Terrorism

[teflor the ranger]

I think, once again, this thread has been derailed by Teflor arguing peripheral points because the main thrust of his argument is impossible to defend outside of the extremist rhetoric that even the extraordinarily hawkish Bush Admin has discarded.

You're the one arguing all the periphery points while accusing me of doing so. I don't think you can defend your point of view at all.

I've taken this discussion every direction you wanted to go. I've even discussed alternative energy and played the insult game when you lost your temper.

Hypocrite.

[teflor the ranger]

Raiwen hit the nail squarely on the head. This War on Terror, inappropriately coupled with a war in Iraq, is turning out to be a complete and utter failure. Beyond doing no good, it is demonstrably doing great harm. Here is, yet again, another credible article showing how dismal our efforts have been. And just so it is abundantly clear, this is a failure of our government (and indirectly, the voters who put that gov't in power), not the soldiers in Iraq.

So much of a failure that they had a better voter turn out than we do here in the US. So much a failure that Iraqi military forces are conducting succesful operations to secure their own people. So much failure that the US is still in Iraq and people in the country are turning on insurgents and establishing rule of law.

Wrong.

[teflor the ranger]

http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/general/print_article.php?fArticleId=2637594&fSectionId=1042&fSetId=452

Iraq has descended into chaos way beyond West's worst-case scenario

...

The war in Iraq is now joining the South African War (1899-1902) and the Suez crisis in 1956 as ill-considered ventures that have done Britain more harm than good. It has demonstrably strengthened al-Qaeda by providing it with a large pool of activists and sympathisers across the Muslim world it did not possess before the invasion of 2003. The war that started out as a demonstration of US strength as the world's only superpower has turned into a demonstration of weakness. Its 135 000-strong army does not control much of Iraq.

A self-defeating article. When the Iraqis succeed in establishing a self supporting democracy this article will be worthless as so many words.

It is also the opinion of a man who does not believe in success.

Worthless.

[teflor the ranger]

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty"

Absolutely. That does not, however, mean illegal searchs, more police, closed borders, or any other strictly literal manifestation. Its figurative. It means money for fire fighters as much as it means freedom to protest Gitmo.

It also means tolerance for stricter security in times of threat and trouble. It also means supporting civil servants and public defenders like our soldiers.

Misguided.

[teflor the ranger]

Yep, Teflor, statement of fact.

Once again, you parse for your convenience instead of addressing the issue.

I responded to your entire post in several parts. It was hardly parsed but quoted nearly in full over several posts.

Misinformed.

[Pril]

Tef in case you missed my last point go read it please.

Mike

[Raiwen]

Raiwen, while I appreciate that you searched through everything to try to confirm what you said AFTER you said it, I would appreciate it more if in the future you would try to confirm things BEFORE you talk. Especially when you make false accusations.

These were not false accusations. It is plain as day, that you blur the lines between "the war on terror" and "the war in iraq". You have repeatedly brought up the liberation of Iraq and notions of terrorism - together. Perhaps you feel Saddam and all his cronies were/are terrorists?

In the following, posted in October of last year, you infer that there is still a war going on against Iraq.

Furthermore, the spread of human freedom will never be a failure until at the very least I have ceased to breathe. On top of that, lack of support for the war is a lack of support for the troops. We're trying to fight a war here, can you tell me WHY IN HELL Kerry voted against our damn support?

Where did I say against Raiwen?

Ok, I highlighted it in bold for you. If we're not at war with Iraq, then who are we at war with?

Terrorists? Ok.. who are they? Where is their base/capital? Leader? In order to have a war, you have to have a war against somebody. You can't just say, "we're at war with all bad people!" That just doesn't make sense.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion I can reach with your statement is the only other entity in the quote: Iraq. Again, blurring the lines, Teflor. That isn't the only instance, but I'm not going to waste more time on this. You're either going to deal with the real issues, or completely ignore them and focus on one sentence that's irrelevant to the discussion.

No more tyrannt talk, no more talk about freeing ppl from evil leaders... let's stick to the topic - terrorism.

And to be fair, in my earlier post, I never brought up Iraq, it was you who decided to introduce that idea into the thread.

We're talking about terrorists.

Raiwen, tell me, when has the US ever gone to war strictly to kill people?

We're not at war. We're in a peace keeping mission. That doesn't mean it's not deadly - in ways it's probably far more dangerous than an all out war.

Yes, we are in a peace keeping mission.
Yes, We are in post-war.

However, any logic remotely akin to "send more bodies with guns to kill all the terrorists to maintain the peace" is flawed. That's the point I was trying to make, before you decided to get personal. You took us on a little tangent, so let's get back on topic?

[teflor the ranger]

You did, Teflor. Yet, again, you contradict yourself.

Who contradicted who?

A false accusation. Your post above this one is an irrational attempt to defend yourself when you couldn't find anything to support what you said.

We're not at war. We're in a peace keeping mission.

So you admit the US didn't go to war in Iraq to just to kill terrorists and create a body count?

Because you haven't told me a war yet that Americans have embarked on just to kill all the enemies.

[teflor the ranger]

"we're at war with all bad people!" That just doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it?

[Raiwen]

Who contradicted who?

A false accusation. Your post above this one is an irrational attempt to defend yourself when you couldn't find anything to support what you said.

We all ready went over this. Check the past messages, and you'll see that you already responded to this, and I in turn. Let's move on.

We're not at war. We're in a peace keeping mission.

So you admit the US didn't go to war in Iraq to just to kill terrorists and create a body count?

That is correct. I never in my post stated we went to war in Iraq to kill terrorists and create a body count. You made that logic leap yourself. In fact, I never mentioned Iraq until you did when you talked about their tyrannt. Again, you're getting off topic based on one sentence, and in this case an idea that was never introduced by me.

I did comment on your idea that we must annihilate the terrorists at all costs. To me, that is killing terrorists and creating a body count. And a no-win situation.

You still haven't answered this part.

[Raiwen]

"we're at war with all bad people!" That just doesn't make sense.

Why doesn't it?

If you can't figure that one out on your own, I can't help you.

[teflor the ranger]

I did comment on your idea that we must annihilate the terrorists at all costs. To me, that is killing terrorists and creating a body count. And a no-win situation.

You still haven't answered this part.

I haven't answered because you're the only one that thinks about things like that.

The US has never tried to solve its problems with a body count. Your accusation is groundless. Your assumption that this is my idea of a solution is even further groundless. Do you need me to quote a few things so you can figure it out? Or are you going to try reading on your own.

[avak]

I did comment on your idea that we must annihilate the terrorists at all costs. To me, that is killing terrorists and creating a body count. And a no-win situation.

You still haven't answered this part.

I haven't answered because you're the only one that thinks about things like that.

Wrong. I agree completely. That makes at least two.

The US has never tried to solve its problems with a body count. Your accusation is groundless. Your assumption that this is my idea of a solution is even further groundless. Do you need me to quote a few things so you can figure it out? Or are you going to try reading on your own.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Raiwen]

I did comment on your idea that we must annihilate the terrorists at all costs. To me, that is killing terrorists and creating a body count. And a no-win situation.

You still haven't answered this part.

Your assumption that this is my idea of a solution is even further groundless.

Are you sure it's groundless?

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=149164#149164

Killing all the terrorists and improving security are the only things that will work.

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=148589#148589

Compassion for the terrorists DEMANDS that we destroy them utterly to speed them on their way, and to prevent them from doing any further wrong for which they may be held accountable by some supreme diety at the end of their lives.

So, now that I have shown that it is indeed your idea (if we're going to split semantics how about "belief"), please explain how this is not just "killing terrorists and creating a body count" (on both sides).

[teflor the ranger]

I think the solutions are not going to be crisp soundbytes that can be said in State of the Union address or on political talk shows, but complex multi-faceted responses to a myriad of concerns.

Thanks for the soundbyte, Captain Obvious.

There's a lot we have to do in order to kill all the terrorists. But no 'solution' you will have doesn't have killing all the terrorists as its centerpiece.

Shortsighted assumptions aren't a good discussion topic.

Your assumption that the solution isn't killing all the terrorists is ultimately incorrect. Well, unless you like Gitmo.

[avak]

Your assumption that the solution isn't killing all the terrorists is ultimately incorrect.

Palestine/Israel, among others, proves this to be incorrect.

[teflor the ranger]

Your assumption that the solution isn't killing all the terrorists is ultimately incorrect.

Palestine/Israel, among others, proves this to be incorrect.

Yet they haven't killed all the terrorists and terrorism continues.

What's not correct about it.

Terrorists are not a typical enemy. They aren't Germans or Japanese. They have no concept of honor or surrender.

If they surrender, then let them live on as something other than terrorists. (prisoners or otherwise closely watched)

If they have a concept of honor...

26 Iraqi children would still be alive.

[Raiwen]

There's a lot we have to do in order to kill all the terrorists. But no 'solution' you will have doesn't have killing all the terrorists as its centerpiece.

I don't beleive you feel this way. if this is not true, then why did you so fervantly disagree with this:

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=149461#149461
The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=149486#149486
The only way to defeat what is evil, is to continue to defeat it. Make no mistake. Evil must be smote, not reconciled.

Or tell me, Mr. Avak, how do you plan on "addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit"

Wouldn't you at least entertain other ideas other than just "defeating" evil? To me, this is akin to "smite with a large stick".

Your assumption that the solution isn't killing all the terrorists is ultimately incorrect. Well, unless you like Gitmo.

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=149474#149474
Furthermore, there will always be terrorism - there always has been.

You can't have terrorism without terrorists, and if there will always be terrorism, then there will always be terrorists.
So, you believe in part (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), that the way to cure terrorism is to kill all the terrorists - yet you yourself concede that terrorism has no cure since "there will always be terrorism - there always has been".

So, are you trying to convince the rest of us to believe in this unattainable component in the strategy to triumph over terror?

[teflor the ranger]

"is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."

I disagree with that assumption because there are innumerous types of terrorists. From muslim fundamentalists to abortion clinic bombers.

There are too many to address ALL ideological parts of terrorists. By the time you're done addressing you'll probably want to bomb yourself.

[Raiwen]

"is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."
I disagree with that assumption because there are innumerous types of terrorists. From muslim fundamentalists to abortion clinic bombers.

Yet, that assertion is based on a fudimental military concept: cut their supply lines.

The concept is not invalid, just because of it's implentation.

I'm also going to take a leap of faith here and state that I don't believe our government leaders are looking at removing ALL terrorists from the planet. I believe their goal is to focus on a subset of terrorists: the ones who's ideological views are similar to the ones who attacked us on 9/11. Given this much smaller base of terrorists, it makes analysts jobs much easier in implementing the supply-cut concept.

[teflor the ranger]

Well, specifically speaking about Islamic extremism, it is possible for the US to deflect attention from itself by gathering weaker and less resolved allies.

They will then begin bombing other countries like Spain and England instead of us, thus protecting the United States from specific terrorist attacks.

Is this the kind of option you were thinking about?

I'm very sorry, Raiwen, but when an idelogical view extends to driving car bombs into groups of children, it's just doesn't make any sense and your only option is to isolate and eliminate.

That's what we've been doing in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Georgia, and the Phillipines.

Countries like Pakistan are an example of America's partners in the war against terrorism. Although the military regime in Pakistan has forbidden US troop activites inside Pakistan's borders, our special forces are in country training Pakistan's special forces on how to conduct anti-terror operations.

By building security and elminating terrorists, we will see the solutions to the problem.

You have no idea how far we have to go in building our security. Just remember that many nations maintain ill-equipped, ill-trained, and ill-prepared armies and police forces. By building the capabilities of our partner states in order to kill all the terrorists,

the potential for results (and dead terrorists) is astounding.

[teflor the ranger]

You can't have terrorism without terrorists, and if there will always be terrorism, then there will always be terrorists.
So, you believe in part (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), that the way to cure terrorism is to kill all the terrorists - yet you yourself concede that terrorism has no cure since "there will always be terrorism - there always has been".

So, are you trying to convince the rest of us to believe in this unattainable component in the strategy to triumph over terror?

I have already told you that the only way to win over terrorism is to continue to be winning.

That's eternal vigilance.

[Raiwen]

Well, specifically speaking about Islamic extremism, it is possible for the US to deflect attention from itself by gathering weaker and less resolved allies.

Is this the kind of option you were thinking about?

No, this is not what I was thinking about. That couldn't be called a solution either. I did a quick google search to see what other people were doing, and this is what I came up with.

Muslim scholars issue fatwa against terrorism : I think this is one way to change the minds of pre-terrorists. The muslim extremists don't bomb children, because it makes them happy. They bomb children, because in some twisted way, they believe they are doing god's work. Will this stop terroristm? No. Will it plant the seed in young minds that will hopeful prevent them from joining the ranks of terror? Yes.
Asia-Pacific states have agreed to increase intelligence-sharing to deal with terrorism. : Again, this is less about killing terrorists, than it is keeping ahead of them. Knowledge is power, right?
A Yemeni cleric who bragged about his ties to Osama bin Laden was sentenced Thursday to 75 years in prison : These are the Jim Jones and David Koresh's of the muslim world. We can't afford to make them martyrs by killing them. We can, however, attempt to get other muslim leaders to discredit them. We won't be able to prevent them from ensnaring every malleable youth out there, but hopefully we can thin their numbers.
Vatican denounces Israel's response to terrorism : Again, combating force with force is not always right. While, we could be justified in bombing a world trade center equivalent (as a bad example) in the terrorist world, it would not be ethical - and we're supposed to be the good guys, right?
Europe steps up measures in the battle against terrorism : Europe is finally doing what we've been doing, however, what I think is interesting to note is Germany's focus on maintaining civil rights. This is paramount, in my opinion. What good is total security, if we're all prisoners in our own country?
Egypt praises Pakistan’s role in combating terrorism : What is interesting to note here is this quote : "Mr Haridy said that his country supported Pakistan’s position and was of the view that root causes of terrorism should be addressed all across the world to have sustainable peace." Other nations believe that the path to FUST (Final Ultimate Solution to Terrorism) lies down the road of understanding their enemy. Not sympathying.. but understanding. And, yes, teflor, the causes that drive people to kill children and blow up infants - CAN be understood. Even if it's simple as "they are crazy", then perhaps putting all of them on lithium will cure terrorism. Yes, Egypt is no stranger to being targets of terrorism
Pakistan called ‘global centre for terrorism’ : I'd like to point out other things in the article that the headline does not do justice: quote"Asked about the London bombings, the Pakistani journalist....[major snip]...explained that the roots of the attack, however, were in England, since there has been an “enormous radicalisation” of British Muslims in the last few years and especially since 9/11." quote"“There are radical preachers, there are radical mosques. There are lots of schools there which have been teaching students the Koran on Friday afternoons and at the same time radicalising them. There is no dearth of ideological training in England,” he added."

So, in England, we can see that the roots of dissent are formed - the beginning of the recruitment process. I also want to point out that terrorism isn't like being in a gang, there is no "induction" into the terrorist gang. It is more like a cancer of irrational thought bred out of fanatical beliefs - beliefs which could easily be rational when taken out of context - thus we have the element of brainwashing.

I'm very sorry, Raiwen, but when an idelogical view extends to driving car bombs into groups of children, it's just doesn't make any sense and your only option is to isolate and eliminate.

But in any military conflict, you must know how to defeat your enemy. In this instance, our enemy is not "terrorists", since terrorists come and go, our enemy is in fact "what causes them to be terrorists". That's an idea, a cancer like I wrote above. It's very difficult to destroy an idea when all you're doing is killing people. Like I wrote, it's not a club, or gang that you join. It's a belief system you embrace willingly - sometimes through very charismatic leaders.

Countries like Pakistan are an example of America's partners in the war against terrorism.

I don't disagree with you here. However, I think you'll find that Pakistan is doing much more then learning how to fight terrorists, they are also trying to learn how to recognize it's root causes. So yes, while we must defend ourselves with the gun, the gun is not the tool that is going to ultimately fix the problem. The solution will - in the end - be something much more psychological and less about show of force.

[Raiwen]

I have already told you that the only way to win over terrorism is to continue to be winning.

By what metric do we measure these "wins" ?

The number of terrorists killed verses the number of terrorists recruited in any given week/month ?

The number of bombs found, and terrorists jailed verses the number of terrorists and bombs not found?

The overall number of lives saved verses the number of people killed? Who decides upon these numbers of lives saved in any given incident? Also, it could easily be argued that even if one person is killed in an act of terror, then the entire process is not working.

So if the way to win is to continue winning, then by what metric do we use to tell if we're actually winning?

When it comes down to it, at the end of the day, nobody is sure if we're winning. We may have caught 10 terrorists at the borders, but how many more got through? How many more people became the tools of terror that particular day who are already citizens? When that person who regularly sits next to you on the subway, day after day, decides to aid the cause of terror tomorrow, how would anyone know?

[teflor the ranger]

Unrecruited terrorists are still terrorists.

[Raiwen]

Unrecruited terrorists are still terrorists.

You are wrong, try again.

[teflor the ranger]

Unrecruited terrorists are still terrorists.

You are wrong, try again.

And a rapist isn't a rapist without someone to rape?

I'm right. It's your ignorance, not mine.

[Raiwen]

And a rapist isn't a rapist without someone to rape?

Again, you are wrong, a person isn't a rapist until they attempt to do the deed. You can be convicted of attempted murder only if you act upon it, not if people just "think" you could be possibly be.. one day.

We're talking about terrorists. People that commit or aid in acts of terror. Notice, those are verbs. Verbs describe action. You can think about terrorism all you want in your bed, all day and night, and as long as you do not further the cause of terror - you are not a terrorist.

Please try again, teflor.

[teflor the ranger]

And a rapist isn't a rapist without someone to rape?

Again, you are wrong, a person isn't a rapist until they attempt to do the deed. You can be convicted of attempted murder only if you act upon it, not if people just "think" you could be possibly be.. one day.

We're talking about terrorists. People that commit or aid in acts of terror. Notice, those are verbs. Verbs describe action. You can think about terrorism all you want in your bed, all day and night, and as long as you do not further the cause of terror - you are not a terrorist.

Please try again, teflor.

This coming from the guy who called Al-Sadr a terrorist.

Nice try, Raiwen, but clearly, you're just not cutting it.

You ignore the truth, that a terrorist is not just the act of war against humanity, but what builds that declaration.

And you're the one talking about 'reasons' for terror.

If you could contradict yourself any harder, you might turn out to be correct for once.

An unrecruited terrorist is still a terrorist, regardless of what I think he is.

[teflor the ranger]

Sorry for the late response, but these were good points and deserving of response:

Muslim scholars issue fatwa against terrorism : I think this is one way to change the minds of pre-terrorists. The muslim extremists don't bomb children, because it makes them happy. They bomb children, because in some twisted way, they believe they are doing god's work. Will this stop terroristm? No. Will it plant the seed in young minds that will hopeful prevent them from joining the ranks of terror? Yes.

Weak to useless. If you need someone to remind you that blowing up children with a carbomb is a bad thing, then there's no amount of parenting that will fix these people.

Asia-Pacific states have agreed to increase intelligence-sharing to deal with terrorism. : Again, this is less about killing terrorists, than it is keeping ahead of them. Knowledge is power, right?

Actually, this is a part of improving security. Nice suggestion, but it's not really a suggestion, and really, it's nothing new.

Nice try.

A Yemeni cleric who bragged about his ties to Osama bin Laden was sentenced Thursday to 75 years in prison : These are the Jim Jones and David Koresh's of the muslim world. We can't afford to make them martyrs by killing them. We can, however, attempt to get other muslim leaders to discredit them. We won't be able to prevent them from ensnaring every malleable youth out there, but hopefully we can thin their numbers.

Again, weak to useless. If he surrendered himself and didn't blow himself up with a bunch of kids then he is merely a supporter and should be imprisoned for life. (I do not believe in capital punishment, but I do believe that compassion and mercy can force your hand to kill.) Even if you killed him it would do nothing to recruit people who already wouldn't bomb children. An unrecruited terrorist is still a terrorist.

In your citations of recruitment, you're blurring the difference between recruiting honorable and dishonorable combatants. Anger against America does not result in terrorists. If they want to fight as a free people, it is their option. If they want to drive car bombs into children, it's a different story.

Vatican denounces Israel's response to terrorism : Again, combating force with force is not always right. While, we could be justified in bombing a world trade center equivalent (as a bad example) in the terrorist world, it would not be ethical - and we're supposed to be the good guys, right?

By far your weakest argument. First of all, there are no equivilants in the world where a group of unarmed children are a primary target for death and destruction. Or would you suppose that the Vatican would have denounced the Americans for going to war with the Nazis on the same principle?

Ridiculous, but nice try none the less.

Europe steps up measures in the battle against terrorism : Europe is finally doing what we've been doing, however, what I think is interesting to note is Germany's focus on maintaining civil rights. This is paramount, in my opinion. What good is total security, if we're all prisoners in our own country?

Your argument here is fairly ignorant of the status of civil rights and law in Europe at large. Even under the patriot act in the United States, we have far more personal rights to privacy than any European country.

In fact, many western countries' governments are far more invasive and controlling. Why do you think the four suspected London bombers are already caught?

Egypt praises Pakistan’s role in combating terrorism : What is interesting to note here is this quote : "Mr Haridy said that his country supported Pakistan’s position and was of the view that root causes of terrorism should be addressed all across the world to have sustainable peace." Other nations believe that the path to FUST (Final Ultimate Solution to Terrorism) lies down the road of understanding their enemy. Not sympathying.. but understanding. And, yes, teflor, the causes that drive people to kill children and blow up infants - CAN be understood. Even if it's simple as "they are crazy", then perhaps putting all of them on lithium will cure terrorism. Yes, Egypt is no stranger to being targets of terrorism

However, a popular comic in Egypt features these great middle-eastern heros who battle the armies of "Zios". It is impossible to understand a man who would drive a car bomb into a group of 26 children - unless one would be capable and willing to commit the act themselves.

The main reason why Egypt agrees with Pakistan is because Pakistan has taken a hard line against allowing US military forces to operate within their country. Furthermore, Egypt also supports Pakistan because they kill terrorists. Take note of that.

Pakistan called ‘global centre for terrorism’ : I'd like to point out other things in the article that the headline does not do justice: quote"Asked about the London bombings, the Pakistani journalist....[major snip]...explained that the roots of the attack, however, were in England, since there has been an “enormous radicalisation” of British Muslims in the last few years and especially since 9/11." quote"“There are radical preachers, there are radical mosques. There are lots of schools there which have been teaching students the Koran on Friday afternoons and at the same time radicalising them. There is no dearth of ideological training in England,” he added."

So, in England, we can see that the roots of dissent are formed - the beginning of the recruitment process. I also want to point out that terrorism isn't like being in a gang, there is no "induction" into the terrorist gang. It is more like a cancer of irrational thought bred out of fanatical beliefs - beliefs which could easily be rational when taken out of context - thus we have the element of brainwashing.

Yet the terrorists are very likely (and indeed most of the suspects are) foreign to England. You've failed to make a connection, and the reason why: there isn't one.

But in any military conflict, you must know how to defeat your enemy. In this instance, our enemy is not "terrorists", since terrorists come and go, our enemy is in fact "what causes them to be terrorists".

Fundamentally ignorant. What causes them to be terrorists 'come and go.'

That's an idea, a cancer like I wrote above.

Here, I agree. Terrorism is a cancer. Treatment of cancer is fairly cut and dry. You destroy it first. Then you make sure it doesn't come back.

It's very difficult to destroy an idea when all you're doing is killing people.

Ask Robbespiere and King Louis.

I don't disagree with you here. However, I think you'll find that Pakistan is doing much more then learning how to fight terrorists, they are also trying to learn how to recognize it's root causes. So yes, while we must defend ourselves with the gun, the gun is not the tool that is going to ultimately fix the problem. The solution will - in the end - be something much more psychological and less about show of force.

Completely wrong. It will be neither psychological or a show of force, but dead terrorists.

Unless you think cancer is all in the mind or easily scared away.

[teflor the ranger]

Alright, time to address a principle concern.

It's ok for muslims to be radical and mad at America.

This is FINE.

Let them talk about how horrible America is. Let them declare holy war against America. Let decry the evil they believe to be the United States, regardless of how ignorant their opinion may be.

What's NOT fine is to target the innocent for wholesale slaughter in order to send a political message and spread terror throughout the civilized world.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RADICAL ISLAM AND CARBOMBING CHILDREN.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

[Raiwen]

This coming from the guy who called Al-Sadr a terrorist.

It was Avak that called him a terrorist. Not I. That opinion in and of itself, is an entire thread.

You ignore the truth, that a terrorist is not just the act of war against humanity, but what builds that declaration.

And yet in the same breath, you believe that the only cure is to kill all the terrorists. It seems this is your contradiction to your self.

An unrecruited terrorist is still a terrorist, regardless of what I think he is.

We will never be able to come to a consensus on any of these issues, until you and I come to some understanding on the above. Your last response to my long winded post is totally irrelevant, since the above quote sums up your response and furture reponses.

Until we can get past our opinions on the above, then there isn't more to discuss - it will just be a waste of time.

[avak]

Hey now. Actually, I specifically said that I personally did not know if al Sadr is a terrorist, but that he seemed to be according to Teflor's criteria.

And yes, this thread has gone from pretty interesting to petty and irrelevant. And this post has contributed nothing!

[teflor the ranger]

This coming from the guy who called Al-Sadr a terrorist.

It was Avak that called him a terrorist. Not I. That opinion in and of itself, is an entire thread.

Nuts.

[teflor the ranger]

You ignore the truth, that a terrorist is not just the act of war against humanity, but what builds that declaration.

And yet in the same breath, you believe that the only cure is to kill all the terrorists. It seems this is your contradiction to your self.

Show me a contradiction. The cure IS to kill all the terrorists. Do you know what goes into making medicine?

An unrecruited terrorist is still a terrorist, regardless of what I think he is.

We will never be able to come to a consensus on any of these issues, until you and I come to some understanding on the above. Your last response to my long winded post is totally irrelevant, since the above quote sums up your response and furture reponses.

Until we can get past our opinions on the above, then there isn't more to discuss - it will just be a waste of time.

I think perhaps it would be wise to agree to disagree to what an unrecruited terrorist is.