Terrorism

[Aecetia]

How convenient that we have quarantine camps. I do not have a tin foil hat, but I do have a healthy distrust of government. Are you all 100% sure that this is just incompetence or could there been an ulterior motive? I have not made up my mind about it either and prefer to think as usual the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing and the PC motivation outweighed all the commonsense observations about the Doc acting whacked out. Sounds like he should have been brought in for a fitness for duty when he started acting crazy, but maybe I have a lower tolerance for crazy than you all. I am not absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt convinced that Arraya does not make an interesting, yet extremely disconcerting point. If Arraya is correct, it would be remarkably evil to have sacrificed those who died and were injured at Ft. Hood for some kind of political expediency.

More interesting to me is the obvious cowardice of the media when reporting this shooting. The double standard is alive and well when it comes to reporting about protected classes of people. I thought the truth was out there, but not on the major networks. It is a shame that facts make them uncomfortable because of their lack of ethics.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]once again

Once again, dan, you fail to understand that I am only telling what the jihadists say and what they are basing it on. To say that I hold those same sentiments and to again call me a bigot is very dishonest of you.
[/quote]
Well am I being dishonest or have I failed to understand?

You need to keep up with yourself here.

The sentiment that I say you hold is the one that you have said you hold.

[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote]

Remember that one?

By describing a world religion as inherently warlike and all pious followers as violent, you have made a bigoted statement.

I don’t think calling a spade a spade (or a bigot a bigot makes me look bad).

[quote=surveyor]
But you can call me a bigot all you want it doesn’t change what the jihadists have been saying or doing.

It’s similar to calling a cop or a reporter a serial killer when the cop or reporter is just describing the motivations and the origins of the serial killer.

But you know, you can’t dispute the facts, so you attack the person. Ad hominem. But like I say, it does not change the facts of the story nor does it change the validity of my arguments.[/quote]
I don’t really get what your “facts” are.

You have stated that the dude from Mt. Hood is a terrorist based upon a broad collection of anecdotes and pasted together along with a lot of debate-club rehash to intimidate dissent.

Weak but entertaining.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]once again

Once again, dan, you fail to understand that I am only telling what the jihadists say and what they are basing it on. To say that I hold those same sentiments and to again call me a bigot is very dishonest of you.
[/quote]
Well am I being dishonest or have I failed to understand?

You need to keep up with yourself here.

The sentiment that I say you hold is the one that you have said you hold.

[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote]

Remember that one?

By describing a world religion as inherently warlike and all pious followers as violent, you have made a bigoted statement.

I don’t think calling a spade a spade (or a bigot a bigot makes me look bad).

[quote=surveyor]
But you can call me a bigot all you want it doesn’t change what the jihadists have been saying or doing.

It’s similar to calling a cop or a reporter a serial killer when the cop or reporter is just describing the motivations and the origins of the serial killer.

But you know, you can’t dispute the facts, so you attack the person. Ad hominem. But like I say, it does not change the facts of the story nor does it change the validity of my arguments.[/quote]
I don’t really get what your “facts” are.

You have stated that the dude from Mt. Hood is a terrorist based upon a broad collection of anecdotes and pasted together along with a lot of debate-club rehash to intimidate dissent.

Weak but entertaining.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]once again

Once again, dan, you fail to understand that I am only telling what the jihadists say and what they are basing it on. To say that I hold those same sentiments and to again call me a bigot is very dishonest of you.
[/quote]
Well am I being dishonest or have I failed to understand?

You need to keep up with yourself here.

The sentiment that I say you hold is the one that you have said you hold.

[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote]

Remember that one?

By describing a world religion as inherently warlike and all pious followers as violent, you have made a bigoted statement.

I don’t think calling a spade a spade (or a bigot a bigot makes me look bad).

[quote=surveyor]
But you can call me a bigot all you want it doesn’t change what the jihadists have been saying or doing.

It’s similar to calling a cop or a reporter a serial killer when the cop or reporter is just describing the motivations and the origins of the serial killer.

But you know, you can’t dispute the facts, so you attack the person. Ad hominem. But like I say, it does not change the facts of the story nor does it change the validity of my arguments.[/quote]
I don’t really get what your “facts” are.

You have stated that the dude from Mt. Hood is a terrorist based upon a broad collection of anecdotes and pasted together along with a lot of debate-club rehash to intimidate dissent.

Weak but entertaining.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]once again

Once again, dan, you fail to understand that I am only telling what the jihadists say and what they are basing it on. To say that I hold those same sentiments and to again call me a bigot is very dishonest of you.
[/quote]
Well am I being dishonest or have I failed to understand?

You need to keep up with yourself here.

The sentiment that I say you hold is the one that you have said you hold.

[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote]

Remember that one?

By describing a world religion as inherently warlike and all pious followers as violent, you have made a bigoted statement.

I don’t think calling a spade a spade (or a bigot a bigot makes me look bad).

[quote=surveyor]
But you can call me a bigot all you want it doesn’t change what the jihadists have been saying or doing.

It’s similar to calling a cop or a reporter a serial killer when the cop or reporter is just describing the motivations and the origins of the serial killer.

But you know, you can’t dispute the facts, so you attack the person. Ad hominem. But like I say, it does not change the facts of the story nor does it change the validity of my arguments.[/quote]
I don’t really get what your “facts” are.

You have stated that the dude from Mt. Hood is a terrorist based upon a broad collection of anecdotes and pasted together along with a lot of debate-club rehash to intimidate dissent.

Weak but entertaining.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]once again

Once again, dan, you fail to understand that I am only telling what the jihadists say and what they are basing it on. To say that I hold those same sentiments and to again call me a bigot is very dishonest of you.
[/quote]
Well am I being dishonest or have I failed to understand?

You need to keep up with yourself here.

The sentiment that I say you hold is the one that you have said you hold.

[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote]

Remember that one?

By describing a world religion as inherently warlike and all pious followers as violent, you have made a bigoted statement.

I don’t think calling a spade a spade (or a bigot a bigot makes me look bad).

[quote=surveyor]
But you can call me a bigot all you want it doesn’t change what the jihadists have been saying or doing.

It’s similar to calling a cop or a reporter a serial killer when the cop or reporter is just describing the motivations and the origins of the serial killer.

But you know, you can’t dispute the facts, so you attack the person. Ad hominem. But like I say, it does not change the facts of the story nor does it change the validity of my arguments.[/quote]
I don’t really get what your “facts” are.

You have stated that the dude from Mt. Hood is a terrorist based upon a broad collection of anecdotes and pasted together along with a lot of debate-club rehash to intimidate dissent.

Weak but entertaining.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.

[afx114]

How about fighting terrorism this way instead?

[afx114]

How about fighting terrorism this way instead?

[afx114]

How about fighting terrorism this way instead?

[afx114]

How about fighting terrorism this way instead?

[Author]

Posts