Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Faisal Shahzad Arrested for Time Square SUV Bomb

Faisal Shahzad Arrested for Time Square SUV Bomb (Page 2)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by k2director View Post
WOOPS, SOMETHING HAPPENED WITH MY MULTIQUOTE ATTEMPT... HYTECKIT SAID:

"...You are hoping that some muslim wacko kills my family, just so you will be granted the opportunity to ridicule me?

What kinda f*cking wacko are you? A Christian wacko?

Well, I hope your family stays safe. However, I hope some Christian wacko butt rapes you and tortures you. Serves you right. You probably won't mind as long as the person is not a muslim."

AND I SAID:

Actually, I never said I hoped for *anyone* to kill your family. Never did, but if you enjoy playing the victim card here, go ahead.

I asked you if you would keep explaining away a Muslim wacko's behavior if it was *your* family he/she killed. I said in the event that did happen (ie, if "fate" allowed it), I would enjoy trying to deny you an honest explanation of the murderer's actions, and would instead give you a taste of your own medicine by insisting that the wacko's actions were nothing he/she was really responsible for. You know, mental illness. Then if you dared wonder why Islam seems to be behind SO MANY murderous actions in SO MANY countries, I would chide you by claiming that all religions have their wackos (even if the non-Muslim wackos never seem to murder people in droves, in the name of their religion.
No, you crazy wacko. You are no different from a terrorist or those who pray for the death of the US president or anyone you don't agree with.

How does this sound to you:

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if the next Christian wacko happens to blow up, shoot or gas your own family. Maybe, some day, fate will grant us that opportunity, and as you mourn your murdered spouse or children or parents, I can start explaining away the murderer's actions with the cover of mental illness, and absolve the killer of any real responsibility. I'll enjoy having that conversation with you then....
My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guess what happened in My Lai? Christian American wackos blow up, shot, and napalm innocent people including children.

So are all Christian Americans terrorist just because they kill?

You crazy wacko.
( Last edited by hyteckit; May 7, 2010 at 02:00 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
k2director  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 03:05 PM
 
Man, you really are being willfully dense about this.

The soldiers who were involved in My Lai may have been Christian, but they did not act from any religious motivation. Read your own Wikipedia article and look for ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of the perpetrators claiming that the tenants of their Christian religion, or their dedication to Christianity, required them to act against the villagers. You'll find no such reference, because their religion had nothing to do with it.

But the religion of Hasan, of Shahzad, of the Mumbai murderers, of the multiple Russian murderers, the Detroit Christmas bomber, of the 9/11 gang, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. DID HAVE *EVERYTHING* to do with their actions. They acted precisely because they felt their Muslim identity and values required it. They all acted out of deep religious conviction. Therefore you can make their religion a part of the discussion.

And that's why it's appropriate to call them Muslim Wackos. I say "Wacko" because they try to kill civilians by the droves. And I put "Muslim" in there because their religion is the driving force behind their Wacko actions.

Muslim Wacko -- it says it all.

And no, you won't find Christians or Buddhists or Jews or Hindus intentionally killing masses of civilians -- again and again and again, in all corners of the world -- in the name of their religion. You do find that behavior quite a bit from Muslims though. That means Islam should be viewed differently and treated differently than the religions that are NOT producing mass murderers or attempted mass murderers on a monthly basis.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 03:08 PM
 
K2, you'll never get an atheist to see any difference between the religions/cults. It's beyond their pay grade.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by k2director View Post
Man, you really are being willfully dense about this.

The soldiers who were involved in My Lai may have been Christian, but they did not act from any religious motivation. Read your own Wikipedia article and look for ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of the perpetrators claiming that the tenants of their Christian religion, or their dedication to Christianity, required them to act against the villagers. You'll find no such reference, because their religion had nothing to do with it.

But the religion of Hasan, of Shahzad, of the Mumbai murderers, of the multiple Russian murderers, the Detroit Christmas bomber, of the 9/11 gang, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. DID HAVE *EVERYTHING* to do with their actions. They acted precisely because they felt their Muslim identity and values required it. They all acted out of deep religious conviction. Therefore you can make their religion a part of the discussion.

And that's why it's appropriate to call them Muslim Wackos. I say "Wacko" because they try to kill civilians by the droves. And I put "Muslim" in there because their religion is the driving force behind their Wacko actions.

Muslim Wacko -- it says it all.

And no, you won't find Christians or Buddhists or Jews or Hindus intentionally killing masses of civilians -- again and again and again, in all corners of the world -- in the name of their religion. You do find that behavior quite a bit from Muslims though. That means Islam should be viewed differently and treated differently than the religions that are NOT producing mass murderers or attempted mass murderers on a monthly basis.
k2director,

When does terrorism have to be religiously motivated?

Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist. He was a Catholic, a Republican, and a NRA member. Was he religiously motivated?

I'm telling you terrorism is terrorism, regardless of religion.

It's about the cause.

There are many right-wing and left-wing terrorist groups in the US that has nothing to do with religion.


If I was a crazy wacko like you, I would say:

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if the next Catholic wacko happens to blow up, shoot or gas your own family. Maybe, some day, fate will grant us that opportunity, and as you mourn your murdered spouse or children or parents, I can start explaining away the murderer's actions with the cover of religion, and absolve the killer of any real responsibility. I'll enjoy having that conversation with you then....
Unlike you, I'm no crazy wacko who hopes for someone's family's death just for the opportunity to ridicule the person they disagree with. What sort of wacko gets enjoyment out of death of someone's family whom they know nothing about, just for the opportunity to ridicule the person.

Unless you're are shaddim of course.
( Last edited by hyteckit; May 7, 2010 at 03:41 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by k2director View Post
We can start by allowing for much more common sense profiling that targets people that really are likely to be murderous terrorists, instead of playing the asinine politically correct game of searching white 78-year old grandmothers as they board airplanes.
Didn't we recently arrest a middle-aged white lady with ties to al-Qaeda? Wouldn't that be a pretty clear example of the folly of profiling? I don't want to refrain from open profiling because of political correctness. I want to refrain from open profiling because that type of profiling defeats the purpose of the security measures. If terrorists know that 78-year old white ladies aren't subject to security measures, what makes you think they wouldn't find 78-year old white ladies, wittingly or unwittingly, to carry out their deeds? Once we start openly profiling, the likelihood of someone we're not profiling actually turning out to be a terrorist goes up.

The only type of profiling that would be effective would be the type that you and I don't know about.

Apparently, you don't mind giving up liberty in the name of security, as long as it's someone else's liberty in question. This is no different than evil liberals wanting someone else's tax dollars for services for themselves.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Apparently, you don't mind giving up liberty in the name of security, as long as it's someone else's liberty in question.
QFT.

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I want to refrain from open profiling because that type of profiling defeats the purpose of the security measures. If terrorists know that 78-year old white ladies aren't subject to security measures, what makes you think they wouldn't find 78-year old white ladies, wittingly or unwittingly, to carry out their deeds? Once we start openly profiling, the likelihood of someone we're not profiling actually turning out to be a terrorist goes up.
What you don't understand is that this isn't an either/or situation. Discarding obvious possibilities just because some not-so-obvious choices might slip through is absurd. Check out the obvious, and also work on profiles and methods for ferreting out the more difficult cases. If over 90% of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by males 20-50 of M.E. descent then you'd be an idiot not to profile accordingly.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
k2director  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2010, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
k2director,

When does terrorism have to be religiously motivated?

Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist. He was a Catholic, a Republican, and a NRA member. Was he religiously motivated?

I'm telling you terrorism is terrorism, regardless of religion.

It's about the cause.

There are many right-wing and left-wing terrorist groups in the US that has nothing to do with religion.


If I was a crazy wacko like you, I would say:



Unlike you, I'm no crazy wacko who hopes for someone's family's death just for the opportunity to ridicule the person they disagree with. What sort of wacko gets enjoyment out of death of someone's family whom they know nothing about, just for the opportunity to ridicule the person.

Unless you're are shaddim of course.
No, of course a terrorist doesn't *have* to be religiously motivated, but the vast majority of terrorist acts targeting civilians -- both in this country and in much of the world -- are indeed religiously motivated and there's predictably one religion behind those acts: ISLAM.

You seem to think in hypotethicals, in theories -- ie, a person is capable of committing atrocities in the name of any religion or any cause, so let's not single any particular one out. But I deal with the real-world, where one particular religion IS behind SO MUCH real violence, which makes it quite okay to single it out.

Your brain, diseased beyond hope by political correctness, simply can't come to terms with that FACT, and so you prefer to float off into the ether, pretending like your hypothetical fantasy land is valid.

And you keep whining and moaning about how i wished harm on your family. Time to put up or shut up about that, and show me where I said that. Let's see the quote. Let's see it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2010, 12:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by k2director View Post
Uh, the reason it's getting so much attention is because it shows how ineffective our politically-correct government is in combating Muslim wackos who are trying to kill hundreds of American civilians. You'd think that is indeed news-worthy...just as newsworthy as run-away federal spending or who left Dancing with the Stars.

No one died in this attack, but only because we got lucky. Had Muslim Wacko #534,502 (aka Faisal Shahzad) been a better bomber, potentially hundreds of Americans would have been dead. Even then, our wonderful Terrorist Screening system almost let this Muslim animal fly out of the country.

Same thing could have been said for the Detroit airplane bomber at Xmas. Had he been a better bomber, that story would have ended far worse. In that case, our government ignored warnings from the bomber's own father, and allowed this wacko on a 1-way flight to America. The only thing the government was good at was reading this murderous muslim wacko his Miranda rights!

Unfortunately, we didn't get lucky with the muslim wacko Nidal Hasan--despite repeated warnings of his radicalization, he was *allowed* to murder 13 American soldiers.

All of these stories and others point to a Muslim threat that is being carried to American shores, and that the government seems incapable of stopping it.

If that's not newsworthy, what is? I wouldn't trust the press to report on what's important by itself, but they are probably noticing a lot of public interest through hits on their web sites, ratings for newscasts, etc.

A lot of people voted for this administration because they thought Obama's "multilateralist" approach and his promise for more positive engagement with the Muslim world would be an antidote to Bush's "divisive" and "caustic" ways. They also wanted an end to Bush's "police state" Patriot Act, which let the government monitor wackos who were more likely to try to kill Americans.

Well, America got what it wanted -- an empty-suit, affirmative-action president who has presided over MORE attacks on Americans, not fewer, than Bush.

Sadly, this angle will never be investigated by the American press, because so many of them are aligned with Obama's own ideaology. BUt I think it helps explains Americans interest in this story....
I should've qualified that with "rounded coverage". Yes, the attempt and what it implies is definitely newsworthy, but as you point out; the coverage has been misdirected and often misleading. Believe me I'm not shy about presenting examples of government failure, I wanted to convey the possibility of this being more than the product of luck. The whole thing strikes me as bizarre.
ebuddy
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2010, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What you don't understand is that this isn't an either/or situation. Discarding obvious possibilities just because some not-so-obvious choices might slip through is absurd. Check out the obvious, and also work on profiles and methods for ferreting out the more difficult cases. If over 90% of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by males 20-50 of M.E. descent then you'd be an idiot not to profile accordingly.
I understand that perfectly well, thank you. If we're to do both, then why all the whining about the more general measures that in fact are attempts to ferret out the more difficult cases?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,