Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53

Thread: War on terror ....

  1. #1 War on terror .... 
    Forum Freshman Janina1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    8
    Why might the war on terror be something else than a waron terrorism?
    (for those one who have seen Pilger movies about middle east)


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    What is your point? To me it is just wordplay.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    The "war on terror" is IMO just another political voting scare tactic. Though honestly, I really dont care much for what happens in some sand pit half a world away.
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    The "war on terror" is IMO just another political voting scare tactic. Though honestly, I really dont care much for what happens in some sand pit half a world away.
    Wait until the iranians start building atomic weapons.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    The "war on terror" is IMO just another political voting scare tactic. Though honestly, I really dont care much for what happens in some sand pit half a world away.
    Wait until the iranians start building atomic weapons.
    I would welcome a nuclear winter. Shake things up for a change.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. in total.

    So if Iran made one what difference would it make if there are already countries that have them and are even worse dealing with the world.

    Another thing Iran could always buy atomic weapons if it wanted to because other nations would sell it to them.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations — the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. in total.

    So if Iran made one what difference would it make if there are already countries that have them and are even worse dealing with the world.

    Another thing Iran could always buy atomic weapons if it wanted to because other nations would sell it to them.
    The reason is that having Iran a nuclear power makes them a country too many, it is bad enough that there are already so many nuclear powers. The other bad thing is that both NK and Iran have threatened to use the nuclear weapons. The last thing that the world needs is a nuclear war.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    But Iran could buy atomic weapons from someone and who is going to prevent that? I really don't believe that NK or Iran would ever deploy any atomic weapon because if they did they know their country would be decimated by retaliation from other countries. NK knows that as well so it too only uses atomic weapons as an ace in the hole to frighten others but never would use them.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But Iran could buy atomic weapons from someone and who is going to prevent that?
    So far, the selling of nuclear weapons has not happened.

    I really don't believe that NK or Iran would ever deploy any atomic weapon because if they did they know their country would be decimated by retaliation from other countries.
    Yep, deterrence works.


    NK knows that as well so it too only uses atomic weapons as an ace in the hole to frighten others but never would use them.
    This part is not clear, unstable, delusional leaders tend to make suicidal decisions. Look at Hitler. Kim Jong - un is not far different. Neither was Ahmadinejad.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; October 5th, 2014 at 11:23 AM.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    The reason is that having Iran a nuclear power makes them a country too many, it is bad enough that there are already so many nuclear powers. The other bad thing is that both NK and Iran have threatened to use the nuclear weapons. The last thing that the world needs is a nuclear war.
    North Korea have threatened to use nuclear weapons. It is part of their saber rattling. While they are batshit crazy, I doubt they would ever use them. Iran has no nuclear weapons and have been pushing for a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East for a long time. They have not only signed all the treaties, but have also advise that stockpiling or even developing nuclear weapons is done by retards. So I fail to see how you can claim that they threatened to use weapons they have repeatedly declared, even with a religious fatwa, that developing and stockpiling such weapons is immoral and against their religious ideology and beliefs. Certainly, they could be lying and they could have dozens of nuclear warheads, but there has been no proof of this at all.

    If you have a quote of where the Iranian leadership threatened to use nuclear weapons (it does not even have mind you), please provide said quote.
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    If you have a quote of where the Iranian leadership threatened to use nuclear weapons (it does not even have mind you), please provide said quote.
    Quick to jump to their defense, eh?, here

    So I fail to see how you can claim that they threatened to use weapons they have repeatedly declared, even with a religious fatwa, that developing and stockpiling such weapons is immoral and against their religious ideology and beliefs. Certainly, they could be lying and they could have dozens of nuclear warheads, but there has been no proof of this at all.
    They have a long history of lying, so , yes, they are lying.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Iran has no nuclear weapons and have been pushing for a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East for a long time. They have not only signed all the treaties,
    Iran has signed but it has been found in non-compliance. As usual, they talk from both sides of the mouth.
     

  14. #13  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    398
    Iran has definitely made a lot of technological advances in the last ten years, but North Korea is still a technological caveman in comparison to South Korea or the United States. North Korea is made even less of a threat, because by constantly drawing attention to itself with ridiculous threats it has the world's collective attention. I'm sure that Kim Jong-Un can't even squeeze out a fart without the US knowing about it. So if NK were to launch any nuclear missiles at the US, we would know well in advance to be able to subvert their efforts. As for Iran, they seem to understand the concept that no one wants to be the ruler of a nuclear wasteland.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Iran has definitely made a lot of technological advances in the last ten years, but North Korea is still a technological caveman in comparison to South Korea or the United States. North Korea is made even less of a threat, because by constantly drawing attention to itself with ridiculous threats it has the world's collective attention. I'm sure that Kim Jong-Un can't even squeeze out a fart without the US knowing about it. So if NK were to launch any nuclear missiles at the US, we would know well in advance to be able to subvert their efforts.
    Not clear. Before serving two tours in Afghanistan, I served one tour in DMZ. NK seems very confident that they can take out SK AND the US contingent stationed there.


    As for Iran, they seem to understand the concept that no one wants to be the ruler of a nuclear wasteland.
    Not clear either. The mullahs are as batshit crazy as Kim Jong-un.
     

  16. #15  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Not clear. Before serving two tours in Afghanistan, I served one tour in DMZ. NK seems very confident that they can take out SK AND the US contingent stationed there.
    They have had such limited contact with the outside world that it's easy for them to think that they are top dog. Also the whole ideology of that country is that the leader cannot make mistakes, so if he says that they will win, then to his followers it must mean they will win. It's all barking. I'm not saying we should just ignore them though. They definitely need to be monitored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark
    As for Iran, they seem to understand the concept that no one wants to be the ruler of a nuclear wasteland.
    Not clear either. The mullahs are as batshit crazy as Kim Jong-un.
    It only takes one crazy to fuck everything up. Right now I think the leadership is adverse to ruling a nuclear wasteland, but that could easily change. That coupled with the fact that they are more technologically advanced than NK justifies closer observation to me.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Not clear. Before serving two tours in Afghanistan, I served one tour in DMZ. NK seems very confident that they can take out SK AND the US contingent stationed there.
    They have had such limited contact with the outside world that it's easy for them to think that they are top dog. Also the whole ideology of that country is that the leader cannot make mistakes, so if he says that they will win, then to his followers it must mean they will win. It's all barking. I'm not saying we should just ignore them though. They definitely need to be monitored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark
    As for Iran, they seem to understand the concept that no one wants to be the ruler of a nuclear wasteland.
    Not clear either. The mullahs are as batshit crazy as Kim Jong-un.
    It only takes one crazy to fuck everything up. Right now I think the leadership is adverse to ruling a nuclear wasteland, but that could easily change. That coupled with the fact that they are more technologically advanced than NK justifies closer observation to me.
    How does "monitoring" and "observation" stop them? They are both developing atomic weapons and the long range rockets to deploy them. At least, under Bush, NK dismantled their program. Under Obama, they restarted it.
     

  18. #17  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    How does "monitoring" and "observation" stop them? They are both developing atomic weapons and the long range rockets to deploy them. At least, under Bush, NK dismantled their program. Under Obama, they restarted it.
    What is your plan?
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    According to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nine nations the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea possess approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. in total.

    So if Iran made one what difference would it make if there are already countries that have them and are even worse dealing with the world.

    Another thing Iran could always buy atomic weapons if it wanted to because other nations would sell it to them.
    The problem isn't having more weapons. It's having more fingers on the button to launch them.

    Politically and diplomatically, the decision "not to have a nuclear war" is easier to make if there are as few as possible number of people in a position to "veto" that decision. Every nuclear nation has veto power in that decision. But nobody has ever exercised it yet.

    And what I mean is de-facto veto power. Any nation with nuclear weapons, who wants to, can start a nuclear war by launching their own nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But Iran could buy atomic weapons from someone and who is going to prevent that?
    So far, the selling of nuclear weapons has not happened.

    Honestly, who could you buy a nuclear weapon from? I think the only transfer similar to that one has been the USA giving nuclear weapons to Israel.

    And even that might not be true. It could be a matter that certain American leaders deliberately "leaked" information about it just to give everyone the impression Israel has them. But never gave them any.

    Being perceived to have nuclear weapons is just as useful as having them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  20. #19  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Honestly, who could you buy a nuclear weapon from? I think the only transfer similar to that one has been the USA giving nuclear weapons to Israel.

    And even that might not be true. It could be a matter that certain American leaders deliberately "leaked" information about it just to give everyone the impression Israel has them. But never gave them any.

    Being perceived to have nuclear weapons is just as useful as having them.
    Exactly my point about North Korea's confidence. Sure they have nuclear weapons and they act confident. It doesn't mean they actually have much potential to do real harm to the US.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    NE Colorado
    Posts
    10
    The problem is that our "war on terror" is a religious war, at least for our opponents. That opens wide their choice of weapons and tactics.
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    How does "monitoring" and "observation" stop them? They are both developing atomic weapons and the long range rockets to deploy them. At least, under Bush, NK dismantled their program. Under Obama, they restarted it.
    What is your plan?
    Back to economic blockade.
     

  23. #22  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    How does "monitoring" and "observation" stop them? They are both developing atomic weapons and the long range rockets to deploy them. At least, under Bush, NK dismantled their program. Under Obama, they restarted it.
    What is your plan?
    Back to economic blockade.
    I can support that. That fits into the diplomatic approach. I just can't stand when people just advocate going straight to war. Having practiced martial arts for years, it was ingrained that a person should always seek peaceful solutions and only use force when no other options are viable.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post

    I can support that. That fits into the diplomatic approach. I just can't stand when people just advocate going straight to war. Having practiced martial arts for years, it was ingrained that a person should always seek peaceful solutions and only use force when no other options are viable.
    That's good tactics too.

    However economic blockade is problematic in this case. Most of the people whom we would blockade are already poor to the point of starvation, which would only make groups like Hamas more powerful. Desperate people do desperate things.

    That's one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is Saudi Arabia, who we actually can't afford to blockade. We need their oil. (And certain factions in American corporate structure would never allow it, such as Exxon.)

    Also economics are the heart of the real problem. Islam believes it has an economic solution to the problems that afflict so many Muslims today. It's vision of a world run by Sharia Law is a utopian dream far removed from the poverty and suffering found in Palestine and some of its neighbors.

    Deprived of any realistic hope of economic self-betterment (in the real world), those people will take in that dream like a drug.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quick to jump to their defense, eh?, here
    Just as you are quick to misrepresent them.

    Did you read your own link?

    Iran will "raze" Israeli cities to the ground if the Jewish state launches an attack against it
    Emphasis mine.

    In other words, they said that they would flatten Israel if Israel attacked it first or launched an attack against Iran.

    Less inflation and misrepresentation and more sticking to the facts. This is a science forum, after all.

    They have a long history of lying, so , yes, they are lying.
    So do all Governments. What's your point. Remember those WMD's Bush and his Government lied in the UN to convince the world to attack Saddam and go to war for years? Where were those again?

    Oh wait, that's right, there were none.

    Nor was there anything linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, as Bush tried to claim.

    Iran has signed but it has been found in non-compliance. As usual, they talk from both sides of the mouth.
    Yes they were. But there is also no evidence to support the claim that they have developed nuclear weapons. Far from it. As your link notes, they are still negotiating with the UN.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    So far, the selling of nuclear weapons has not happened.
    Honestly, who could you buy a nuclear weapon from? I think the only transfer similar to that one has been the USA giving nuclear weapons to Israel.
    Russia has given North Korea the supplies to build their own reactors to build their own atomic weapons, which NK now has done and has detonated them a few times. So countries might not sell the weapons but they, Russia, sure want countries to build their own atomic weapons with Russias help.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quick to jump to their defense, eh?, here
    Just as you are quick to misrepresent them.

    Did you read your own link?

    Iran will "raze" Israeli cities to the ground if the Jewish state launches an attack against it
    Emphasis mine.
    Yes, you have been a staunch defender of the muslim terrorism,, so the emphasis does not surprise me. Maybe this one is easier for you to understand.

    In other words, they said that they would flatten Israel if Israel attacked it first or launched an attack against Iran.
    You'd love that, I know, you have made it quite clear.

    Less inflation and misrepresentation and more sticking to the facts. This is a science forum, after all.
    You are posting in "Politics", in case you haven't noticed. And what you are posting isn't science, it is shilling for muslims.



    They have a long history of lying, so , yes, they are lying.
    So do all Governments. What's your point. Remember those WMD's Bush and his Government lied in the UN to convince the world to attack Saddam and go to war for years? Where were those again?

    Oh wait, that's right, there were none.

    Nor was there anything linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, as Bush tried to claim.
    Nah, they were in the thread were we were discussing the murderous charter of the palestinians in their glorious Arafat.


    Iran has signed but it has been found in non-compliance. As usual, they talk from both sides of the mouth.
    Yes they were. But there is also no evidence to support the claim that they have developed nuclear weapons. Far from it. As your link notes, they are still negotiating with the UN.
    Riiight. The fact that they are (and will forever be) negotiating with the UN (to buy time) absolves them from being in violation. Interesting logic. Are you a muslim?
    Last edited by Howard Roark; October 6th, 2014 at 11:17 AM.
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    So far, the selling of nuclear weapons has not happened.
    Honestly, who could you buy a nuclear weapon from? I think the only transfer similar to that one has been the USA giving nuclear weapons to Israel.
    Russia has given North Korea the supplies to build their own reactors to build their own atomic weapons, which NK now has done and has detonated them a few times. So countries might not sell the weapons but they, Russia, sure want countries to build their own atomic weapons with Russias help.
    Yes, unfortunately Russia has been selling the technology to NK and now, to Iran. They use these countries to fight war by proxy, against the westen countries. The same way iran fights war by proxy against Israel, using hamas and hezbollah, as shills. Despicable.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; October 6th, 2014 at 11:20 AM.
     

  29. #28  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    It would certainly seem that the media could do more in it's coverage of the war on terror, to help educate people to the simple fact that this war is against Terrorism and most certainly not against Islam. Whilst terrorists may choose to try and use religion to recruit the disaffected or the feable minded to their campaign this in no way means that any religion actually supports these nutters, indeed there are so many different terror groups with differing agendas each claiming to be fighting for a faith.

    Should we in the West also be fooled or buy into their religious propaganda then we are just proving our own ignorance and stupidity.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    The "war on terror" is IMO just another political voting scare tactic. Though honestly, I really dont care much for what happens in some sand pit half a world away.
    Not even when the "sand pits" bring their despicable "war" to New York and "courageously" murder 3000+ civilians? Or when they start decapitating women in front of their workplace? Or when they kill our soldiers, like the Maj. Hassan "hero"? The "sand pits" have arrived and their heinous acts are no longer thousands of miles away, they are here, among us.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Yes, you have been a staunch defender of the muslim terrorism,, so the emphasis does not surprise me.
    I defend 'Muslim terrorism'? What is 'Muslim terrorism'? Is it he same as right wing radical and murderous fundamentalist terrorism? Or Aum Shinrikyo terrorism? Breivik's anti-Islam brand of terrorism? How about pro-life radical fundamentalist terrorism?

    Is this because I am not labeling them with one broad and very racist brush?

    For example, labeling it as "Muslim" terrorism. You label the whole for the actions of the minority.

    Maybe this one is easier for you to understand.
    Did you read your link?

    Or did you just stick to the title? Iran, like many Middle Eastern countries, including US allies, view Israel as being illegitimate. Perhaps you should read your own link in full, in other words, read past the title and you would see what he actually said.


    You'd love that, I know, you have made it quite clear.
    Love what? I personally love going to the beach with my kids and watching my boys boogie board in the surf while their baby sister paddles in the shallows. That is what I love. Would I love another country invading or attacking another country based solely on their religious ideology or religious beliefs and hating others based on their religious beliefs? No. That I would hate.

    I get it, you are trying to play a game you will not win. In the process you are coming off sounding like an immature child. The only thing missing at the end of your sentence was a 'ner ner'.


    You are posting in "Politics", in case you haven't noticed. And what you are posting isn't science, it is shilling for muslims.
    Shilling for Muslims? Is that meant to be an insult?

    I wasn't aware that posting in the Politics section on this site encouraged or demanded dishonesty in what is posted.

    What I am posting is reality and the truth. Accusing others of shilling for Muslims just shows your bigotry.


    Nah, they were in the thread were we were discussing the murderous charter of the palestinians in their glorious Arafat.
    What? I have never discussed the Palestinians or Arafat with you. Do you have me confused with someone else?


    Riiight. The fact that they are (and will forever be) negotiating with the UN (to buy time) absolves them from being in violation. Interesting logic.
    Well, at least they aren't lying to the UN and starting a war, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. At least their negotiations are peaceful and they have shown no inclination, nor is there any evidence that they have nuclear weapons.

    Are you a muslim?
    What an interesting question!

    Is it any of your business if I am or not? What does it have to do with this discussion?

    Not even when the "sand pits" bring their despicable "war" to New York and "courageously" murder 3000+ civilians? Or when they start decapitating women in front of their workplace? Or when they kill our soldiers, like the Maj. Hassan "hero"? The "sand pits" have arrived and their heinous acts are no longer thousands of miles away, they are here, among us.
    I'm sorry, "sand pits"?

    Racist much?

    You should be ashamed of yourself. Because that is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable.
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    Not even when the "sand pits" bring their despicable "war" to New York and "courageously" murder 3000+ civilians? Or when they start decapitating women in front of their workplace? Or when they kill our soldiers, like the Maj. Hassan "hero"? The "sand pits" have arrived and their heinous acts are no longer thousands of miles away, they are here, among us.
    I'm sorry, "sand pits"?

    Racist much?

    You should be ashamed of yourself. Because that is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable.
    I am responding using his exact terms, see the "marks" around "sand pits"? No? .You need to stop stalking.
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post


    Nah, they were in the thread were we were discussing the murderous charter of the palestinians in their glorious Arafat.
    What? I have never discussed the Palestinians or Arafat with you. Do you have me confused with someone else?
    Nah, it was you. The staunch hamas defender.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    I am responding using his exact terms, see the "marks" around "sand pits"? No? .
    You employed his term completely differently. You are applying it to people.

    You need to stop stalking.
    And you need to stop being so rude and offensive.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    I am responding using his exact terms, see the "marks" around "sand pits"? No? .
    You employed his term completely differently. You are applying it to people.

    You need to stop stalking.
    And you need to stop being so rude and offensive.
    Stop stalking and stop shilling for the terrorist groups like hamas and we'll be fine.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Nah, it was you.
    Are you Astromark or Kojax?

    Because my responses were aimed at them. Not you. And had you read my post, you'd clearly see what it was that I was discussing. Which is not as you are trying to make it out to be. I get it, you think that because this is the Politics sub-forum, you can lie and misrepresent, but really, there has to be a limit to it. And surely you have reached that limit.

    It is a shame you did not learn anything from the ban you were given because of the bigotry you espoused in that thread.
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Nah, it was you.
    Are you Astromark or Kojax?

    Because my responses were aimed at them. Not you.
    It is not who you aimed the answers, it is what you have in your answers: shilling for terror groups like hamas.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Nah, it was you.
    Are you Astromark or Kojax?

    Because my responses were aimed at them. Not you. And had you read my post, you'd clearly see what it was that I was discussing. Which is not as you are trying to make it out to be. I get it, you think that because this is the Politics sub-forum, you can lie and misrepresent, but really, there has to be a limit to it. And surely you have reached that limit.

    It is a shame you did not learn anything from the ban you were given because of the bigotry you espoused in that thread.

    The staunch hamas defender.
    I said that bombing Palestinians make groups like Hamas stronger and I explained how and why. I don't see how you can claim that I am defending Hamas.

    Stop stalking and stop shilling for the terrorist groups like hamas and we'll be fine.
    Chortle!

    Stop talking? Firstly, I am typing, not talking. Secondly, for all of your carrying on about how you think Islam detests anyone that disagrees with it and tries to shut them all down, you are here trying to do the exact same thing because I do not agree with your rampant racism and bigotry. Ironic, isn't it?

    Considering you are dredging posts from over a month ago, posts where I was not even discussing anything with you, but with others, that's a bit rich of you to accuse me of stalking. And this is a forum, where people respond to posts.

    You keep making this unfounded and frankly offensive accusation that I am 'shilling for terrorist groups like hamas', after asking me if I am a Muslim, which is really none of your business and has nothing to do with this discussion.

    Perhaps you should stick to the subject of this thread and stop being so offensive and rude and bigoted.
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Stop stalking and stop shilling for the terrorist groups like hamas and we'll be fine.
    Chortle!

    Stop talking? Firstly, I am typing, not talking.
    Err, reading comprehension much? I said "stop Stalking". Not "stop talking"
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Nah, it was you.
    Are you Astromark or Kojax?Because my responses were aimed at them.Not you
    And my response was aimed at your distortions of the truth. We all got your number. Talk about racism and bigotry.



    The staunch hamas defender.
    I said that bombing Palestinians make groups like Hamas stronger and I explained how and why. I don't see how you can claim that I am defending Hamas.
    kojax got you dead on:

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It kind of sounds like you are absolving them. You're putting the fault on someone else other than them.

    Why did they deliberately choose a place full of civilians as their staging ground? As the launcher of the attack, Hamas could have chosen any place they wanted for the battle to take place, but they chose that one.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; October 6th, 2014 at 01:18 PM.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Err, reading comprehension much? I said "stop Stalking". Not "stop talking"
    My mistake.

    How am I stalking you? By responding to your posts in this thread? Meanwhile you are going wildly off topic and dredging up something I was discussing with other members and misrepresenting them here.

    kojax got you dead on:
    And instead of addressing my responses to your comments in this thread, this is all you have to come up with?

    Okay then.



    Let me know when you have some sort of response to the actual discussion and subject matter of this thread.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Err, reading comprehension much? I said "stop Stalking". Not "stop talking"
    My mistake.
    Meanwhile you are going wildly off topic and dredging up something I was discussing with other members and misrepresenting them here.
    It is relevant because it exposes you for what you are.
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    It is relevant because it exposes you for what you are.
    Well thus far you have accused me of "shilling for Muslims", "shilling for terrorists", asked me if I was a Muslim as though it is meant to be an insult. I suppose I could take a pick. Perhaps do some eenie minee mo.

    Once again you prove my point. Instead of addressing the argument and attempting to answer for them in a succinct and capable manner, you resort to personal attacks, set out to offend and refuse to address the subject of this thread.

    As I noted above, let me know when you figure out what the answer to my questions and comments are. Take your time.
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post

    Exactly my point about North Korea's confidence. Sure they have nuclear weapons and they act confident. It doesn't mean they actually have much potential to do real harm to the US.
    While they may not pose a direct threat to the US right now, they do pose a direct threat to US allies.

    There is a cult of personality in North Korea, where he is viewed as a God and they are terrified of him, but few would ever rise against him and many would die for him. Because they have literally been taught to do so, from the moment they were born. And he is crazy enough that if he wants to prove a point, he will do so and damn the consequences. The man is pathologically dangerous and I think the US and her allies do wrong to dismiss him so casually.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    The "war on terror" is IMO just another political voting scare tactic. Though honestly, I really dont care much for what happens in some sand pit half a world away.
    Agreed. It's a politically motivated catchphrase that means almost nothing, like the "war on illiteracy" or the "war on drugs." All it means, in the final analysis, is "we want to be seen as saying this thing is bad."

    Ironically, in this case, the "war on terror" has helped terrorists accomplish their objectives. Weren't living in terror? Then let's put you in a backscatter X-ray machine to look for bombs. Not scared yet? Then we'll swipe you down and look for explosive residues.
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Yes, you have been a staunch defender of the muslim terrorism,, so the emphasis does not surprise me.
    I defend 'Muslim terrorism'? What is 'Muslim terrorism'?
    Let me spell iy out for you since you have so much difficulty understanding the concept. It is the terrorism perpetrated by muslims. It includes but it is not limited to:

    -hamas
    -hezbollah
    -isis
    -the chechens (like the murderers operating against civilians in Russia, like the lovely tsarnaev brothers operating in the US)
    -bokum al haram
    -government sponsored genocide (like the sudanese goverment)
    -al fatah (Arafat's lovely organization, athlete butcherers)
    -islamyia (the Bali tourist butcherers)
    -goverment genocidal leaders (like iran today; syria+egypt+jordan before they got their collective asses kicked in several wars with Israel)
    -al shahab (the somalian "pirates")
    -individual traitors, home grown terrorists (maj. hassan, the tsarnaev brothers again, alton alexander nolen, the mole terror cells in UK, Holland, Belgium)

    All the above have in common is that they are COWARDS, they wage wars against civilians. And they are despicable, just like their apologists and their appeasers.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; October 6th, 2014 at 03:33 PM.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Dftt
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Dftt
    Hungry much?
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Let me spell iy out for you since you have so much difficulty understanding the concept. It is the terrorism perpetrated by muslims. It includes but it is not limited to:

    -hamas
    -hezbollah
    -isis
    -the chechens (like the murderers operating against civilians in Russia, like the lovely tsarnaev brothers operating in the US)
    -bokum al haram
    -government sponsored genocide (like the sudanese goverment)
    -al fatah (Arafat's lovely organization, athlete butcherers)
    -islamyia (the Bali tourist butcherers)
    -goverment genocidal leaders (like iran today; syria+egypt+jordan before they got their collective asses kicked in several wars with Israel)
    -al shahab (the somalian "pirates")
    -individual traitors, home grown terrorists (maj. hassan, the tsarnaev brothers again, alton alexander nolen, the mole terror cells in UK, Holland, Belgium)

    All the above have in common is that they are COWARDS, they wage wars against civilians. And they are despicable, just like their apologists and their appeasers.
    That isn't "Muslim terrorism". That is radical Islamic terrorism. Muslims say that those individuals are not Muslims because their actions and their acts go against their religious teachings and their religion. But why ignore the likes of McVeigh, the IRA, the radical pro-life groups like the Army of God in the US and elsewhere who bomb clinics, murder doctors, nurses and patients and bomb Olympic games venues, the Russian backed rebels who shot down a plane load of people over the Ukraine, The Lord's Resistance Army, Anders Breivik in bombing a Government building and then slaughtering children stuck on a small island while on a camp, the Wisconsin Sihk Temple shootings, the Jewish Defense League, the leader of whom was imprisoned in 2003 for their plans to blow up a building in California, and all the rest?

    Extremism and radicalised behaviour exists within all forms of religions and even amongst the non-religious.

    You see, Howard Roark, any armed conflict against civilians or which targets civilians is cowardly and despicable, including those who simply dismiss it as being 'collateral damage' afterwards.
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    Let me spell iy out for you since you have so much difficulty understanding the concept. It is the terrorism perpetrated by muslims. It includes but it is not limited to:

    -hamas
    -hezbollah
    -isis
    -the chechens (like the murderers operating against civilians in Russia, like the lovely tsarnaev brothers operating in the US)
    -bokum al haram
    -government sponsored genocide (like the sudanese goverment)
    -al fatah (Arafat's lovely organization, athlete butcherers)
    -islamyia (the Bali tourist butcherers)
    -goverment genocidal leaders (like iran today; syria+egypt+jordan before they got their collective asses kicked in several wars with Israel)
    -al shahab (the somalian "pirates")
    -individual traitors, home grown terrorists (maj. hassan, the tsarnaev brothers again, alton alexander nolen, the mole terror cells in UK, Holland, Belgium)

    All the above have in common is that they are COWARDS, they wage wars against civilians. And they are despicable, just like their apologists and their appeasers.
    That isn't "Muslim terrorism". That is radical Islamic terrorism.
    If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is a....duck. Regardless of the terminology and regardless of the obligatory list of deflecting excuses. We are talking about the terrorism perpetrated by islamic perps, you asked for an explanation of the term "muslim terrorism", you received the explanation. You want to change its name, fine, it is still terrorism perpetrated by the same persuasion.


    <Deflection attempt snipped>

    For the record, I am not denying that there are many other forms of terrorism, nor am I shirking from condemning them but you need to learn how to stop your lame tactics of deflecting. You need to learn to condemn the "islamic" terrorism. Stop finding excuses for it. Own it.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it is a....duck. Regardless of the terminology and regardless of the obligatory list of deflecting excuses. We are talking about the terrorism perpetrated by islamic perps, you asked for an explanation of the term "muslim terrorism", you received the explanation. You want to change its name, fine, it is still terrorism perpetrated by the same persuasion.


    <Deflection attempt snipped>

    For the record, I am not denying that there are many other forms of terrorism, nor am I shirking from condemning them but you need to learn how to stop your lame tactics of deflecting. You need to learn to condemn the "islamic" terrorism. Stop finding excuses for it. Own it.
    Own what? Not arguing from the standpoint of a racist and bigoted twat? Sure, I'll own that!

    By labeling it "Muslim terrorism", you are clearly accusing the religion itself of being a terrorist organisation.

    Surely that cannot be lost on you? Well it clearly is not, if your arguments about Muslims on this site is anything to go by.

    By your flawed and bigoted logic that it is terrorism perpetrated by the same persuasion, the IRA were Catholic terrorists, as were the others, who could be described by their individual religious affiliations. To describe it as such, one would end up falsely labeling the whole by the actions of the minute few. And it is absolutely ridiculous to do so. Then again, this isn't surprising since you have delved into the ridiculous extremes often used by extremists like yourself, like your comments about the 'Muslim in the White House', I suppose I should not be surprised that the likes of you jumps head first into the concrete pit of stupid arguments.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    @ Tranquille, stop feeding the troll.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    @ Tranquille, stop feeding the troll.
    Thank you for that wake-up call!
     

  54. #53  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    sigh ... another tit-for-tat thread that doesn't do the image of this forum any favours (although it's rather amusing that both sides of the argument accuse the other side of ad homs ...)

    thread locked
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

Similar Threads

  1. war on terror , essay/information
    By mansoorfaisal100 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 5th, 2013, 01:15 PM
  2. US war on terror essay help.
    By wesson124 in forum Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2012, 03:26 PM
  3. usa-kurdish terror
    By cagatay-turkey in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2010, 07:19 PM
  4. Anti-Terror Tech
    By kojax in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 7th, 2009, 09:17 AM
  5. War on terror. Are we winning?
    By Quantime in forum Politics
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •