In "5 Myths About Terrorism" in the Washington Post (thanks to Steve), Alan B. Krueger provides a sterling example of the politically correct myopia that prevents an accurate analysis of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. And he does so in such a clumsy way that it is remarkable that no one at the paper caught this before it was printed:
4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country's mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.
After all, it was not long ago that homegrown villains such as Timothy McVeigh and the so-called Unabomber were the most notorious terrorists. That makes sense; the vast majority of terrorist incidents are local, motivated by local concerns and carried out by natives. Even international terrorist events tend to be local affairs, most frequently carried out by local militants who target foreigners who happen to be in their country. (Just think of last week's foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany.) This suggests that the likelihood of attack by homegrown terrorists is far greater than the threat of another 9/11-style attack by foreigners.
Did you catch that? Terrorism isn't "mainly perpetrated by Muslims" because "no religion has a monopoly on terrorism." This doesn't even establish what Krueger wants it to establish, because the fact that people of all religions have committed terrorist acts doesn't disprove the contention that terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims. If one group is responsible for something, say, 80% of the time, it is mainly responsible for it: you can't point to the existence of the other 20% as if it were proof that the 80% group is not mainly responsible.
Also, it should be obviously absurd to everyone at this point, but of course it isn't, to drag out poor old McVeigh, and the Unabomber to boot, and stack them up as equivalent to the plethora of armed Islamic organizations that can be found all over the planet, and the more the 9,000 terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11. But of course since the overwhelming majority of those have not been reported by Krueger's friends with any significant mention or exploration of the Islamic texts and teachings that the perpetrators used to justify them, most Americans don't realize that they have anything to do with Islam in the first place -- while every schoolchild knows that McVeigh was a Christian (he wasn't).
Finally, it is in no way relevant to a discussion of terrorism in general, much less Islamic jihad terrorism in particular, to assert that "every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism." It's a shame that such superficial analysis is so dominant these days. While the statement may be broadly true, it brushes by the central question: does Islamic theology and tradition contain any elements that encourage its followers to be involved in terrorism? Do other religions? This is a central consideration of my book Religion of Peace?, and it is a question media and policymakers should be asking. They don't, of course, because CAIR and others have mau-maued them into thinking that even to ask such questions promotes "bigotry" and "intolerance," as well as that trumped-up concept "Islamophobia." It never occurs to them that such discussions would actually aid the moderate Muslims they profess to support, being a necessary step toward the self-criticism that would have to be an essential component of any genuine Islamic reform.
Robert,
The average American truly believes that McVeigh was a Christian. You do an excellent job in debunking that myth in your latest book.
BTW, I'll be using material from your book when I speak to two church groups next week. I suspect that many of the listeners will be buying your book! The group is an evangelical one and is unaware of you. I can't explain that ignorance, but it's true, nonetheless.
Once the listeners have read your latest book, perhaps they'll also read your Guide, which is an excellent manual to have on hand.
The WaPo is a lost cause. I've argued and argued in forums there, to no avail.
(Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country's mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.)
They are not fighting in the name of their religion.
LOL ...... ROFL ............ LMAO
"Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims."
That's all the article needed to say. Anything else is just filler.
The WaPo is really the beltway's answer to the NYTimes.
Alan B. Kreuger has his head snugly up his arse.
He is just one of many.
His views align perfectly with those of the media elites across the western world and thus the platform he is given in WAPO.
The reference to the Unabomber is a new one though. Remember all those letters the Unabomber sent citing Biblical passages justifying the murder of innocents in the name of God and Jesus. What? There were none? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe!?
Same old, same old.
The MSM is a puppet - the question is, who's pulling the strings?
The WaPo's use of McViegh as some sort of an example Islam isn't behind or connected to most of the terrorists attacks is hilarious.
Are they not aware that we KNOW Terry Nichols, McViegh's cohort, visited Cebu City on several occasions prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. At least one of those visits happened to be the same time frame that Ramsey Yousef, the 93 WTC twin towers bomber was there. There are witnesses who have stated the two met. When you look at the similarities between the first WTC attack and Oklahoma City you'd have to be blind not to AT LEAST suspect a connection. To wave the McViegh flag as some sort of proof Islam isn't at the root of most terrorist attacks exposes the shallowness of his arguement and the limits of his research.
Always-on-watch-
The constantly repeated big lie that McVeigh was a "Christian" has taken root. Many Muslims (Fibrahim Hooper, CAIR liars, Moe Howard "distinguished professor" cowards and WoPo cowards) are influenced by propaganda.
Here is a post re propaganda I wrote this A.M. on the World Net Daily Blog. People get influenced by logical thought or propaganda. Propaganda is part of Jihad-and it's much more organized than we might think.
------------------
Re: Dearborn hosts anti-terrorism conference
Posted by Frank on Sep 15, 2007 06:54
Re the terrorism of deception...
Islam mandates deception with non-believers. "War is deception" (as per Muhammad) and Islam's Quran mandates war (psychological and physical)to impose Sharia law on all. Many Muslims pretend that Islam commands peace by pointing to "peaceful verses" in the Quran, but they know that the "peaceful verses" have been abrogated. The Quaran is set-up longest to shortest verse but what matters is chronological order. Later verses that contradict earlier chronological verses (wine is good, alcohol is later banned, e.g.) are what matter. The last chronological verses command Muslims to convert the unbeliever, reduce the unbeliever to subservient "subdued" Dhimmi status, or kill the unbeliever. "Islam must dominate".
Beyond the deception rooted in the Quran, many Muslims are quite familiar with the propaganda techniques outlined by Hitler in Mein Kampf (which is very popular in the Mideast) and often launch propaganda campaigns of "lies, slander" against critics. Usually this takes the form of charges of "islamophobia" (itself a propaganda word) or charges of "racism".
Muslims do this despite the fact that most Muslim countries (especially Arabs) are not ethnically diverse. In fact, Muslims from different ethnic groups (Arabs, African Negros, Asian folks) have more contact with each other on an an equal basis in a truly multi-ethnic society such as America than they would ever have in any Arab Mideast country. Arab Muslims are very racist (look at how Saudi Arabia treats non-Arabs).
However, as Goebbels (and Hitler) pointed out, propaganda does not have to be logical, truthful, or even intelligent. All that is necessary is that it be "effective" and that big lies be constantly repeated. Goebbels also noted it is very important to position oneself as a "victim" (as the Nazis did in the Sudetenland, e.g. in the effort to destroy Czechoslovakia in 1938) so that "the stupid masses" can be whipped up to the "justice" of their cause" and then feel free (with a clean conscience) to attack critics-opponents-or even kill them.
People cannot love that which they cannot trust (which is why Jesus is a compelling figure in history-though Jesus never sought earthly power). Islam is based on deception and fear. Any "anti-terror" campaign must deal with Muslim propaganda-lies-deception-slander, what Hitler termed "spiritual terror". Physical terror is only half the picture.
-------------------
Hitler (from Mein Kampf) on the methods he learned in Vienna on how to silence critics: "I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace again, they (the PC in media and govt, e.g.) sacrifice the hated individual(s).
However, the fools obtain no peace.
The game begins again and is repeated over and over until fear of the mad dog results in suggestive (PC, e.g.) paralysis.........Conversely, they praise every (PC) weakling on the opposing side (who appease them), sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence".
In regard to the "spiritual terror" tactics of Hitler (noted above), William Shirer (page 23, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) said: "No more precise analysis of Nazi tactics, as Hitler was eventually to develop them, was ever written".
Rene Descartes was a man with whom we could reason. Apparantly, he was willing to change his attitudes if it was reasonable to so do.
Today's liberals are married to ideologies. They will go through spouses, lovers, religions, and emotional impulses; but once they are married to an ideology -- they are inseparable; fixed; and forever immutable.
"I think therefore, I am"; is incomprehensible to most Americans. It is meaningless dribble; not cute; not funny; not sexy; in short worthless.
The rest of the paragraph let alone the complete reading of Methods -- would be a complete time waster among the MP-3 player generation.
Today in America, just as in the EU, the phrase "I think therefore, I am" has been supplanted with "I say so therefore, it must be!"
The article cited in the WaPo articulates this sad reality in all its incompleteness of reasoning and unseemly arrogance. Unfortunately, its worthless twaddle and jibberish is the only think that the masses are capable of comprehending!
This should tell you all about the WaPo
ChristianM wrote:
George Bush, the Christians in the Balkans murdered 250,000 Muslims in the past 30 years.
We starved to death hundreds of thousands in Iraq after the first Gulf invasion.
We bombed, burned and shot over 2,000,000 South Vietnamese.
We fire-bombed over one million Japanese and German civilians in WWII.
The Inquisition, the Crusades, the….hey Christians, add in George Bush and we have killed over 120,000,000 since 324 CE.
One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
The problem is, neocons call all terrorists al Qaeda when, Saudi Arabia is the home of most al Qaeda, not Iraq and not Iran.
Was it terror when George Senior and John Major started the uprising and Powell allowed Saddam to put it down?
Where did Saddam get all those WMDs the first time? US and Britain.
Terrorism is not the number one threat to America, starvation and drug abuse are 100 times deadlier and unfortunately, fear wins out because neocons need an uneducated populous to peddle their wares of fear and hate.
9/15/2007 12:05:11 AM
Recommend (7) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
tddroy wrote:
Bush is the terrorist #1.
Can you imagine what millions of Iraqi civilians went through once this baboon’s “SHOCK & OWE” of Baghdad started? Can you imagine hundreds of flying killing machines roaring over your cities? Can you picture yourself trying to run from the American bombs with your children under your arms? Can you picture your brother or father naked piled up on top of other men being tortured by a laughing “Christian” lunatic from some other country on the other side of the planet?
WE ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS Mr. Alan B. Krueger.
9/14/2007 10:16:45 PM
Recommend (8) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
witness-
Rene Descartes would be a very dangerous man anywhere people think. We are being propagandized on many things.
A lot of this "multi-cultural" crap is about not thinking, not making judgements re what is good and what is bad based on reason. We are not supposed to say facts that "hurt" or expose contradictions. We must not be "offensive".
The idea that there is absolute truth (1 + 1 = 2) or that there is good that can be discovered by reason and bad discovered by reason(Descartes style)is considered dangerous by many dogmatists in academia. But if education is not about making such judgements then what is it about? If education is not about making judgements re what is good and what is bad based on reason then it will be propaganda. That is why we live in an age of propaganda and why so many "educated" people don't question the evidence of their senses (a la Descartes).
I love the second paragraph. The lamest misrepresentation attempt i've read so far.
So terrorism isn't perpetrated mainly by Muslims because the vast majority of terror atacks are homegrown.???
He calls homegrown attacks "local" and then "motivated by local concerns" and by using this "local concerns" term i guess he wants to convey the impression of something small and wordly like a bad water supply.
This is a interesting e book, all about the
"Islamic Union".
Page 116 You can read;
"EU a Possible Model for the Islamic Union".
On page 116, they use a western scene (man and his dog) to portray the positive world of Islam.lol
It is the last E-Book on the page.Enjoy
http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/blogcategory/59/23/
http://www.muslimbridges.org/images/stories/pdfs/A%20Call%20to%20an%20Islamic%20Union.pdf
IF McVeigh even proclaimed himself as a "Christian doing the bombing for Christianity", where was his support base among Christians anyways??? Lying about one terrorist act compared to the 9,000+ acts of terrorism in the name of Islam since 9/11...which has support of hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide...is reaching levels of absurdity of trying to defend Nazi holocaust by claiming "the Jews deserved it".
Trash being printed like should be used as wipe and seen bobbing in the toilet.
McVeigh has become something of a club used by liberals and CAIR types to deflect criticism of Islamic terrorists and bash Christians in general.
The thing is, McVeigh never used Christianity as a reason for the bombing. You can read his letter explaining his reason in Gore Vidal's Perpertual War for Perpetual Peace Pg 106.
The lengths to which the Bandar Beacon's hacks will go, lest some mahometan be somehow offended, and thus become a physical threat, is beyond parody. I loved how they chose to reflexively squelch their own cartoonist's (Berkley Breathed) Opus piece a couple weeks ago. Turns out that even though most papers in the syndicate 'didn't get the memo' and went ahead, printed the innocuous (athough not very funny) piece, no imam, no mujahedin, not even any "hair-trigger moderate" mahometan was moved to issue a fatwa, or publically demand apologies, or place bounties, you know the usual. False alarm. The Beacon's craven cowards chose to abbrogate their first amendment rights, even when they didn't have to. What a joke.
April 1st already?
There have been other religions in the recent past that were not "Religions of Peace," such as the Shinto sun-god cult of imperial Japan, or the Thuggees of India, who for centuries murderred and pillaiged in the name of their religions.
However, both of these religions have since been thrown in the dust bins of history, unfortunately not because of willing reform by its constituants, but after war and persecution by western powers.
We live in different times, where if you are dark-skinned and from an exotic third world country, you are automatically stereotyped as a perpetual victim of "oppression" or "colonialism" with no consideration of the moral implications of your own beliefs or actions.
This is evident when Jounralists like Krueger deliberately refuse to investigate the reality of Islamic orthodoxy and would rather project his 'haves vs have-nots' worldview onto the present cultural conflict.
The Kamakazi's pioneered suicide bombing. The Japanese are mostly Buddhists. Therefore, Budddism is a religion of terror. Brilliant!
There's a new comedy, starring Richard Gere, called The Hunting Party. He pretends, I mean, stars as an intrepid ínvestigative journalist hunting down an evil Serbian war criminal in Kosobosnerbia. Ever the available villains, the evil Serbs are well, just evil, and the brave journalist (They only seem to be brave in the movies, don't they!) always ventures out of his hotel behind the green line in Kosobosnerbia. One can only guess where the wunderkinder of modern journalism are in Iraq, these dayses. Oh, yes, they are all bravely typing from within the halls of the WaPo Compound, where the specter of militant Christian Talibanians are always lurking in the wings, ready to be called up for bogeyman duty.
I was in Marathon, FL a year after Hurricane Andrew, and I have to tell you--Those Amish and Menonite men and women (still there, helping the local people rebuild Homestead, a full year after the storm)really scared the hell out of me, with those shy but affable smiles of theirs.
The Buddhists down the road have me completely freaked out, with their outdoor shrines and statues, and the way the monks return my waves, when I drive by.
And those Methodists (across the road from the Buddhists)! I can't describe the hostility I face, when I go to visit my family members buried in their cemetary out behind the church. When I have to go into the church to vote on election day, my hands get clammy, and I'm short of breath until I leave. (I know, the church as a polling place is weird, but no one seems to mind; it's been that way since before I was born.)
"4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims."
In cititng this and presenting it as one of his so-called myths, it's clear to me that the author of the article doesn't bother with research, let alone use a calcultator.
Mr. Krueger, you can put your shoes and socks back on, now.
It's been 12 years since Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, and 12 years since Ted Kaczynski ("Unabomber") was arrested.
McVeigh was reared as a Roman Catholic but admits to having fallen away from his faith and was, at the time of his execution, an agnostic.
Kazynski became a "terrorist" to protest the evils of modern technology.
"It never occurs to them that such discussions would actually aid the moderate Muslims they profess to support, being a necessary step toward the self-criticism that would have to be an essential component of any genuine Islamic reform." - Robert
-------------
You're assuming that it never occurs to CAIR that discussions would aid moderate Muslims and want genuine Islamic reform. I wouldn't assume that.....we all know CAIR is all about.
Awwwk! Timothy McVeigh!
They parrot the same stuff over and over.
Anything to absolve the RoP® of any smear.
Someone should photoshop a parrot with Timothy McVeigh coming out of it's mouth....
Sorry Rat (if I may call you that :-) ) I believe the predominant religious ideology at the time was Shinto; it was certainly the faith of the leadership who elected to use this tactic. Even if there were some Buddhist Kamikaze pilots you would have to demonstrate that their actions were inspired by their Buddhist ideology or done principally for the sake of advancing their religion -- a case I doubt can be made.
(I realise your comment is intended to be ironic...I just know some people who take such statements quite seriously, so I thought a proper dissection was called for...)
Seeing how the Americans defused the violent Shinto political dogma after the war without actually forcing Japanese to leave the faith is instructive and may give some clues as to how to deal with Jihad and Islamism today.
This is certainly not an example of Buddhist terrorism. Nor Shinto, either, on technical grounds: what they did was an act of war between nations, which falls outside the category of terrorism. Perhaps it was an atrocity; perhaps a war crime -- these things may be argued at length -- but "terrorism", if used correctly, does not apply here. If one allows the term to apply, it would still be stretching things to call it Shinto terrorism unless the religious dogma could be shown to have played a role in motivating these actions.
One would be hardpressed to find a really good example of Buddhist terrorism. Though I believe the religion (such as it is) is nonsense, it approaches Baha'i as a faith inspiring a peaceful and tolerant outlook toward others among its followers.
Buddhists are welcome in my neighborhood any day. (Muslims too, if they demonstrate an explicit rejection of the jihadist/islamist ideology ... I have muslim friends of this variety. They are worth their weight in gold.)
Sent to author Alan Krueger:
-----------------
Thanks for writing your "5 Myths" piece in the Washington Post. It's about time someone set these urban legends straight.
After all, since NOT ALL terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims, it follows logically that terrorism is NOT MAINLY perpetrated by Muslims. Silly urban legend, thinking that the word "mainly" means something other than "all." It's also great that you brought up lots of solid, quantitative evidence to show how the number of terrorism attacks perpetrated by Muslims (in the name of Islam) in the last decade isn't even close to a majority of the total number of terrorist attacks worldwide. Good stuff.
I'm also glad that you made clear that Islam isn't the typical motivation behind terrorist attacks; it's typically just geopolitical grievances. That's good, because otherwise Muslims might misinterpret Islamic terrorist recruiting material as having something to do with Islam, rather than geopolitical grievances. For example, they might misinterpret the following excerpt, taken from the essay "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West," written or authorized by Osama bin Laden. (See The Al-Qaeda Reader, edited by Raymond Ibrahim, page 54):
"And the extremism meant by the West is [found in] Allah Most High's Word: 'Muster against them what fighting men and steeds of war you can, in order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well' [Qur'an 8:60]. Thus whoever refuses the principle of terrror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia."
Here is the email of the unfortunate nitwit who is trying to pass of his delusions as highly evolved self enlightenment evenhandedness or some such nonsense.
mailto:akrueger@princeton.edu
He has read Papes pap , but fails to mention only Islam sanctifies terrorism in its founding documents and codifies violence to enforce Islamic supremacy .
A long weekend of reading Islamic scripture could have saved this hack for embarrassment .
There it is again the everybody does it excuse. That oh so used childish comeback and from an alleged adult pretending that he is mature and capable of informing us. Herr Krueger and the wapo, picking up where the Nazis left off (Hitler youth). We knew they had latent Nazi tendencies just read their comments some time. I don’t worry though, the islamists have assured me they will all be beheaded. The trouble is these freaks want to bring us all along with them. That is why I want them to migrate (forcibly) to an islamist paradise any one of them will do. It is coming, mark these words. It is predictable, the islamists commit atrocity after atrocity and they attempt to smear all other religions. Isn’t it obvious, islamist murder, rape, child abuse etc.= every one else’s fault. If you didn’t already know you know now, they are not anti western they are on the other side. I’m looking forward to the day of reckoning how about you? Seig heil herr Krueger and wapo employees/subscribers, hope to see you at a place like Nuremberg someday! It is good to know who the Nazis are around us.
"A young Muslim man is literally literally millions of times more likely to commit an act of terrorism than anyone else." --Serge Trifkovic.
Since 9-11-2001 more than 9000 acts of Islamic terrorism have been perpetrated worldwide. All other such acts of terror (perpetrated by non-Muslims), while uncounted, are likely to number less than 1000 for the same time period. How many people did the homegrown eco-terrorist Unabomber kill??? 3, maybe 4, tops! And by the way, the Oklahoma City bombing WAS perpetrated by Muslims (Hizbollah)with Tim McVeigh and Terry whatshisface the fall guys for them. The FBI did not apparently care to be exposed to the public as lax in terror investigation (as we now know it is) and never bothered to examine the case built carefully by investigator Jayna Davis.
Well, perhaps it IS time the world stopped calling Islamic acts of mass murder "terrorism." Possibly these seemingly endless numbers of violent acts of what seems to be terrorism are really acts of human sacrifice (we can now see that Islam is clearly unable to exist WITHOUT murdering non-Muslims regularly and this would go a lot further in explaining the underlying psychology of islamic terror than some explanations we get). And thus, perhaps, Islam is not producing 'terrorism' (just human sacrifices--so, go back to sleep!). What a relief that would be!! I mean if you listen to people like thus guy Krueger--
Maybe everybody who commits acts of mass murder should be let off the hook the same way these Muslims and Islam are!!! If you listen to the media long enough, you are virtually assured (and may well come to believe as Krueger and innumerable leftwingers apparently do)that the world will be a safer place for bashing Bush, America, Christians and letting Islam's hordes of mass murderers off the hook. (I mean just ask any western European what is the biggest threat to world peace and they will tell you of course that it's America, stupid!).
But the world will never be any safer for resorting to euphemisms for acts of terrorism, covering it up with phony syllogisms as Krueger has done in the Washington Post for us and ignoring the reality that Islam teaches first degree murder of the "unbelievers" in the Kuran (just don't be like those American Islamophobes and threaten world peace by going THERE!)...
It's a sick world out there and getting sicker!
Krueger need to have the Issue clarified for him in a way that would underscore how falisious his argument is.
Clarify it in a way that he would understand.
Krueger should donate a Dollar to a Mosque of his Choosing for every Christan act of Terror While donating a Dollar as well to a Christan Church of his choise for every Muslim act of Terror.
If giving that much money to Christ doesn't kill him, being Pennyless will.
Speaking of Home-grown violence by McVeigh and the Unabomber , Ibrabim Hooper fails to tell the whole truth about the Jihadists in America.
Lets look at those multiple murders by the actual percentage figures to see factual evidence of a true threat based on past behaviours.
First off , CAIR's own numbers show that Muslims in America that hold a Citizenship or legal right to be there for the census count are only about 1% of the total Population in the USA .
This means the balance of 99% is made up of 'Non-Muslims' from all parts of the World and of all beliefs or just plain no-beliefs .
Even if we take McVeigh's 250+ murders and Ted K's serial killings as a disfunctional person directing their rage at the Government or all people in General , this speaks volumes about the Radical Militant Whahabbi Mosques that were given a 80% number for all Mosques in America that serve the 1% of the General population of 300'000'000 Americans .
19 Muslims managed to slaughter 3000 enemies of islam for Allah merely to get to paradise for cheap sex with a bowser , McVeigh targeted a Federal Building to make a Statement and go in the History books with other twisted nutbars and only killed 250+ persons .
The shame for Hooper and CAIR is that we see 1% of the total population remaing fairly mute for outright condemnation of other Muslims engaging in Terrorism or the 80% of their Holy Places of worship spewing hatred for gays, females, jews, Christians, on Fridays by Imams
that never seem to be kicked out for their Jihad teachings to murder non-Muslims.
Meanwhile , the 99% that make up the non-Muslims population of America are not 99% of the prison population as expected according to Hooper and we see that McVeigh's deaths are about 8% of the total terrorism deaths from 1995 to the end of 2001 .
So Mr.Hooper........what you are really saying is that the Muslims who are 1% of the population have been responsible for 92% of the 3250 civilian murders by Terrorist acts in America and while very few non-Muslims support Islam's crusade for Sharia laws in the USA , there are 80% of the Mosque supporting Global domination by Islam and Sharia.
I really think you need to give up your charade because CAIR looks like Idiots for assuming that non-Muslims are so stupid they can't see through the cheap ruse to twist statistics while on CNN and FOX whining about "Islamophobia" and "Racism" .
As for the Florida home that was torched when you yelled at Christopher Hitchen to speak over him to yap about the Muslim victims in America , it was an "alleged" arson attack with not one arrest or Tip to the Police even with a $10'000.00 reward which make me believe it was an Insurance-fraud cause because of the Housing market crash and property value losses to other Homes in that area.
This scam happened in Toronto canada when a failed business run by a Muslim tried to damage his store during a valid attack on a jewish Cemetary and Swastikas sprayed on their cars and garage doors as his part to tie the Insurance claim to Shinhead punks attacking Jews and Muslims.
I want to see EVIDENCE that the Home in Florida was torched by a Non-Muslim that holds anti-muslim views to be charged for a REAL hate-crime rather than a staged arson to scam the Insuance Co. and pad the CAIR Stats for Islamophobia.
lol @ topic
What did you expect?...it's WaPo...'nuf sed.
can someone on this forum please define terrorism?
If we go by dictionary.com
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes
(but not only for political purposes)
then clearly terrorism is not mainly muslim's or 80% or whatever(yes if you agree with the definition then i can provide the examples to support this).
Ted K railed against progress, a lot like the islamists do. Tim M. used the truck bomb as a weapon. Now if you were profiling serial murder who would that point to don’t think too hard now. Either one of them would have made a top drawer islamist they may secretly could have been, You think they would have told us then given what we see now? Most of America’s killers have been angry leftists, criminals, malcontents and now islamists. Take some time and research notorious serial killers and you will find that they are not that different than islamists in behavior, personality and ideology. And the profilers know it. Why don’t they crack down, they are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that many murderers hold ideologies similar to their own.
"can someone on this forum please define terrorism?
If we go by dictionary.com
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes
(but not only for political purposes)
then clearly terrorism is not mainly muslim's or 80% or whatever(yes if you agree with the definition then i can provide the examples to support this)."
Well put, celebrate. In fact, I would say 80% is simple hyperbole in the manner of any typical reconciliatory incremental contingency. I'd love to see your examples. I'm sure other progressive readers would too. Thanks.
More right-wing/christian/capitalist terrorists: "David Koresh" and all his branch dividiots, Randy Weaver, Mark Fuhrman, and most everybody else living in North Idaho.
(Ah, I see the SPindymedia, dailykook, kool-aid kids are out on a weekend day pass...but that's not important right now...)
Hmmm...how about this for a definition of terrorism:
"Intentional implementation of fear and intimidation, for no viable and/or legitimate reason, outside the realm of rational and universally accepted standards of civilized societal behavior."
9000 acts of terrorism - What should we give as a door prize for the perpetrator of the 10,000th act? That event should came in less than a year. It would be like one of those 100,000th customer promotions at a car dealer.
A Virginia smoked ham?
Free breakfast for a year at Waffle House? - they only have one griddle so anything cooked on it is haram.
A years subscription to Cinemax, aka Skinemax?
What if the terror act is a suicide bombing? The perp will be dead and will not be able to claim the prize. That's OK, I would hate to waste such good prizes on a Muslim anyway.
Jcom972
Right then
Rape.
Any form of gangster/mafia related violence/ activities.
Satisfies intentional implementation of fear and intimidation. Satisfies no viable and legitimate reason. Is not rational and is universally not accepted as civilized behavior.
Any reading the crime statstics of any country would tell you, it isnt limited to any country , race or religion. In terms of pure numbers it will exceed any number of islamic suicide bombers. And in terms of historic and contemporary , it satisfies both.
Islamists don't need a new video of OBL to promote anymore...
OBL has Kreuger as his new Goebbels.
He's lame compared to the vitriol of paul krugman at the NYslimes (one of many major reasons they're losing their asses on the bottom line-hate doesn't sell).
"can someone on this forum please define terrorism?
If we go by dictionary.com
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes
(but not only for political purposes)
then clearly terrorism is not mainly muslim's or 80% or whatever(yes if you agree with the definition then i can provide the examples to support this)."
Deliberate killings (attempts to kill) of civilians in order to send political message would be an accurate definition. However when we are talking savages vs. civilization, deliberate killings of gov. officials and military to send their message is also sometimes called by this name.
And the definition you brought is of course a complete nonsense, which allows to put under name "terrorism" everything from street robberies to threats of parents to their children to punish them if they don't imrove their grades. But then again it's why you chose it.
P.S. The author of the article above btw seems to have no problems with definitions. Just lying.
cerebrate-
...define terrorism?
Terrorism: the use of immoral violence, against mainly non-combatants, for ideological ends.
Which makes the ideology (like Islam) a form of madness as long as it permits terror as a tool.
Islam sanctifies it.
And is mad, thus.
There goes SmartGrowthAdvocate, with his straw men arguments.
He's a perfect example of how the Left doesn't know how to think or argue. In him/her we see the results of an education that merely parrots the boring monologue that is Liberalism in the West today. He has probably never sat down and examined and deliberated over any facts. He has never read a book that might present a different point of view from the stale, formulaic Liberal mantras which plague his mind.
cerebate (who, I think doesn't realize that the word for THINKING might be spelled "cerebrate") is another one. All he can do is sling accusations like "bigot" at anyone who might shatter the illusions he clings to like a baby and his pacifier. He can't even differentiate between the "terrorism" a child might inflict upon his parents by throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way to the REAL terrorism of having someone cut off your head because you're a Jew. No, cerebate hasn't the reasoning skills or the analytical abilities to DISCRIMINATE between capital crime and minor infractions.
This, folks, is why this frickin war is such an uphill battle. We've got people in this country whose brains are so mindlessly indoctrinated with political correctness; who are so terribly educated because they don't know how to THINK with common sense and rationalism; whose thought processes are so shallow and dishonest, that it's like this country is being crippled with some kind of sick cancer of the mind.
When they argue, I don't even want to bother. What's the point of discussing things as serious as national survival, war, culture clashes, ideological wars, with people who have not reached the reasoning skills of seven year olds because their minds have been ruined by warped ideolgies of PC, multi culti drivel?
AlexD
"Deliberate killings (attempts to kill) of civilians in order to send political message would be an accurate definition"
Right then so terrorism is only to send 'political' messages, correct? So no amount of killing to send 'religious' messages is terrorism by your definition.
Examples for you
China.
Russia.
Israel(and palestine).
Saudi's, Iran etc..
..
so on depending on how far back in time you want to go. Nope no 80% there either.
"definition you brought is of course a complete nonsense"
Dictionary.com a neutral site has that definition as cited. Anyway i responded to jcom972's definition not mine.so are you saying his definition too is complete nonsense?
Oxford - a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. (terrorist)Inline with your definition but excludes any examples of religious based terrorism.
Webster - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Satisfies whatever examples i have put forth.
You are conditioned to think OBL and his ilk are the only form of terrorism, not me.
Atheling
Your post is an ad-hominem attack. Unlike others on the site , you dont even seem to be capable even of defining terrorism.
If you wish you can add capital crime to your definition. A child doesnt terrorise. A rapist terrorises his victim. Your argument of the child is a strawman.
Oh by the way the name is intentionally cerebate. Its a pun on multiple words. But then a person with dreams of being an anglo saxon prince (especially a heir) is probably not aware of what a pun is!.
Profitsbeard
Examples for you China, Israel, Russia, Italy, Germany.
(And so on , again depending on how far you want to go back in time)
As to your contention that Islam is mad, can you answer a question first. If a murderer shoot's a gun is the gun mad or is it a tool used by a mad man? Also by this definition most religions are mad because at some point in time they have been used by mad men.(this isn't a justification for islam. It is made so that you judge all religion's uniformly)
cerebate:
Pointing out how poorly your debating skills are (not to mention your grammar and spelling) is hardly ad hominem.
There's no point in discussing anything with you since your arguments are nonsensical and irrelevant.
BTW, thank you for supporting my argument about the inability of blind Liberals to see the growing menace of Islam and its desire to impose a world Caliphate while making a laughable and unsubstantiated assertion that I "aspire" to anglo saxon princedom - the irony is quite delicious.
atheling
and thank you for proving that you are quite incapable of defining terrorism.
And please look up
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheling
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495500.html
"Right then so terrorism is only to send 'political' messages, correct? So no amount of killing to send 'religious' messages is terrorism by your definition."
Religious message is a private case of political. If you want a nation, it's government or some social group to behave somehow such as to met some your desire you have a political intentions. It can be driven by your religious sentiments, material needs, compassion, security concerns e.t.c. So when some say that Islam has a political agenda they mean that Quaran commands imposition of Sharia law on unbelievers.
"Dictionary.com a neutral site has that definition as cited. Anyway i responded to jcom972's definition not mine.so are you saying his definition too is complete nonsense?
Oxford - a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. (terrorist)Inline with your definition but excludes any examples of religious based terrorism.
Webster - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Satisfies whatever examples i have put forth."
I dont care about dictionaries and whether their authors are biased or not. I care about facts. And the facts to be known in this case are: in what meaning term "terrorism" is used by the vast majority people who use it? Is this meaning constitute some evil behaviour which is distinguished from other types of evil behaviour?
There is a real distinguished form of evil behaviour which is called "terrorism". I tried to gave the most accurate definition of the meaning which I and everybody whom i observed using it seemed to imply. It is in this meaning terrorism is perpetrated nowdays mainly by muslims. Which leaves you free to call "terrorism" whatever you want.
If you be honest you would recognize that there is something common between 9/11, Madrid attacks, London attacks, Beslan, activity of IRA, Mcveigh and Unabomber (which all people call "terrorism") which is not, for example, found in usual rapes, murders and other criminal activity (which accordingly never reffered to as "terrorism"). Then you would try to clarify this obvious to all un-biased people difference (whether they can correctly express it in definitions or not) and finally you would come up with a clear understanding.
But we both know that you are not honest and your goal is to advocate for Muslims. That's why instead you bring meaningless definitions like "terrorism - the systematic use of terror...".
AlexD:
Bingo. Dishonesty and meaninglessness. That's how Liberals argue.
AlexD
No , my point is that people here are conditioned to think of one type of terrorism (i.e. Islamic suicide bombers).
When you get down to actually define it, you will find that either the definition is broad enough to encompass a lot of crime that conventional wisdom deems as non terrorist or that it also includes a lot of other wrongs in the world.
Granted 9/11, london bombs, madrid are terrorist activities. the question is are the various wrong doings of the Chinese government terrorist activities too? North Korea? Russia? and going by your definition too(and by mine) they are.
I am no muslim advocate and I dont like Islam(and any other religion).
I have asked you to define terrorism and given you examples that satisfy your definition you dont seem to be able to respond to just that.
Atheling
"Dishonesty and meaninglessness. That's how Liberals argue."
Wow liberals sure do have a lot in common with you.
message for cerebate:
You have (intentionally)confused conflict-caused casualties with 'terrorism' in your posts which we find to be disingenuous (to say the least).
Israel, one prominent example you cite, is NOT targeting non-combatant Palestinians in its military actions against jihadists that routinely target Israel-- and when non-combatant Palestinians DO get injured or killed by Israeli military operations against organized Palestinian militias it is virtually NEVER for coercive ideological purposes. Israel is systematically eliminating militant Islamic attackers who are targeting Israelis exclusively for purposes of self-defense (the Palestinian Muslims can NOT say this however and I suspect you know that too snce you didn['t include them in your ist of examples of 'terrorists'!).
Israel does NOT desire the deaths of civilian Palestinians; but under the circumstances (an 'intifada') it is unable to prevent them from occurring (one reason for this of course is that militant Islamist groups like Hizbollah intentionally stash their weapons caches in the middle of residential areas just so that Palestinian non-combatants WILL get killed during Israeli military strikes and people like you can and will call Israelis "terrorists"). Given the fact that Israel faces the prospect of mass murders on a daily basis and could face extermination of its citizenry, it is reprehensible that you fail to recognize Israel's need to defend its people and THEN classify its defenses of its people as acts of "terrorism."
So you call this "terrorism"? You think we're stupid?
Pythagoras
"Israel, one prominent example you cite, is NOT targeting non-combatant Palestinians "
But they are killed and do die. They are numerous examples on the net that demonstrate your statement is incorrect.
"it is virtually NEVER for coercive ideological purposes"
Right so tell me again why the Israelis feel they have a right to their *promised* land? Ideological reason's i think.
Not Coercive?
You think israel is trying to achieve it's objectives by peace, love, Forgiveness and understanding?
(oh yes and the palestines are terrorists too).
You latter paragraph seems to be arguing that Israel is justified in doing what it does, which isn't in related to my point in anyway.
I have no problem recognizing Israel's right to defend itself. I have a problem recognizing its right to kill people to achieve that aim.
I forget whose quote it is but when asked to differentiate between a patriot and a terrorist, someone said
"A patriot is someone who is willing to die for his country, A terrorist is someone who is willing to kill for his"
cerebate:
Let us understand each other: acts of self defense DO NOT in any way constitute terrorism under the dictionary's definition of that term.
What you refer to is collateral demage and this is not terrorism either. No one is a terrorist if they have killed an attacker in defending themselves.
The Jews have been the target of jihad warfare since the seventh century AD by Arab Muslims encase you didn't know. Attacking and killing the Jews is acceptable under the Kuran's laws governing jihad warfare and killing the Jews is also a common topic in mosques everywhere. Get yourself some bootlegged videos of Friday services at a mosque someplace and watch them if you doubt me. I've seen many of these videos and KNOW for a fact what goes on in mosques.
Now you know why the HAMAS organization targets Israel for extermination: the Jews are targeted for extermination under Islamic doctrine.
Israel therefore is NOT a 'terrorist' state and by dint of Judaic laws it never will be. Actually-
IT IS AGAINST JUDAIC LAW TO TARGET non-combatants ("THOU SHALT NOT KILL"). And actually Israel upholds this law as best it can, too, despite your sniping to the contrary.
The problem here is NOT that in places like Gaza et al Israel is targeting non-combatants (as you have falsely stated repeatedly); the problem is that Hizbollah, HAMAS, FATAH and all the other Islamist mass murdering organizations (who DO incidentally classify all non-Muslims as enemies of al-lah and thus as COMBATANTS which thereby enables Muslims to target non-Muslms for killing-- a horror that may be observed in Sudan and the Congo and the Balkans and all the other places under siege by Islam and which you conveniently know nothing about) stash their militias and weapons of mass destruction (including rockets, missiles, et al) in the middle of residential 'Palestinian' areas which make it IMPOSSIBLE FOR ISRAELIS TO eliminate these without causing civilian casualties. THE FACT THAT YOU PLACE NO BLAME ON THESE MILITANT ISLAMIC ORGANIZATIONS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY OPERATE IN CLEAR VIOLATION of the GENEVA CONVENTION INDICATES TO ME THAT YOU ARE a jihad warfare enabler; Ousamah bin Laden waged in 1998 a "CRUSADE AGAINST CRUSADERS AND JEWS" Where were you, on Mars?
If you are so worried about attackers killing people how come you aren't aware that Islam teaches and practices this? NO you say?? WELL THEN EXPLAIN THIS PASSAGE FROM THE KURAN:
Surah 9.5: "And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhered they are found besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every strategem of warfare against them; levy the tax upon their convserion to the ways of allah."
YOU ARE AN UNBELIEVER. Muslims and not the Jews will YOU for death. Just as this part of the Kuran teaches...
There. I have provided proof in the above passage: Islam sanctions the killings of non-Muslims and classifies all non-Muslims as combatants and may slaughter in compliance with "God's order to kill them" (I quote Ousamah bin Laden).
"No bastard ever won a war by "dying for his country"...he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country..."
nuf sed
Jcom972
yep you illustrate quite beautifully, how most Jihadwatch fans think. Its probably how a terrorist thinks too, he thinks he wins by killing other people.
Pythagoras
"acts of self defense DO NOT in any way constitute terrorism "
Agreed.
How about Acts of aggression? You might indulge in rhetoric about what is for/against Judaic law. However the ground truth remains that both sides kill innocents quite frequently and not just in self defence
e.g. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/195239/bbc_reporting_israel_kills_50/
Do you seriously believe that atrocities arent committed by both sides in wartimes?
Oh and i place blame on the muslim/organisations that support terrorism etc. However that would really serve no purpose in this forum since everyone is already convinced of it. And whatever the terrorist's do, it's no justification to what Israel does.
cerebate:
There wasn't any 'rhetoric' in my post at all.
Questions for you: Are you in favor of the use of human shields? If not, you had better review Islamic war strategies as in the Islamic world this tactic has been elevated to an artform. And, are you aware of what 'collaterol damage' is?
I ask you, is it really 'rhetoric' to point out that Hizbollah, HAMAS, FATAH, etc., by stashing their weapons stockpiles (with which to ATTACK and masacre Jews in Israel) in the middle of residential Palestinian neighborhoods so that Israelis attempts to eliminate them out will result in civilian casualties. Is it rhetoric to point out that this type of tactic is condemned by the Geneva Convention? If israel does NOT eliminate these types of weapons stashes in Paletine they will be guaranteed further attacks on civilians by Muslim jihadists whose goal is to eliminate anything other than Islam. THIS IS YOUR IDEA OF RHETORIC?
NOw, why WOULD Israel attack non-combatants anyway. What MOTIVE would they have for doing so? It's not even allowed under Judaic law.
The fact that HAMAS has the elimination of Israel in its charter should tell you something.
Another question: Since the Palestinian government attacking Israel when are you going to cite THEM? When are you going to ask the Palestinian people to pressure their government to stop jihad attacks on the Jews?? (My guess is never).
"my point is that people here are conditioned to think of one type of terrorism (i.e. Islamic suicide bombers)."
Interesting. From SEVEN examples of specific terrorist activity i gave only FOUR was done by islamists, only ONE of SEVEN by suicide, while one (Beslan) was not bombing at all. Makes you think who is conditioned doesn't it.
I suggest before coming to such a site and making a claims that people here "conditioned" and don't know what they are talking about you take some good logic reading, or at least give the theory of terms, their meaning and definitions some thought. Because you seem to understand very little here.
When you say that although some facts "conventional wisdom deems as non terrorist" they are nevertheless included in definition you made (or borrowed from someone, like your dictionary examples), it does not mean anything but that definition you come up with is wrong (at least to your usage of term). The "conventional wisdom" is nothing but your feeling that in one cases name is applicable, in others not, because of some common feature, and this feature is a meaning of term (to you only or to others also). And you can use the name consistently without being able to distinguish this feature by other terms, i. e. to define the name. Term "terrorism" is clearly applied to some evil and not applied to another.
I have no idea what you mean by wrongdoings of Chinese, North Korea, Russia. I will assume you mean genocide. I happen to be informed about Soviet genocide and it never (to my knowledge) has been commited as to send a political message. It was a massive slaughters, driven, like with slaughter of Chechens after WWII, by a desire to punish them for waging war against SU on the german's side. Same with Hitler's attrocities, driven by his hatred of Jews. However if it be proved that predominant motive of these attrocities was to make some social group behave somehow or incite fear in it, it is a terrorism to me.
Well, if my last entry was that "enjoyable", this one should be REALLY fun...lol
(yes I posted it elsewhere, as they all fit in each one as they're damned appropriate-putting the moron.org'ers on notice)
(visualizing these arguments if they took place 65 years ago, picture this)
http://images.redstate.com/files/liesandpower.jpg
Some things never change, and history repeats itself because of it...and sometimes ya just gotta laugh.
lol
Also, cerebate,
Just for the record i do not want to leave the crap you bring about Israel (with the usual lberal "oh, and I blame terrorists too") unanswered by myself.
"But they are killed and do die. They are numerous examples on the net that demonstrate your statement is incorrect."
They do. However you see there is such a thing as intent. Which ALONE distinguish decent people (Israel) from scum (Hamas, Fatah and the rest). Like pythagoras already mentioned Israel does not have the intent of killing civilians and trying to evade it whenever possible. Deliberate killing of civilians is something for which Israel (like all other civilized societies) throw its combatants to jail, and Palestine (like all barbaric societies) praise on every corner.
Examples of what are numerous on the net?
"Right so tell me again why the Israelis feel they have a right to their *promised* land? Ideological reason's i think."
The point was why they kill palestinian militants. For sef-defense. The reason they think they shouldn't handle the land to them is another issue.
"I have no problem recognizing Israel's right to defend itself. I have a problem recognizing its right to kill people to achieve that aim."
You took it to the core. You see that's the difference between decent and compassionate people and non-decent and non-compassionate of which the liberal camp (from my observations) is almost exlusively made of. Decent folks feel strongest sympathy to INNOCENT life, to GOOD people, to people who has a love and compassion in their hearts. People who do not have such a property (almost exlusively: rapists, child molestors, maniacs, terrorists e.t.c) are a matter of indifference and usually moral anger to them. Non-decent folks do not care about innocents, therefore find no promblem tolerating or even supporting evil.
But since they can't just say "well what the hack i see no difference between the guy who raped and killed a child and the guy who gave his life to stop him" you constantly trying to whitewash evil and blacken the good so that your position won't look so disgusting. And one can't do it without employing lies.
The only thing i hope if, God forbid, one day some thug will try to kill you or your close ones and you will kill him in defense the judge won't "have no problem recognizing your right to defend yourself, but have a problem recognizing your right to kill people to achieve that aim".
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson
" And whatever the terrorist's do, it's no justification to what Israel does.
Posted by: cerebate "
....so....if Muslims launch dozens of rockets on a daily basis with no specific targets in mind other than just pointing them to land somewhere in Israel,.... Israel has no justification to launch airstrikes to take out the Muslim rocket launching thugs? .....
.....Israel should retailiate harshly against those who continually and indiscriminately launch rockets...it is called self defense....If the Muslims do not attack, Israel does not attack...
....as the Muslims continue to attack...look for Israel to react in a severe way....it is coming...bad news for the Muslims...
Pythagoras
"Are you in favor of the use of human shields?"
No, never in favor of anything that causes loss of human life
Human shields are Not restricted to Islam , and practiced by some radical followers of Islam
"And, are you aware of what 'collaterol damage' is?
No i dont know what collaterol is, though I am aware what collateral damage is. I just dont find it acceptable.
The rhetoric I am referring to is statements of the form
"NOw, why WOULD Israel attack non-combatants anyway. What MOTIVE would they have for doing so? It's not even allowed under Judaic law."
Because the ground reality is non combatants are murdered and its justified using weasel words such as 'collateral damage' and 'self defense'
"The fact that HAMAS has the elimination of Israel in its charter should tell you something. "
Yep tells me its a fundamentalist terrorist organization.
I do not support the palestinian government either. Is it so hard to understand?. if your argument was that palestinian killing is justified because Israel oppresses them, then I would argue that no it is not justified. However there is really no need on this forum as noone is making that argument , hence no need to cite any palestinian examples. So just in case I havent been clear, The palestinian people who enact and support(probably a majority) acts of terrorism are also reprehensible, are also terrorists, and any other strong abuse you want to use here. Just dont expect me to believe that under the guise of self defense , Israel can do as it pleases.
Jcom972
Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov
We can trade sayings by famous people for and against war/killing. I believe killing innocents is wrong in ANY circumstance.
Pythagoras
"Are you in favor of the use of human shields?"
No, never in favor of anything that causes loss of human life nor human shields
"And, are you aware of what 'collaterol damage' is?
No i dont know what collaterol is, though I am aware what collateral damage is. I just dont find it acceptable.
The rhetoric I am referring to is statements of the form
"NOw, why WOULD Israel attack non-combatants anyway. What MOTIVE would they have for doing so? It's not even allowed under Judaic law."
Because the ground reality is non combatants are murdered and its justified using weasel words such as 'collateral damage' and 'self defense'. And one of the reasons they have is an age old one. Revenge.
"The fact that HAMAS has the elimination of Israel in its charter should tell you something. "
Yep tells me its a fundamentalist terrorist organization.
I do not support the palestinian government either. Is it so hard to understand?. if your argument was that palestinian killing is justified because Israel oppresses them, then I would argue that no it is not justified. However there is really no need on this forum as no one is making that argument , hence no need to cite any palestinian examples. So just in case I havent been clear, The palestinian people who enact and support(probably a majority) acts of terrorism are also reprehensible, are also terrorists, and any other strong abuse you want to use here. Just dont expect me to believe that under the guise of self defense , Israel can do as it pleases.
Jcom972
Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov
We can trade sayings by famous people for and against war/killing- i believe there are more against than for. I believe killing innocents is wrong and unacceptable in ANY circumstance. You dont, your loss.
exsgtbrown
"Israel has no justification to launch airstrikes to take out the Muslim rocket launching thugs?"
Why is it that the people of jihadwatch love the strawman argument? I believe we were talking about Israel taking out innocent people or did you just skip over that?
AlexD
"However you see there is such a thing as intent"
Right lets say there is a terrorist hiding among innocents. Happen's yes? Will Israel hesistate to strike, knowing fully well that for e.g. 10 innocents will die? No it wont, yes?. I dont find this justified , you do.
However it is also intent, as it is known from before. More importantly to the innocents who die and to their family , it doesnt matter one whit what Israel's intent was.
"you constantly trying to whitewash evil and blacken the good"
Give me one example where I have whitewashed 'evil'. Or apologise
"The only thing i hope if, God forbid, one day some thug will try to kill you or your close ones and you will kill him in defense the judge won't "have no problem recognizing your right to defend yourself, but have a problem recognizing your right to kill people to achieve that aim". "
No the correct example would be if someone killed my close one, I killed a random innocent person who got caught in the crossfire while i was attempting to kill him. There is a clear distinction between self defense and revenge and killing innocent using the end result(it also killed a terroist) to justify the killing. Whatever conscience/intellect you have, it does not seem to have developed much, because you aren't able to make that distinction yourself.