Understanding terrorism

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.

I assume that you are putting your money where your ass is and will (hopefully) be leaving soon for your third tour in the war we are winning in Iraq?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I assume that you are putting your money where your ass is and will (hopefully) be leaving soon for your third tour in the war we are winning in Iraq?

Marichiko, first get two awards of the Navy Expeditionary Medal, one of which awards I received for service in support of when the Iranian hostage rescue mission went flop back in 1980.

Then perhaps you can try twitting me.

This is a war that must be won. Marichiko outs herself as a stone fascist objecting to our fight against tyrannies in this quite uncalled-for snarky fashion. Being into human liberty, I am as far above the fascists, freedom-haters, and fellow travelers for unfree societies as the summit of Everest is above the abyssal plains. Saddam-loving, Western-civilization-hating hemipygian drool-punks f!ck off. Seventeen times. You are a pack of losers.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Marichiko, first get two awards of the Navy Expeditionary Medal, one of which awards I received for service in support of when the Iranian hostage rescue mission went flop back in 1980.

Then perhaps you can try twitting me.

This is a war that must be won. Marichiko outs herself as a stone fascist objecting to our fight against tyrannies in this quite uncalled-for snarky fashion. Being into human liberty, I am as far above the fascists, freedom-haters, and fellow travelers for unfree societies as the summit of Everest is above the abyssal plains. Saddam-loving, Western-civilization-hating hemipygian drool-punks f!ck off. Seventeen times. You are a pack of losers.

Thank you for your lucid and reasoned contributions to the debate. It must be quite satisfacory to sit up there on the Everest of ego while you watch the "losers" below slug it out. If you'll excuse me, I think they're calling me for goose step practice now.

[jaguar]

when you manage the considerable task of extracting your cranium from your anus, please aim for the door you malignant moron.

[Undertoad]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

Background of one of the 7/7 bombers.

ON his last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the July 7 London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, spoke of wanting to die in a terrorist attack to avenge the way Muslims were treated.

While his family in Britain had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a "holy warrior".

At his father's home village, about 50km from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.

His worst venom went to Gitmo... actually, the Newsweek "un-story":

Mr Saleem said Tanweer had spent only a short time at the village before going with Khan to a madrassa, an Islamic school.

"Whenever he would listen about sufferings of Muslims he would become very emotional and sentimental," Mr Saleem said.

"He was a good Muslim ... he also wished to take part in jihad and lay down his life."

He said Tanweer had never mentioned links with any militant group.

"He knew that excesses are being done to Muslims. Incidents like desecration of the Koran have always been in his mind," Mr Saleem said, referring to US guards at Guantanamo allegedly throwing a copy of Islam's holy book in a toilet.

[Trilby]

I want to reply to tw's latest post, but I simply do not know where to begin. I keep typing sentences and then deleting them. tw-I was brought up Catholic and I wasn't taught to hate the Jews nor was I molested. Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization. You constantly pick and dwell on the negative of certain societies and ignore the negatives of others. You pick and choose your examples and declare them representative of the whole. For you the world seems to be split: good or bad, nothing in between. You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot. Christians, like muslims, are individuals. If you want me to consider individual muslims, you must consider individual right-wing christians. You appear to fuck your own cause by being the very thing you point your finger at in disgust. You've an agenda, like the right-wing christians, like the muslims, like the terrorists, like everyone. You'll not convince me of your brotherly love--you clearly have a "side" to win. You want me to feel sympathy and understanding for people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up children? While I would agree that people who resort to such things must be very desperate or very gullible, I don't wish to attempt to excuse those people. You want to blow me up for policies my government--whom I did not choose--enforces? Why don't they try blowing up the people who REALLY make the decisions? Because they are cowards. COWARDS!

[wolf]

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Brianna

......nor was I molested.

Yes you were, granted not by a priest but another person of power, authority, in an organization structured to teach you. And he did it so slickly you thought it was your ballgame. That's the danger.

Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization.

Agreed.
Birds of a feather and all that, means people with similar feelings will drift together. That's fine, to seek out a group that agrees with your views. It's when people don't think and simply accept the views that are being promoted by the group that happenstance puts them in. Children are particularly susceptible when parents tell they aren't allowed to question, as is often the case with religion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot.

It explains why you don't understand what I have posted. I don't champion anyone - not even Muslims. To put it in terms of what you are looking for - I hate everyone with equal opportunity. One problem. I will post incendiary words so that when you see an emotional opinion, then you are only lying to yourself. There is no 'muslim world' as you have described. At least not in anything I have posted. There are 3 or 3 million factions. I champion none of them. Instead I ask some damning questions and state some contrarian facts - and for you - not so nicely so that you will ignore any emotion you might perceive. The only thing you should read are the facts. Any emotion you perceive is your own bias - which I encourage by sometimes selecting incendiary words. Stick to the facts. Emotions, if implied, are included so that your will make mistakes - and then have to accept you read looking for an emotional bias.

Most Muslims are not fanatical nor are they that religious. They are not disenfranchised. Furthermore I never once cited all Muslims in any paragraph. If at any time you did not repeatedly see discussions of unique subsets, then you have read out of context. I was discussing a few Muslims, Catholics, or Jews, or the institutions that tell them what they should do. If you think for a minute that I have posted with a broad brush, then you did not read those 300+ words as many times as I did when I wrote them. In fact another who made the 'broad brush' statement should have cited the specific paragraphs rather than just make 'broad brush' accusations.

Just tonight, I sat for a beer with another stranger who told me these 'people' all have suicidal hate in their hearts. He was advocating the president's agenda and said it was what George Jr both says and knows. That is the problem. I asked him if he had heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course not. He just knew the president was right. I asked him if he understood that Bin Laden and Saddam were arch enemies. Of course they were not. They were both Muslims and therefore are united in their hate of Americans. I ask him how it was that Americans once could walk among all these people, even when they were fighting each other, and be greeted as a friend. I asked him why both bin Laden and Saddam were both allies of the US. This only confused him. What was I looking at? One who promotes "the cult of death that has gripped" too many American political mindsets. Classic of 'us always good verses them always bad' thinking that this White House promotes to justify an illegal 'Mission Accomplished' war.

Kennedy kept asking (and therefore we are all alive) questions such as, "But what does he see? What has he been told? Why would he think that?" Is that not what I have been posting repeatedly? Yes. I keep asking you to widen your horizons - especially learn how often this president lies by telling half truths about Al Qaeda. There is no solution to the quagmire of Iraq without answers first to those and other questions.

Most (I believe) here did not know of the Muslim Brotherhood OR of how and why terrorist are recruited. Outside of the propaganda from 'the powers that be', there is little fact that Al Qaeda performs all these terrorist acts. And yet to stop "them", we must first acknowledge who they are, why they act, what they know, and why we have suddenly made fanatical enemies of people who were once friends. These questions expose White House propaganda. Questions that can only be answered from THEIR perspective.

Good people ask these questions - and bluntly without any attempt to be 'politically correct'. Good people become even better when provided the full story and when forced to consider contrarian perspectives. That means text that, if read for emotional perspective, will never be understood. You have looked for an emotional bias. That means you are trying to find political correctness in what I post rather than reading using a yellow highlighter; ignoring anything that may indicate an emotion.

The ultimate question is how do we get out of this quagmire called Iraq? It starts by understanding why we are there. Why are they attacking us? Why are 'they' so many different people? Why are 'the enemies' increasing in numbers? Why are we making Americans less popular throughout the world? These are questions that good people ask and seek answers to. Those who hate people would attack the messenger - person who asks these questions. People who hate never ask for nor want contrarian perspectives; nor try to learn THEIR perspective (as the stranger in a bar who better meets your definition of hating people). Those who love people would routinely ask why so many people who would have rather been American friends no longer are. And ask that question with 'in your face' incorrectness.

These are the lessons of Vietnam when America attacked a nation who even asked to be a protectorate of the US. During Vietnam we (and I) did not ask these questions. Therefore America became a nation of not so nice people. Good people always ask the questions I have been asking. Questions such as why does America now love and approve of torture - as long it is not an American. Good people even seek, ask, or find truth in the statement "We have met the enemy and he is us". Until that statement can be debunked, good people must question themselves or their leaders. Those who seek emotional understanding would then accuse the good people of 'hating people'; for always looking for the bad things in life. Those who hate people always want to see only the good side; never ask politically incorrect questions; even fear blunt words such as penis.

Is there anything in this post that even implies an emotional bias or opinion on my part? If you think so, well, I may routinely use incendiary words just so that your emotions lie to you. And I don't care. Adults should never look for any emotion in posts. I am asking difficult questions - and will use incendiary words as you might use "thank you". IOW I am not politically correct. If you find any emotional bias in my post, it was put their so that you would lie to your self. I am asking damning questions that only "good" people would ask. People who don't hide their head like an ostrich.

Ask yourself, “Does he dislike Brianna?” The minute you find a single word to justify such an opinion, then you are lying to yourself. The only answer? You don’t know because he did not say so in a logical manner – complete with reasons why. Anything less would be looking for emotion where words are chosen to confuse the emotions – so don’t use emotional considerations to try and understand.

The only way you can make a claim that I hate people - quote specific paragraphs as examples. Trying to read into my biases? Not possible because of the perspective I use to write - to intentionally confuse your emotions. Meanwhile show by example how I lump every Christian with right wing freaks. Post those paragraphs as examples. Otherwise that would be a bias on your part. If I did not specifically state it, then you don't know of my thoughts.

[wolf]

Now I get it. TW is like Spock, but without the pon farr.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Now I get it. TW is like Spock, but without the pon farr.

The 'without' part was not intentional. I just don't like internet sex.

[Trilby]

A quick post. I hope to digest tw's info and be more informed to post a better answer later. Let me say this: as an echo of Thomas Friedman's article--tw is an excuse maker. He makes up excuses for the terrorists. Blowing up civilians is not ok. tw-- I still don't believe your olive branch.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Let me say this: as an echo of Thomas Friedman's article--tw is an excuse maker. He makes up excuses for the terrorists. Blowing up civilians is not ok.

Again, personal biases are being imposed upon what I wrote. Again, show me where I said once that blowing up civilians is ok.

However this is the point I made .... repeatedly. An enemy is not defeated and terrorism does not stop without first understanding what, who, and why they are AND without first learning their perspective. Force upon terrorism does not stop terrorism; as Israel, et al demonstrate. The death knell to terrorism begins by understanding why it exists and eliminating the reason for its existence.

Again, don't read what I did not specifically write. There was no olive branch. I don't do olive branches. That would be emotional nonsense. I simply have repeated what was posted previously. That is not an olive branch. That may be a restatement. But it is not an olive branch. I have nothing to apologize for. Others are simply reading into my post what I specifically did not say ... ie I never once said blowing up civilians is OK. Apparently you read something I did not write.

Learn why the terrorism exists - or be doomed to learn the Vietnam lessons all over again.

[jaguar]

jesus with that level of understanding its no wonder that little mission went awry. which tyrannies exactly? the ones you prop up in egypt, uzbekistan and saudi? Maybe you're against the one in Iran, a direct result of US interference. Or it the liberty of white men to dominate the world's resources at the expense of everyone else that you care about so deeply? Guess what jackass, you, your lifestyle, your mindset and your career are part of the problem, not the solution, so why don't you pack your six-shooter and giddy on up the fuck over to afghanistan and bag yourself some towelheads, we haven't had a good on-air grovelling decapatitation for a while.

[mrnoodle]

urbane guerrilla.

you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:

(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*

(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.

(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.

(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.

* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.