[marden]

Security personnel detain Michael Stone in the Stormont parliament in Northern Ireland. Stone has also admitted planning to kill London Mayor Ken Livingstone

Loyalist bomb scare: devices defused
10.12, Fri Nov 24 2006

Police in Northern Ireland have defused up to eight devices after loyalist hitman Michael Stone stormed Stormont's parliament buildings.

As politicians held talks over the future of self-rule, Stone tried to enter the building shouting "no surrender". He lobbed a smoking and fizzing package into the entrance of the Belfast building before he was wrestled to the ground by security staff.

Northern Ireland's chief constable, Sir Hugh Orde, said between six and eight devices were "viable" and their potential for causing damage, death and injury is being assessed. A gun and a knife were also recovered following Stone's arrest.

Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain has ordered an urgent report from chief constable Sir Hugh into the breach of security.

Television footage showed Stone being pinned down by staff on the steps of the building as politicians and staff were evacuated.

Assembly members - including the Rev Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams - had gathered at Stormont for the first meeting of the Assembly since the St Andrews roadmap for devolution.

Stone once opened fire on mourners at an IRA funeral, killing three people. He has also admitted planning to kill London Mayor Ken Livingstone.

Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said: "It seems that Michael Stone has gone on the rampage again, in a very dangerous way. But he was stopped. It just shows you exactly what we are trying to get away from in Northern Ireland."

Tony Blair said the St Andrews agreement had been reached "in good faith" and was still the "only way forward"

ITV News - Loyalist bomb scare: devices defused

August 16, 2005

London mayor likens jihad terrorists to Founding Fathers

As well as to Ian Smith, Nelson Mandela, and Yasir Arafat -- which indicates his utter moral confusion. "Anti-terror plans could be counter-productive, warns London Mayor," from IRNA, with thanks to Nicolei:

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, Monday expressed serious reservations about the government's new anti-terror plans, particularly extending the exclusion and deportation powers of the Home Secretary.

In response to the Home Office's consultation document on the new proposals, Livingstone also raised concern about the government's list of 'unacceptable behaviors' and called people to be allowed to express their views on issues as the Middle East conflict.

"People such as the founders of the United States, the founder of Israel, opponents of Ian Smith's regime in 'Rhodesia' (Zimbabwe), Nelson Mandela and the Yasser Arafat have all been branded terrorists by someone at one time or another," the mayor said.

"But nothing would have been gained by us banning either side in those conflicts. Today it would be totally counter-productive as it would reduce the trust, and therefore the information, from the communities whose help is indispensable to the police," he warned....

Dhimmi Watch: London mayor likens jihad terrorists to Founding Fathers

It goes against my principle to support violence to achieve a goal but I believe Ken Livingstone is akin to a sell-out to Britain and is helping to usher Western freedoms out of existence. So, I can only be so upset about Stone's actions.

I deplore his use of violence but I admire his view of things, from what I gather after just reading the accounts here.

[marden]

London Mayor Ken Livingstone

"One of my biggest regrets is that I had to call it off" - Michael Stone

Terrorist admits Mayor assassination plot
4.48, Wed Nov 1 2006

One of the most infamous terrorists of the Northern Ireland conflict has confessed to a plot to murder London Mayor Ken Livingstone.

Michael Stone, 51, who had carried out a number of assassinations for Ulster paramilitary groups, said he was within three days of shooting the London Mayor but had to abandon the plot because of an informer.

At the time, Mr Livingstone was leader of the Greater London Council - predecessor to the current Greater London Authority. He was viewed as a Loyalist paramilitary target because of what was seen as his support for Republicans.

According to Stone - who famously tried to assassinate Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness at an IRA funeral in 1988 - the murder had been ordered by the Ulster Defence Association's military wing.

He said he went to London under the guise of a hotel worker and followed Mr Livingstone to an Underground station. Equipped with a 9mm Beretta, Stone was aiming to shoot Mr Livingstone as he walked down some steps.

He said: "There was no sign of any security at all. He was on his own, with a kind of attach� case slung over his shoulder. I thought that's how I would do it. I'd clip him on the steps of the Tube. He added: "One of my biggest regrets is that I had to call it off."

Stone, who was released from prison on July 24, 2000, under the terms of the 1998 Good Friday Peace Agreement, said Mr Livingstone was "a legitimate target" because he had supported and given credibility to Mr McGuinness and Mr Adams.

ITV News - Terrorist admits Mayor assassination plot

[analogika]

It's the ****ing Islamic agenda.

Damn terrorists.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by marden 

Stone has also admitted planning to kill London Mayor Ken Livingstone

Sounds like a good bloke.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

It goes against my principle to support violence to achieve a goal but I believe Ken Livingstone is akin to a sell-out to Britain and is helping to usher Western freedoms out of existence. So, I can only be so upset about Stone's actions.

I deplore his use of violence but I admire his view of things, from what I gather after just reading the accounts here.

Terrorist sympathizer!!!!!

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

It's the ****ing Islamic agenda.

Damn terrorists.

I'll say it again.

There is a concerted effort by Islamic Jihadists and their supporters (who believe as they do) to make Islam the dominant religion and political system all over the world. They are using the instructions and example of the Prophet Muhammad as a blueprint and inspiration for their actions and efforts. These actions include violent terrorist attacks, conventional war as well as peaceful means.

Whether the actions and efforts are violent or peaceful, in Iraq or Iran or India or Indiana the goal is the same...to make Islam the dominant religion and political system the world over...by any means necessary.

There are some non-Muslims and some Muslims who don't subscribe to the VIOLENT efforts to make Islam the dominant religion/political system but who support the non-violent efforts.

Livingstone supports the spread of Islam and in his capacity as Mayor of London he has done what he can (it seems) to encourage Islamic growth. Yet, his stewardship has also helped bring about a growth in government intrusions and a lack of privacy in the lives of the average Londoner as the only way to protect the people from the efforts of the jihadists in the midsts of the Islamic population.

The end result?

The government has an excuse for becoming Big Brother that the non-Muslim population can't argue with and Muslims are encouraged and they don't feel discriminated against.

The majority get the security they demand. The Muslims get the encouragement they desire. The government gets the power they want.

Everybody is happy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Terrorist sympathizer!!!!!

Ouch.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'll say it again.

There is a concerted effort by Islamic Jihadists and their supporters who believe as they do to make Islam the dominant religion and political system all over the world. They are using the instructions and example of the Prophet Muhammad as a blueprint and inspiration for their actions and efforts. These actions include violent terrorist attacks, conventional war as well as peaceful means.

Whether the actions and efforts are violent or peaceful, in Iraq or Iran or India or Indiana the goal is the same...to make Islam the dominant religion and political system the world over...by any means necessary.

There are some non-Muslims and some Muslims who don't subscribe to the VIOLENT efforts to make Islam the dominant religion/political system but who support the non-violent efforts.

Livingstone supports the spread of Islam and in his capacity as Mayor of London he has done what he can (it seems) to encourage Islamic growth. Yet, his stewardship has also helped bring about a growth in government intrusions and a lack of privacy in the lives of the average Londoner as the only way to protect the people from the efforts of the jihadists in the midsts of the Islamic population.

The end result?

The government has an excuse for becoming Big Brother that the non-Muslim population can't argue with and Muslims are encouraged and they don't feel discriminated against.

The majority get the security they demand. The Muslims get the encouragement they desire. The government gets the power they want.

Everybody is happy.

Is Islam the only religion that seeks to be the dominant religion in the world? Can you really fault them for trying to expand through peaceful means? Violent, yes, but peaceful? On the other hand, perhaps we should be taking efforts to curtail the growth of all religions.

Is Islam the only political system that seeks to be the dominant political system in the world? Seems to me that at least one other political system is seeking to be the dominant political system in the world, through peaceful as well as violent means ...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Ouch.

You don't get it, do you? Here we have a man who attempted to use terrorism to get his point across. You denounce his violence, but you understand and sympathize with his motivations. You have labeled others as "terrorist sympathizers" for less ...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is Islam the only religion that seeks to be the dominant religion in the world? Can you really fault them for trying to expand through peaceful means? Violent, yes, but peaceful? On the other hand, perhaps we should be taking efforts to curtail the growth of all religions.

Is Islam the only political system that seeks to be the dominant political system in the world? Seems to me that at least one other political system is seeking to be the dominant political system in the world, through peaceful as well as violent means ...

Maybe it wouldn't be so scary if two aspects of the campaign were different.

1. Good Islam/Bad Islam

2. The Political System of Islam


1. Like good cop/bad cop. They work together and complement each other. Studies have shown that in a mob, ONE person in the mob will cross the existing 'line' to violate the law. Imagine a mob of peaceful protesters walking down the street. ONE person breaks a store window and starts looting. The other peaceful protesters merely follow the others and go in. The crowd becomes emboldened and others follow suit and someone else breaks another window. There's a sense of anarchistic fun and excitement in the air. The mob becomes a powerful force and everyone feels part of that power. It's a rush. Even an otherwise peaceful protester gets caught up in the spirit of the moment and before long cars are being overturned and burned. Fights are breaking out and against this lawlessness the police must use overwhelming force to arrest the ones they can, especially the obviously violent lawbreakers, discourage those who are less active and disperse the rest.

If you compare Muslim communities to a peaceful group there are only a few needed who will cross the line and become violent or unlawful but the others quickly support the actions of the violent ones and if you take away the peaceful protesters the violent ones are easy to see and nab.

Take away the violent ones and the peaceful ones will go on being peaceful.

2. Islam. It's not just a religion, it's a system of laws and governance.

If islam was only a religion it would be no more threatening than Jehovah's Witnesses who would like to bring Christianity to the whole world. But unlike Witnesses, Muslims bring with them a system of laws and government which they are instructed as part of the teachings, must supplant man made laws and democratic governments.

So put them together, the mob thing and the politics thing and you have a threat that doesn't exist in any other manner or form.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You don't get it, do you? Here we have a man who attempted to use terrorism to get his point across. You denounce his violence, but you understand and sympathize with his motivations. You have labeled others as "terrorist sympathizers" for less ...

I said, "ouch."

What more do you want, blood?

What you want me to say is that terrorism in the service of tyranny and oppression is wrong and that terrorism in the service of freedom is acceptable.

Well, what good are our high minded values if they won't allow us to defend ourselves or those values?

Should we strive to be like the delicate flower that once bloomed and was as close to ideal as a flower could be, but because it was too perfect and too delicate it could not stand up to the hazards of it's environment?

Environmentalists would save the brown spotted owl from extinction. But who will save Democracy if Democrats don't?

[besson3c]

Terrorists are no big deal.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Terrorists are no big deal.

Dear besson3c,

If a ballistic missile, launched from a particular country, were to hit European soil, it would be considered by NATO an attack against all, according to Article 5 of the Alliance’s founding Treaty. Why, then, should a dirty bomb, planted by a terrorist group in, say, a container in a European port, only be viewed as a criminal offence? Why should the response to a ballistic missile be a military matter while that to a crude nuclear device is left in the hands of the police?

I believe it’s time to recognise that today’s terrorists, particularly al Qaida and its various offshoots, have increased the lethality and ambition of terrorism way beyond that of traditional terrorist groups such as ETA, the IRA or the PKK. Moreover, no country – not even the United States – is able to deal with and prevail over what has become a global menace on its own. Since NATO was originally created to strengthen the security of its members through collective arrangements, I believe that the Alliance should now play a similar role in combating today’s terrorist threat to that which it played in the Cold War in the face of the Soviet threat. Moreover, it should do this by making homeland security a fundamental mission.

Two basic ideas. Firstly, homeland security is not a new concept for NATO. Indeed, during the Cold War, the Alliance possessed plans to combat Soviet special forces, the Speznats, in case they managed to deploy beyond the front lines and infiltrate our societies from the rear. Secondly, military forces have always been ready to help civilian authorities if and when required, whether responding to natural disasters, sealing borders or protecting critical infrastructure.

For years, security analysts and practitioners have paid lip service to the need for an integrated approach to addressing new, emerging and unconventional threats, arguing that internal and international security should be viewed as a continuum and not two separate and distinct fields. Despite this, administrative divides remain. On the one hand, we have interior ministries; on the other, we have defence ministries, with intelligence services somewhere in between. This disjointed approach is anachronistic.

The Alliance should play a similar role in combating today’s terrorist threat to that which it played in the Cold War in the face of the Soviet threat
To prevail over terror, we have to do two things. We need to eliminate the threat, wherever it is, and reduce our vulnerability. But these tasks cannot be accomplished in a compartmentalised manner. For this reason, we need an overarching body to provide coordination, which, in my view, should be NATO. For sure, the European Union also possesses some capabilities to combat terrorism when it comes to the judiciary and police coordination. However, the European Union has few means with which to head off another attack and the capacity of its member states to address threats that emanate from beyond their borders is limited.

Nevertheless, for NATO to play a distinctive and effective role in homeland security, the Alliance has to make changes. Firstly, NATO needs to develop a new mindset and clearly and categorically to identify extremist Islamic groups as posing a vital threat to the Alliance and to behave accordingly.

Secondly, NATO needs a new organisational culture. To this end, the Alliance should begin by holding expanded or reinforced meetings of the North Atlantic Council in which representatives of defence and interior ministries sit together. It should also create a new functional command, possibly drawn up along similar lines to Allied Command Transformation, which deals specifically with counter-terrorism. Armed forces must develop new concepts, prepare special operations units, and allocate their budgets accordingly, all of which could be better accomplished through unified leadership. The key issue, in any case, will be to explore ways in which NATO forces can be used in a preventive capacity, not simply in consequence management after an attack has taken place.

The principal responsibility of any leader is to provide security for his or her citizens. To this end, NATO was a remarkably effective instrument during the Cold War when its defensive shield provided the deterrent that persuaded the Soviet Union not to invade. In recent years, NATO has managed to reinvent itself as an alliance capable of intervening to export stability to troubled regions beyond Allied territory. If, however, terrorist attacks continue to threaten our security – as seems to be the case – people will eventually start questioning the purpose of an expensive, highly trained, and generally efficient organisation that appears to be good at addressing the security needs of third countries, but almost irrelevant to their safety at home.

To be fair, NATO has become involved in counter-terrorism in recent years and could quite easily increase that involvement. Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean could be expanded geographically; an anti-ballistic missile system could be put in place; a nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical warning system could be developed for the whole Atlantic area; and intelligence could be shared in a more integrated manner. I believe there is already sufficient consensus at NATO for the Alliance to take such measures. But they should be viewed as only the start of a shift in priorities that leads to a much greater involvement in homeland security.

Yours,
Rafael

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006...sh/debate.html

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

What you want me to say is that terrorism in the service of tyranny and oppression is wrong and that terrorism in the service of freedom is acceptable.

Is that not what you are saying? That terrorism is acceptable in the defense of our values?

Originally Posted by marden 

Well, what good are our high minded values if they won't allow us to defend ourselves or those values?

Should we strive to be like the delicate flower that once bloomed and was as close to ideal as a flower could be, but because it was too perfect and too delicate it could not stand up to the hazards of it's environment?

Environmentalists would save the brown spotted owl from extinction. But who will save Democracy if Democrats don't?

[The Godfather]

The naturalist approach: if/when terrorists/dissidents/traitors win, they re-write history to make themselves indisputable heros.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is that not what you are saying? That terrorism is acceptable in the defense of our values?

Ok, if by OUR values you mean freedom to live as God made us, FREE. Then we must do what we can to resist tyranny and being made to live under oppression.

And if I were a modern (Thanks, Taliesin!) Muslim I would feel I must do what I could to resist being made to live under radical Islamist rule so that I could worship Allah as I wish but also live as a modern Western person with western freedoms alongside people of other nations, cultures and religions.

I guess it's time to have this discussion.

Which values are good and which ones are bad.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

The naturalist approach: if/when terrorists/dissidents/traitors win, they re-write history to make themselves indisputable heros.

We get to vote on the victors now and help influence the outcome.

Choose wisely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Ok, if by OUR values you mean freedom to live as God made us, FREE. Then we must do what we can to resist tyranny and being made to live under oppression.

In other words: God is on our side!






Hmmm... where have I heard that before

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In other words: God is on our side!

Hmmm... where have I heard that before

"I think a mod in here once said anyone that tried to correlate Muslim terrorism with Christianity had an agenda." Thanx for the new sig, Kevin!

Look below.

vVvVvVvVvV

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sounds like a good bloke.

Sure. I mean, he did kill 3 during his one-man gun and grenade massacre at a funeral...

but he also wants to kill a democratically elected lefty politician - so he can't be all bad, right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/854637.stm

Grow up.

[moodymonster]

respect to that security guy and gal - tackling a gunman whilst unarmed themselves.

what Michael Stone did that put him in jail (which Bliar got him out of):

threw grenades into a crowd of 10,000 people...

YouTube - Michael Stone Defender of Ulster

[moodymonster]

just noticed - everyone who has posted in this thread thus far is 'Addicted to MacNN'

totally irrelevant, but you know...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And no one's captioned this yet?

[moodymonster]

stone gets stuck in revolving door?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath 

Grow up.

Get a sense of humour.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

"I think a mod in here once said anyone that tried to correlate Muslim terrorism with Christianity had an agenda."

And anyone trying to correlate Muslim terrorism with Christian TERRORISM has a point.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Ok, if by OUR values you mean freedom to live as God made us, FREE. Then we must do what we can to resist tyranny and being made to live under oppression.

And if I were a modern (Thanks, Taliesin!) Muslim I would feel I must do what I could to resist being made to live under radical Islamist rule so that I could worship Allah as I wish but also live as a modern Western person with western freedoms alongside people of other nations, cultures and religions.

So, what is a "War on Terror" when you are able to rationalize the use of terror?

Originally Posted by marden 

I guess it's time to have this discussion.

Which values are good and which ones are bad.

I'm not certain values can be quite so easily polarized in the way you want. Certainly, some will be good and bad, while others will exist somewhere in between. Also, I'm glad you didn't say "which set of values are good and which are bad", since all cultures will have some good and bad values in their set of values.

[Shaddim]

Since 2002, the number of terrorist acts.

"Christian" terrorists - 5
"Muslim" terrorists - 1240

Yeah, that's pretty even, I see what you mean.


*ahem*

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, what is a "War on Terror" when you are able to rationalize the use of terror?


I'm not certain values can be quite so easily polarized in the way you want. Certainly, some will be good and bad, while others will exist somewhere in between. Also, I'm glad you didn't say "which set of values are good and which are bad", since all cultures will have some good and bad values in their set of values.

War on Islam We love Muslims who aren't trying to perform violent jihad.

War on Violent Islamists Doesn't roll off the tongue.

War on al Qaeda There are groups and individuals involved other than al Qaeda.

War on Terror!

I'd say denying people freedoms, freedoms such as we enjoy here in the US, is a bad thing.

Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart

Live free and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star

Stay free, where no walls divide you
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
'cause you're born free

(Stay free, where no walls divide you)
You're free as the roaring tide
So there's no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
'cause you're born free

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Look below.

vVvVvVvVvV

"I think a mod in here once said anyone that tried to correlate Muslim terrorism with Christianity had an agenda."

Yeah, I have an agenda, in this thread it's showing you how your agenda is narcissistic and hypocritical.

As for your new quote, you're quoting some guy who "thinks" some unknown other guy made some generalization about something which may or may not have been completely out of context at the time. Have you ever heard of an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority fallacy?

Secondly, everyone in here has an agenda. Posting here haphazardly without any point to what you're saying is ... pointless. How would you respond to someone saying "anyone who tries to correlate Islam with terrorism has an agenda"? Of course they do, what's wrong with that?

Meanwhile, my point stands firmer than ever. You have absolutely no grip on objective reality, and see the world exclusively as an US vs THEM battle royale. And the motivation? Our god can beat up their god? You're a really shallow, sad individual, you know that?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, I have an agenda, in this thread it's showing you how your agenda is narcissistic and hypocritical.

As for your new quote, you're quoting some guy who "thinks" some unknown other guy made some generalization about something which may or may not have been completely out of context at the time. Have you ever heard of an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority fallacy?

Secondly, everyone in here has an agenda. Posting here haphazardly without any point to what you're saying is ... pointless. How would you respond to someone saying "anyone who tries to correlate Islam with terrorism has an agenda"? Of course they do, what's wrong with that?

Meanwhile, my point stands firmer than ever. You have absolutely no grip on objective reality, and see the world exclusively as an US vs THEM battle royale. And the motivation? Our god can beat up their god? You're a really shallow, sad individual, you know that?

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free.
I can't understand it, so simple to me (it is)
People everywhere just got to be free

RASCALS | People Got To Be Free Lyrics

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free
Listen, please listen, that's the way it should be
Peace in the valley, people got to be free

You should see what a lovely, lovely world this'd be
Everyone learns to live together
Seems to me such an easy, easy thing should be
Why can't you and me learn to love one another

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free (wanna be free)
I can't understand it, so simple to me (it is)
People everywhere just got to be free

If there's a man who is down and needs a helping hand
All it takes is you to understand and to pull him through
Seems to me we got to solve it individually
And I'll do unto you what you do to me

There'll be shoutin' from the mountains on out to sea (out to sea)
No two ways about it, people have to be free (they got to be free)
Ask me my opinion, my opinion will be (ah-ha)
It's a natural situation for a man to be free

Oh, what a feelin's just come over me
It's enough to move a mountain, make a blind man see
Everybody's dancin' [unintelligible]
Peace in the valley, now they want to be free

See that train over there
Now that's the train of freedom
It's about to arrive any minute, now
You know, it's been long, long overdue
Look out 'cause it's comin' right on through
(c) 2006 By SingulARtists

[marden]

UDA hit squads sent to hunt Stone

Henry McDonald, Ireland editor
Sunday November 26, 2006
The Observer

The Ulster Defence Association dispatched four hit squads to hunt down convicted killer Michael Stone as he made his way to his aborted alleged attack on Stormont.
Senior UDA sources told The Observer yesterday that the units were told to either 'arrest or shoot' Stone because they feared he was planning to destabilise Northern Ireland's peace process.

Stone, 51, appeared at Belfast magistrates' court yesterday in connection with the attempted attack at the city's Parliament Buildings on Friday morning. He was charged with the attempted murder of five people - Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, two security staff and an unnamed person - possession of articles for terrorist purposes, including nail bombs, an axe and a garrotte, and possession of explosives with intent to endanger life and of an imitation firearm.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...957396,00.html

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Terrorists are no big deal.

Said by someone that has obviously not felt it's effects.

I am sure It's easy to stand by and say such a thing.

Try telling that to someone that has lost a loved one to terrorism.

You just might get the taste smacked out of your mouth.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And no one's captioned this yet?

He ALMOST looks like George Michael.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And anyone trying to correlate Muslim terrorism with Christian TERRORISM has a point.

Not if they are pretending that they are equals in terms of grandness or threat.

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Since 2002, the number of terrorist acts.

"Christian" terrorists - 5
"Muslim" terrorists - 1240

Yeah, that's pretty even, I see what you mean.


*ahem*

But, but, but...

I do like how you quoted both religions. As these are human beings doing these things. Not religions.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He ALMOST looks like George Michael.

I SWEAR I WAS JUST THINKING THE SAME THING!!!!! Hahahahahaha!

Great minds think alike!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

... these are human beings doing these things. Not religions.

Absolutely. Try explaining that to Abe.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Absolutely. Try explaining that to Abe.

I'll see what I can do. But I think he already knows.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'll see what I can do. But I think he already knows.

Then, why do you constantly blame the religion?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then, why do you constantly blame the religion?

So, you are invoking a variant of the right-to-bear-arms argument?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people..."

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Said by someone that has obviously not felt it's effects.

I am sure It's easy to stand by and say such a thing.

Try telling that to someone that has lost a loved one to terrorism.

You just might get the taste smacked out of your mouth.

I wish you Americans would stop acting like terrorism never existed until YOU discovered it, all of a sudden, in 2001.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

So, you are invoking a variant of the right-to-bear-arms argument?

Nice dodge. But, I believe it was Kevin who "invoked" the "variant".

If you understand that "these are human beings doing these things, not religions", then why do you constantly blame the religion?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free.
I can't understand it, so simple to me (it is)
People everywhere just got to be free

me: "You don't have much of a grip on reality do you?"
you: <sings quietly to self>
me: "exactly"

[christ]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'd say denying people freedoms, freedoms such as we enjoy here in the US, is a bad thing.

I'd say denying people freedoms, freedoms such as we enjoy everywhere else other than in the US, is a bad thing.

You should grant non-USAmericans the freedom to not act like USAmericans. That includes not imposing your variant of tyranny on anyone else. We don't want to be behoven to any USAmerican special interest group, or beholden to the USAmerican mega-corporations.

Your form of freedom may be exactly what you deserve, but we don't want it, thank-you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I wish you Americans would stop acting like terrorism never existed until YOU discovered it, all of a sudden, in 2001.

I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth.

My post wasn't even close to what you are accusing me of believing.

Cut it out.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nice dodge. But, I believe it was Kevin who "invoked" the "variant".

If you understand that "these are human beings doing these things, not religions", then why do you constantly blame the religion?

It is humans doing these things. However I don't know enough about Islam to say either way if it promotes such actions.

In the end it's still people doing them.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

me: "You don't have much of a grip on reality do you?"
you: <sings quietly to self>
me: "exactly"

Might I suggest that you have a fine grip?

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I wish you Americans would stop acting like terrorism never existed until YOU discovered it, all of a sudden, in 2001.

At least when we "discovered" it we didn't just accept it as business as usual while it gathered steam, gained resources, killing and injuring thousands while conquering territory as it went about devouring the whole world.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nice dodge. But, I believe it was Kevin who "invoked" the "variant".

If you understand that "these are human beings doing these things, not religions", then why do you constantly blame the religion?

If only a few people get into accidents while DUI, why blame drinking and driving?

If fewer than 100% of all smokers contract lung cancer, why blame cigarette smoking?

While the religion isn't the sole cause, one must have an apologist's agenda to say the religion doesn't play a role in jihadist violence.

Is there a specific Sura which instructs today's Muslims NOT to obey the instructions to conquer and dominate the world?

[marden]

Originally Posted by christ 

I'd say denying people freedoms, freedoms such as we enjoy everywhere else other than in the US, is a bad thing.

You should grant non-USAmericans the freedom to not act like USAmericans. That includes not imposing your variant of tyranny on anyone else. We don't want to be behoven to any USAmerican special interest group, or beholden to the USAmerican mega-corporations.

Your form of freedom may be exactly what you deserve, but we don't want it, thank-you.

But that's the INTERESTING THING.

It hasn't been discussed or voted on or anything, but let's look at it square on.

The people in Muslim countries DO want America. They want the parts of America that THEY like. TV. Music. Pepsi. Hollywood. Levi's. Apple Computers & iPods. Democracy. Women's rights. Freedom of speech. Titty bars. Porno. Booze. No caste system. Business opportunity. Freedom of worship. Lack of government oppression.

So why don't you tell us, what freedom does America deprive you of?

You are a puppet of some government. The PEOPLE LOVE AMERICA and want the parts of America that they want.

They should have that freedom to enjoy the America they want.