|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
Wasn't the definition of "enemy combatant" something along the lines of "male able to carry a weapon"? That of course makes your statistics look pretty good.
|
On May 23 2013 03:17 farvacola wrote:
Sounds like psychopathic fuckers using a Jihadi cover to commit murder. Let us hope that they are brought to justice swiftly.
Do you even know what Jihad means?
yea I didnt think so, nor do the poor fools who committed this atrocity
Jihad means struggle, primarily internal struggle or struggle of the self, struggle for perfection of self in all things
The best form of struggle is that to challenge an oppressive ruler (see Syria)
|
On May 27 2013 14:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:52 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 09:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Who is saying 9/11 had to do with invading Afghanistan or especially Iraq? If we wanted to stem Islamic extremism, we'd invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini (and onwards) are the greatest plague to the Mideast since the Mongols. Maybe it'll give those extremist barbarians something to think about when they see Christians ruling Mecca and Medina.
Anyways, if anything pleases me, it's that the British legal system is not senseless like the Norwegian or Swedish, and that these murderers will get something more than a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a bar fight gone bad or murder in self-defense or vengeance for a grave wrong-doing against oneself (which is still wrong). It was simply a brutal crime. Completely unprovoked murder. No excuse for it. You do realize that these are two very different (if equally dangerous) animals? Anyways, why would we want Christians "ruling" Mecca or Medina? Haven't we learned how disastrous organized religion is in the Middle East? Yes, I do realize they are very different. But my point was that they are both very dangerous and are responsible through their influence and direct support for many of the Islamist issues in the Mideast over the past 30 years. I'm glad someone else even knows the name Khomeini. Props. And no, we haven't learned. Otherwise, we wouldn't be indirectly and directly supporting Islamic extremists and organized religion for decades now. It's a sickening two-faced policy and it needs to stop. Pretty soon, there isn't going to be a single secular country left in the Mideast, except maybe Israel.
so....is there something wrong with nonsecularism? you forget that Muslims actually care about their religion..unlike everyone else..oh and Turkey will never give up its secularism
|
On May 28 2013 01:43 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 14:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 27 2013 09:52 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 09:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Who is saying 9/11 had to do with invading Afghanistan or especially Iraq? If we wanted to stem Islamic extremism, we'd invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini (and onwards) are the greatest plague to the Mideast since the Mongols. Maybe it'll give those extremist barbarians something to think about when they see Christians ruling Mecca and Medina.
Anyways, if anything pleases me, it's that the British legal system is not senseless like the Norwegian or Swedish, and that these murderers will get something more than a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a bar fight gone bad or murder in self-defense or vengeance for a grave wrong-doing against oneself (which is still wrong). It was simply a brutal crime. Completely unprovoked murder. No excuse for it. You do realize that these are two very different (if equally dangerous) animals? Anyways, why would we want Christians "ruling" Mecca or Medina? Haven't we learned how disastrous organized religion is in the Middle East? Yes, I do realize they are very different. But my point was that they are both very dangerous and are responsible through their influence and direct support for many of the Islamist issues in the Mideast over the past 30 years. I'm glad someone else even knows the name Khomeini. Props. And no, we haven't learned. Otherwise, we wouldn't be indirectly and directly supporting Islamic extremists and organized religion for decades now. It's a sickening two-faced policy and it needs to stop. Pretty soon, there isn't going to be a single secular country left in the Mideast, except maybe Israel. so....is there something wrong with nonsecularism? you forget that Muslims actually care about their religion..unlike everyone else..oh and Turkey will never give up its secularism
So.... is there something wrong with Communism?
The alternative to secular government and society in these countries, Islamic fundamentalism and extremism, is a good thing, right?
Turkey is actually degrading fast in terms of its secularism. Sultan Erdogan is leading the country down a bad path. So is Lebanon (at least among the muslim population), which is even more striking. Many non-Muslims in the world care about their religions. The difference is they don't feel compelled to mass murder people because of it.
|
On May 28 2013 01:43 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 14:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 27 2013 09:52 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 09:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Who is saying 9/11 had to do with invading Afghanistan or especially Iraq? If we wanted to stem Islamic extremism, we'd invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini (and onwards) are the greatest plague to the Mideast since the Mongols. Maybe it'll give those extremist barbarians something to think about when they see Christians ruling Mecca and Medina.
Anyways, if anything pleases me, it's that the British legal system is not senseless like the Norwegian or Swedish, and that these murderers will get something more than a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a bar fight gone bad or murder in self-defense or vengeance for a grave wrong-doing against oneself (which is still wrong). It was simply a brutal crime. Completely unprovoked murder. No excuse for it. You do realize that these are two very different (if equally dangerous) animals? Anyways, why would we want Christians "ruling" Mecca or Medina? Haven't we learned how disastrous organized religion is in the Middle East? Yes, I do realize they are very different. But my point was that they are both very dangerous and are responsible through their influence and direct support for many of the Islamist issues in the Mideast over the past 30 years. I'm glad someone else even knows the name Khomeini. Props. And no, we haven't learned. Otherwise, we wouldn't be indirectly and directly supporting Islamic extremists and organized religion for decades now. It's a sickening two-faced policy and it needs to stop. Pretty soon, there isn't going to be a single secular country left in the Mideast, except maybe Israel. so....is there something wrong with nonsecularism? you forget that Muslims actually care about their religion..unlike everyone else..oh and Turkey will never give up its secularism
Nonsecualirm = forcing specific religious customs on all of the society, if everybody would want to follow them, then they wouldn't have to force them with law. Do you seriously ask what is wrong with being forced into religion?
|
On May 28 2013 01:40 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:17 farvacola wrote:
Sounds like psychopathic fuckers using a Jihadi cover to commit murder. Let us hope that they are brought to justice swiftly. Do you even know what Jihad means? yea I didnt think so, nor do the poor fools who committed this atrocity Jihad means struggle, primarily internal struggle or struggle of the self, struggle for perfection of self in all things The best form of struggle is that to challenge an oppressive ruler (see Syria)
I'm pretty sure he knows what Jihad means zZz
On May 28 2013 00:58 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 09:26 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 08:27 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 08:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote:
[quote]
The death of an innocent Pakistani child in a drone strike is just as tragic as the death of this English Soldier. It is the INTENTION of the people responsible for the deaths that is different.
Is ordering a drone strike that you know has a significant (or virtually absolute) chance of causing collateral damage to carry out a mission against a hostile target immoral? Perhaps. However, even if you know that it is a certainty that civilians will die or be wounded by your action, that is different from the goal being to do harm to innocents.
This attack in England and other terrorist actions (irrespective of whether they're committed by Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Vegetarians, Agnostics...) have a goal of killing or wounding innocents to inspire fear to further a political or religious cause.
I'm not sure why this is proving such a difficult concept for people. In the first case, it's OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents to achieve your goal. In the second case it's not OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents to achieve your goal. In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. But somehow one is better? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: Is ordering a drone strike that you know has a significant (or virtually absolute) chance of causing collateral damage to carry out a mission against a hostile target immoral? Perhaps. Now you write: In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be. You're making the same argument again. You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this? "Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him." Is a very thin basis for a moral argument. We're making progress. In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him We're almost there! You're apparently Romanian. Or blind to italics and context. Edit: Since you evidently need it spelled out to you, my last point was that you can't fire a missile five feet away from someone and say you didn't want to kill him. You can't fire a weapon at someone on the other side of a crowd, shoot five innocent people and then say that you didn't want them to die as if it puts you on a moral pedestal. There's this thing called line of fire, and it's generally pretty big for missiles. You might as well say that suicide bombers just really tend to hate planes, trains, buses, and public places, but people get in the way when they try to take them out. So if I accidentally run somebody over, an inherent risk in driving, then I'm just as morally corrupt as this guy? http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/latest-news/murder-trial-taxi-driver-ran-man-over-1-2856428I think intentions do count for something... Suicide bombers intend to murder those innocent civilians unfortunate to be near them to send a political/religious/ideaological message, drone strikes are used in combat situations in an effort to minimize casualties and their intended target is not civilians, and when in war do the innocent survive unscathed, one way or another? Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing. Except ideally there are no civilians around. You don't intend to kill civilians, it is an inherent risk in the act. Sometimes there are no civilians nearby, that is the ideal situation. Sometimes there are civilians nearby and they don't get hurt, that is the second most desirable situation. The least desirable situation is that there are civilians nearby and some of them get hurt. That is the order of desire for a drone strike, whereas a suicide bomber has completely the reverse. The absolutely ideal situation is as many innocent people as possible to get hurt. You've admitted yourself intentions make a huge difference. Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing. Double tapping targets to hit the people trying to help victims and signature strikes based on nothing but 'behavioral analysis' (look it's 4 dudes in their 20s in a car) makes the difference you claim nonexistent, especially to the group of people you target with it. And that's without even going into what a 'militant' exactly means to the US government.
Are you referring to a specific incident here? Why do you mention "militant" and what it means to the US government.
From what I can gather because drone strikes aren't 100% accurate or have been sanctioned against questionable targets therefore they are identical to suicide bombers. That is obviously not the case.
|
On May 28 2013 01:40 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:17 farvacola wrote:
Sounds like psychopathic fuckers using a Jihadi cover to commit murder. Let us hope that they are brought to justice swiftly. Do you even know what Jihad means? yea I didnt think so, nor do the poor fools who committed this atrocity Jihad means struggle, primarily internal struggle or struggle of the self, struggle for perfection of self in all things The best form of struggle is that to challenge an oppressive ruler (see Syria)
Jihad has more meanings than just struggle, but you are generally right. I'm an Arabic linguist, so I have a little bit of insight on the Arabic culture and the language.
الجحاد
+ Show Spoiler + من أكثر المصطلحات الإسلامية التى تعرضت للتحريف والتشويه بفعل وسائل الإعلام الأجنبية - خاصة بعد 11 سبتمبر - مصطلح (الجهاد) .. فقد عمد الأعداء إلى تصوير (الجهاد) على أنه مرادف للإرهاب !! وحاول آخرون جعل الجهاد مرادفًا لـ (الحرب المقدسة) كما يتشدق بها أصحاب الحملات الصليبية قديمًا وحديثًا .. والإسلام لا يعرف الحرب المقدسة المزعومة.. كما أن للجهاد فى الإسلام مفهومًا وضوابط وأخلاقيات سامية لا عهد للبشرية بمثلها.. فالجهاد فى اللغة : بذل الجهد والوسع والطاقة، من الجُهْد بمعنى الوُسع، أو من الجَهْد بمعنى المشقة وكلا المعنيين فى الجهاد .
وفى الشرع ، أو فى اصطلاح القرآن والسنة ، يأتى بمعنى أعم وأشمل، يشمل الدِّين كله؛ وحينئذ تتسع مساحته فتشمل الحياة كلها بسائر مجالاتها، ولهذا يُسمى حينئذ : الجهاد الأكبر . وله معنى خاص هو القتال لإعلاء كلمة الله ، وهذا يشغل مساحة أصغر من الأولى، ولهذا سُمِّىَ (الجهاد الأصغر) .
http://www.saaid.net/ahdath/68.htm
In a nutshell, what it says is (paraphrasing):
The word Jihad has largely been distorted in the mainstream media, especially after 9/11. Some would say it was synonymous with terrorism. While others would attribute it to the holy war (The Crusades), past and present, Islam doesn't know the alleged holy war (lol @ that part). Jihad in Islam is understood to mean the morals, ethics, and controls for humanity. In language, Jihad can mean effort or struggle.
In Islam, the Quran is where the more comprehensive definition of Jihad comes from. It has a special meaning, which is the fight or struggle to uphold the meaning of God.
Basically, this makes sense for what you said about the struggle against an oppressive ruler (Syria) because quite honestly, I think Syria is the biggest threat to the Muslim people.
What wasn't mentioned in that article was that there is a group that was once called Al Jihad (one of their names), short for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which is an affiliate of al-Qaeda (hence the distortion/confusion).
Just a little info about jihad and its several uses.
|
|
|
The biggest threat to Muslims is...themselves. More Muslims are killed by Muslims than any other group by far, including the U.S., but they direct all their hatred and blame towards the U.S. and the West (I'm not saying all Muslims, but a lot, obviously). It's quite an ironic situation in my opinion.
|
On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly?
yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then?
|
On May 28 2013 04:02 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then?
I didn't say he was a terrorist.
|
On May 28 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 01:40 Cricketer12 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:17 farvacola wrote:
Sounds like psychopathic fuckers using a Jihadi cover to commit murder. Let us hope that they are brought to justice swiftly. Do you even know what Jihad means? yea I didnt think so, nor do the poor fools who committed this atrocity Jihad means struggle, primarily internal struggle or struggle of the self, struggle for perfection of self in all things The best form of struggle is that to challenge an oppressive ruler (see Syria) I'm pretty sure he knows what Jihad means zZz Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 00:58 Derez wrote:On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 09:26 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 08:27 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 08:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
In the first case, it's OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents to achieve your goal.
In the second case it's not OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents to achieve your goal.
In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. But somehow one is better? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: Is ordering a drone strike that you know has a significant (or virtually absolute) chance of causing collateral damage to carry out a mission against a hostile target immoral? Perhaps. Now you write: In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be. You're making the same argument again. You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this? "Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him." Is a very thin basis for a moral argument. We're making progress. In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him We're almost there! You're apparently Romanian. Or blind to italics and context. Edit: Since you evidently need it spelled out to you, my last point was that you can't fire a missile five feet away from someone and say you didn't want to kill him. You can't fire a weapon at someone on the other side of a crowd, shoot five innocent people and then say that you didn't want them to die as if it puts you on a moral pedestal. There's this thing called line of fire, and it's generally pretty big for missiles. You might as well say that suicide bombers just really tend to hate planes, trains, buses, and public places, but people get in the way when they try to take them out. So if I accidentally run somebody over, an inherent risk in driving, then I'm just as morally corrupt as this guy? http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/latest-news/murder-trial-taxi-driver-ran-man-over-1-2856428I think intentions do count for something... Suicide bombers intend to murder those innocent civilians unfortunate to be near them to send a political/religious/ideaological message, drone strikes are used in combat situations in an effort to minimize casualties and their intended target is not civilians, and when in war do the innocent survive unscathed, one way or another? Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing. Except ideally there are no civilians around. You don't intend to kill civilians, it is an inherent risk in the act. Sometimes there are no civilians nearby, that is the ideal situation. Sometimes there are civilians nearby and they don't get hurt, that is the second most desirable situation. The least desirable situation is that there are civilians nearby and some of them get hurt. That is the order of desire for a drone strike, whereas a suicide bomber has completely the reverse. The absolutely ideal situation is as many innocent people as possible to get hurt. You've admitted yourself intentions make a huge difference. Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing. Double tapping targets to hit the people trying to help victims and signature strikes based on nothing but 'behavioral analysis' (look it's 4 dudes in their 20s in a car) makes the difference you claim nonexistent, especially to the group of people you target with it. And that's without even going into what a 'militant' exactly means to the US government. Are you referring to a specific incident here? Why do you mention "militant" and what it means to the US government. From what I can gather because drone strikes aren't 100% accurate or have been sanctioned against questionable targets therefore they are identical to suicide bombers. That is obviously not the case.
If that is what you have gotten from the list couple og pages i am truly impressed. He was not referring to a "single incident", he was referring to standard policy of the US when carrying out a dronestrike which is to doubletap with the specific goal of targeting first responders. It is because of this policy and because of the ridiculous lack of clear definitions of what constitutes a legitimate militant target that people equate the drone strikes to terrorism. I am pretty sure that if you asked the people of Pakistan they would too. The fact that it is not 100% accurate or that questionable strikes have been performed (is there even such a thing as a legitimate one?) is really just the icing on the cake so to speak.
|
On May 28 2013 01:33 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't the definition of "enemy combatant" something along the lines of "male able to carry a weapon"? That of course makes your statistics look pretty good.
A signature strike against a basketball court in rural Nebraska would 'kill' 10 militants. More strikes, more militants. Isn't that awesomesauce! Just make sure more men than woman in 'target area' and you will always have your desired talking point. Unless some pesky Journo reports it. Jeremy Scahill, again. Comes back to trusting leadership. Insert Snark.
More arrests I see.
Detectives investigating the murder of soldier Lee Rigby today arrested a 50-year-old man on suspicion of conspiracy to murder.
The suspect was arrested in Upper Wickham Lane, Welling, south-east London, Scotland Yard said. An address is also being searched in south-east London.
The arrest involved armed officers and the 50-year-old man was stopped in the street. No shots were fired and the man was led away after being stopped at gunpoint around 3pm this afternoon.
Police will have a maximum of 96 hours, including all possible extensions, to charge or release him.
The arrest is the tenth officers have made over the murder of Rigby, who was hacked to death in Woolwich, south-east London.
Source
|
On May 28 2013 04:31 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 04:02 TSORG wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then? I didn't say he was a terrorist.
ok my mistake, yet the question is still valid. i personally struggle to find a appropriate classification, i despise the act yet i find it hard to see the moral difference between murdering a man in his home (even though he may have been a high value target) or the cia murdering all kinds of people that are in the way of their goals.
are these people soldiers fighting a war in a time where the lines are getting less distinct and uniforms less important (eg drones, special ops, infiltration tactics and "terrorists") or are they just monsters with no regard for human life that is not part of their inner circle... i guess a bit of both.
|
On May 28 2013 04:38 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 04:31 kmillz wrote:On May 28 2013 04:02 TSORG wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then? I didn't say he was a terrorist. ok my mistake, yet the question is still valid. i personally struggle to find a appropriate classification, i despise the act yet i find it hard to see the moral difference between murdering a man in his home (even though he may have been a high value target) or the cia murdering all kinds of people that are in the way of their goals. are these people soldiers fighting a war in a time where the lines are getting less distinct and uniforms less important (eg drones, special ops, infiltration tactics and "terrorists") or are they just monsters with no regard for human life that is not part of their inner circle... i guess a bit of both.
Was it not the person's goal to spread fear amongst every citizen? Definitely a terrorist.
|
On May 28 2013 04:44 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 04:38 TSORG wrote:On May 28 2013 04:31 kmillz wrote:On May 28 2013 04:02 TSORG wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then? I didn't say he was a terrorist. ok my mistake, yet the question is still valid. i personally struggle to find a appropriate classification, i despise the act yet i find it hard to see the moral difference between murdering a man in his home (even though he may have been a high value target) or the cia murdering all kinds of people that are in the way of their goals. are these people soldiers fighting a war in a time where the lines are getting less distinct and uniforms less important (eg drones, special ops, infiltration tactics and "terrorists") or are they just monsters with no regard for human life that is not part of their inner circle... i guess a bit of both. Was it not the person's goal to spread fear amongst every citizen? Definitely a terrorist.
i dont think it was, afaik he never said it was. he even regretted that some women were present to see the act, for what it is worth, doesnt seem to me like someone that just wishes to spread fear. is the fear spread nonetheless? ofcourse. that definition of terrorism seems a bit outdated to me, perhaps, maybe even probably, they are trying to break the morale of "the west" but does that neccesarily make one a terrorist? If so, in that case WW2 was full of terrorist acts as well (from both sides).
im not defending them in any case, i just want to get a better understanding of what is going on (in their minds).
|
On May 28 2013 04:56 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 04:44 AnomalySC2 wrote:On May 28 2013 04:38 TSORG wrote:On May 28 2013 04:31 kmillz wrote:On May 28 2013 04:02 TSORG wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then? I didn't say he was a terrorist. ok my mistake, yet the question is still valid. i personally struggle to find a appropriate classification, i despise the act yet i find it hard to see the moral difference between murdering a man in his home (even though he may have been a high value target) or the cia murdering all kinds of people that are in the way of their goals. are these people soldiers fighting a war in a time where the lines are getting less distinct and uniforms less important (eg drones, special ops, infiltration tactics and "terrorists") or are they just monsters with no regard for human life that is not part of their inner circle... i guess a bit of both. Was it not the person's goal to spread fear amongst every citizen? Definitely a terrorist. i dont think it was, afaik he never said it was. he even regretted that some women were present to see the act, for what it is worth, doesnt seem to me like someone that just wishes to spread fear. is the fear spread nonetheless? ofcourse. that definition of terrorism seems a bit outdated to me, perhaps, maybe even probably, they are trying to break the morale of "the west" but does that neccesarily make one a terrorist? If so, in that case WW2 was full of terrorist acts as well (from both sides). im not defending them in any case, i just want to get a better understanding of what is going on (in their minds).
he says he regrets it then immediately justifies why they should see it and tells them that they will continue to see things like this (while waving his bloodied hands and knife around, lol). kind of like calling people fat then going "no offense, but you're fat, no offense though, pssst you're fat".
and yes ww2 was full of terrorists from both sides. one side just had an easier time covering it up because they won.
|
On May 28 2013 05:23 eX Killy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 04:56 TSORG wrote:On May 28 2013 04:44 AnomalySC2 wrote:On May 28 2013 04:38 TSORG wrote:On May 28 2013 04:31 kmillz wrote:On May 28 2013 04:02 TSORG wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? yet these people killed a soldier, and you still call him a terrorist. so what would be the definition of terrorism then? I didn't say he was a terrorist. ok my mistake, yet the question is still valid. i personally struggle to find a appropriate classification, i despise the act yet i find it hard to see the moral difference between murdering a man in his home (even though he may have been a high value target) or the cia murdering all kinds of people that are in the way of their goals. are these people soldiers fighting a war in a time where the lines are getting less distinct and uniforms less important (eg drones, special ops, infiltration tactics and "terrorists") or are they just monsters with no regard for human life that is not part of their inner circle... i guess a bit of both. Was it not the person's goal to spread fear amongst every citizen? Definitely a terrorist. i dont think it was, afaik he never said it was. he even regretted that some women were present to see the act, for what it is worth, doesnt seem to me like someone that just wishes to spread fear. is the fear spread nonetheless? ofcourse. that definition of terrorism seems a bit outdated to me, perhaps, maybe even probably, they are trying to break the morale of "the west" but does that neccesarily make one a terrorist? If so, in that case WW2 was full of terrorist acts as well (from both sides). im not defending them in any case, i just want to get a better understanding of what is going on (in their minds). he says he regrets it then immediately justifies why they should see it and tells them that they will continue to see things like this (while waving his bloodied hands and knife around, lol). kind of like calling people fat then going "no offense, but you're fat, no offense though, pssst you're fat". and yes ww2 was full of terrorists from both sides. one side just had an easier time covering it up because they won.
oh yes, ofcourse he justifies his actions and he will not back down because of some "collateral damage" but i dont think it was his main intent to spread fear, maybe it was i dont know. i just find it hard to see how this is any more or less an act of terrorism or war than the raid on osama that killed 4 other people as well. it either is a war and both sides get dirty and both sides suffer losses (where 2 sides fight, there are 2 sides to blame) or you try to claim the moral highground for what it is worth and only act in self defense? in which case you can never justify lowering yourself to their standards and executing someone in his home alongside with whoever happened to be in the path of the bullets.
in the end i guess it doesnt matter what you call it, whatever slight they feel they suffered this is not the path to justice.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
The newspaper I read keeps calling it "the worst terrorist atrocity in the UK since the July 2005 bombings". At best it feels like an awfully clumsy classification.
|
I see the crazies have found this thread. The ones who are arguing that 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan, that intent to deliberately kill civilians does not matter and implying that murdering someone in cold blood is justified because of a war they don't agree with. Sad to see the nonsense some people believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
