|
|
Thwarted Terror Attack in Australia
 Bahamut.Milamber
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-09-20 11:44:04
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with. Since you once again don't actually provide any information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
The first entry is in 1977, for the Hanafi Siege.
By the way? Not even in the same vicinity as the remainder. Wikipedia said:
On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 African American gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam but blamed it for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist.
...
The leader of the attack was former national secretary of the Nation of Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. Khaalis was born in Indiana in 1921 and named Ernest McGhee. Discharged from the U.S. Army on grounds of mental instability, he worked as a jazz drummer in New York City before converting to Islam and changing his name to Hamaas Khaalis. He became prominent in the ministries and school of the Nation of Islam and was appointed its national secretary in the early 1950s.
Khaalis split with the Nation of Islam in 1958 to found a rival Islamic organisation, the "Hanafi Movement".[3] In 1968, he was arrested for attempted extortion but released on grounds of mental illness.
In 1972, he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link.
...
Khaalis and his followers wanted those convicted for the 1973 murders handed over to them, presumably for execution. They also wanted to receive visits from Warith Deen Mohammed and champion boxer Muhammad Ali, long an active Black Muslim supporter. Khaalis also demanded that he be refunded $750 in legal fees caused by a contempt of court citation issued in response to his misbehavior in the trial of his children's killers. Time noted: "He also wanted the recently released film Mohammad, Messenger of God, to be banned on the grounds that it is sacrilegious. Khaalis' concern over the film was thought to have triggered the attack."
...
A large part of the negotiations were conducted by the three Muslim ambassadors, who "read to the gunmen passages from the Quran that they said demonstrated Islam’s compassion and mercy. They urged the gunmen to surrender. These ambassadors relied on their religious faith for compassion and tolerance."
...
The rest of the list is after the Gulf War.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement. 
Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all. You'll need to provide some supporting evidence that it promotes the genocide of non-believers (and a crap ton of other atrocities). As you have yet to show any factual evidence of any claims made. As counter-evidence to your claim, if you have 1.6 billion people which follow that, we would have a wee bit more bloodshed than exists today. 100k of 1.6 billion is about 0.00625%. If you assume a normalized distribution, you are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, Who killed them isn't under question.
Let us look at some of the first couple of years listed here (fair warning, pretty depressing):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Wikipedia said:
18 June 2004: The first known US drone strike killed 5–8 people including Nek Muhammad Wazir and two children, in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.
5 November 2005: a strike destroys the house of Abu Hamza Rabia killing his wife, three children and four others.
30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants. Among the deaths are 8 year old Noor Aziz and 17-year old Abdul Wasit.
13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri, five women, eight men, and five children are among the dead.
30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.
26 April 2007: 4 people killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. Habib Ullah the owner of the destroyed house, said those killed were not terrorists
19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan
2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan
29 January 2008: Al-Qaeda's Abu Laith al-Libi killed in a strike in North Waziristan along with 12–14 others, among the dead are two women and three children
The average household in Pakistan has about 6.5 members (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/social_statistics/publications/hies07_08/table1.pdf).
Assuming that you radicalize all associated family members (let alone the entire community) with these attacks, you quickly enter significant numbers.
this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it. Isreal has other options which significantly reduce the possibility of civillian casualties, with the consequence of significantly increasing the risk to its own troops.
By doing that, they would have also removed the actual threat, and severely reduced the recruitment potential of those organizations.
It was (and still is) a poor strategic decision.
That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them.
Just imagine how this would work if expanded to other criminal activities (for example, drugs). Drone strike a dealer in a car, take out everyone else in that car, plus other bystanders in the street/traffic accidents. Hey, it's just collateral damage, no worries, we got the bad guy.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 13:27:35
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then. What?
The US was involved in covert action in the middle east when the CIA was established.
Did we overtly invade? No.
Did we manipulate, kill or otherwise try to control the situation? Yes.
Most Some of those documents have been declassified and this is well known
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/16/the-great-game-and-the-cia-shaped-the-modern-middle-east
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116108/hugh-wilfords-americas-great-game-reviewed-frederick-deknatel
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
CIA said: that TPAJAX got the CIA into the regime-change business for good—similar efforts would soon follow in Guatemala, Indonesia, and Cuba—but that the Agency has had little success at that enterprise, while bringing itself and the United States more political ill will, and breeding more untoward results, than any other of its activities.14 Most of the CIA's acknowledged efforts of this sort have shown that Washington has been more interested in strongman rule in the Middle East and elsewhere than in encouraging democracy. The result is a credibility problem that accompanied American troops into Iraq and continues to plague them as the United States prepares to hand over sovereignty to local authorities. All the Shah's Men helps clarify why, when many Iraqis heard President George Bush concede that "[s]ixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe,"15 they may have reacted with more than a little skepticism. Assisting with a regime change via cia operatives, isn't combat.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 13:29:58
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then. What?
The US was involved in covert action in the middle east when the CIA was established.
Did we overtly invade? No.
Did we manipulate, kill or otherwise try to control the situation? Yes.
Most Some of those documents have been declassified and this is well known
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/16/the-great-game-and-the-cia-shaped-the-modern-middle-east
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116108/hugh-wilfords-americas-great-game-reviewed-frederick-deknatel
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
CIA said: that TPAJAX got the CIA into the regime-change business for good—similar efforts would soon follow in Guatemala, Indonesia, and Cuba—but that the Agency has had little success at that enterprise, while bringing itself and the United States more political ill will, and breeding more untoward results, than any other of its activities.14 Most of the CIA's acknowledged efforts of this sort have shown that Washington has been more interested in strongman rule in the Middle East and elsewhere than in encouraging democracy. The result is a credibility problem that accompanied American troops into Iraq and continues to plague them as the United States prepares to hand over sovereignty to local authorities. All the Shah's Men helps clarify why, when many Iraqis heard President George Bush concede that "[s]ixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe,"15 they may have reacted with more than a little skepticism. Assisting with a regime change via cia operatives, isn't combat.
It is however meddling in other sovereign states' affairs. Which is what you contested.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 13:37:00
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with. Since you once again don't actually provide any information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
The first entry is in 1977, for the Hanafi Siege.
By the way? Not even in the same vicinity as the remainder. Wikipedia said:
On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 African American gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam but blamed it for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist.
...
The leader of the attack was former national secretary of the Nation of Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. Khaalis was born in Indiana in 1921 and named Ernest McGhee. Discharged from the U.S. Army on grounds of mental instability, he worked as a jazz drummer in New York City before converting to Islam and changing his name to Hamaas Khaalis. He became prominent in the ministries and school of the Nation of Islam and was appointed its national secretary in the early 1950s.
Khaalis split with the Nation of Islam in 1958 to found a rival Islamic organisation, the "Hanafi Movement".[3] In 1968, he was arrested for attempted extortion but released on grounds of mental illness.
In 1972, he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link.
...
Khaalis and his followers wanted those convicted for the 1973 murders handed over to them, presumably for execution. They also wanted to receive visits from Warith Deen Mohammed and champion boxer Muhammad Ali, long an active Black Muslim supporter. Khaalis also demanded that he be refunded $750 in legal fees caused by a contempt of court citation issued in response to his misbehavior in the trial of his children's killers. Time noted: "He also wanted the recently released film Mohammad, Messenger of God, to be banned on the grounds that it is sacrilegious. Khaalis' concern over the film was thought to have triggered the attack."
...
A large part of the negotiations were conducted by the three Muslim ambassadors, who "read to the gunmen passages from the Quran that they said demonstrated Islam’s compassion and mercy. They urged the gunmen to surrender. These ambassadors relied on their religious faith for compassion and tolerance."
...
The rest of the list is after the Gulf War.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement. Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all. You'll need to provide some supporting evidence that it promotes the genocide of non-believers (and a crap ton of other atrocities). As you have yet to show any factual evidence of any claims made. As counter-evidence to your claim, if you have 1.6 billion people which follow that, we would have a wee bit more bloodshed than exists today. 100k of 1.6 billion is about 0.00625%. If you assume a normalized distribution, you are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, Who killed them isn't under question.
Let us look at some of the first couple of years listed here (fair warning, pretty depressing):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Wikipedia said:
18 June 2004: The first known US drone strike killed 5–8 people including Nek Muhammad Wazir and two children, in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.
5 November 2005: a strike destroys the house of Abu Hamza Rabia killing his wife, three children and four others.
30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants. Among the deaths are 8 year old Noor Aziz and 17-year old Abdul Wasit.
13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri, five women, eight men, and five children are among the dead.
30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.
26 April 2007: 4 people killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. Habib Ullah the owner of the destroyed house, said those killed were not terrorists
19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan
2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan
29 January 2008: Al-Qaeda's Abu Laith al-Libi killed in a strike in North Waziristan along with 12–14 others, among the dead are two women and three children
The average household in Pakistan has about 6.5 members (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/social_statistics/publications/hies07_08/table1.pdf).
Assuming that you radicalize all associated family members (let alone the entire community) with these attacks, you quickly enter significant numbers.
this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it. Isreal has other options which significantly reduce the possibility of civillian casualties, with the consequence of significantly increasing the risk to its own troops.
By doing that, they would have also removed the actual threat, and severely reduced the recruitment potential of those organizations.
It was (and still is) a poor strategic decision.
That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them.
Just imagine how this would work if expanded to other criminal activities (for example, drugs). Drone strike a dealer in a car, take out everyone else in that car, plus other bystanders in the street/traffic accidents. Hey, it's just collateral damage, no worries, we got the bad guy.
Try almost 2 decades earlier there guy.
You want me to provide you with documentation on one of the largest religions? Yeah, I'm way too lazy for that, open the damn book and read it for yourself.
Again: the #'s are irrelevant, the text speaks for itself.
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy.
You're equating drug dealers to known terrorist combatants now? really Considering I am of the opinion the war on drugs is an entire sham (also Regan mind you), your assertion is laughable, not to mention that US soil isn't a warzone (well until they use the unconstitutional patriot act to somehow twist that (if they haven't already)).
 Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
Serveur: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 13:41:32
Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 13:45:19
It is however meddling in other sovereign states' affairs. Which is what you contested.
It actually isn't what I contested, I said we didn't cause conflict, the first event on the list has the cia meeting with a guy but no proof of assistance, the first provable account is working with by request of the UK with the British Intelligence, and I'll give you that as doing something we shouldn't have done, but it by no means was causing a conflict, obviously due to the discussion earlier we're using the term as combat operations.
Everything else was way after embassy attacks.
But I digress, and I'm growing tired of people attempting to justify these terrorists. Ya'll have fun now.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 13:47:43
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
Serveur: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 13:52:34
Quote: Jetackuu said: » I'm just racist. Their blood isn't the same as ours
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 13:57:08
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE statement When did I ever talk about race?
I'm not racist at all, never have been.
I've never asserted anything of the sort.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
Serveur: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 13:59:36
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE statement When did I ever talk about race?
I'm not racist at all, never have been.
I've never asserted anything of the sort. You don't have to be aware of it, to actually be racist.
But you are by the way.
Bahamut.Kara
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-09-20 14:03:58
Assisting with a regime change via cia operatives, isn't combat. It is an act of war.
Or we could call it terrorism
US international terrorism is defined as:
18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions
Quote: (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; It is however meddling in other sovereign states' affairs. Which is what you contested.
It actually isn't what I contested, I said we didn't cause conflict, the first event on the list has the cia meeting with a guy but no proof of assistance, the first provable account is working with by request of the UK with the British Intelligence, and I'll give you that as doing something we shouldn't have done, but it by no means was causing a conflict, obviously due to the discussion earlier we're using the term as combat operations.
Everything else was way after embassy attacks.
But I digress, and I'm growing tired of people attempting to justify these terrorists. Ya'll have fun now.
The CIA has admitted they were heavily involved in the Iraq Iran coup. 200 people died in the first night.
That is causing conflict.
Edited:
I was thinking Iran and typed Iraq.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 14:05:22
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE statement When did I ever talk about race?
I'm not racist at all, never have been.
I've never asserted anything of the sort. You don't have to be aware of it, to actually be racist.
But you are by the way. But one would have to be racist to be racist, and I'm not by the way.
Btw: Muslim isn't a race.
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini
Serveur: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 303
By Quetzalcoatl.Maldini 2014-09-20 14:08:22
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE statement When did I ever talk about race?
I'm not racist at all, never have been.
I've never asserted anything of the sort. You don't have to be aware of it, to actually be racist.
But you are by the way. But one would have to be racist to be racist, and I'm not by the way.
Btw: Muslim isn't a race. Maybe you don't have any prejudice against African Americans or Americans of Asian origins. That doesn't mean you're not racist.
You demonstrate one standard for certain groups you perceive to be your own and standards for others. That is classic racism.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 14:11:07
Assisting with a regime change via cia operatives, isn't combat. It is an act of war.
Or we could call it terrorism
US international terrorism is defined as:
18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions
Quote: (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; It is however meddling in other sovereign states' affairs. Which is what you contested.
It actually isn't what I contested, I said we didn't cause conflict, the first event on the list has the cia meeting with a guy but no proof of assistance, the first provable account is working with by request of the UK with the British Intelligence, and I'll give you that as doing something we shouldn't have done, but it by no means was causing a conflict, obviously due to the discussion earlier we're using the term as combat operations.
Everything else was way after embassy attacks.
But I digress, and I'm growing tired of people attempting to justify these terrorists. Ya'll have fun now.
The CIA has admitted they were heavily involved in the Iraq coup. 200 people died in the first night.
That is causing conflict.
"Act of war" my arse.
As for Iraq: again; after the US was attacked, but it was before The 1960-63 ***? because I think you need to reread your own link again...
I don't have an issue with anyone based upon their race, it's irrelevant to me.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 14:14:21
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE statement When did I ever talk about race?
I'm not racist at all, never have been.
I've never asserted anything of the sort. You don't have to be aware of it, to actually be racist.
But you are by the way. But one would have to be racist to be racist, and I'm not by the way.
Btw: Muslim isn't a race. Maybe you don't have any prejudice against African Americans or Americans of Asian origins. That doesn't mean you're not racist.
You demonstrate one standard for certain groups you perceive to be your own and standards for others. That is classic racism.
No, a group =/= race, racism has a definition that you apparently don't understand.
Quote: rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
noun: racism
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Considering that I think that humans are equal (even though there scientifically and medically are differences, we shouldn't treat people differently because some of them, just medically things have to be approached in different directions), no I am not racist.
But you go on and keep trying to dismiss me as one, but the lulz are on you.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 14:15:41
Hey Jet, go away and type this into google and stfu already:
Mohammed Mossadegh
 Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-09-20 14:17:17
I also suggest typing this:
"funny bananas".
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 14:19:05
Hey Jet, go away and type this into google and stfu already:
Mohammed Mossadegh I know English may be hard for you, but Iran =/= Iraq, and plotting with the UK and successfully overthrowing somebody isn't a combat conflict.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 14:19:16
I also suggest typing this:
"funny bananas". ^
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 14:21:32
I think we're done here after the race card was played:
Bahamut.Milamber
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-09-20 14:36:07
Yet again (what, the 3rd time now?), no sourced information, no specific statements that can be verified. Just more hand waving.
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with. Since you once again don't actually provide any information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
The first entry is in 1977, for the Hanafi Siege.
By the way? Not even in the same vicinity as the remainder. Wikipedia said:
On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 African American gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam but blamed it for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist.
...
The leader of the attack was former national secretary of the Nation of Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. Khaalis was born in Indiana in 1921 and named Ernest McGhee. Discharged from the U.S. Army on grounds of mental instability, he worked as a jazz drummer in New York City before converting to Islam and changing his name to Hamaas Khaalis. He became prominent in the ministries and school of the Nation of Islam and was appointed its national secretary in the early 1950s.
Khaalis split with the Nation of Islam in 1958 to found a rival Islamic organisation, the "Hanafi Movement".[3] In 1968, he was arrested for attempted extortion but released on grounds of mental illness.
In 1972, he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link.
...
Khaalis and his followers wanted those convicted for the 1973 murders handed over to them, presumably for execution. They also wanted to receive visits from Warith Deen Mohammed and champion boxer Muhammad Ali, long an active Black Muslim supporter. Khaalis also demanded that he be refunded $750 in legal fees caused by a contempt of court citation issued in response to his misbehavior in the trial of his children's killers. Time noted: "He also wanted the recently released film Mohammad, Messenger of God, to be banned on the grounds that it is sacrilegious. Khaalis' concern over the film was thought to have triggered the attack."
...
A large part of the negotiations were conducted by the three Muslim ambassadors, who "read to the gunmen passages from the Quran that they said demonstrated Islam’s compassion and mercy. They urged the gunmen to surrender. These ambassadors relied on their religious faith for compassion and tolerance."
...
The rest of the list is after the Gulf War.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement. Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all. You'll need to provide some supporting evidence that it promotes the genocide of non-believers (and a crap ton of other atrocities). As you have yet to show any factual evidence of any claims made. As counter-evidence to your claim, if you have 1.6 billion people which follow that, we would have a wee bit more bloodshed than exists today. 100k of 1.6 billion is about 0.00625%. If you assume a normalized distribution, you are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, Who killed them isn't under question.
Let us look at some of the first couple of years listed here (fair warning, pretty depressing):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Wikipedia said:
18 June 2004: The first known US drone strike killed 5–8 people including Nek Muhammad Wazir and two children, in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.
5 November 2005: a strike destroys the house of Abu Hamza Rabia killing his wife, three children and four others.
30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants. Among the deaths are 8 year old Noor Aziz and 17-year old Abdul Wasit.
13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri, five women, eight men, and five children are among the dead.
30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.
26 April 2007: 4 people killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. Habib Ullah the owner of the destroyed house, said those killed were not terrorists
19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan
2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan
29 January 2008: Al-Qaeda's Abu Laith al-Libi killed in a strike in North Waziristan along with 12–14 others, among the dead are two women and three children
The average household in Pakistan has about 6.5 members (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/social_statistics/publications/hies07_08/table1.pdf).
Assuming that you radicalize all associated family members (let alone the entire community) with these attacks, you quickly enter significant numbers.
this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it. Israel has other options which significantly reduce the possibility of civillian casualties, with the consequence of significantly increasing the risk to its own troops.
By doing that, they would have also removed the actual threat, and severely reduced the recruitment potential of those organizations.
It was (and still is) a poor strategic decision.
That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them.
Just imagine how this would work if expanded to other criminal activities (for example, drugs). Drone strike a dealer in a car, take out everyone else in that car, plus other bystanders in the street/traffic accidents. Hey, it's just collateral damage, no worries, we got the bad guy. Try almost 2 decades earlier there guy. Provide the incident you describe.
You want me to provide you with documentation on one of the largest religions? Yeah, I'm way too lazy for that, open the damn book and read it for yourself.
Again: the #'s are irrelevant, the text speaks for itself. Ah, that logical, fact based approach again.
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what? Did you even read the list?
Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy. You think terrorism is evil, but are happy with genocide? And yes, you are responsible for killing the people you have killed. Solely responsible? Not necessarily, but still responsible.
You're equating drug dealers to known terrorist combatants now? really Considering I am of the opinion the war on drugs is an entire sham (also Regan mind you), your assertion is laughable, not to mention that US soil isn't a warzone (well until they use the unconstitutional patriot act to somehow twist that (if they haven't already)). Yes Jetackuu, that is exactly what I did. I explicitly said drug dealers and terrorists are equivalent. In no way did I give an example where a particular type of target may be in a civilian population, with the intent of illustrating the equivalent effect and viewpoint. Because Pakistan is also a war-zone.
Well, at least we can update this statement more accurately:
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts.
Bahamut.Kara
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-09-20 14:51:00
Assisting with a regime change via cia operatives, isn't combat. It is an act of war.
Or we could call it terrorism
US international terrorism is defined as:
18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions
Quote: (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; It is however meddling in other sovereign states' affairs. Which is what you contested.
It actually isn't what I contested, I said we didn't cause conflict, the first event on the list has the cia meeting with a guy but no proof of assistance, the first provable account is working with by request of the UK with the British Intelligence, and I'll give you that as doing something we shouldn't have done, but it by no means was causing a conflict, obviously due to the discussion earlier we're using the term as combat operations.
Everything else was way after embassy attacks.
But I digress, and I'm growing tired of people attempting to justify these terrorists. Ya'll have fun now.
The CIA has admitted they were heavily involved in the Iraq coup. 200 people died in the first night.
That is causing conflict.
"Act of war" my arse.
As for Iraq: again; after the US was attacked, but it was before The 1960-63 ***? because I think you need to reread your own link again...
I don't have an issue with anyone based upon their race, it's irrelevant to me. I edited. I meant Iran and typed Iraq.
If a foreign government came in to the US and started helping agitators overthrow the democratically elected President/congress the US would view it as an act of war.
Again, if you prefer the word terrorist, it applies here to the US's actions.
The US did not like the thought of Iran's oil fields being nationalized. So they helped overthrow the elected government and replaced it with a monarchy/dictatorship that was then overthrown 20 years later.
This has been discussed for decades and the CIA admitted it last year.
Quote: The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."
It was shady as hell. We've executed people/citizens abroad for doing the same thing recently using drone strikes (people who advocated against the US but didn't actually commit murder/violence*). The Church Commission that tried to investigate this found that somehow many of the documents had been destroyed. Enough have popped up over the years to paint an ugly picture.
I'm not sure why you are mentioning race, I didn't post anything about that.
*the CIA did more than advocate against Iran. They trained, armed, paid for propaganda, paid people to march/riot/vandalize, and helped plan/execute a bombing. Just showing a contrast.
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-09-20 14:51:58
We should go back to refer to Iran as Persia, less confusion and cooler name anyway.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 14:58:39
We should go back to refer to Iran as Persia, less confusion and cooler name anyway. They would love that. You ever hear of the strife between Arab countries and Iran over the naming of the Gulf that's between them?
You're Anti-Iranian if you refer to it as the Arabian gulf and Anti-Arab if you refer to as the Persian Gulf.
We should just call it the PERAB or Arasian Gulf.
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-09-20 15:02:10
Are you sure? As far as I know the name was changed to Iran because..well, that's how they call it themselves, while Persia was the name the greeks gave them and they found it offensive.
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-09-20 15:03:33
We should go back to refer to Iran as Persia, less confusion and cooler name anyway.
While we're at it, can Iran go back to Zoroastrianism? Cause that ***was better. I mean like vastly superior to the current choices.
It's on my top 5 choices of world religions if I had to choose one.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:14:17
Yet again (what, the 3rd time now?), no sourced information, no specific statements that can be verified. Just more hand waving.
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with. Since you once again don't actually provide any information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
The first entry is in 1977, for the Hanafi Siege.
By the way? Not even in the same vicinity as the remainder. Wikipedia said:
On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 African American gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam but blamed it for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist.
...
The leader of the attack was former national secretary of the Nation of Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. Khaalis was born in Indiana in 1921 and named Ernest McGhee. Discharged from the U.S. Army on grounds of mental instability, he worked as a jazz drummer in New York City before converting to Islam and changing his name to Hamaas Khaalis. He became prominent in the ministries and school of the Nation of Islam and was appointed its national secretary in the early 1950s.
Khaalis split with the Nation of Islam in 1958 to found a rival Islamic organisation, the "Hanafi Movement".[3] In 1968, he was arrested for attempted extortion but released on grounds of mental illness.
In 1972, he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link.
...
Khaalis and his followers wanted those convicted for the 1973 murders handed over to them, presumably for execution. They also wanted to receive visits from Warith Deen Mohammed and champion boxer Muhammad Ali, long an active Black Muslim supporter. Khaalis also demanded that he be refunded $750 in legal fees caused by a contempt of court citation issued in response to his misbehavior in the trial of his children's killers. Time noted: "He also wanted the recently released film Mohammad, Messenger of God, to be banned on the grounds that it is sacrilegious. Khaalis' concern over the film was thought to have triggered the attack."
...
A large part of the negotiations were conducted by the three Muslim ambassadors, who "read to the gunmen passages from the Quran that they said demonstrated Islam’s compassion and mercy. They urged the gunmen to surrender. These ambassadors relied on their religious faith for compassion and tolerance."
...
The rest of the list is after the Gulf War.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement. Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all. You'll need to provide some supporting evidence that it promotes the genocide of non-believers (and a crap ton of other atrocities). As you have yet to show any factual evidence of any claims made. As counter-evidence to your claim, if you have 1.6 billion people which follow that, we would have a wee bit more bloodshed than exists today. 100k of 1.6 billion is about 0.00625%. If you assume a normalized distribution, you are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, Who killed them isn't under question.
Let us look at some of the first couple of years listed here (fair warning, pretty depressing):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Wikipedia said:
18 June 2004: The first known US drone strike killed 5–8 people including Nek Muhammad Wazir and two children, in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.
5 November 2005: a strike destroys the house of Abu Hamza Rabia killing his wife, three children and four others.
30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants. Among the deaths are 8 year old Noor Aziz and 17-year old Abdul Wasit.
13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri, five women, eight men, and five children are among the dead.
30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.
26 April 2007: 4 people killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. Habib Ullah the owner of the destroyed house, said those killed were not terrorists
19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan
2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan
29 January 2008: Al-Qaeda's Abu Laith al-Libi killed in a strike in North Waziristan along with 12–14 others, among the dead are two women and three children
The average household in Pakistan has about 6.5 members (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/social_statistics/publications/hies07_08/table1.pdf).
Assuming that you radicalize all associated family members (let alone the entire community) with these attacks, you quickly enter significant numbers.
this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it. Israel has other options which significantly reduce the possibility of civillian casualties, with the consequence of significantly increasing the risk to its own troops.
By doing that, they would have also removed the actual threat, and severely reduced the recruitment potential of those organizations.
It was (and still is) a poor strategic decision.
That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them.
Just imagine how this would work if expanded to other criminal activities (for example, drugs). Drone strike a dealer in a car, take out everyone else in that car, plus other bystanders in the street/traffic accidents. Hey, it's just collateral damage, no worries, we got the bad guy. Try almost 2 decades earlier there guy. Provide the incident you describe.
You want me to provide you with documentation on one of the largest religions? Yeah, I'm way too lazy for that, open the damn book and read it for yourself.
Again: the #'s are irrelevant, the text speaks for itself. Ah, that logical, fact based approach again.
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what? Did you even read the list?
Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy. You think terrorism is evil, but are happy with genocide? And yes, you are responsible for killing the people you have killed. Solely responsible? Not necessarily, but still responsible.
You're equating drug dealers to known terrorist combatants now? really Considering I am of the opinion the war on drugs is an entire sham (also Regan mind you), your assertion is laughable, not to mention that US soil isn't a warzone (well until they use the unconstitutional patriot act to somehow twist that (if they haven't already)). Yes Jetackuu, that is exactly what I did. I explicitly said drug dealers and terrorists are equivalent. In no way did I give an example where a particular type of target may be in a civilian population, with the intent of illustrating the equivalent effect and viewpoint. Because Pakistan is also a war-zone.
Well, at least we can update this statement more accurately:
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts.
It's documented in the links already in this thread, not going to bother.
Indeed.
I read the list, but you seem to not comprehend that they're collateral damage in a drone strike against known combatants, which is minimal casualties against enemies in a war zone, you're not going to win this with emotional ***.
I never said I was happy with genocide. No, the people responsible for the deaths of those children in Gaza are Hamas, if you load a building with children, shoot rockets at somebody with it and then they turn around and destroy that building for attacking them, then then you can't go around parading that Israel killed women and children, but that's what they're doing and you are falling for it hook line and sinker. Hamas is responsible for those deaths, they did it to rally support for their cause of wiping out Israel. It seems like you're the one here who supports people who want to commit genocide.
You gave an incomparable example of two entirely different situations that are dealt with in two entirely different ways (well the one is being dealt with more and more that way all the time, but again: America isn't a warzone). tl;dr they're not equivalent at all.
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. Has never been more true, but keep on twisting reality to fit your agenda.
I edited. I meant Iran and typed Iraq.
If a foreign government came in to the US and started helping agitators overthrow the democratically elected President/congress the US would view it as an act of war.
Again, if you prefer the word terrorist, it applies here to the US's actions.
The US did not like the thought of Iran's oil fields being nationalized. So they helped overthrow the elected government and replaced it with a monarchy/dictatorship that was then overthrown 20 years later.
This has been discussed for decades and the CIA admitted it last year.
Quote: The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."
It was shady as hell. We've executed people/citizens abroad for doing the same thing recently using drone strikes (people who advocated against the US but didn't actually commit murder/violence*). The Church Commission that tried to investigate this found that somehow many of the documents had been destroyed. Enough have popped up over the years to paint an ugly picture.
I'm not sure why you are mentioning race, I didn't post anything about that.
*the CIA did more than advocate against Iran. They trained, armed, paid for propaganda, paid people to march/riot/vandalize, and helped plan/execute a bombing. Just showing a contrast.
Just to be clear, we're talking about the 1953 Iran incident?
Still not a combat conflict, despite how *** up it was, and how very against my own personal views of deprivation of natural resources.
But I'll give it to you, just for the sake of it, so we have one nation, who we're not at war with (yet, but oh noez their nuclear power program is dangerous!) (sarcasm btw).
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:15:14
Oh as for the race thing: Maldini is being a tard and called me a racist, which is laughable at best.
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-09-20 15:16:41
Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:21:33
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
It makes perfect sense, you just aren't reading it properly. I simply stated that I'm not going to fuss over a few unintended casualties when the power exists to wipe the entire area out entirely, and in certain cases they would be justified in doing so, I at no time said an entire culture or people should be eradicated, nor do I wish that we or anyone else should do it. Reading comprehension: go.
I use the word terrorist quite accurately regardless of how you personally see it, it is the word to use, and just because certain individuals fit other definitions as well, they still fit the definition of terrorists.
The New Zealand Herald said: Gruesome execution plot at the heart of terror raids
A plot to behead a random member of the public in Sydney has been thwarted by the biggest anti-terror police raids Australia has seen, with one man charged over the plan to "horrify" the community.
Omarjan Azari, 22, who was remanded in custody at Central Local Court, allegedly conspired with Mohammad Baryalei, the most senior Australian member of Isis (Islamic State) to commit the terror act.
Prosecutor Michael Allnutt told the court that Azari was accused of plans designed to "shock" and "horrify" the community.
The plan involved the "random selection of persons to rather gruesomely execute", he said.
Last night a heavy police presence was expected at a snap protest in Sydney's west against the raids. The protest, promoted under a banner featuring the hardline organisation Hizb Ut-Tahrir, called on the Muslim community to "stand as one" against "government aggression" at Lakemba.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was briefed before raids on Wednesday night, indicated intelligence showed public beheadings were urged by leaders of Syria-based Isis.
"The exhortations, quite direct exhortations, were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in [Isis] to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country," Abbott said. "This is not just suspicion, this is intent."
Azari, from Guildford in Sydney's west, will face court again on November 13. He was one of 15 people detained during the raids which included 25 search warrants on homes and vehicles.
More than 800 New South Wales and Australian Federal Police raided properties across the suburbs of Beecroft, Bella Vista, Guildford, Merrylands, Northmead, Wentworthville, Marsfield, Westmead, Castle Hill, Revesby, Bass Hill and Regents Park.
Three more raids occurred in Queensland yesterday morning.
Australian Federal Police acting commissioner Andrew Colvin said the raids in Underwood, Logan and Mount Gravatt East southeast of Brisbane were linked to raids in the area last week in which two men were arrested and charged with terrorism-related offences.
One of the Queensland suspects, Omar Succarieh, was seeking bail.
The Sydney plot has raised comparisons with the attack on British soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death on a London street by Muslim extremists last year.
It emerged yesterday that death threats against Christians outside a school and church in Sydney's west have struck fear into parents and churchgoers. Police say two men in a red hatchback hurled abuse as they drove by Maronite College of the Holy Family in Harris Park and Our Lady of Lebanon church on Wednesday. They threatened to "kill the Christians" and slaughter their children while brandishing an Isis flag, a priest said.
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione warned against any public backlash in the wake of the dawn raids. He said more than 220 police would participate in high-profile Operation Hammerhead, covering transport hubs and important and iconic sites.
The operation followed Australia's outgoing spy chief, ASIO director David Irvine, raising the terror alert level to "high" amid fears of an attack on home soil last Friday.
Chief of Defence Mark Binskin said the defence force was constantly reviewing security at its bases and may adjust the level of security over coming days.
Australia has estimated about 60 of its citizens are fighting for the Islamic State group and Jabhat al-Nusra in Iraq and Syria. Another 15 Australian fighters had been killed, including two young suicide bombers. The Government has said it believes about 100 Australians are actively supporting extremist groups from within Australia, recruiting fighters and grooming suicide bomber candidates as well as providing funds and equipment.
Western governments are facing an uphill battle trying to squeeze the finances of Islamic State jihadists, as the extremists operate like a "mafia" in territory under their control in Syria and Iraq, experts say.
Unlike the al-Qaeda network, which has relied almost exclusively on private donations, Isis holds a large area in Syria and Iraq that allows it to generate cash from extortion, kidnapping and smuggling of both oil and antiquities, analysts say. As a result, the group's funding presents a much more difficult target for Western sanctions compared to al-Qaeda's finances, said Evan Jendruck, an analyst at IHS Jane's consultancy.
Even conservative estimates portray Isis as the world's richest extremist organisation, raking in at least a million dollars a day.
The group is "merciless in shaking down local businesses for cash and routinely forces drivers on roads under its control to pay a tax", a US intelligence official said. "Its cash-raising activities resemble those of a mafia-like organisation."
- AAP, AP, AFP
So now the ISIS is using its international volunteers to extend its reach into western nations. Awesome.
|
|
