The Radical Islamic Terrorism Catch-All Thread

[Orange_Crush]

Who cares if the answer is yes or no? Can't handle a gentle ribbing?

Of course I can, thus I asked questions and didn't attack. Can't handle a rational discussion?

It truly is bizarre to me that I asked LG how he came to a certain conclusion after making a patently ridiculous statement, and I asked you a similar question, and your response on a political discussion board is to act like I'm being fragile in challenging your points.

If all this is too much for you, I'll make note and leave you alone in the future.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The reader infers. The writer implies.

And yet a writer can make an inference.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In the broadest sense, it is their responsibility to do so because it's everybody's responsibility to do so.

In the narrower sense, since the West is largely some form or version of Christian, and those targeted were Muslim, there is a greater need to condemn it so as to deprive the wrongdoer of succeeding.

Just as you want Islam to condemn terror attacks on Christians or the West, I want us to condemn terror attacks on Islam and countries they are associated with.

You are such a shill.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I denounce the Myrtle Beach shootings.

























Is that how it's supposed to work?

 

[Orange_Crush]

In the broadest sense, it is their responsibility to do so because it's everybody's responsibility to do so.

In the narrower sense, since the West is largely some form or version of Christian, and those targeted were Muslim, there is a greater need to condemn it so as to deprive the wrongdoer of succeeding.

Just as you want Islam to condemn terror attacks on Christians or the West, I want us to condemn terror attacks on Islam and countries they are associated with.

I will ask you again... (And you seem intent on glossing over this distinction.) Was this attack done in the name of Christianity, and using Christianity's teaching to under gird and excuse the attack?

You seem to be jumping streams in your logic. The logic was "Muslims do this in the name of Allah, quoting Koran as reason, and demanding that Islam will take over the world. It is a professed act in a Muslim holy war. So, responsible Muslims should denounce it bitterly."

You change that to: "The West is largely Christian, so Christians share the same responsibility for this act as the Muslims do for the Holy War, even though we don't know if he was a Christian, it wasn't done in Yahweh/Jesus's name, it wasn't excused by Christian teaching, and there is no Christian Holy War."

Your logic is broken. You double down on it. It's a pity.

 

[lawgator1]

You are such a shill.

You mean shell?

 

[lawgator1]

I will ask you again... (And you seem intent on glossing over this distinction.) Was this attack done in the name of Christianity, and using Christianity's teaching to under gird and excuse the attack?

You seem to be jumping streams in your logic. The logic was "Muslims do this in the name of Allah, quoting Koran as reason, and demanding that Islam will take over the world. It is a professed act in a Muslim holy war. So, responsible Muslims should denounce it bitterly."

You change that to: "The West is largely Christian, so Christians share the same responsibility for this act as the Muslims do for the Holy War, even though we don't know if he was a Christian, it wasn't done in Yahweh/Jesus's name, it wasn't excused by Christian teaching, and there is no Christian Holy War."

Your logic is broken. You double down on it. It's a pity.

Oh my gosh, for the 10th time, I don't know if it was religious or frustration with Muslims, generally, and just retaliatory.

For the 10th time, it does not matter because the issue is targeting of Muslims, by a Westerner, and we (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Democrats, Republicans, boys, girls, Vols fans, Gator fans, Gonzaga fans, etc) need to advocate against targeting people based on THEIR religion, even if they don't.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You mean shell?

No sir. I mean shill.

 

[n_huffhines]

Of course I can, thus I asked questions and didn't attack. Can't handle a rational discussion?

It truly is bizarre to me that I asked LG how he came to a certain conclusion after making a patently ridiculous statement, and I asked you a similar question, and your response on a political discussion board is to act like I'm being fragile in challenging your points.

If all this is too much for you, I'll make note and leave you alone in the future.

LG did not say what everyone is pretending he said.

I called out Christians here with a question about my perception of their reactions to this type of story. You are asking me why I called out Christians? It's because I am puzzled by their behavior. What is my point? I think the behavior is unbecoming. What is the big mystery here? What exactly do you not get?

 

[n_huffhines]

Oh Huff, if I had a nickel for every time I thought of you when I posted, I'd be living on the streets.

It's OK man. Years ago, LG corrected me on reckless vs wreckless and now I don't look dumb anymore. It's a good thing. LG probably doesn't even remember correcting me.

 

[tumscalcium]

. LG probably doesn't even remember correcting me.

Doubt it. He can count on one hand the times he's been right. I bet he thinks about it every day.

 

[n_huffhines]

Doubt it. He can count on one hand the times he's been right. I bet he thinks about it every day.

Lol

 

[McDad]

Doubt it. He can count on one hand the times he's been right. I bet he thinks about it every day.

Where's your grinnin gif? Perfect opportunity with this zinger.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh my gosh, for the 10th time, I don't know if it was religious or frustration with Muslims, generally, and just retaliatory.

For the 10th time, it does not matter because the issue is targeting of Muslims, by a Westerner, and we (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Democrats, Republicans, boys, girls, Vols fans, Gator fans, Gonzaga fans, etc) need to advocate against targeting people based on THEIR religion, even if they don't.

Repeat it 100 times. It won't improve your argument or logic.

The logic was: Because their religion and scriptures are being used to wage holy war on the world and kill innocents, the non-radicals should come out and denounce Islamic terrorism.

You response was that Western Christians should take responsibility for things that were not done in the name of Christianity, Christ, or our scriptures.

You are making a class mistake. There is nothing wrong with westerners speaking up and denouncing this attack, but we do not have the responsibility in the same way that Muslims do (if you admit that there is any responsibility at all). You divert from that point by somehow trying to put the spotlight elsewhere. Probably because you're afraid of going to Progressive Hell for being considered Islamophobic.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LG did not say what everyone is pretending he said.

I quoted LG's statement that I took issue with no less than three times, and have reminded him of its context on several occasions. I don't need your help processing the discussion, but thanks.

I called out Christians here with a question about my perception of their reactions to this type of story. You are asking me why I called out Christians? It's because I am puzzled by their behavior. What is my point? I think the behavior is unbecoming. What is the big mystery here? What exactly do you not get?

I asked you about this statement...

Why are white Christians so afraid of the idea of calling a white person a terrorist? You guys will fight that label, tooth and nail.

...and asked if you had just been purposefully provocative? Your response was "so what if I was?"

OK. You have every right to be purposefully provocative and broadly paint an entire group with bigoted generalizations, while accusing that group of broadly painting another group with bigoted generalizations.

It makes you a joke. But you have the right to do so.

And I have little issue with you or the comment. I merely jumped into a discussion that interested me. If that's a problem for you, again, I'll make note and give you plenty of space in the future.

(Note: I understand that you later refined your bigotry to more focus on the white Christians on this board, so I applaud you for focusing your bigotry. Kudos.)

 

[tumscalcium]

Where's your grinnin gif? Perfect opportunity with this zinger.

 

[McDad]

Solid.

 

[Orange_Crush]

 

[rjd970]

Repeat it 100 times. It won't improve your argument or logic.

The logic was: Because their religion and scriptures are being used to wage holy war on the world and kill innocents, the non-radicals should come out and denounce Islamic terrorism.

You response was that Western Christians should take responsibility for things that were not done in the name of Christianity, Christ, or our scriptures.

You are making a class mistake. There is nothing wrong with westerners speaking up and denouncing this attack, but we do not have the responsibility in the same way that Muslims do (if you admit that there is any responsibility at all). You divert from that point by somehow trying to put the spotlight elsewhere. Probably because you're afraid of going to Progressive Hell for being considered Islamophobic.

This. All day.

The pressure needs to come from moderate Muslims. The problem is two-fold.

First, progressives on the left need to recalibrate their outrage. As was stated in the Bill Maher and Ben Affleck exchange...78% of British Muslims believe the Danish cartoonist should be prosecuted. "Moderate" Muslims still hold views on women and homosexuality that continually repress, or do even worse, to those groups. That is a problem, period. That is a problem progressives should be the first to speak out against. Instead, the PC protectionist mantra gone silly is providing them cover, while jumping at the chance to provide safe spaces against racists and ridicule for heterosexual only bakeries for wedding cakes. There is no sense of objective and rational discourse. It's all based on fear of offending people. The whole inconsistency from the left here would be comical if it didn't have such dire consequences. While I may not agree with possible religious motives from the conservative right, at least they are reaching the right conclusion.

Second, the Muslim moderates still don't share, as a majority, traditional western values, and certainly not progressive values. Moderates need to come out in droves and denounce this sort of thing, and they need to do it by being honest about Islam. While beheading somebody on TV may not have anything to do with the practice of moderate Islam, we need to all face the fact that it at the very least has something to do with Islam itself. The first step to solving this problem is to acknowledge there is one at the root of everything that is happening.

Put simply, the west does denounce Islamic terrorism. Those whose voices carry the most weight just need to be louder.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This. All day.

The pressure needs to come from moderate Muslims. The problem is two-fold.

First, progressives on the left need to recalibrate their outrage. As was stated in the Bill Maher and Ben Affleck exchange...78% of British Muslims believe the Danish cartoonist should be prosecuted. "Moderate" Muslims still hold views on women and homosexuality that continually repress, or do even worse, to those groups. That is a problem, period. That is a problem progressives should be the first to speak out against. Instead, the PC protectionist mantra gone silly is providing them cover, while jumping at the chance to provide safe spaces against racists and ridicule for heterosexual only bakeries for wedding cakes. There is no sense of objective and rational discourse. It's all based on fear of offending people. The whole inconsistency from the left here would be comical if it didn't have such dire consequences. While I may not agree with possible religious motives from the conservative right, at least they are reaching the right conclusion.

Second, the Muslim moderates still don't share, as a majority, traditional western values, and certainly not progressive values. Moderates need to come out in droves and denounce this sort of thing, and they need to do it by being honest about Islam. While beheading somebody on TV may not have anything to do with the practice of moderate Islam, we need to all face the fact that it at the very least has something to do with Islam itself. The first step to solving this problem is to acknowledge there is one at the root of everything that is happening.

Put simply, the west does denounce Islamic terrorism. Those whose voices carry the most weight just need to be louder.

Seeing that you'd responded to my post, I came in and I was all like...

Imagine my surprise.

(Haven't seen you in a while. I hope all is well.)

 

[rjd970]

Seeing that you'd responded to my post, I came in and I was all like...

Imagine my surprise.

(Haven't seen you in a while. I hope all is well.)

All is good, thanks. Life has been especially busy lately.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

So is this guy a terrorist?

I believe terrorism needs a tight definition that is not broad ranging.

So from the Oxford Dictionary we have:

..."The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."...

Violence, or even intimidation, whether the perpetrator(s) are civilian or military, radically religious or not, is immaterial. Also, whether the target is civilian or military or religious, is not germane.

The last phrase is the most critical. The violence or intimidation -must be done with a political agenda in mind.

I see that as a person or group developing and executing a plan, however more or less detailed, because of a perceived political gain by act.

So that cuts out a LOT of responses to terrorism that are retaliation to terrorism based on blind reactionary hatred.

Thus, anyone in the mosque will do, not just the radicals actually planning a politically inspired act of violence.

I do not know if the perp in this case was acting on behalf of his politics- e.g. terrorism; or whether it was reactionary rage and retaliation, which is not, by definition, terrorism.

But make no mistake, unlike every other religion, islam IS political as the end result of a radical islamic takeover is changing United States', or any other nation's laws to conform to sharia.

 

[LouderVol]

Sorry, had to spank someone in the gun thread before I got to this. Business before pleasure and all that. Anyway...

The argument for support of the actions of the mosque attack. A Devil's Advocate Production by Grand Vol.

Why wouldn't I support an attack against a population that refuses to assimilate into my culture? We welcomed them with open arms, gave them shelter in their time of need then they turn around and allow some in their midst to attack us? Oh, I'm sure not all are bad, but enough of them are. I get tired of offering the olive branch and getting beat with it in return. So, a good offense is the best defense. Take the fight to them before they bring the fight to us.

Their own religion doesn't even care about each other and certainly don't care about coexisting with other religions. Why should I be any different? It's tribal in nature. My tribe was here already. Their tribe moved in and has started trying to change the way I live. They need to be told "enough" and that we are not going to permit it any longer. If you allowed 20 refugees to move onto your property and two of them became violent towards your children, would you still want the other 18 living there? Would you try to explain to your children that were victims of an attack it was "only" a couple of bad seeds and they should forgive and forget?

No, I'm tired of it and glad someone finally took the initiative to take the fight to them instead of waiting around to be a victim.

pretty weak as LG pointed out. your solution to fight them is to become them, gotcha. all of your explanation is to go back to the level they are at. Why worsen yourself when you could work to better them. ultimately that is what happens in the case of any immigrants. the first generation or so has issues; but their children raised here become part of society.

killing those here does nothing but raise the body count and cause more damage to you and your tribe.

 

[Grand Vol]

pretty weak as LG pointed out. your solution to fight them is to become them, gotcha. all of your explanation is to go back to the level they are at. Why worsen yourself when you could work to better them. ultimately that is what happens in the case of any immigrants. the first generation or so has issues; but their children raised here become part of society.

killing those here does nothing but raise the body count and cause more damage to you and your tribe.

Makes me safe. Makes my family safe. Makes others know we aren't messing around. There comes a time to let the system work and there comes a time when the system is failing and we need to fight.

The point though is there are some out there that think this. No foresight into what would happen if they sunk to that level. And there will be some that feel trapped and desperate (like the Sikh center shooting a few years back) and will lash out like the guy in London did.

 

[theFallGuy]

BELGIAN police have reportedly shot a suspect wearing an “explosive belt” at Brussels central train station.