CDZ Game - Name the terrorist attack

[Indofred]

REMEMBERING THIS IS CLEAN DEBATE

I'm informed America is the victim of many evil, unwarranted and unprovoked terrorist attacks.
I'd like posters to name name any such attacks against US targets anywhere in the world.

The attack has to be without any reason caused by the US, either directly, or as a result of US support for a enemy of the attackers.

My position - There have been NO terrorist attacks against the US that weren't a direct result of US military action, US CIA actions, or US support for the attacker's enemies, except internal US groups attacking their own government.

Would anyone like to have a go?

 

[emilynghiem]

A. While I believe and agree there is "cause and effect" and if you create an image of abusing war to control foreign govts and politics, then yes this will provoke attack, that doesn't make it right or justified.

That's like saying can you name any robbery in the world that wasn't "provoked" because
the victim had material wealth that the other person wanted.

Coveting the power that the U.S. has is not justification for attacks.
It may explain why they happen, but it is not an excuse, like saying it is deserved.
"If it weren't for the U.S. military operations, then these attacks wouldn't happen."

That's like saying if people didn't save more money and resources than they spend, they wouldn't get robbed. Or if women didn't dress up to look nice and attract attention, they wouldn't attacked. Just because this may provoke attacks doesn't mean the attack was "asked for" or deserved.

The military of the U.S. has also been used for good. So it is not fair just to look at the abuses of military power and then try to say all attacks are justified.

The responsibility for how someone responds to injustice belongs to that person.
You cannot blame the crime victim for the actions or reactions of their attacker,
regardless what "provoked" the attack. The crime victim is responsible for correcting their own wrongs, and so is the attacker responsible for theirs. Trying to justify one for the other is where people make mistakes and get into endless arguments.

Let each one answer for their own record, not for the other person who is responsible for their own.

B. I would say the common factor in attacks is RETRIBUTION.
If you live by the policy of Retributive Justice, then you use force this way.

If you live by Restorative Justice, then you seek sustainable means of working toward LASTING peace
and justice by REDRESSING grievances, not just attacking back and forth.

I would say it is NOT FAIR to frame the scenarios you want to generalize
ONLY IN TERMS OF RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.

If you look at the bigger process of Restorative Justice, you can see the greater
push is to resolve and grow past all the conflicts, and for humanity to move toward justice based on
peace and freedom not force and oppression.

In general the overall spirit of America has been for higher peace and justice.

And the corruption and abuse of resources to do otherwise is NOT the predominant force.
That corruption and abuse happens everywhere, so it is not just America but all humanity
has always had to deal with that element in our history and political development.

If people are reacting to such abuses by violence, then it is both the US and the attackers following the
spirit of Retribution, so you cannot blame one without blaming the other. That's how I see it.

Nobody is more or less to blame than anyone else. No country, no religion, not one group more than another.
All humanity goes through this learning curve; and the US may play a vital role since we have freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and right to due process to redress grievances. The same process of war and conquering still goes on today, but we have the democratic and political means to address and correct injustices.

If you are going to fault the US for the bad abuses of power, then also give equal credit for the democratic influence and creative influence the US has offered the world as well. At least include both sides equally.

 

[irosie91]

REMEMBERING THIS IS CLEAN DEBATE

I'm informed America is the victim of many evil, unwarranted and unprovoked terrorist attacks.
I'd like posters to name name any such attacks against US targets anywhere in the world.

The attack has to be without any reason caused by the US, either directly, or as a result of US support for a enemy of the attackers.

My position - There have been NO terrorist attacks against the US that weren't a direct result of US military action, US CIA actions, or US support for the attacker's enemies, except internal US groups attacking their own government.

Would anyone like to have a go?

what for?-----you will conjure up a "reason". I learned about islam from
muslims------in the USA----The muslims who taught me about islam were from south east asia (mostly india and Pakistan) but a few from Afghanistan and----"other places" and also-----besides southeast ASIA---Iran. At that time muslims from Iran were a lot more REALISTIC Just about all were medical school graduates. One of the first lessons was "ISLAM HAS THE MOST TOLERATION"---the second was
"MUSLIMS NEVER FIGHT EXCEPT IN SELF-DEFENSE" I heard some really TENUOUS arguments JUSTIFYING genocides committed in the name of islam-------You will find a reason------there is ALWAYS a reason for a muslim community to commit genocide on non muslims --------just a simple line drawing of a person is ENOUGH ------does the name RASHID BAZ ring a bell?----of course he was JUSTIFIED in his noble endeavor--------he was insulted by the sight of Hebrew letters on a small van carrying
a group of adolescents on the BROOKLYN BRIDGE circa 1993-----my own kid was about ten years old-----
the bullet in the brain of a school mate did
impress him ----the victim was about 14----he had the temerity of being a jew in New York City. The friends of Rashid laughed their way thru the trial----I think the murderer is still in jail but I am not sure-----the major defense was "character"-----good guy that he is-----rashid "prays" every day

 

[emilynghiem]

REMEMBERING THIS IS CLEAN DEBATE

I'm informed America is the victim of many evil, unwarranted and unprovoked terrorist attacks.
I'd like posters to name name any such attacks against US targets anywhere in the world.

The attack has to be without any reason caused by the US, either directly, or as a result of US support for a enemy of the attackers.

My position - There have been NO terrorist attacks against the US that weren't a direct result of US military action, US CIA actions, or US support for the attacker's enemies, except internal US groups attacking their own government.

Would anyone like to have a go?

what for?-----you will conjure up a "reason". I learned about islam from
muslims------in the USA----The muslims who taught me about islam were from south east asia (mostly india and Pakistan) but a few from Afghanistan and----"other places" and also-----besides southeast ASIA---Iran. At that time muslims from Iran were a lot more REALISTIC Just about all were medical school graduates. One of the first lessons was "ISLAM HAS THE MOST TOLERATION"---the second was
"MUSLIMS NEVER FIGHT EXCEPT IN SELF-DEFENSE" I heard some really TENUOUS arguments JUSTIFYING genocides committed in the name of islam-------You will find a reason------there is ALWAYS a reason for a muslim community to commit genocide on non muslims --------just a simple line drawing of a person is ENOUGH ------does the name RASHID BAZ ring a bell?----of course he was JUSTIFIED in his noble endeavor--------he was insulted by the sight of Hebrew letters on a small van carrying
a group of adolescents on the BROOKLYN BRIDGE circa 1993-----my own kid was about ten years old-----
the bullet in the brain of a school mate did
impress him ----the victim was about 14----he had the temerity of being a jew in New York City. The friends of Rashid laughed their way thru the trial----I think the murderer is still in jail but I am not sure-----the major defense was "character"-----good guy that he is-----rashid "prays" every day

Dear Indofred and irosie91

Irosie brings up a good case to discuss as an example of what point you are trying to make, Indofred:
1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The defense of the shooter argued he was acting out of trauma from killings in the Middle East he was reacting to in this attack to "Kill the Jews"

So by your idea of "cause and effect" the killing in war motivates an attack in response. This is illustrated by this incident, even though you can argue it isn't the US attacking and then getting attacked back.

However, it is still murder and a crime. In war, there are rules of engagement where soldiers are designated for combat and agree on rules for prisoners of war, trials for war crimes. etc.

And in civilian law, nor do citizens take matters of justice into our own hands and invoke authority
to act as "judge jury and executioner"

There is a proper civil legal way to protest, petition for redress of grievances, and report violations.
You are never justified going around attacking or killing, bypasing due process and invoking govt authority.

I understand you are saying that "in reality" one action PROVOKES the other reaction.
I am saying regardless, it is still wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It is not just a matter of addressing the original wrong.
BOTH need to be addressed as wrongful to attack.

I might agree with you if you said they were BOTH wrong to continue this vicious cycle,
as it does not solve the original problems, in the longrun it adds far more costs and complications,
and causes more and more suffering that it relieves. We are supposed to work toward ending war.

The best approach I know is to address and include all sides equally.
Not taking one over the other. if we are equal in pointing out both the good and the bad on both sides,
then we are at least fair. That approach opens up the discussion to foster mutual responsibility for corrections.

So if you really want to see an end to abuse of military occupation for political and economic conflicts of interest, i would take the inclusive approach that admits wrongful consequences on both sides, and also the good intent.
All people want justice, what is missing is working together as a diverse team, without demonizing each other.

 

[Indofred]

While I believe and agree there is "cause and effect" and if you create an image of abusing war to control foreign govts and politics, then yes this will provoke attack, that doesn't make it right or justified.

I didn't claim anything was right or justified, just there is a cause for each and every terrorist attack against America or Americans.
I have no problem with military targets being attacked, but I have no time for anyone who attacks civilians as a primary target - regardless of who they are.

 

[Indofred]

rashid "prays" every day

I'm unfamiliar with that shooting, but he clearly should have faced a firing squad if your post is truthful.
In that case it sounds more like a lone idiot, probably weak minded or mentally ill, but his reasons justify his actions as much as mental illness is an excuse - They don't.

So, now I've cleared that up, can anyone manage to post an example of a terrorist attack that wasn't a result of US actions?

 

[irosie91]

Just what do you imagine you "cleared up" ---Freddie???? Your response to my post
is disgustingly vulgar-----thus the only thing
you cleared up is that you demonstrated,
CLEARLY, that you have a disgustingly vulgar justification for any vile act so long as it is committed in the name of islam. Not news to me. Your comment "IF what you say is true" ---is disgusting. Your comment re---
"LONE" assailant is not true and, thus, also vulgar----the murderer had extensive support---his GOOD FRIEND hid the rifle used to accomplish the holy jihadist endeavor and a large number of his mosque mates turned out at trial to mock and harass the family of the murdered kid ----OPENLY and JOYFULLY. There is more---the good friend got about a year jail time for his crime and the mosque mates DEMONSTRATED their objection OPENLY.------the defense was----the good friend has kids. NOTHING "LONE" about that act. It was a muslim HOLIDAY with lots of ADULATION

 

[emilynghiem]

rashid "prays" every day

So, now I've cleared that up, can anyone manage to post an example of a terrorist attack that wasn't a result of US actions?

^ I still think you need to clarify the difference between
what is BLAMED on US actions vs. what really caused it.

Anyone can say "that person caused me to do X Y Z"
but others can say "you didn't have to respond in that manner, you had other choices that didn't involve an attack" and they put it back on the person's choice,
not the motivation that the person claimed was their reason.

You cannot prove cause and effect between two unrelated events
unless they are scientifically inseparable. Like yes, you can say that sex causes a pregnancy. But you cannot say "the way that person dressed caused an attacker to stalk and attack". That attacker may cite that, but there are still factors in between the process of decisions, and you cannot just say "the way the person dressed" CAUSED the attack.

That is the point I feel is being missed here.
You are making a leap.

You can say it is generally cited as the motivation,
but cannot say scientifically it is the cause and nothing else
is a factor in that decision to attack. There are other causes on the
political side of the attacker that are part of that decision.

For example, if assailants do not have free speech, democratic access, right to petition in order to protest civilly and take action that way,
then this is a factor in attacks.

Then in order to blame this on the US you'd have to prove the US took away or suppressed those rights, and is liable for why the people cannot protest civilly and only have the ability to attack as the only form of protest.

People argue for this in the Middle East, where the civilians who are peaceful are not being heard, and only if they commit violence are their protests heard.

So you would have to show the US is responsible as well for why the attacks are the only means of protesting. if you could prove that, maybe you can say the attacks are directly caused by US actions and there is no other means.

 

[irosie91]

rashid "prays" every day

I'm unfamiliar with that shooting, but he clearly should have faced a firing squad if your post is truthful.
In that case it sounds more like a lone idiot, probably weak minded or mentally ill, but his reasons justify his actions as much as mental illness is an excuse - They don't.

So, now I've cleared that up, can anyone manage to post an example of a terrorist attack that wasn't a result of US actions?

what did you "clear up", Freddie?----somehow you CLAIMED that no terrorist action on the part of muslims in the USA has ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING BUT EVIL ACTIONS BY THE USA------but you presented no connection between the murder of Ari Halberstam in 1993---by Rashid Baz and anything that the USA did. ------did you??? can you reveal
your "logic"?

 

[Indofred]

RASHID BAZ

Rashid Baz 1994 Brooklyn Bridge killer finally admits he chose targets because they were Jewish Daily Mail Online

He admitted tailing the van and targeting those inside because of an earlier West Bank attack by Israeli settlers on Muslims.

Asked if he would have shot at a van of black or Latino people, he told detectives, 'No, I only shot them because they were Jewish.'

Race hate crime against Jewish people for being Jewish - not especially because they were Americans.
This doesn't come under the rules I set out in the OP.
Nasty crime, but not part of the thread.

So, can anyone manage a terrorist attack against Americans for being American that wasn't caused by America, or US actions?

 

[irosie91]

RASHID BAZ

Rashid Baz 1994 Brooklyn Bridge killer finally admits he chose targets because they were Jewish Daily Mail Online

He admitted tailing the van and targeting those inside because of an earlier West Bank attack by Israeli settlers on Muslims.

Asked if he would have shot at a van of black or Latino people, he told detectives, 'No, I only shot them because they were Jewish.'

Race hate crime against Jewish people for being Jewish - not especially because they were Americans.
This doesn't come under the rules I set out in the OP.
Nasty crime, but not part of the thread.

So, can anyone manage a terrorist attack against Americans for being American that wasn't caused by America, or US actions?

OH....ok I got it----the Islamic criterion for justified murder of children is ----it is ok and good if they are jewish children.... Well,
I already knew that. It is a good precedent since it justifies the murder of
muslim children based on many many incidents over the past 1400 years involving -----jews, hindus, Zoroastrians,,
Christians, Buddhists......... a bit grim but
it is true-----people have lots to learn
from islam...... and the actions of its
pious adherents and its fine ideology and
keen logic. You should present your
conclusions at the UN-----before the world.
You are BRILLIANT

 

[irosie91]

RASHID BAZ

Rashid Baz 1994 Brooklyn Bridge killer finally admits he chose targets because they were Jewish Daily Mail Online

He admitted tailing the van and targeting those inside because of an earlier West Bank attack by Israeli settlers on Muslims.

Asked if he would have shot at a van of black or Latino people, he told detectives, 'No, I only shot them because they were Jewish.'

Race hate crime against Jewish people for being Jewish - not especially because they were Americans.
This doesn't come under the rules I set out in the OP.
Nasty crime, but not part of the thread.

So, can anyone manage a terrorist attack against Americans for being American that wasn't caused by America, or US actions?

OH....ok I got it----the Islamic criterion for justified murder of children is ----it is ok and good if they are jewish children.... Well,
I already knew that. It is a good precedent since it justifies the murder of
muslim children based on many many incidents over the past 1400 years involving -----jews, hindus, Zoroastrians,,
Christians, Buddhists......... a bit grim but
it is true-----people have lots to learn
from islam...... and the actions of its
pious adherents and its fine ideology and
keen logic. You should present your
conclusions at the UN-----before the world.
You are BRILLIANT

Indofred has presented a very interesting
thread. -------JUSTIFICATION FOR ATTACK----either on persons or on countries. So far it seems that he is
supporting a plan that allows attack upon
a country (country B) or its citizens based on any event in which that country or its citizens were involved in any attack upon
another country (country A) or its citizens.----OR in any way violated the
religion of its citizens.

I am intrigued -----such actions are just
PAYBACK----- He seems to be ALSO allowing "HATE" crime based on race
or religion as another form of "PAYBACK"
----I assume for perceived past grievances against that 'hated' group.
His model is very familiar to me. I learned about it more than 45 years ago when the reason that airplane hijackings and airport violence is "LEGAL" in Islamic logic was
carefully explained to me by a Pakistani
surgeon. The model certainly OPENS
the opportunity for JUSTIFIED VIOLENCE
by any country or even any individual to a
huge array of targets
REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!!!!

 

[Indofred]

We now know Rosie can't manage anything but an off topic post.
Can anyone manage an on topic post?

Please name an act of terrorism committed against the US that wasn't caused by US actions or attacks?

We could start with the church terrorism of a few days ago, but I'm assured that was a hate crime ... but the Jewish bus attack was terrorism - ho hum.

On topic please.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Op is rigged....................as the judge is biased...........

 

[irosie91]

We now know Rosie can't manage anything but an off topic post.
Can anyone manage an on topic post?

Please name an act of terrorism committed against the US that wasn't caused by US actions or attacks?

We could start with the church terrorism of a few days ago, but I'm assured that was a hate crime ... but the Jewish bus attack was terrorism - ho hum.

On topic please.

I remain fascinated with the fine distinctions. THE system allows
so much-----the church action was an
act of terrorism motivated by ideological hatred. In this case it was an act of
terrorism motivated by the ideology of
WHITE SUPREMACISM. The attack
on the jewish school van was an act
of terrorism motivated by ideological
hatred---in this case --- ISLAM ---

a. WHITE SUPREMACIST TERRORISM
on American soil against American
blacks
b. ISLAMIC TERRORISM on American soil
against American jews

 

[Indofred]

Can anyone manage an on topic post?

 

[irosie91]

The Op is rigged....................as the judge is biased...........

he is desperate to control minds so he uses
CDZ hoping to find a minor breach that he can USE against anyone who does not kow tow to HIS AGENDA and is not stymied by his sophistry

 

[irosie91]

We now know Rosie can't manage anything but an off topic post.
Can anyone manage an on topic post?

Please name an act of terrorism committed against the US that wasn't caused by US actions or attacks?

We could start with the church terrorism of a few days ago, but I'm assured that was a hate crime ... but the Jewish bus attack was terrorism - ho hum.

On topic please.

You back back pedaled. THE TOPIC is
"NAME THE TERRORIST ATTACK"-----
and your op describes "terrorist attack" ---under discussion as including any attack on "America or americans anywhere in the world" by muslims not directly associated
with an action by the USA. You insist that a muslim shooting up a small bus full of jewish american students because they are jewish in
Brooklyn as -------OFF TOPIC----because it is " not a terrorist attack" OK----so ----gunning down children in the streets is not terrorism -----in Arabic I got it. This reasoning demotes the Boston bombing
to a "NON-TERRORIST" attack too. ------
BOMBING mosques would be "non-terrorist" too. (because some people have backgrounds which lead them to be resentful against muslims ----it is justified
"payback") --------I have known a few Pakistani Shiites-----mostly sunnis but a very small scattering of Shiites----they seem to consider sunni attacks on Shiites in the streets and in their religious observances to be "terrorism"----they are wrong too. Best of all----the attack on MUMBAI in 2008 was not terrorism----nor was the attack on Bali whenever that happened. What the people of the world need to learn is how to do NON -WAR TIME-JUSTIFIABLE- NON-TERRORISM large scale killings
of the children of countries or groups they
consider their enemies-----because it is OK -------it is PAYBACK and cannot be construed as "terrorism"

 

[Indofred]

The Op is rigged....................as the judge is biased...........

So prove me wrong but naming a terrorist attack against America that wasn't a direct result of American actions.
Propaganda videos aren't proof, save proof you're unable to come up with an example.
In fact, no one can give a single example because there are none.
America has always attacked first, as we see with the 1983 Beirut embassy attack.
The US propaganda machine told the world how unjustified it was, but neglected to mention how the US warships had attacked , thus joined the war, a month before America was given a bloody nose.
One more act of terrorist that wasn't, just a retaliation against the attacking force.
That applies to all terrorism against American targets.

All this off topic stuff is simply an attempt to avoid the truth being aired.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Op is rigged....................as the judge is biased...........

So prove me wrong but naming a terrorist attack against America that wasn't a direct result of American actions.
Propaganda videos aren't proof, save proof you're unable to come up with an example.
In fact, no one can give a single example because there are none.
America has always attacked first, as we see with the 1983 Beirut embassy attack.
The US propaganda machine told the world how unjustified it was, but neglected to mention how the US warships had attacked , thus joined the war, a month before America was given a bloody nose.
One more act of terrorist that wasn't, just a retaliation against the attacking force.
That applies to all terrorism against American targets.

All this off topic stuff is simply an attempt to avoid the truth being aired.

The video posted was an older one quoting 27 terrorist attacks..........not all being on america.................

and no matter what is posted you will say it doesn't count anyway...............and that dog doesn't hunt.