. Evidently New Guy thinks Mohammed jumped into a time machine, met with Osama bin Laden, and then went back and wrote the Koran.

acludem

Have you bothered to read the "evolution vs. creationism" thread smart guy?

Your timing is way off.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5077

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
NewGuy,

I asked you a direct question on why you think the Koran is based on terrorism, and you still owe me an answer. The answer in not in that thread. If you think it is, would you please so kind as to show me where?

Why is it guys like you forget and never re-read previous posts to remember where you left off?

The answer you recieved was:
"I guess I open ANOTHER thread.

Hmmm. Everytime I do this, the jokers opposing me on the particular topic end up not even applying a logical train of thought to the argument.

Can you do this, or am I wasting my time.

As help, you may want to read the "Prove it" thread for examples in logic and taking things in context before we get started, it would be a good primer."

Since you called it Gibberish, and refused to even read the thread, my effort would be wasted, and I owe you nothing. Aside from that, I owe you nothing anyway. I am the one with the information you lack, therefore you are the one who is indebted to me IF I choose to even go down that path.

Actually I don't care what your viewpoint is until you express it. Also, I don't care to assume what is wrong with it until you point it out by expressing it.
And you say my attention span is short? You even quoted my (repeated) viewpoint:

You told me to guess it, remember smart guy?

I'd like to add to that the following concept, which I've developed since coming here. It seems there is some misconception about this, too.

- Iraq had little to do with international terrorism when it was invaded.
- This fact was distorted by the US government when they used the WMD argument.
- Now that the WMD argument doesn't seem to hold water, the issue of Human Rights is suggested as a sort of revisionist cause.
- However, in their need to control the situation and deal with the enemy, the US are neglecting these same Human Rights in various places in the world.
- This display of using two standards is the reason there is so much resentment against the US.

Name one place in our Constitution that gives us leway to bow to another nation or take steps in being responsible for another nation's rights. Since you cannot, you will no doubt make excuses. -To which I refer you back to your "Gibberish" thread.

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

NewGuy,
There's moments that I think, I might as well give up. Stop arguing. It's no use anyway. Not because you're smarter than me (as you seem to keep wanting to hint at) but because you have a smaller world-view, and because compassion just won't do it for you.
So until you stop misdirecting me to other threads and say something yourself, about stuff that I typed in italic for you, I won´t go into your ill-phrased Constitution excuse.

Saying 'Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism', without elaborating, is no argument. Jim, I expect more from you. As it's the basis of my elaboration, I'm not quite willing to go into the rest as long as you sufficiently expand on that.