Understand terrorism? Ridiculous

[PACKY]

The evasive reaction of many British Muslims to the July 7 bombings in London will strike Americans as depressingly familiar.

In past decades, explosions of criminal violence in the U.S. were rationalized as the inevitable products of racism and poverty. The solution, Americans were told by their leaders, was more understanding and more government money. Such therapies didn't work here, and they won't work there.


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin194349289jul19,0,4165530.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

The evasive reaction of many British Muslims to the July 7 bombings in London will strike Americans as depressingly familiar.

In past decades, explosions of criminal violence in the U.S. were rationalized as the inevitable products of racism and poverty. The solution, Americans were told by their leaders, was more understanding and more government money. Such therapies didn't work here, and they won't work there.


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin194349289jul19,0,4165530.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

The only thing we need to understand about terrorists is that they respect strength and dispose weakness. Take Libya back about 20 years ago. As long as we were seen to be weak Qadaffi(sp?) sponsored action against us. As soon as President Reagan sent in the bombs and showed that we wouldn't take Libya's nonsense anymore we haven't heard a peep out of them.

We don't have to actually bomb the Islamic countries back to the Stone Age, although that would be a very short trip, but we have to convince them that we are ready and willing to do it if they continue supporting those who want to see us destroyed.

 

[mpshiel]

The evasive reaction of many British Muslims to the July 7 bombings in London will strike Americans as depressingly familiar.

In past decades, explosions of criminal violence in the U.S. were rationalized as the inevitable products of racism and poverty. The solution, Americans were told by their leaders, was more understanding and more government money. Such therapies didn't work here, and they won't work there.


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin194349289jul19,0,4165530.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

I fail to understand why the same stories are posted by the same person - namely editorials of xenaphobic americans which are unreflective of the actual British press. Simply see my response in a similar thread on this vein or go to the BBC, the Guardian or the Times online. "Evasive Reaction" would be the Universal condemning? Or are you speaking of the "only" two acts of arson and one killing of random Muslims in retaliation?

Has the case been that the US has put lots of money into helping (what is in britian at least) the poorest religious community? I know they have spent a great deal of money kidnapping and Interrogating/Torturing (you pick the word which works for you) nationals around the world. They have spent a great deal of money training individuals to view muslims with a less than friendly eye. Have they however poured the same amount of money or time in trying to undertand into a) the general muslim community or b) the rest of the population to the concerns and viewpoints of the muslim community?

I think once again this is not case of "tried hard and found wanting" but "found hard and left untried". Does the US really suggest that the rest of the world try it's methods? As bush was noted in saying, that they fight the rest of the world so they don't have to at home. What if 20 or 30 other countries decided to select thier enemy nations and take war to them also? That is the road to peace? As the article quotes (out of context) that there is somone in the muslim community that knows who these terrorists are. Similarly there is probably someone in N.Y. who knows someone in the IRA. Does that mean we should "escort" selected New Yorkers to unmarked planes to be flown to Syria for "questioning" in order to preserve the safety of the United Kingdom?

Is there not enough irrational xenaphobia that you have to go around trying to round up more? Do you think there are perhaps giant pockets in the UK, or US where muslims are NOT being monitored with a greater degree of scrutiny and subject to higher amounts of interferance than citizens of other ethnicity and religion (as the search and siezure law study showed, that British Muslims are by far more likely to be targetted, and I am sure with the new views on "profiling" that the same is true in the US). If you have constructive ideas on creating links with the muslim or other communities then please step forward but hooded versions of "Gee, why don't the muslims dislike and target muslims as much as I do" are not helpful in either the short or long run

 

[immortalavefenix]

The only thing we need to understand about terrorists is that they respect strength and dispose weakness.

Really. It would not help us at all to learn about their recuirment and orgines. I mean that would in know way provide us with information that would lead us to stopping terrorist, BEFORE they become terrorist.

Take Libya back about 20 years ago. As long as we were seen to be weak Qadaffi(sp?) sponsored action against us. As soon as President Reagan sent in the bombs and showed that we wouldn't take Libya's nonsense anymore we haven't heard a peep out of them.

From Qadaffi. Nope. But 20 years ago those bombs killed a good numbers of brothers fathers husbands and boyfriends and sons. I dont think they have forgotten. And I can assure you there have been a few who are working on gettting even.

We don't have to actually bomb the Islamic countries back to the Stone Age, although that would be a very short trip, but we have to convince them that we are ready and willing to do it if they continue supporting those who want to see us destroyed.

It is hard to convince them NOT to support those we call terrorist, if it is US bombing them now isnt it? The harder we bomb "them" the harder they will support local "terrosit".

 

[fromwithin]

I'm with infallible - being liberal & evasive (ie not finding the guts to stand up and point the finger very clearly at Islam) and giving into demands of those who use terror to highlight their cause (eg the day after the London terrorism the G8 gave a very handsome donation to palestine) is not the solution

I don't think you can call it xenaphobia to react with anger to Islamic terror attacks, nor is it xenaphobia to truthfully acknowledge that Islam preaches destruction of all that is not Islam, at whatever cost, and in turn it offers great rewards to those willing to carry out its terror in the form of eternal life in paradise (uhmm yes I can see the temptation!)

The very idea of a religion seeing a murderer as a martyr is offensive and HAS to be questioned by our own political and religious leaders NOT ignored nor accepted because someone happens to believe it. We can not allow room for those that follow such a distorted path that goes against our laws, our morals and our sense of right and wrong.

The rewards for hatred and murder are high - and whilst these rewards - this false prophecy - exist, terror attacks will continue because they see this as right and just, and this is the aspect we have to understand. We know ourselves how complete and consuming Faith is and what we would do for our faith, for our Lord.

Currently Islams best defence is British/European liberal political correctness that justifies their right to believe and act as they wish even though it fails to truly understand just what it is that they do believe because we think everyone is working within the same ideas of good and bad as we are - this is where we are wrong.

We may well defend & protect them, but this is a one way street as they don't hold us in the same regard.

 

[immortalavefenix]

The very idea of a religion seeing a murderer as a martyr is offensive

Read your OT a bit more.

We can not allow room for those that follow such a distorted path that goes against our laws, our morals and our sense of right and wrong.

Which is what I tell Christain Extremeist

working within the same ideas of good and bad

Can you PLEASE demonstrate ONE example of two peoples EVER totally agreeing on "good and bad"?

We know ourselves how complete and consuming Faith

Which is why FAITH is such a dangerous thing.... for it is complete and consuming and blinds you to OBJECTIVE analysis.

defend & protect them

We defend and protect the RIGHT of people to worhship freely. We do not defend or protect terrorist. Or at least I thought me and you were working under the same principles of right and wrong.

I'm with infallible

I bet you would be.

acknowledge that Islam preaches destruction of all that is not Islam

Please compare
Exodus 34:12-27, King James Bible Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves.

G8 gave a very handsome donation to palestine

And what persay is wrong with giving milliones of displaced refugees donations, considering that they are under a military ocupation for more than a decade, and have very little means of taking care of themselfs. So we should let MILLONES of innocent civilians die because they hold unfavorable political views???

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

And what persay is wrong with giving milliones of displaced refugees donations, considering that they are under a military ocupation for more than a decade, and have very little means of taking care of themselfs. So we should let MILLONES of innocent civilians die because they hold unfavorable political views???

They could always go back to their native Jordan which kicked them out so many years ago because they would behave themselves there either.

 

[immortalavefenix]

And you could go back to Briton/Germany/Poland /-wherever- where they didnt want your parents for thier "bad behavior".

They are refugees.
Repeat after me.
REFUGEES.

Refugees are normally given aid.
To do otherwise, as in do nothing, is UNETHICAL.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I'm with infallible - being liberal & evasive (ie not finding the guts to stand up and point the finger very clearly at Islam) and giving into demands of those who use terror to highlight their cause (eg the day after the London terrorism the G8 gave a very handsome donation to palestine) is not the solution

I don't think you can call it xenaphobia to react with anger to Islamic terror attacks, nor is it xenaphobia to truthfully acknowledge that Islam preaches destruction of all that is not Islam, at whatever cost, and in turn it offers great rewards to those willing to carry out its terror in the form of eternal life in paradise (uhmm yes I can see the temptation!)

The very idea of a religion seeing a murderer as a martyr is offensive and HAS to be questioned by our own political and religious leaders NOT ignored nor accepted because someone happens to believe it. We can not allow room for those that follow such a distorted path that goes against our laws, our morals and our sense of right and wrong.

The rewards for hatred and murder are high - and whilst these rewards - this false prophecy - exist, terror attacks will continue because they see this as right and just, and this is the aspect we have to understand. We know ourselves how complete and consuming Faith is and what we would do for our faith, for our Lord.

Currently Islams best defence is British/European liberal political correctness that justifies their right to believe and act as they wish even though it fails to truly understand just what it is that they do believe because we think everyone is working within the same ideas of good and bad as we are - this is where we are wrong.

We may well defend & protect them, but this is a one way street as they don't hold us in the same regard.

In your first sentence you equate liberal with gutless. That is a personal attack against any liberal.

Look, get it straight. Liberalism is a political philosophy. There are tiems liberals support wars. There are times ocnservatives oppose wars. Nothing inherat to "liberalism" has anythign to do with strength or guts. Most liberals happen to think Bush's strategy in the war on terror has downright sucked and that doesn't make us gutless. So stop with the freakin attacks already.

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

And you could go back to Briton/Germany/Poland /-wherever- where they didnt want your parents for thier "bad behavior".

They are refugees.
Repeat after me.
REFUGEES.

Refugees are normally given aid.
To do otherwise, as in do nothing, is UNETHICAL.

Thank you for admitting that the Palestinians are not native to where they are currently squatting.

 

[immortalavefenix]

currently squatting

Please do not tell me that is a ref. to one of those "chick" comics.

Palestinians are not native

Palestinians lived in a nation called Palestin. That nation no longer exist. In its place there is a state called Isreal. The Palestinians are a displaced people, somehting VERY common in the history of humnity. Ergo, they are refugees. But they ARE native to where they came from.

Or let me get this right. Canada invades NewYork. Most Newyorkers flee, or are displaced by the Canadian military. These "refugees" spread out setteling parts of rurual New York and the sourrounding states such as Penn. Washington. etc.

Are these "refugees" not native "New Yorkers"? Are they "squatting" in the other states outside of "New Monteral"?

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

In your first sentence you equate liberal with gutless. That is a personal attack against any liberal.

Look, get it straight. Liberalism is a political philosophy. There are tiems liberals support wars. There are times ocnservatives oppose wars. Nothing inherat to "liberalism" has anythign to do with strength or guts. Most liberals happen to think Bush's strategy in the war on terror has downright sucked and that doesn't make us gutless. So stop with the freakin attacks already.

I think she was equating "evasive" with gutless.

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

currently squatting

Please do not tell me that is a ref. to one of those "chick" comics.

Huh?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

And she equated liberal with evasive. If a=b and b=c.......

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

And she equated liberal with evasive. If a=b and b=c.......

No, she said liberal AND evasive. That does not equate liberal and evasive. There are some evasive conservatives as well, but just not as many as there are evasive liberals.

But I think we are in danger of derailing the thread.

 

[immortalavefenix]

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1019/1019_01.asp

behold the horror.

 

[Duke of Marlborough]

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1019/1019_01.asp

behold the horror.

Oh, then no, I wasn't knowingly referring to a Chickism.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Tnx good.
And by the way,... check out som of his other stuff.

And your going to tell me its impossible to misinterpet the Bible. hah. Extermisim is wrong no matter what.