In your opinion...

[Seankel]

what qualifies as an act of terrorism? We were discussing this is one of my classes a couple days ago and it was very interesting.
I consider an act of violence perpetrated by any person or group for the purpose of causing fear within another group of people to be a terrorist act.
9/11= terrorist act
Suicide bombings= terrorist act
"Shock and Awe"= terrorist act
What do you think?

[ss10mets]

I think that is good but should include attacking civilians.

[TwoStepFF]

I think that is good but should include attacking civilians.
:thumbsup

[SatelliteEyes]

Yes, defintely agree with what you posted. Also including dropping bombs on civilians and killing little babies and their mothers as terrorism as well.

[Mickey Carson]

I think that is good but should include attacking civilians.
If a group of people blew up the Statue of Liberty @ 4am on a Friday morning when no one was around with the intention of putting fear into the hearts of American civilians without hurting or killing anyone...I'd still call that an act of terrorism.

[saygoodbye12]

In my school district, if a child, in a fit of rage were to yell "I'm gonna blow this school up" He would be charged with terroristic threats, suspended and have a police report filed against him.

Also including dropping bombs on civilians and killing little babies and their mothers as terrorism as well.

So then The U.S. has been terrorists for a long time, correct?

[clemson357]

violence...for the purpose of causing fear within another group of people to be a terrorist act.



"Shock and Awe"= terrorist act



the purpose of shock and awe was not to cause fear, it was to crush a dictatorship.







I think it isn't terrorism if the only people you intend to cause fear in are terrorists

[DMBSignGuy]

I think it isn't terrorism if the only people you intend to cause fear in are terrorists

I dont think circular logic should be used to define terrorism. Its not terrorism when your killing terrorists? I doubt Osama sees himself as a terrorist, he most likely views us as the terrorsits. Watching his latest video release shows his "justification" against us.

I think the original post has a good start on the definition to terrorism.

[Storythree]

The dilution of the word terrorism really pisses me off. It is a very real thing, and it is a very real problem in our world.

War is not terrorism. Yes, I know you can make that argument using semantics and dictionary definitions, but there are two terms for a reason.

Terrorism is specifically meant to describe the INDISCRIMINATE killing of non-combatant innocents with the purpose of terrorizing a population whole.
War, at least in the way that America fights it, is most definitely a DISCRIMINATE act of killing in which you are targeting combatants - and, yes, innocents die too. But it is not the intention of the fighter.

Terrorism is awful. War is too. But they are two very different things. Psychologically, the terror you feel in a time of war is much different than the terror you feel after an act of murderous violence in a time of peace.

[saygoodbye12]

The dilution of the word terrorism really pisses me off. It is a very real thing, and it is a very real problem in our world.

War is not terrorism. Yes, I know you can make that argument using semantics and dictionary definitions, but there are two terms for a reason.

Terrorism is specifically meant to describe the INDISCRIMINATE killing of non-combatant innocents with the purpose of terrorizing a population whole.
War, at least in the way that America fights it, is most definitely a DISCRIMINATE act of killing in which you are targeting combatants - and, yes, innocents die too. But it is not the intention of the fighter.

Terrorism is awful. War is too. But they are two very different things. Psychologically, the terror you feel in a time of war is much different than the terror you feel after an act of murderous violence in a time of peace.
:thumbsup

Excellent post.

[Rob]

One man's terrorist is often another man's freedom fighter. Heh. Talk about irony.

[bseitz]

One man's terrorist is often another man's freedom fighter. Heh. Talk about irony.
Except in this case they're not fighting for freedom. Talk about irony.

[bseitz]

Yes, defintely agree with what you posted. Also including dropping bombs on civilians and killing little babies and their mothers as terrorism as well.
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Firebombing Tokyo? Dresden? Would these qualify as terrorism or a legitimate tactic to destroy a barbaric enemy?

[boilermaker26]

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Firebombing Tokyo? Dresden? Would these qualify as terrorism or a legitimate tactic to destroy a barbaric enemy?

The United States is indeed responsible for some of the largest acts of terror ever committed in the world.

[nonewdirections]

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Firebombing Tokyo? Dresden? Would these qualify as terrorism or a legitimate tactic to destroy a barbaric enemy?
the irony of that is that those bombings were intended to induce terror! i think the question is whether an action is justifiable in context to the conflict. 9/11 was absolutely unjustifiable, and the (civilian!) bombings of japan and germany were partially justifiable, but still horrific. i don't know how it can't be called terrorism because we literally set out to induce terror. the question is whether an action is justifiable, not what label is put on it. and no, i don't feel like getting into a debate on the area bombing in europe and japan or the use of nuclear bombs in japan.

[nonewdirections]

Terrorism is specifically meant to describe the INDISCRIMINATE killing of non-combatant innocents with the purpose of terrorizing a population whole.
War, at least in the way that America fights it, is most definitely a DISCRIMINATE act of killing in which you are targeting combatants - and, yes, innocents die too. But it is not the intention of the fighter.
we have indiscriminately killed civilians (mostly through bombing because it is easier to kill at a distance) by the thousands over the past century. like i said in my other post, it's not whether you call it terrorism that matters, it's whether it can be considered justified. you're right though, most of the conflict we engage in does involve discriminate killing.

[bseitz]

the irony of that is that those bombings were intended to induce terror! i think the question is whether an action is justifiable in context to the conflict. 9/11 was absolutely unjustifiable, and the (civilian!) bombings of japan and germany were partially justifiable, but still horrific. i don't know how it can't be called terrorism because we literally set out to induce terror. the question is whether an action is justifiable, not what label is put on it. and no, i don't feel like getting into a debate on the area bombing in europe and japan or the use of nuclear bombs in japan.
Ask the Germans and the Japanese if it was justifiable.

[opiskelija]

the definition at the beginning of the thread is a good definition to start from. What is justified, what is not justified is a big issue and is completely tied to ideologies. I don't buy this neo-con interpretation that the root cause of terrorist actions against the United States is envy. Thus, to combat terrorism, you have to extend the forceful arm of democracy everywhere. It's not just my opinion, you can refer to Samuel Huntington that it is impossible to create democracy where it is not understood from a cultural aspect. People may look at Germany as the case study that shoots this way of thinking down, but Germany has always been part of "Western Society."

Terrorist attacks are a method of asymetrical warfare by belligerents without a state. So you have to deal with this in 2 ways, both of which are naturally intertwined. In areas of the world, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, where there is deep terrorist settlements, they must be destroyed militarily. While at the same time altering policy to bridge the gap between the two cultures. There has to be some way of reaching a compromise settlement on mutual policies.

Right now we will have a very vicious cycle, where you do have to account for the dilution of the term terrorism. The terrorists view America as evildoers who must be destroyed. The current administration views the terrorists as the evildoers. If both rhetorics continue there will be no solution to the problem. There has to be a means of creating a greater level of not necessarily understanding, but cohabitation to truly win the War on Terror

[bseitz]

the definition at the beginning of the thread is a good definition to start from. What is justified, what is not justified is a big issue and is completely tied to ideologies. I don't buy this neo-con interpretation that the root cause of terrorist actions against the United States is envy.
What do you think is the "root" cause?


The terrorists view America as evildoers who must be destroyed. The current administration views the terrorists as the evildoers. If both rhetorics continue there will be no solution to the problem. There has to be a means of creating a greater level of not necessarily understanding, but cohabitation to truly win the War on Terror
The Islamist terrorists view the non-Muslim world, along with Muslims that don't hold to their strict interpretation of Islam, as heretics that are to be destroyed or subjugated. There's no cohabitating with people so deluded as to think they're going to bring the whole world under the heel of their 15th century death cult.


... at the same time altering policy to bridge the gap between the two cultures. There has to be some way of reaching a compromise settlement on mutual policies.
There can be no bridge building between the civilized world and these medieval barbarians. No compromise is possible. They need to be destroyed.

[opiskelija]

What do you think is the "root" cause?

It's most likely a twisted culmination of trying to rekindle lost power globally, and being more or less left behind in the world, with perhaps some perceived loss of sovereignty.

There can be no bridge building between the civilized world and these medieval barbarians. No compromise is possible. They need to be destroyed.

so you are in favour of the destruction of over 1,000,000,000 people?

[bseitz]

It's most likely a twisted culmination of trying to rekindle lost power globally, and being more or less left behind in the world, with perhaps some perceived loss of sovereignty.
How exactly could the civilized world can fix this?


so you are in favour of the destruction of over 1,000,000,000 people?
Hopefully only a small fraction of that 1,000,000,000 people believe this way (although I'm beginning to have doubts), but whatever the number is, they need to know that we're not to be fucked with and if they think we're going to join them in the 15th Century, they've got another thing coming.

[i like tictacs]

Yes, defintely agree with what you posted. Also including dropping bombs on civilians and killing little babies and their mothers as terrorism as well.

Go fuck yourself. So then every single country that has ever been involved in a war since early 1900s, is a terrorist.

[opiskelija]

Hopefully only a small fraction of that 1,000,000,000 people believe this way (although I'm beginning to have doubts), but whatever the number is, they need to know that we're not to be fucked with and if they think we're going to join them in the 15th Century, they've got another thing coming.

I personally don't exactly know how to fix the problem. Hopefully there will be some sort of reformation within Islam. But remember, at one point the Islamic world was the civilised world and the Christian world were full of the Barbarians.

But by waging a full-scale war on such strong ideological lines, all it is going to bring for many years is more built up resentment towards the West and those who are not radical will have a greater chance of becoming radical due to this.

One particular case study, Iran: Currently there is resentment among the population towards their government. As soon as bombs start dropping around Tehran, the population will become galvanized to the government and will fight for the government and not against it. There is a strong sense of national identity in Iran and any invading force regardless of some sort of pre-emptive logic will be the most counterproductive thing ever.

[bseitz]

I personally don't exactly know how to fix the problem. Hopefully there will be some sort of reformation within Islam. But remember, at one point the Islamic world was the civilised world and the Christian world were full of the Barbarians.
That was a very, very, very long time ago.


But by waging a full-scale war on such strong ideological lines, all it is going to bring for many years is more built up resentment towards the West and those who are not radical will have a greater chance of becoming radical due to this.
We're not fighting to change their religion. Unlike them, we allow a free expression of religious convictions. As is seen throughout the Islamic world, Islam is apparently too fragile to be able to withstand any alternative views.


One particular case study, Iran: Currently there is resentment among the population towards their government. As soon as bombs start dropping around Tehran, the population will become galvanized to the government and will fight for the government and not against it. There is a strong sense of national identity in Iran and any invading force regardless of some sort of pre-emptive logic will be the most counterproductive thing ever.
We've been hearing that for years yet there hasn't been a significant uprising yet. Something like 70% of their population is under 30. What are they waiting for? And we're not going to stand by and allow Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. Of that you can be sure.

[DMBSignGuy]

What do you think is the "root" cause?



The Islamist terrorists view the non-Muslim world, along with Muslims that don't hold to their strict interpretation of Islam, as heretics that are to be destroyed or subjugated. There's no cohabitating with people so deluded as to think they're going to bring the whole world under the heel of their 15th century death cult.



There can be no bridge building between the civilized world and these medieval barbarians. No compromise is possible. They need to be destroyed.

I hate so sound simplistic here but we need to win the war of the words. Not with the "current terrorists". I agree with you in that it would be next to impossible to work something out with these people today and build a bridge as you say. What we, the collective world we, need to do is win over tomorrows terrorists. Naturally you cant win them all over, same as you cant bomb them all. But we need to start getting through to tomorrows terrorists. An example would be Pakistan. The government is "helping" us with the war on terror militarily while at the same time countless schools within pakistan are teaching hatred towards the West and the US. I do hope we shift atleast some of our focus towards this.

[bseitz]

I hate so sound simplistic here but we need to win the war of the words. Not with the "current terrorists". I agree with you in that it would be next to impossible to work something out with these people today and build a bridge as you say. What we, the collective world we, need to do is win over tomorrows terrorists. Naturally you cant win them all over, same as you cant bomb them all. But we need to start getting through to tomorrows terrorists. An example would be Pakistan. The government is "helping" us with the war on terror militarily while at the same time countless schools within pakistan are teaching hatred towards the West and the US. I do hope we shift atleast some of our focus towards this.
Unfortunately, today's terrorists have far more influence on tommorow's terrorists than we could ever hope to. Pakistan's government isn't helping us. Pervez Musharraf is helping us. Don't forget, their official name is The Islamic Republic (sic) of Pakistan. If he get's whacked, you'll see how fast they jump into the Axis of Evil column. Our enemies are psychotic and need to be destroyed. All they understand is the sword, and we should show it to them in spades.

[mwjorgens]

The Islamist terrorists view the non-Muslim world, along with Muslims that don't hold to their strict interpretation of Islam, as heretics that are to be destroyed or subjugated. There's no cohabitating with people so deluded as to think they're going to bring the whole world under the heel of their 15th century death cult.


far from it. if we would let them be and stay out of their world then there wouldnt be any problems. im not saying thats practical or something we should do but thats why they want to destroy and subjugate the 'heretics'. they actaully have a reason and a pretty good one too.

[opiskelija]

for critical argument sakes...

That was a very, very, very long time ago.

Yes, it was a very long time ago, but still a very valuable tool in the construction of self-identity.



We're not fighting to change their religion. Unlike them, we allow a free expression of religious convictions. As is seen throughout the Islamic world, Islam is apparently too fragile to be able to withstand any alternative views.

Yes, but what exactly are we fighting for? From what I gather you are promoting the democratization of these people, yet you concede that their religion is too fragile to offer pluralism. How is this dialectic reconciled?



We've been hearing that for years yet there hasn't been a significant uprising yet. Something like 70% of their population is under 30. What are they waiting for? And we're not going to stand by and allow Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. Of that you can be sure.

Concerning Iran, there needs to be a very focused and intense level of covert operation to ensure that an uprising will be successful. Something of a successful revolt in Iran is a huge operation. Concerning the nuclear proliferation, there has to be some serious diplomatic pressure applied to Russia that Bush is just not willing to do.

[bseitz]

far from it. if we would let them be and stay out of their world then there wouldnt be any problems. im not saying thats practical or something we should do but thats why they want to destroy and subjugate the 'heretics'. they actaully have a reason and a pretty good one too.
Actually it's their religion that tells them to slaughter and subjugate heretics.

[bseitz]

Yes, it was a very long time ago, but still a very valuable tool in the construction of self-identity.
There's nothing we can do to change the fact that they'd like to return to their "glory days" of several centuries ago and drag us with them. What disturbs them is that Western Civilization has lept so far ahead of them in the past 400+ years and there's no way they'll ever catch up. The gap is widening, not shrinking.


Yes, but what exactly are we fighting for? From what I gather you are promoting the democratization of these people, yet you concede that their religion is too fragile to offer pluralism. How is this dialectic reconciled?
I'm actually for containment rather than conversion to a political system which is antithetical to everything their religion teaches them. Here I have to disagree with the President. While a worthy experiment, Muslims believe that they have all the law they need in Sharia and in fact it would be heretical for any laws to be created by man. It's not likely that democracy, in any form, will bloom in such infertile ground.


Concerning Iran, there needs to be a very focused and intense level of covert operation to ensure that an uprising will be successful. Something of a successful revolt in Iran is a huge operation. Concerning the nuclear proliferation, there has to be some serious diplomatic pressure applied to Russia that Bush is just not willing to do.
Agreed, but we'll see what effect the massacre at Beslan has on Putin's world view.

[Mickey Carson]

Actually it's their religion that tells them to slaughter and subjugate heretics.
You clearly haven't read the Koran.

[bseitz]

You clearly haven't read the Koran.
O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed. (Koran, 9:73)

When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended. (Koran, 47:4)

In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost. (Koran, 8:37)


Brought to you by the Religion of Peace...

[Mickey Carson]

O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed. (Koran, 9:73)

When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended. (Koran, 47:4)

In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost. (Koran, 8:37)


Brought to you by the Religion of Peace...

What's your source for those "quotes?" Or are you simply perverting the original text of the Koran through your own interpretation for the sake of your argument? Because they aren't correct at all.

For example, the first quote you provided proclaims a much different message when you see the actual verse: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination" (9:73).

My sources...
University of Michigan (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/)
University of Virginia (http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html)
University of Southern California (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)

[mwjorgens]

Actually it's their religion that tells them to slaughter and subjugate heretics.
where in the fuck are you getting that information? sorry about the swearing but i think you shouldnt be talking on this subject. i really dont.

[mwjorgens]

reading those quotes by bseitz just enrages me. his only defense is that he is just joking around which im sure he/she will say becuase their 'quotes' from the Qu'ran are so off base it just made every bseitz post worthless if this person really buys into what they said.

[Rob]

You can also translate the Christian Bible in a fashion that demands war in a similar light as that quote from a purpose-translation of the Koran. It all depends on your method of translation and what you're trying to get your audience to hear. If you take a traditional translation of the Koran, you will find no such violent and biased instructions.

[bseitz]

For example, the first quote you provided proclaims a much different message when you see the actual verse: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination" (9:73).

My sources...
University of Michigan (http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/)
University of Virginia (http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html)
University of Southern California (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)
It's translated both ways in different places. What exactly does "strive hard against" and "be unyeilding to them" mean. Sounds like a politically correct interpretation to avoid the actual meaning. It's not surprising that the Universities you cited would prefer such a quote.

Here's a different view:
Koran 9:73
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate."

Here's one from Fordham University:
Koran 47:5. And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if ALLAH had so pleased, HE could have punished them Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of ALLAH - HE will never render their works vain.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/koran-sel.html


And so it goes throughout the Q'uran. There's the politically correct and sanitized version and there's the version that Muhammad would recognize. Which version do you think they're studying in the madrassas througout the Middle East?

[bseitz]

You can also translate the Christian Bible in a fashion that demands war in a similar light as that quote from a purpose-translation of the Koran. It all depends on your method of translation and what you're trying to get your audience to hear. If you take a traditional translation of the Koran, you will find no such violent and biased instructions.
That's correct. You can translate it differently depending on what you want the audience to hear. What do you think they want the English-speaking world to hear? And Christians aren't slaughtering and subjugating non-Christians anywhere in the world.

[Rob]

And Christians never have. Ever. To even imply anyone has died at the hands of the Catholic Church is simply insane.

Oh, wait.

[marco j]

the purpose of shock and awe was not to cause fear, it was to crush a dictatorship.







I think it isn't terrorism if the only people you intend to cause fear in are terrorists


i agree with you to a point. also this is my biggest problem with just about everyone not comprehending that to "Iraqi's " this is not how they view us.
with over 100,000 civilians dead in a year and a half, why is it so hard for the average american to understand why there is such resistance to us being in their country?! just think how many buildings we would have had to watch fall to get to a total of 100,000!!!

[saygoodbye12]

with over 100,000 civilians dead in a year and a half, why is it so hard for the average american to understand why there is such resistance to us being in their country?! just think how many buildings we would have had to watch fall to get to a total of 100,000!!!
I love that everyone is quoting this 100,000 number. Since almost the start of the war, I've been told how accurate this (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) website is. I said it was full of shit, and I was lectured (on this very site, no less) about how I was biased and refused to look at the other side.

That site has the deaths under 20,000. So I guess I was right after all. Well either that, or 100,000 deaths just sounds better if you hate Bush.

[marco j]

I love that everyone is quoting this 100,000 number. Since almost the start of the war, I've been told how accurate this (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) website is. I said it was full of shit, and I was lectured (on this very site, no less) about how I was biased and refused to look at the other side.

That site has the deaths under 20,000. So I guess I was right after all. Well either that, or 100,000 deaths just sounds better if you hate Bush.



ok dude i wont argue with you about the number. but let's just start with the 20,000 number. ok?!

how many buildings had to fall??? six and a couple more planes?!?! does that make you feel better?


p.s.
genesis
24 About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."
Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!"
christianity is so lovely......

[marco j]

here's another reason why the government count on iraqi civilian deaths is waay off.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/iraq102103.htm

[saygoodbye12]

ok dude i wont argue with you about the number. but let's just start with the 20,000 number. ok?!

how many buildings had to fall??? six and a couple more planes?!?! does that make you feel better?


Yes, very much.

Thanks.

[marco j]

Yes, very much.

Thanks.


glad to know 20,000 civilian deaths makes you feel better :rolleyes: .
especially when we were force fed false intelligence and manipulated evidence. i can't for the life of me figure out why the iraqi population hates our government. :thumbsup

[saygoodbye12]

i can't for the life of me figure out why the iraqi population hates our government. :thumbsup
Neither can I. It's one of those mysteries that I doubt will ever be solved.

[marco j]

Neither can I. It's one of those mysteries that I doubt will ever be solved.

i seriously hope you are being sarcastic. i'm gonna assume so.

[bseitz]

And Christians never have. Ever. To even imply anyone has died at the hands of the Catholic Church is simply insane.

Oh, wait.
In the last 500 years? No. Nice try though.

[bseitz]

glad to know 20,000 civilian deaths makes you feel better :rolleyes: .
especially when we were force fed false intelligence and manipulated evidence. i can't for the life of me figure out why the iraqi population hates our government. :thumbsup
20,000 would have been a great year during Saddam's reign of terror. Looks like progress to me. An how many of those "civilians" had it coming (e.g. Saddam loyalists, etc.)? For that many thousands of innocent civilians to be killed, you'd think there'd have been at least a few instances where several hundred got it all at once. I don't recall hearing about any such incidents. I'm sure CBS, NY Times, and all the usual suspects would have made sure we knew all about it, don't you?

[Mickey Carson]

20,000 would have been a great year during Saddam's reign of terror. Looks like progress to me. An how many of those "civilians" had it coming (e.g. Saddam loyalists, etc.)? For that many thousands of innocent civilians to be killed, you'd think there'd have been at least a few instances where several hundred got it all at once. I don't recall hearing about any such incidents. I'm sure CBS, NY Times, and all the usual suspects would have made sure we knew all about it, don't you?
If you consider tens of thousands of civilians being murdered and a country in complete disarray progress, then we've made lots of progress in Iraq.

[Rob]

In the last 500 years? No. Nice try though.

The Spanish Inquisition lasted into the early 1800's.

30 Years War- 1618-1647

France fought religous wars from 1562-1594

The list goes on and on.

Additionally, Catholicism is almost 2000 years old. Islam is 1500 years old. One might argue that the Catholics have had an extra 500 years to grow and mature. It seems that around "age 1500" Catholicism was pretty nasty. Throughout its history before that time, it was even worse. So, it would seem that Islam still has some "maturing" to do.

I brought Catholicism into this because of the translation of the Koran you chose- the point that you can translate these works to suit your needs is a good one. However, you've pushed the comparison further. Why would you ever look at the Christian/Catholic side of this, and compare it to Islam? Is it an implication that this is, indeed, a holy war of Christianity vs. Islam? I think most would agree that's not a can of worms anybody would want to open, especially given our president's overt religious beliefs.

[marco j]

20,000 would have been a great year during Saddam's reign of terror. Looks like progress to me. An how many of those "civilians" had it coming (e.g. Saddam loyalists, etc.)? For that many thousands of innocent civilians to be killed, you'd think there'd have been at least a few instances where several hundred got it all at once. I don't recall hearing about any such incidents. I'm sure CBS, NY Times, and all the usual suspects would have made sure we knew all about it, don't you?



so now we know for a fact saddam killed at least 20,000 a year?!? :lol
c'mon dude it is so disturbing to think that some of you REALLY believe it is OK killing people because they think differently than you. that's right THINKING. until anyone proves saddam was a serious threat to the US that's all it is "THINKING". and there are plenty of hate groups in this country alone to fit that bill.

and also i love it how it's everyone against bush. do you REALLY believe cbs,abc,nbc,fox ect...would let anyonelse get away with running our country this way?!?!? i don't think so.

[mwjorgens]

That's correct. You can translate it differently depending on what you want the audience to hear. What do you think they want the English-speaking world to hear? And Christians aren't slaughtering and subjugating non-Christians anywhere in the world.
but if you actaully know anything about the Qu'ran youd know it cant be translated. you can put it in another language if you want but it is no longer the message of God. he revealed his message in arabic, which is the only true way it can be read. and if you look at islamic history slaughtering and subjugating isnt what they are about.

[bseitz]

If you consider tens of thousands of civilians being murdered and a country in complete disarray progress, then we've made lots of progress in Iraq.
No one knows that the "tens of thousands" number is anywhere near correct, but considering what was going on while Saddam was in power, yes it was in fact progress.

[bseitz]

The Spanish Inquisition lasted into the early 1800's.

30 Years War- 1618-1647

France fought religous wars from 1562-1594

The list goes on and on.

Additionally, Catholicism is almost 2000 years old. Islam is 1500 years old. One might argue that the Catholics have had an extra 500 years to grow and mature. It seems that around "age 1500" Catholicism was pretty nasty. Throughout its history before that time, it was even worse. So, it would seem that Islam still has some "maturing" to do.

I brought Catholicism into this because of the translation of the Koran you chose- the point that you can translate these works to suit your needs is a good one. However, you've pushed the comparison further. Why would you ever look at the Christian/Catholic side of this, and compare it to Islam? Is it an implication that this is, indeed, a holy war of Christianity vs. Islam? I think most would agree that's not a can of worms anybody would want to open, especially given our president's overt religious beliefs.
I see you can't even get anywhere near the 20th century. You brought up Christianity, not me. The fact is that only one of the 3 major religions countenances such barbarity. And as far as translation goes, again, what interpretation of Islam would produce people who could shoot children in the back and think that their God approves?

[bseitz]

so now we know for a fact saddam killed at least 20,000 a year?!? :lol
c'mon dude it is so disturbing to think that some of you REALLY believe it is OK killing people because they think differently than you. that's right THINKING. until anyone proves saddam was a serious threat to the US that's all it is "THINKING". and there are plenty of hate groups in this country alone to fit that bill.
a) we don't know for a fact that we've killed 20,000 innocent civilians in a year and a half, and b) mass graves attest to the fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. I certainly don't think it's OK to kill people who think differently that me. I do think it's OK to kill those who have it coming (e.g barbaric savages, mass murderers, etc.). There's always collateral damage, but in this case we've killed far fewer people than would have been murdered had he been left in power. I'll even go a step further and say that the Iraqi people have to assume much of the responsibility for not getting involved and helping us destroy our common enemy. Cowardice has a price.

and also i love it how it's everyone against bush. do you REALLY believe cbs,abc,nbc,fox ect...would let anyonelse get away with running our country this way?!?!? i don't think so.
They let Clinton get away with a lot worse. Please don't get me started on that. We'll need a new thread.

[Rob]

I believe, in my post, I mentioned that I was the one that brought up Christianity, so that line was totally irrelevant.

Which of the three major monotheistic religions allows such barbarity? Having studied the major religions of the world for four years of my life, I know it's not Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Nor do the major Asian religions/philosophies, nor Indian.

You are talking from a place of ignorance, and your futher posts are digging your hole deeper. You are correct that there are extreme interpretations of each major religious centerpiece that encourage violence. However, stating that Islam condones such actions is simply wrong. This is not an opinion issue- you are wrong. End of story. There are extreme representatives of any organization- religious, political, etc. They do not represent the organization as a whole. Any such statements are simply uninformed or blind.

You are doing one thing extraordinarily well, and you should be commended. You are demonstrating the general ignorance and arrogance coupled with the typical American who believes this war is justified. A little education would go a long way in this instance, but the choice has been made regardless of any facts we present you. Here, democracy fails, as somebody with no understanding or comprehension of fact is able to help decide the fate of the country through election.

[bseitz]

but if you actaully know anything about the Qu'ran youd know it cant be translated. you can put it in another language if you want but it is no longer the message of God. he revealed his message in arabic, which is the only true way it can be read. and if you look at islamic history slaughtering and subjugating isnt what they are about.
Anything can be translated and say otherwise is ridiculous. Translation is merely converting a thought or concept in one language into the equivalent form in another language. Are you actually saying that there are concepts in Arabic that we mere English speakers couldn't possibly comprehend? You apparently don't wish to acknowledge the true nature of Islam. Study a little more about Muhammad. You'll find that slaughtering and subjugating is exactly what it's about.

[Rob]

Okay, just stop. Look up how many different words there are in the Torah that translate directly to the English word "Love."

Read the following several times until you understand it.

You can interperet the Koran, or any other work for that matter, to suit your needs. The accepted interpretation by the general Muslim community is not aggressive. Extremests exist in any religion, and do not represent the truly faithful population of that religion.

I can not state this in a simpler form for you, so keep working on it until you understand it. This is not opinion, this is not partisan bullshit- this is fact. If you do not "agree" with it, then you are making the choice of being ignorant in this matter and should not speak of it further.

[bseitz]

You are talking from a place of ignorance, and your futher posts are digging your hole deeper. You are correct that there are extreme interpretations of each major religious centerpiece that encourage violence. However, stating that Islam condones such actions is simply wrong. This is not an opinion issue- you are wrong. End of story. There are extreme representatives of any organization- religious, political, etc. They do not represent the organization as a whole. Any such statements are simply uninformed or blind.
Extreme interpretations? Question: how are non-Muslims treated in nearly every single Muslim dominated society on Earth? Doesn't their religion specify that non believers are to be treated as second-class citizens (dhimmi )? Why is it that nearly every major attrocity in the last 30 years was committed by those purporting to be carrying out the will of Allah? If this is an aberation, why isn't the vast majority of "good" Muslims rising up in outrage against such atrocities? I'm wrong? I think not. Who's blind?


You are doing one thing extraordinarily well, and you should be commended. You are demonstrating the general ignorance and arrogance coupled with the typical American who believes this war is justified. A little education would go a long way in this instance, but the choice has been made regardless of any facts we present you.
Educate me. I haven't seen a fact presented yet. Let's have a comprehensive explanation for the pathetic state of Muslim societies.


Here, democracy fails, as somebody with no understanding or comprehension of fact is able to help decide the fate of the country through election.
If every illiterate, crack-head, parasite, low-life, loser that could be coaxed into a voting booth for a pack of cigarettes wasn't allowed to vote, how would Democrats ever get elected?

[bseitz]

Okay, just stop. Look up how many different words there are in the Torah that translate directly to the English word "Love."

Read the following several times until you understand it.

You can interperet the Koran, or any other work for that matter, to suit your needs. The accepted interpretation by the general Muslim community is not aggressive. Extremests exist in any religion, and do not represent the truly faithful population of that religion.

I can not state this in a simpler form for you, so keep working on it until you understand it. This is not opinion, this is not partisan bullshit- this is fact. If you do not "agree" with it, then you are making the choice of being ignorant in this matter and should not speak of it further.
Which other religion makes it a habit of slaughtering non-believers? And where's the outrage from the "general Muslim community"?

[mwjorgens]

Anything can be translated and say otherwise is ridiculous. Translation is merely converting a thought or concept in one language into the equivalent form in another language. Are you actually saying that there are concepts in Arabic that we mere English speakers couldn't possibly comprehend? You apparently don't wish to acknowledge the true nature of Islam. Study a little more about Muhammad. You'll find that slaughtering and subjugating is exactly what it's about.
:BANG your ignorance knows no limit. i should study some more? thats a hardy laugh seeing as half off all my credits are on Islam. but i will be sure to read up on it. im looking forward to showing your statements to my professor and have someone with a phd on the matter laugh out loud.

[Rob]

As I stated previously, when Christianity was 1500 years old, it made a habit of slaughtering non-believers, and there was no outrage from their community.

After 9/11, Muslims in this country were looked upon with different eyes. What did they do? They expressed their outrage.

Muslims are secure enough that intelligent people will know enough not to lump every Muslim together. Perhaps they should express outrage to help seperate themselves in the eyes of the ignorant.

As for your insulting of Democrats, you again show how completely ignorant you are. First, I have no party affiliation, so such an attack means nothing to me. Second, you are again illustrating a huge problem in this country on both sides of the fence. People who label themselves or others as Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, etc, are chaining themselves to stupid decisions. Rather than going along with a party designation, why not think for yourself on an issue by issue basis?

Again, you know absolutely nothing of the Muslim community, their traditions, beliefs, or scripture. Educate yourself, then come back and argue when you have ground to stand upon. Until then, your comments are totally meaningless and ignorant. The only reason I dignify them is because they are totally horrifying- to think that anybody can be so blind to reality is startling. Hopefully, anybody reading this who doesn't have the facts now will, educating another person who can help shape the country based on fact rather than biased perception.

[mwjorgens]

Extreme interpretations? Question: how are non-Muslims treated in nearly every single Muslim dominated society on Earth? Doesn't their religion specify that non believers are to be treated as second-class citizens (dhimmi )?



If every illiterate, crack-head, parasite, low-life, loser that could be coaxed into a voting booth for a pack of cigarettes wasn't allowed to vote, how would Democrats ever get elected?
where to begin, where to begin. coaxing people into the booth wtih cigs? check out what the conservatives have been doing in las vegas; oh yea, exactly that. funny how that story prob never made it to fox news.

as for you attempt at knowing islam. Dhimmis is the legal term for the people of the book. i wont explain what that means cause being the scholar you are you should already know it. these "second class citizens" werent treated terribly for being nonbelievers. in fact historically, in true Islam they were left alone. if you were a person of the book you were subjected to a tax (jizya) and allowed to continue to be jewish or christian. but again, you already knew this.

[bseitz]

:BANG your ignorance knows no limit. i should study some more? thats a hardy laugh seeing as half off all my credits are on Islam. but i will be sure to read up on it. im looking forward to showing your statements to my professor and have someone with a phd on the matter laugh out loud.
Ask your professor if he thinks Mohammad was a pedophile. See if he laughs then.

[marco j]

Ask your professor if he thinks Mohammad was a pedophile. See if he laughs then.


or the numerous christian priests in this country! :thumbsup


ass

[bseitz]

As I stated previously, when Christianity was 1500 years old, it made a habit of slaughtering non-believers, and there was no outrage from their community.
Anything in the last several hundred years? Anything?


After 9/11, Muslims in this country were looked upon with different eyes. What did they do? They expressed their outrage.
Yeah. You're right. I recall the hundreds of thousands of Muslims marching down Broadway in New York following 9/11 to express their outrage at the atrocitiy and their solidarity with the American people. /sarcasm=off


Muslims are secure enough that intelligent people will know enough not to lump every Muslim together. Perhaps they should express outrage to help seperate themselves in the eyes of the ignorant.
If Muslims are so secure, why is it that no other religion is tolerated in their midst? Try getting a Bible into Saudi Arabia.


As for your insulting of Democrats, you again show how completely ignorant you are. First, I have no party affiliation, so such an attack means nothing to me.
When was the last time you voted for a Republican?


Second, you are again illustrating a huge problem in this country on both sides of the fence. People who label themselves or others as Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, etc, are chaining themselves to stupid decisions. Rather than going along with a party designation, why not think for yourself on an issue by issue basis?
Why is it a problem to have a core set of values with which to evaluate issues? Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.


Again, you know absolutely nothing of the Muslim community, their traditions, beliefs, or scripture. Educate yourself, then come back and argue when you have ground to stand upon. Until then, your comments are totally meaningless and ignorant. The only reason I dignify them is because they are totally horrifying- to think that anybody can be so blind to reality is startling. Hopefully, anybody reading this who doesn't have the facts now will, educating another person who can help shape the country based on fact rather than biased perception.
Still not a single factual refutation of any point. Believe me. I'd love to be wrong. Show me the error of my ways. Give me a logical explanation for the actions of Muslims in the name of their religion and how any group could ever believe that their God would reward them for shooting chioldren in the back.

[bseitz]

where to begin, where to begin. coaxing people into the booth wtih cigs? check out what the conservatives have been doing in las vegas; oh yea, exactly that. funny how that story prob never made it to fox news.
Not sure what you're talking about, but whatever it is it'll be more than offset by the massive voter fraud by Democrats who are doing everything in their power to make sure that anyone can be drug in off the street to vote for them. Show ID? How intimidating.

as for you attempt at knowing islam. Dhimmis is the legal term for the people of the book. i wont explain what that means cause being the scholar you are you should already know it. these "second class citizens" werent treated terribly for being nonbelievers. in fact historically, in true Islam they were left alone. if you were a person of the book you were subjected to a tax (jizya) and allowed to continue to be jewish or christian. but again, you already knew this.
And what is the fate of kafir?

[marco j]

funny bseitz i know you wouldn't waste your money on a low-life piece of shit like michael moore but if you were even a little bit educated about ...If Muslims are so secure, why is it that no other religion is tolerated in their midst? Try getting a Bible into Saudi Arabia.

then you should go rent F9/11 and listen to a soldier talk about one of the most shocking moments while he was there.

he talks about how after an attack. they were securing an area and when this soldier sticks his head in the bloody jeep he sees a picture of jesus christ hanging from the mirror ! then he goes on about how this affected him and that here he was half way around the world killing other poor people like himself and this guy even prayed to the same god.

so maybe you should take a step back.

[bseitz]

or the numerous christian priests in this country! :thumbsup


ass
I'm not Catholic and happen to agree, so fuck you asshole.

[Rob]

Okay- get this through your head.

Compare year 1500 Christianity (500 years ago) to year 1500 Islam (today). Same thing. How is that so hard for you to understand?

What would have happened if Muslims marched in NY after 9/11? Would have have been received well, or even for any positive intent? Of course not. Muslims used their individual voices where they could. If you can't remember for yourself, then there's clearly nothing I can do to show you the light, as you have demonstrated time and time again that when shown the light, you put on sunglasses.

Last time I voted for a Republican was the last time I voted, in the race for the governor of NH. Oops- sorry to make that backfire on you.

You said absolutely nothing intelligent in your argument against my comment about labeling yourself. If you're going to stand for something, it's better to stand for your own unique voice, not as one voice repeating the same crap as others.

I have given you factual refutations. I have pointed out where I have stated fact. Again, you're not paying attention- that's not my fault.

[marco j]

I'm not Catholic and happen to agree, so fuck you asshole.

:lol

sorry i'll dig up some scum on babstist's .
by the way how WAS your dip in lake minatanka?!

[bseitz]

funny bseitz i know you wouldn't waste your money on a low-life piece of shit like michael moore but if you were even a little bit educated about ...If Muslims are so secure, why is it that no other religion is tolerated in their midst? Try getting a Bible into Saudi Arabia.

then you should go rent F9/11 and listen to a soldier talk about one of the most shocking moments while he was there.

he talks about how after an attack. they were securing an area and when this soldier sticks his head in the bloody jeep he sees a picture of jesus christ hanging from the mirror ! then he goes on about how this affected him and that here he was half way around the world killing other poor people like himself and this guy even prayed to the same god.

so maybe you should take a step back.
In Saudia Arabia? Wow. Big step back. Again, how would one get a Bible into Saudi Arabia?
BTW, we killed an awful lot of Christians in Yugoslavia to save Muslims, in case you've forgotten.

[marco j]

well bseitz i was just trying to put together all the prejudice into a nice pile. like when you said......


Extreme interpretations? Question: how are non-Muslims treated in nearly every single Muslim dominated society on Earth? Doesn't their religion specify that non believers are to be treated as second-class citizens (dhimmi )? Why is it that nearly every major attrocity in the last 30 years was committed by those purporting to be carrying out the will of Allah? If this is an aberation, why isn't the vast majority of "good" Muslims rising up in outrage against such atrocities? I'm wrong? I think not. Who's blind?


so i just thought i'd point out to you that not nearly all muslim society's treat non-believers this way.

ever think maybe muslims are lashing out because the man's bringing em' down?!?

[bseitz]

Okay- get this through your head.
This should be good.


Compare year 1500 Christianity (500 years ago) to year 1500 Islam (today). Same thing. How is that so hard for you to understand?
It's not relevant. Nice try though. Unless you want to make the case that Muslims are still living 500 years ago when Christians acted nearly as badly. You really don't want to say that, do you?


What would have happened if Muslims marched in NY after 9/11? Would have have been received well, or even for any positive intent? Of course not. Muslims used their individual voices where they could. If you can't remember for yourself, then there's clearly nothing I can do to show you the light, as you have demonstrated time and time again that when shown the light, you put on sunglasses.
Of course not? What would lead you to say something so ridiculous (besides trying to defend the indefensible)? How would you possibly have any idea what New Yorkers would think living up in East Bumblefuck, NH? I work in Midtown Manhattan and guarantee Muslim protestors would have been well received. As it is, silence looks like complicity.


Last time I voted for a Republican was the last time I voted, in the race for the governor of NH. Oops- sorry to make that backfire on you.
I'll bet.


I have given you factual refutations. I have pointed out where I have stated fact. Again, you're not paying attention- that's not my fault.
What facts? Christians acted badly 500 years ago? Arabic can be translated differently? Let's look at some of the highlights of your "facts", shall we?

You are talking from a place of ignorance...
This is not an opinion issue- you are wrong...
Any such statements are simply uninformed or blind...
You are demonstrating the general ignorance and arrogance...
...you again show how completely ignorant you are...
...you know absolutely nothing of the Muslim community, their traditions, beliefs, or scripture.
...your comments are totally meaningless and ignorant.
...to think that anybody can be so blind to reality is startling.
You said absolutely nothing intelligent in your argument against my comment about labeling yourself.

And my favorites:
I can not state this in a simpler form for you, so keep working on it until you understand it. This is not opinion, this is not partisan bullshit- this is fact. If you do not "agree" with it, then you are making the choice of being ignorant in this matter and should not speak of it further.

If you can't remember for yourself, then there's clearly nothing I can do to show you the light, as you have demonstrated time and time again that when shown the light, you put on sunglasses.

Some facts. I'm still waiting.

[marco j]

hey bseitz news flash!!!!!

not all muslims want to kill you. probably because they haven't heard you reference them but hey you've got a head up.

[bseitz]

so i just thought i'd point out to you that not nearly all muslim society's treat non-believers this way.

ever think maybe muslims are lashing out because the man's bringing em' down?!?
No? You may want to do a little research. The BEST non-belivers can hope for is to be treated as second class. In many cases they're murdered outright and no prosecution ever takes place. As a start, you may want to take a look at the percentage of the population in Muslim countries that is non-Muslim. Then you may want to consider why it's so low.

The man's bringing 'em down? Are you some leftover from the Weather Underground?

[mwjorgens]

Of course not? What would lead you to say something so ridiculous (besides trying to defend the indefensible)? How would you possibly have any idea what New Yorkers would think living up in East Bumblefuck, NH? I work in Midtown Manhattan and guarantee Muslim protestors would have been well received. As it is, silence looks like complicity.



:lol another reason why people have trouble liking new yorkers. if you arent from new york then you are from bumblefuck. i keep forgetting that one. and who are you trying to kid that a parade of Muslims would have been recieved with anything less than violence and hatred in new york city in 2001. hell that wouldnt have flown in almost any city back then and i think it wouldnt still today.

[bseitz]

hey bseitz news flash!!!!!

not all muslims want to kill you. probably because they haven't heard you reference them but hey you've got a head up.
It only takes one. Do you have any doubt that if they could, Atta and company would have nuked Manhattan?

[mwjorgens]

No? You may want to do a little research. The BEST non-belivers can hope for is to be treated as second class. In many cases they're murdered outright and no prosecution ever takes place. As a start, you may want to take a look at the percentage of the population in Muslim countries that is non-Muslim. Then you may want to consider why it's so low.

we have seen what your facts and figures and quotations are about. so fire them at us, you can get numbers to look like anything you want. i could tell you its dark out but im sure you could find something that would tell me its sunny.

[marco j]

No? You may want to do a little research. The BEST non-belivers can hope for is to be treated as second class. In many cases they're murdered outright and no prosecution ever takes place. As a start, you may want to take a look at the percentage of the population in Muslim countries that is non-Muslim. Then you may want to consider why it's so low.

kinda like ammending our constitution to make homosexuals a second class citizen! waay to go christians :thumbsup

The man's bringing 'em down? Are you some leftover from the Weather Underground?

:lol

[bseitz]

:lol another reason why people have trouble liking new yorkers. if you arent from new york then you are from bumblefuck. i keep forgetting that one. and who are you trying to kid that a parade of Muslims would have been recieved with anything less than violence and hatred in new york city in 2001. hell that wouldnt have flown in almost any city back then and i think it wouldnt still today.
Is there anything else in NH? How much time have you spent in NYC to have acquired such a deep understanding of the attitudes of the residents?

[bseitz]

we have seen what your facts and figures and quotations are about. so fire them at us, you can get numbers to look like anything you want. i could tell you its dark out but im sure you could find something that would tell me its sunny.
Funny, I don't recall a single refutation of anything I've said (unless you just assume that your interpretation of the Quran is correct and there can be no other). Let me know when you've got something.

[mwjorgens]

Is there anything else in NH? How much time have you spent in NYC to have acquired such a deep understanding of the attitudes of the residents?
i havent. but i have spent enough time in the united states the last 3 years. and you mean to tell me new yorkers are any less "american and partriotic" than the rest of us? no. which is why i said any sort of gathering like that would not be recieved well, anywhere.

[bseitz]

i havent.
Then shut the fuck up and don't project you're attitudes on others.

[marco j]

It only takes one. Do you have any doubt that if they could, Atta and company would have nuked Manhattan?


well with that logic .

it only takes one christian and an abortion clinic

or

it only takes one group of homo-phobes and one homosexual

or

it only takes one racist and a lie to justify the murder of over 20,000 innocent muslims


keep showing your true colors and i'll start a thread linking YOU with nazi germany.

[mwjorgens]

Funny, I don't recall a single refutation of anything I've said (unless you just assume that your interpretation of the Quran is correct and there can be no other). Let me know when you've got something.
i did, several times. i dont try to interpreate the Qu'ran becuase i cant read or speak arabic, which is what someone would need to start interpretation of it. so unless you are literate in arabic you should let it be.

[bseitz]

well with that logic .

it only takes one christian and an abortion clinic

or

it only takes one group of homo-phobes and one homosexual

or

it only takes one racist and a lie to justify the murder of over 20,000 innocent muslims


keep showing your true colors and i'll start a thread linking YOU with nazi germany.
Is this what you're reduced to after getting your ass handed to you repeatedly? How pathetic. It's game, set, match when there's not a single substantive point but merely juvenile name-calling trying to sound sophisticated. Have you found a justification for shooting children yet? I'm still waiting.

[bseitz]

i did, several times. i dont try to interpreate the Qu'ran becuase i cant read or speak arabic, which is what someone would need to start interpretation of it. so unless you are literate in arabic you should let it be.
Have you read the Bible? I don't think that was originally written in English either. Or are you uncomfortable with what you expect to find and would rather feign ignorance?

[mwjorgens]

Have you read the Bible? I don't think that was originally written in English either. Or are you uncomfortable with what you expect to find and would rather feign ignorance?
oh it wasnt? i thought it was written in english!! i mean i could have sworn the white skinned jesus would say O! and Art thou. sounds like it came from england. go figure. and yes i have read it, biblical lit, freshman year of high school, they pounded it down our throats. and yes im uncomfrotable with the bible too and any holy book for that matter cause there are people like you that will twist the words around to suit your agenda.

[marco j]

Is this what you're reduced to after getting your ass handed to you repeatedly? How pathetic. It's game, set, match when there's not a single substantive point but merely juvenile name-calling trying to sound sophisticated. Have you found a justification for shooting children yet? I'm still waiting.

you really do make me smile :lol

please again explain to me how you sitting in front of your computer typing away insults at people who are only trying to just talk to you about a different point of view , is handing me my ass ?! was it the racist remark?
if so i really am sorry if i offended you . i was trying to show you how you are coming off to me. now when i think a little harder about how you are acting , it makes me think that you are scared. not in a bad way mind you , just scared.

I think we are all a little scared of what we see daily. The arguing,the constant ridicule of eachothers beliefs. I really think the days after 9/11 were some of the most powerful feeling's we as humanbeings can endure. Warlike is a good term for it. But soon afterward i believe we felt together, one .
I felt we started on the path we were supposed to go. I think it's safe to say we all do. When talk of Iraq started some questioned and some stood firm on the belief we had just cause. I was cautiously firm. Now i find myself three years later and what has changed?! we have grown from this nation of one into this nation of rage. Can we ever get back to that feeling of unity?!
This comes to my severity of this message. Don't forget we are all just people , mind, body and soul or even no soul if you're an aetheist. I would like to see us united again under a common banner . Not republicans , not democrats, not independants, not muslim's ,christians, but as people of this world earth. I guess the question is not who's side are you on but who's on our side? I believe in peace and i believe we all wish for it. It is not an unattainable goal but a simple goal. So why is it i see the world rearring up for war?! What has gone wrong? Do any of you have an idea of what's gone wrong? I just wish we could do away with all this nonsense of partisanship. I am not a democrat . Nor would I hold loyalty to any party that i see not protecting my country to the best of it's ability's . What do you all hold dear?
What are we looking for ? I believe it's peace and until we can learn to except that's what we want , we will never attain it. Peace starts in you.

[TwoStepFF]

you really do make me smile :lol

please again explain to me how you sitting in front of your computer typing away insults at people who are only trying to just talk to you about a different point of view , is handing me my ass ?! was it the racist remark?
if so i really am sorry if i offended you . i was trying to show you how you are coming off to me. now when i think a little harder about how you are acting , it makes me think that you are scared. not in a bad way mind you , just scared.

I think we are all a little scared of what we see daily. The arguing,the constant ridicule of eachothers beliefs. I really think the days after 9/11 were some of the most powerful feeling's we as humanbeings can endure. Warlike is a good term for it. But soon afterward i believe we felt together, one .
I felt we started on the path we were supposed to go. I think it's safe to say we all do. When talk of Iraq started some questioned and some stood firm on the belief we had just cause. I was cautiously firm. Now i find myself three years later and what has changed?! we have grown from this nation of one into this nation of rage. Can we ever get back to that feeling of unity?!
This comes to my severity of this message. Don't forget we are all just people , mind, body and soul or even no soul if you're an aetheist. I would like to see us united again under a common banner . Not republicans , not democrats, not independants, not muslim's ,christians, but as people of this world earth. I guess the question is not who's side are you on but who's on our side? I believe in peace and i believe we all wish for it. It is not an unattainable goal but a simple goal. So why is it i see the world rearring up for war?! What has gone wrong? Do any of you have an idea of what's gone wrong? I just wish we could do away with all this nonsense of partisanship. I am not a democrat . Nor would I hold loyalty to any party that i see not protecting my country to the best of it's ability's . What do you all hold dear?
What are we looking for ? I believe it's peace and until we can learn to except that's what we want , we will never attain it. Peace starts in you.

John Lennon? Is that you?

[mwjorgens]

you really do make me smile :lol

please again explain to me how you sitting in front of your computer typing away insults at people who are only trying to just talk to you about a different point of view , is handing me my ass ?! was it the racist remark?
if so i really am sorry if i offended you . i was trying to show you how you are coming off to me. now when i think a little harder about how you are acting , it makes me think that you are scared. not in a bad way mind you , just scared.

I think we are all a little scared of what we see daily. The arguing,the constant ridicule of eachothers beliefs. I really think the days after 9/11 were some of the most powerful feeling's we as humanbeings can endure. Warlike is a good term for it. But soon afterward i believe we felt together, one .
I felt we started on the path we were supposed to go. I think it's safe to say we all do. When talk of Iraq started some questioned and some stood firm on the belief we had just cause. I was cautiously firm. Now i find myself three years later and what has changed?! we have grown from this nation of one into this nation of rage. Can we ever get back to that feeling of unity?!
This comes to my severity of this message. Don't forget we are all just people , mind, body and soul or even no soul if you're an aetheist. I would like to see us united again under a common banner . Not republicans , not democrats, not independants, not muslim's ,christians, but as people of this world earth. I guess the question is not who's side are you on but who's on our side? I believe in peace and i believe we all wish for it. It is not an unattainable goal but a simple goal. So why is it i see the world rearring up for war?! What has gone wrong? Do any of you have an idea of what's gone wrong? I just wish we could do away with all this nonsense of partisanship. I am not a democrat . Nor would I hold loyalty to any party that i see not protecting my country to the best of it's ability's . What do you all hold dear?
What are we looking for ? I believe it's peace and until we can learn to except that's what we want , we will never attain it. Peace starts in you.
you unpatriotic, liberal, communist, muslim fucker. how dare you you.

[TwoStepFF]

muslim fucker. .
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[marco j]

John Lennon? Is that you?

not quite

i happen to be playing Raven.

[mwjorgens]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
you too fucker. why do people sweat keira so bad? honestly? im not seeing it.

[TwoStepFF]

you too fucker. why do people sweat keira so bad? honestly? im not seeing it.
oh son!
http://www.kkwavefront.org/media/albums/candids/2003-06-28/3119716_main.jpg
:thumbsup :thumbsup
COME ON!

[mwjorgens]

oh son!
http://www.kkwavefront.org/media/albums/candids/2003-06-28/3119716_main.jpg
:thumbsup :thumbsup
COME ON!
women that are more cut than i am? no danke. her face is dec, i can give her that. and if she is the one from pirates then ok. but im real partial to depp so im still up in the air about her.

[marco j]

Boing!!!

[TwoStepFF]

women that are more cut than i am? no danke. her face is dec, i can give her that. and if she is the one from pirates then ok. but im real partial to depp so im still up in the air about her.
dude, she is fucking hot!

[mwjorgens]

dude, she is fucking hot!
i support the jacking of this thread:thumbsup but there are so many "hot" females that come and go. she is just a flash in the pan, flavor of the week. you want hot. my girlfriend. julia roberts. selma hayek. marget thatcher. my girlfriends roomates. that girl i slept with with during the '03 mlb allstar break at the hotel when we were both high in the clouds on blow. the host from trading spaces.

[nonewdirections]

Anything in the last several hundred years? Anything?
the catholic church implicitly and verbally supported fascists. yes the pope recently apologized for it, i think. let me guess, the next post will be "but what about the past FIFTY years?" ... hm.

[TwoStepFF]

i support the jacking of this thread:thumbsup but there are so many "hot" females that come and go. she is just a flash in the pan, flavor of the week. you want hot. my girlfriend. julia roberts. selma hayek. marget thatcher. my girlfriends roomates. that girl i slept with with during the '03 mlb allstar break at the hotel when we were both high in the clouds on blow. the host from trading spaces.
there are but she is extra hot

[mwjorgens]

there are but she is extra hot
fine. if she stumbled into my room drunk and wanted a piece of Dr. J i'd have to give it to her.

[bseitz]

you really do make me smile :lol
Ah, the condescending liberal opener. How quaint.


please again explain to me how you sitting in front of your computer typing away insults at people who are only trying to just talk to you about a different point of view , is handing me my ass ?! was it the racist remark? if so i really am sorry if i offended you . i was trying to show you how you are coming off to me. now when i think a little harder about how you are acting , it makes me think that you are scared. not in a bad way mind you , just scared.
Not scared. Concerned. Really concerned that so many people live a fantasy world where there are no evil people and if we all sat around singing Kumbaya, things would be just peachy.


I think we are all a little scared of what we see daily. The arguing,the constant ridicule of eachothers beliefs. I really think the days after 9/11 were some of the most powerful feeling's we as humanbeings can endure. Warlike is a good term for it. But soon afterward i believe we felt together, one .
I felt we started on the path we were supposed to go. I think it's safe to say we all do. When talk of Iraq started some questioned and some stood firm on the belief we had just cause. I was cautiously firm. Now i find myself three years later and what has changed?! we have grown from this nation of one into this nation of rage. Can we ever get back to that feeling of unity?!
This comes to my severity of this message. Don't forget we are all just people , mind, body and soul or even no soul if you're an aetheist. I would like to see us united again under a common banner . Not republicans , not democrats, not independants, not muslim's ,christians, but as people of this world earth. I guess the question is not who's side are you on but who's on our side? I believe in peace and i believe we all wish for it. It is not an unattainable goal but a simple goal. So why is it i see the world rearring up for war?! What has gone wrong? Do any of you have an idea of what's gone wrong? I just wish we could do away with all this nonsense of partisanship. I am not a democrat . Nor would I hold loyalty to any party that i see not protecting my country to the best of it's ability's . What do you all hold dear?
What are we looking for ? I believe it's peace and until we can learn to except that's what we want , we will never attain it. Peace starts in you.
Denial is not a defense strategy. Until we're willing to admit that there is an enemy that seeks to destroy us for what we believe and we acknowledge the nature of that enemy, we're sitting ducks. Unfortunately, not everyone wants peace.

[bseitz]

oh it wasnt? i thought it was written in english!! i mean i could have sworn the white skinned jesus would say O! and Art thou. sounds like it came from england. go figure. and yes i have read it, biblical lit, freshman year of high school, they pounded it down our throats. and yes im uncomfrotable with the bible too and any holy book for that matter cause there are people like you that will twist the words around to suit your agenda.
So you're OK with people translating the Bible but not the Koran? Afraid of what you may find?

[mwjorgens]

So you're OK with people translating the Bible but not the Koran? Afraid of what you may find?
do you read or can you read? or do just write whatever you want no matter what is? i said just the opposite of it, i dont like either book being translated. way to go:thumbsup

[bseitz]

do you read or can you read? or do just write whatever you want no matter what is? i said just the opposite of it, i dont like either book being translated. way to go:thumbsup
So then Christians should learn to read the ancient languages that the Bible was originally written in? We certainly wouldn't need to worry about all these pesky religions then, would we?

[bseitz]

the catholic church implicitly and verbally supported fascists. yes the pope recently apologized for it, i think. let me guess, the next post will be "but what about the past FIFTY years?" ... hm.
Any beheadings lately? Strapping bombs to their children? Shooting defenseless women and children in cold blood?

[marco j]

Denial is not a defense strategy. Until we're willing to admit that there is an enemy that seeks to destroy us for what we believe and we acknowledge the nature of that enemy, we're sitting ducks. Unfortunately, not everyone wants peace.[/QUOTE]


so who's the enemy again?!? now keep in mind no politician has even come out and said what you are implying.

oh i remember terrorist's !

and all terrorist's are muslim. :rolleyes:

i am not sorry for me calling you racist . now i realize you obviously are.
i thought maybe you were just scared of the unknown culture of muslims. now i realize you are just a fucking racist that thinks wiping out a race of people will make the world better. take your ideology and shove it straight up your ass. i'll go sing kumbaya.

[marco j]

So then Christians should learn to read the ancient languages that the Bible was originally written in? We certainly wouldn't need to worry about all these pesky religions then, would we?


funny you don't see the irony of this post.

if the text of the bible was written in a different language and translated and updated numerous times over thousands of years, do you think anything got left out? or extra put in?

and another question. is there any news source or reference material anyone can show you that you don't just immediately consider biased or partisan?!

[TwoStepFF]

and all terrorist's are muslim. :rolleyes:


but they are, (the terrorists that effect us are)
all terrorist's that attack the U.S. homeland and soldiers, and those who attack Isreal are all Muslim (they have declared holy war on us)

[scotch]

[QUOTE=clemson357]the purpose of shock and awe was not to cause fear, it was to crush a dictatorship.



I thought it was to find weapons of mass destruction?

[bseitz]

Denial is not a defense strategy. Until we're willing to admit that there is an enemy that seeks to destroy us for what we believe and we acknowledge the nature of that enemy, we're sitting ducks. Unfortunately, not everyone wants peace.


so who's the enemy again?!? now keep in mind no politician has even come out and said what you are implying.

oh i remember terrorist's !

and all terrorist's are muslim. :rolleyes:

i am not sorry for me calling you racist . now i realize you obviously are.
i thought maybe you were just scared of the unknown culture of muslims. now i realize you are just a fucking racist that thinks wiping out a race of people will make the world better. take your ideology and shove it straight up your ass. i'll go sing kumbaya.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we should deal with those Episcopalian terrorists first. The enemy has clearly been identified as Islamists who seek to impose their barbaric values on the world (as deluded as that may be). Name calling (especially "racist") is the last refuge of a liberal who's backed into an indefensible corner.

[bseitz]

funny you don't see the irony of this post.

if the text of the bible was written in a different language and translated and updated numerous times over thousands of years, do you think anything got left out? or extra put in?
Let's just throw them all out then.

[QUOTE=marco j]and another question. is there any news source or reference material anyone can show you that you don't just immediately consider biased or partisan?!
Unfortunately, nearly all of the "mainstream" media sources have repeatedly exposed the bias in their reporting. Do you really believe that Dan Rather, "Pinch" Sulzberger, et al play it straight down the middle and merely report the facts in a non-partisan fashion?