Puhlease try to stay on track, ok? This is a story about a bogus plot in LONDON and more generally in the west. You are the first and only person to even mention Iraq. Keep the red herrings to yourself.
Uh... you missed the point in a rather spectacular fashion. You tried to argue that merely bringing up the threat of terrorism means that I'm afraid of terrorists, but it's exactly like saying that bringing up the situation in Iraq means that I'm afraid of insurgents busting into my home and killing me.
Your claims have been rebutted with actual evidence, not arbitrarily dismissed -- they have been disproven with actual freaking PROOF. 1000+ terror arrests, only 9 of 27 convictions of muslims, quote from the head of MI5,
I've never argued about the convinction rates.
factual accounts of what really happened with the "Airplane imams," (Which must really be giving you a bad case of cognitive dissonance since you keep repeating the same repudiated claims over and over with nothing new to support them)
What factual accounts?
numerous specific examples of "muslim arrested with C4 and map of subway" type stories that were debunked in the follow-up stories that you ignore.
I've already addressed this (somewhere). Just because no charges were filed doesn't mean that no threat existed.
Hello? We have laws in this country about supporting or otherwise aiding terrorists locally or abroad.
As I recall, some members of CAIR have actually been charged and/or imprisoned due to terrorism connections, but I don't remember for sure.
If there were anything more to this statement than something like "he shops at a supermarket that is known to be frequented by the cousin of the brother-in-law of a guy in prison in Egypt for voting for the local muslim brotherhood candidate," these guys would be in jail. They aren't even close to being in jail, they even got on another plane without any problems.
Why do you assume that they would be in jail, and why do you assume that the connection must either be direct, or completely meaningless? You make a lot of assumptions.
And if the same thing had happened to a bunch of rabbis, you can bet your sweet ass that the ADL would get on the case immediately. That's what CAIR is expected to do, if they didn't get involved you would be claiming that the imams are so guilty that even CAIR was afraid to touch the case. Again, more of your "if they are guilty they are guilty and if they are innocent they are still guilty" witch-hunt logic.
More assumptions. I think it's blatantly obvious that this whole thing was engineered in order to undermine security policies, and to cause yet another outrage. Even if the imams had no intentions of doing so, CAIR is still taking advantage of the incident.
Yeah, because those other 66% of terrorist convictions in the UK were NOT muslims.
What terrorist convictions are you even referring to?
And of course, no self-respecting terrorist would ever LIE about their religion to avoid additional scrutiny. Good luck indeed, because obviously logic doesn't help in your world.
That's why profiling should also be based on appearance.
Come on man, you haven't been able to come up with one iota of evidence to disprove my claim that less than 10 credible plots are underway. Even most of your red herrings have been disproven with real, verifiable evidence. You might as well just come out and admit that you have no rational source for your beliefs, that they are all just based on the truthiness of the situation.
I think 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, the various unsuccesful and possible plots in the West, the repeated terrorist incidents in the Middle
Lol. Your own fearful words: The threat of terrorism is omnipresent. Potential terrorist plots are reported constantly
Yeah, and Iraq is a dangerous area full of terrorists. Saying so doesn't mean that I'm scared of Iraqi insurgents or Jihadists coming into my home to behead me.
So, now instead of admitting that you never pay attention to the follow-ups you care claiming completely the reverse.
Sometimes there are followups to some stories, but I never seek them out.
Yet you have zero, zilch to support your claims. So far, everything you have cited is straight out of the mainstream fear-mongering news initial reports - like the MI5 press release about 30 plots, but you were fearfully unaware of how they backtracked outta those claims right quick.
So tell me, where do you multicultists and leftists get your news from? I'm guessing that you simply don't get them, since there's not a single media source or site in the world that can be trusted.
Furthermore, it is your ingrained and unquestioned belief that the seating arrangement was deliberate. Just like you believe the seat belt extension baloney.
Baloney? How so? Apparently these were the things that caused flight crew to become suspicious:
- They made anti-American statements
- They prayed loudly and chanted "Allah"
- They asked for seat-belt extensions even though the crew thought that they didn't need any
- They refused requests to disembark for more screenings
- They had one-way tickets and no luggage
- They were moving around the plane
Then there's the fact that some of the imams have terrorist connections, and immediately after the incident CAIR was on the case, pushing for a ban ob religious profiling (good luck stopping terrorists after that).
You keep reaching and reaching to justify your predetermined beliefs while ignoring the obvious contrary evidence that stares you in the face.
They're not predetermined. In fact, it's your beliefs that are predetermined, since your views are perfectly consistent with all the common, default beliefs held by most people.
Meanwhile I see you have completely back-tracked on the french civil war bullshit, else you would provided a citation.
Backtracked? Since when? And why would I provide a citation when any citation of any type is always, without failure, dismissed as extremist right wing propaganda (or something to that effect)? It's laughable that I'm always supposed to provide sources even though it's always predetermined that the sources are invalid. Grow up.
I mean, if islamic extremism is to blame for teearing the country apart, there would be some sort of credible reporting that had not gone debunked by now, right?
There are always reports and news stories, but they're not huge stories or spectacles. It's simply politically incorrect to really talk about the subject or acknowledge the problem. At best, the problem is recognized, but the blame falls on xenophobia, poverty and conspiracies, Islam isn't mentioned, and cause and effect gets reversed.
And you've done a great job of mentally erasing the whole thing about the UK's 1000+ arrests and the pitiful number of actual convictions, only a third of which were muslims.
Hmm? I haven't mentally erased anything.
Face the facts man, you've bought into the propaganda hook, line and stinker.
Whose propaganda? For what purposes? What's this "propaganda" that you're referring to?
Please continue to ignore the adjective "credible" it makes your position so much less about living in fear of the slightest threat.
I don't live in fear. I find it highly unlikely that Islamic terrorists would attack my country, let alone my city.
Think about that for a second, use those critical thinking skills. First of all, you learned of that 'fact' from this media you consider to be distorting the truth to reduce the perceived threat, maybe the media buys into the society of fear that you buy into, it is certainly in their best interest because fear sells.
Actually the media is mostly politically correct and afraid of offending Muslims or Islam, and I get a lot of my news through sites that research the backgrounds of mainstream news stories or add additional information to them (such as by providing several different sources for the story, or somebody's analysis). Apparently some of the "airline imams" even had links to terrorism.
Second, have you seen any correlation of these claims? What terrorists have used that seating arrangement before? The media has claimed it was the 911 guys, but once you dig further you realize that sitting by the exit doors is absolutely useless from a tactical perspective because, despite tv and movies, it is impossible to open an emergency exit door while in flight, thus making those seats no more tactically useful than any other, but certainly more comfortable with the extended leg room. I move to them the first chance I get whenever I fly.
Doesn't matter, the point was that their seating pattern was deliberately like the one used in 9/11. The whole thing was meant to trigger a response from the airline, and hopefully paralyze them with fear the next time they see Muslims acting suspiciously.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's a land where hate speech is just dandy, and inciting violence is protected, by hiding behind the 'free speech' defense. Unless it's demonstrating against the government, which these days gets you cordoned off into 'free speech zones'.
Germany, and these other countries (which of course you don't name, or can't spell, or just haven't heard of before) all have lower crime rates than the US. Their people are more aware of fascistic behaviour.
Are you saying that the US has lots of prisoners because they have too much freedom of speech? That doesn't make any sense.
(which of course you don't name, or can't spell, or just haven't heard of before)
Yeah, let's start taking random, unrelated jabs at the level of US education. I'm suprised you didn't throw GWB in there somewhere.
And they make a distiction between free speech and hate speech.
The distinction between free speech and hate speech is whatever the politicians and media say it is. That's it.
Clearly, you've lost your mind. You're mixing blasphemy, RACISM, and ideology?!?! Western European countries with hate speech laws are clearly different than religious theocracies with laws against blasphemy and ideology. These hate speech (or 'anti-free speech', doubleplusgood) laws you conflate with fascism aren't the only thing controlling crime, but they don't hurt. And yet you 'conclude' that they're ineffective! Guess I'll just have to take your word for it, right?
They do hurt, actually. They prevent people from even discussing certain kinds of crime or social problems, which means that the problems are ignored. The laws can also be used by politicians to suppress criticism towards their policies. At worst the country starts to fall apart because nobody is allowed to talk about the problems. Of course, discussion isn't always stiffled by laws, it's enough that an atmosphere of political correctness prevails. People will be too scared to say anything, or they'll be labeled racists, fascists, neo nazis and so forth (and, in certain situations, getting assassinated is a realistic fear).
You're talking about two extremes. One is soldiers refusing to use their weapons (if that's what you mean), and the other is game developers being raided by a SWAT team. Both extremes are silly.
How am I "ranting," and what makes it childish? The only reason you're calling me a troll is because I announced information that contradicts with your preconceived version of the universe (a parallel version where nothing whatsoever is going on in France, and anyone who says otherwise is a childish troll).
If you cannot handle disagreement without resorting to name-calling or insults, I have to wonder why you object to being called out as a troll.
Huh? You're the one who started calling me a troll in the first place, and I'm the one who's name-calling and insulting? You seem to gradually losing your grip with reality.
With your apparent world view, I can imagine how the principle of presumed innocence would be a weakness and not a strength.
How so? I've never suggested that people should be presumed guilty. All I said was that lack of evidence != innocence.
Oh - you really ARE a troll. I suspected as much. Go away little boy and play with your toys. Leave the serious issues for the adults to discuss.
I think it's pretty serious that France is littered with no-go zones where police officers are ambushed and hospitalized, cars torched and buildings destroyed. Even buses have been hijacked and destroyed at gun point. Similiar developments are occuring across Europe, but I'm sure the process will be magically reversed as soon as we get rid of our dreadful Islamophobia.
It comes as no suprise that you respond with a kneejerk ad hominem, and call me a troll. It always happens sooner or later. Leftists and multiculturalists are fundamentally incapable of rational thinking, and when their dogmas run out of steam or someone says something that contradicts their politically correct view of the world, they go berserk.
The clear implication of your post in context is that this "collateral damage" (in your words) is minimal compared to the "enemies" killed. Although you backpedal in later posts, pretending the debate was only about how many "enemies" killed were foreigners, anyone reading the thread -- which is right here on Slashdot, in case you decide to claim it didn't happen -- can see that the debate was about the relative significance of innocent people killed.
Huh? As I recall, I was saying that there are people who turn againts the US forces because they lost family members or friends, but that most of the enemies are simply Jihadists. I wasn't talking about collateral damage.
When "Andy Gardner" asked for your source, quoting your statement about "Jihadists," you sidestepped the request. You continue to do so.
Already explained ad nauseam. Do you actually know how to read?
So now you're saying you don't have to show your credible sources because I can't prove they don't exist.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that whenever I cite a source, it's automatically dismissed as biased right wing propaganda, regardless of what source it is. Therefore it's entirely pointless to cite any sources. Furthermore, I don't maintain a list of sources for the purposes of Internet debate (for some reason I'm expected to do so, but nobody else is). This has already been explained to you several times. Are you illiterate, stupid, or both?
What I'm trying to prove, and have succeeded in proving, is that throughout this thread you've avoided providing your sources by first claiming "there's no specific source," then claiming you don't have a list of bookmarks handy, then claiming it would be pointless to provide a source because it would be dismissed. I can accept all of those excuses, but that probably means you are spouting baseless lies.
You have not succeeded in proving anything. Oh, and you haven't cited any sources either!
You said "they're Jews, which means that everyone wants them to die", referencing a real anti-Semitic history that the world has had. You essentially claimed that anyone who had any issue with Israel is essentially a Nazi and had that opinion on whatever topic because of their core beliefs.
Well, anti-semitism is pretty rampant, and like I said, Israel is always singled out for no reason, so I think anti-semitism is a valid explanation.
No logical reason? How about their actions?
Israel typically seems to receive a shitload of criticism for something that, when done by anyone else, doesn't merit any complaints, such as their counter-attack againts Lebanon or Palestinian terrorists. Meanwhile, Israel's opponents can do pretty much anything they want without any consequences.
They have annexed territory and treat the inhabitants as sub-human.
They annexed some territory when they were attacked by other nations. Seems fair to me. You can't attack someone and then cry about lost territory when you get your ass handed to you. Anyway, Israel has returned some of the territory it has acquired. When they evacuated Gaza, they even left behind hi-tech greenhouses for the Palestinians, who then proceeded to destroy them, while loudly complaining about the need for foreign aid. They also endure suicide bombings and rocket attacks from Palestine. I really don't see why they should be treating the Palestinians like they were their best friends. Also, minorities are treated very badly in Palestine, unlike in Israel.
Anyway, I don't give a fuck about Palestine. Their entire existence is based on exterminating Israel because of religious reasons, to the exclusion of everything else. They're unable and/or unwilling to build a functioning society, or do anything productive. I have little sympathy for them.
Bombing an opposing political party is simply not acceptable.
What? That's like saying that it was not acceptable to bomb Japan or Germany during WW2 (AKA "opposing political parties").
The war is not your fault personally but you are stoking the flames when you make it a religious issue. Fundamentally it's a territory issue being warped into a holy war.
For Muslims, it's primarily a holy war, and secondarily a territory issue.
You say that as if I was trying to pass what I wrote off as an actual quotation. If you truly believe that, you're even dumber than you've appeared so far. It was quite obviously written as my interpretation of what you said.
Or so you claim now.
In other words, exactly how I interpreted your comments. You'll make up any excuse to avoid being caught in your lies.
Your "interpretation" is complete bullshit, and you can't even prove it. And what "lies" are you even referring to (probably something you just made up)?
As I said, a very convenient excuse.
It's not an excuse, it's the truth, and you can't prove otherwise. It's funny how you complain about me not providing source, while constantly making bold assertions without a single shred of evidence.
If anyone is making things up, it is you. You make up ridiculous assertions, or take them from the mouths of the radio talk-show hosts you parrot --
Unfortunately, I don't listen to radio talk-shows or parrot anyone. Why do you insist on constantly spouting this bullshit while loudly complaining that I don't cite sources for something?
then, when the assertions are questioned, you pretend you're right by refusing to prove them.
Please learn how to fucking read, this has already been explained to you.
Just because no charges are filed doesn't mean that the suspects are innocent, and just because a terrorist suspect lacked the resources to execute his plan doesn't mean that he's perfectly harmless. Then you also have to consider if the mainstream media is spinning a news story to make it seem less threatening, or not related to terrorism (or Islam). The "airplane Imams" you mentioned were deliberately acting suspiciously to get thrown out (reportedly their seating pattern was something that terrorists have used previously, they asked for seatbelt extensions without using them, prayed loudly, and so on), so CAIR etc. could start crying about Islamophobia and racism, as usual. That is, of course, a good way to undermine security policies to make future terrorist attacks easier.
The head of MI5 has stated that about 30 terrorist attacks were being planned in the country, and 1,600 suspects were under surveillance. Now, of course if you harbor fantasies of a 1984 society, you will dismiss this information as bogus, but I personally don't see any reason for MI5 to make up something like that, especially when the threat of Islamic terrorism is so well established. It fits.
France is probably suffering the most from Islamic terrorism right now (in the West). They're in a de facto state of civil war. Police officers are ambushed, cars and buildings are torched, and even buses have been hijacked at gunpoint and then set on fire.
It matches the stupidity of your other arguments in this thread; you seem not to have a whit of understanding of reality, or else you were taught logic in Wonderland.
It? What's "it?" Your quote is a complete fabrication, you made it up. I never said it.
I can't provide a source because, as I already said, there's no single, specific source for it, and I don't keep a collection of bookmarks just so I can use them in Internet debates, and it's completely ridiculous to assume that I would. Also, since the opposition never cites any sources either, I don't see why I should.
The credibility of my sources is irrelevant, as I already said (you should actually read posts instead of making them up and then replying to the strawman you created). Regardless of what source I provide, it will be dismissed as biased, extremist right wing propaganda. It has happened every single time, and will continue to happen. So why bother linking to anything.
Fuck off with that shit, people like you make me sick. It has NOTHING to do with religion and you are taking a crap on the graves of the 6 million Jewish souls that perished in the Nazi Holocaust by making it seem so.
Amazing. Suddenly I'm disrespecting the Holocaust victims because... I support Israel. That makes sense. If I became a Neo Nazi, would I then be respecting those victims? How does this thing work?
Every time someone says something bad about Israel, it's always "well, you hate jews". No it's not, we dislike the actions of the Israeli government in the same way we dislike the actions of the Saudi government.
Israel is always singled out for no logical reason. It's always the exception, always criticized for anything it does or doesn't do, and people will probably never shut up about Israel's history, or stop demanding that Israel concede all of its territory to the friendly, peaceful Muslims who have suffered under the jackboot of the Great Zionist Conspiracy for so long.
It's obviously anti-semitism.
I'm sure there is a special section of hell for people like you who attempt to make everything a holy war.
So now the ongoing holy war is my fault? Did I invent it or something?
Well, I respect that you are honest about your ignorance. As far as I know, the only people who have been convicted of terror-related activities in the US in the past decade were the white Christians who destroyed that government building in Oklahoma.
Clearly Christian acts of terrorism easily outweigh Islamic terrorism, at least in some bizarre alternate leftist universe where Christianity is a vile cult of death that's only barely restrained by secularism, and constantly on the verge of committing genocide againts unbelievers and infidels (completely unlike Islam which is a Religion of Peace).
If a Muslim or Christian commits a terrorist attack, their religion only counts if it had something to do with the attack. If a Christian's terrorist attack was not commited because of religion, then religion is irrelevant. Even if religion was a factor, then it was not necessarily valid; was the act in accordance with mainstream or traditional Christian beliefs? Did anyone support it? And so on.
Despite what GWB wants, the justice system functions on the principles of due process and presumed innocence. As there haven't been any convictions for terror-related activities, maybe the rational thing to conclude is that terrorism isn't that much of a threat?
The US, Britain, Canada, Spain, Australia, Denmark (or Norway, don't remember which), Czech Republic, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Thailand, India... all of these countries have been struck by terrorists and/or terrorist plots have been discovered, in addition to many cases where the intent to commit a terrorist attack is strongly evident, even if the authorities don't think so. In Thailand, people are killed on a weekly basis. But yeah, there's really nothing to worry about because it's all made up by Fox News and their crack team of extremist right wing propaganda agents, overseen by GWB.
if you want news, look somewhere else.
Like where? I predict that you will not be able to answer. Not even once has anyone ever told me where I can find this mythical source of unbiased, 100% accurate information.
There's no specific source for it (and I said that many are foreigners, not all or most of them), and I don't keep a list of bookmarks just so I can quote them in Internet debates. Besides, no matter what source I provide, it will be automatically dismissed as biased extremist right wing propaganda. It has happened every single time, and will continue to happen. So really, it would be pointless.
Potential plots are just that, potential plots. Tell me, how many people have been charged with crimes based on these potential plots? How many people have been convicted? Any?
I never see if there are followups to the stories, so I don't know. However, they're always along the lines of "Muslim man caught with C-4 in his home and a map of the subway system."
You reference to Fox makes me suspect that I have been trolled, but I know there are lots of people out there who share that world view. More is the pity...
Yeah, because Fox is part of the global US government conspiracy that controls all the media in the universe. Common knowledge.
Ask any European or Japanese person how collateral damage did not matter in WW2. Or any Jew, for that matter. Or gypsy. Or gay. Collateral damage didn't matter in the USA, because there was hardly any collateral damage there.
There's no collateral damage in the US now, is there? So again, what's the big deal? What has changed?
You need to get a more broad point of view. Other people live in this world besides you, and they have rights and religion and everything, it's amazing.
Broad point of view? Didn't you just say that collateral damage didn't matter during WW2 because it occured elsewhere, to other people? Is that the kind of broad point of view you're advocating?
Freedom doesn't mean YOU can be free, it means EVERYONE can be free.
So if I'm free over here, but some guy in Africa (or somewhere) is not free, it means that I'm not free either? What a fascinating definition of freedom.
Yeah, it's terrible how US troops go around shooting and blowing up civilians at random, or executing people because of religious reasons.
Seriously, why do you have a world view that can only survive through lies and delusions? Why do you need to alter reality to conform to your ideology, instead of the other way around?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... you missed the point in a rather spectacular fashion. You tried to argue that merely bringing up the threat of terrorism means that I'm afraid of terrorists, but it's exactly like saying that bringing up the situation in Iraq means that I'm afraid of insurgents busting into my home and killing me.
I've never argued about the convinction rates.
What factual accounts?
I've already addressed this (somewhere). Just because no charges were filed doesn't mean that no threat existed.
As I recall, some members of CAIR have actually been charged and/or imprisoned due to terrorism connections, but I don't remember for sure.
Why do you assume that they would be in jail, and why do you assume that the connection must either be direct, or completely meaningless? You make a lot of assumptions.
More assumptions. I think it's blatantly obvious that this whole thing was engineered in order to undermine security policies, and to cause yet another outrage. Even if the imams had no intentions of doing so, CAIR is still taking advantage of the incident.
What terrorist convictions are you even referring to?
That's why profiling should also be based on appearance.
I think 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, the various unsuccesful and possible plots in the West, the repeated terrorist incidents in the Middle
Yeah, and Iraq is a dangerous area full of terrorists. Saying so doesn't mean that I'm scared of Iraqi insurgents or Jihadists coming into my home to behead me.
Sometimes there are followups to some stories, but I never seek them out.
So tell me, where do you multicultists and leftists get your news from? I'm guessing that you simply don't get them, since there's not a single media source or site in the world that can be trusted.
Baloney? How so? Apparently these were the things that caused flight crew to become suspicious:
- They made anti-American statements
- They prayed loudly and chanted "Allah"
- They asked for seat-belt extensions even though the crew thought that they didn't need any
- They refused requests to disembark for more screenings
- They had one-way tickets and no luggage
- They were moving around the plane
Then there's the fact that some of the imams have terrorist connections, and immediately after the incident CAIR was on the case, pushing for a ban ob religious profiling (good luck stopping terrorists after that).
They're not predetermined. In fact, it's your beliefs that are predetermined, since your views are perfectly consistent with all the common, default beliefs held by most people.
Backtracked? Since when? And why would I provide a citation when any citation of any type is always, without failure, dismissed as extremist right wing propaganda (or something to that effect)? It's laughable that I'm always supposed to provide sources even though it's always predetermined that the sources are invalid. Grow up.
There are always reports and news stories, but they're not huge stories or spectacles. It's simply politically incorrect to really talk about the subject or acknowledge the problem. At best, the problem is recognized, but the blame falls on xenophobia, poverty and conspiracies, Islam isn't mentioned, and cause and effect gets reversed.
Hmm? I haven't mentally erased anything.
Whose propaganda? For what purposes? What's this "propaganda" that you're referring to?
I don't live in fear. I find it highly unlikely that Islamic terrorists would attack my country, let alone my city.
Actually the media is mostly politically correct and afraid of offending Muslims or Islam, and I get a lot of my news through sites that research the backgrounds of mainstream news stories or add additional information to them (such as by providing several different sources for the story, or somebody's analysis). Apparently some of the "airline imams" even had links to terrorism.
Doesn't matter, the point was that their seating pattern was deliberately like the one used in 9/11. The whole thing was meant to trigger a response from the airline, and hopefully paralyze them with fear the next time they see Muslims acting suspiciously.
Are you saying that the US has lots of prisoners because they have too much freedom of speech? That doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, let's start taking random, unrelated jabs at the level of US education. I'm suprised you didn't throw GWB in there somewhere.
The distinction between free speech and hate speech is whatever the politicians and media say it is. That's it.
They do hurt, actually. They prevent people from even discussing certain kinds of crime or social problems, which means that the problems are ignored. The laws can also be used by politicians to suppress criticism towards their policies. At worst the country starts to fall apart because nobody is allowed to talk about the problems. Of course, discussion isn't always stiffled by laws, it's enough that an atmosphere of political correctness prevails. People will be too scared to say anything, or they'll be labeled racists, fascists, neo nazis and so forth (and, in certain situations, getting assassinated is a realistic fear).
You're talking about two extremes. One is soldiers refusing to use their weapons (if that's what you mean), and the other is game developers being raided by a SWAT team. Both extremes are silly.
Huh? You're the one who started calling me a troll in the first place, and I'm the one who's name-calling and insulting? You seem to gradually losing your grip with reality.
So saying something that contradicts your opinions or world view makes me childish? You must not have many adult friends.
How so? I've never suggested that people should be presumed guilty. All I said was that lack of evidence != innocence.
I think it's pretty serious that France is littered with no-go zones where police officers are ambushed and hospitalized, cars torched and buildings destroyed. Even buses have been hijacked and destroyed at gun point. Similiar developments are occuring across Europe, but I'm sure the process will be magically reversed as soon as we get rid of our dreadful Islamophobia.
It comes as no suprise that you respond with a kneejerk ad hominem, and call me a troll. It always happens sooner or later. Leftists and multiculturalists are fundamentally incapable of rational thinking, and when their dogmas run out of steam or someone says something that contradicts their politically correct view of the world, they go berserk.
Huh? As I recall, I was saying that there are people who turn againts the US forces because they lost family members or friends, but that most of the enemies are simply Jihadists. I wasn't talking about collateral damage.
Already explained ad nauseam. Do you actually know how to read?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that whenever I cite a source, it's automatically dismissed as biased right wing propaganda, regardless of what source it is. Therefore it's entirely pointless to cite any sources. Furthermore, I don't maintain a list of sources for the purposes of Internet debate (for some reason I'm expected to do so, but nobody else is). This has already been explained to you several times. Are you illiterate, stupid, or both?
You have not succeeded in proving anything. Oh, and you haven't cited any sources either!
Well, anti-semitism is pretty rampant, and like I said, Israel is always singled out for no reason, so I think anti-semitism is a valid explanation.
Israel typically seems to receive a shitload of criticism for something that, when done by anyone else, doesn't merit any complaints, such as their counter-attack againts Lebanon or Palestinian terrorists. Meanwhile, Israel's opponents can do pretty much anything they want without any consequences.
They annexed some territory when they were attacked by other nations. Seems fair to me. You can't attack someone and then cry about lost territory when you get your ass handed to you. Anyway, Israel has returned some of the territory it has acquired. When they evacuated Gaza, they even left behind hi-tech greenhouses for the Palestinians, who then proceeded to destroy them, while loudly complaining about the need for foreign aid. They also endure suicide bombings and rocket attacks from Palestine. I really don't see why they should be treating the Palestinians like they were their best friends. Also, minorities are treated very badly in Palestine, unlike in Israel.
Anyway, I don't give a fuck about Palestine. Their entire existence is based on exterminating Israel because of religious reasons, to the exclusion of everything else. They're unable and/or unwilling to build a functioning society, or do anything productive. I have little sympathy for them.
What? That's like saying that it was not acceptable to bomb Japan or Germany during WW2 (AKA "opposing political parties").
For Muslims, it's primarily a holy war, and secondarily a territory issue.
Or so you claim now.
Your "interpretation" is complete bullshit, and you can't even prove it. And what "lies" are you even referring to (probably something you just made up)?
It's not an excuse, it's the truth, and you can't prove otherwise. It's funny how you complain about me not providing source, while constantly making bold assertions without a single shred of evidence.
Unfortunately, I don't listen to radio talk-shows or parrot anyone. Why do you insist on constantly spouting this bullshit while loudly complaining that I don't cite sources for something?
Please learn how to fucking read, this has already been explained to you.
What "emotion" would that be? What is the objective nature of the situation? Please elaborate.
Just because no charges are filed doesn't mean that the suspects are innocent, and just because a terrorist suspect lacked the resources to execute his plan doesn't mean that he's perfectly harmless. Then you also have to consider if the mainstream media is spinning a news story to make it seem less threatening, or not related to terrorism (or Islam). The "airplane Imams" you mentioned were deliberately acting suspiciously to get thrown out (reportedly their seating pattern was something that terrorists have used previously, they asked for seatbelt extensions without using them, prayed loudly, and so on), so CAIR etc. could start crying about Islamophobia and racism, as usual. That is, of course, a good way to undermine security policies to make future terrorist attacks easier.
The head of MI5 has stated that about 30 terrorist attacks were being planned in the country, and 1,600 suspects were under surveillance. Now, of course if you harbor fantasies of a 1984 society, you will dismiss this information as bogus, but I personally don't see any reason for MI5 to make up something like that, especially when the threat of Islamic terrorism is so well established. It fits.
France is probably suffering the most from Islamic terrorism right now (in the West). They're in a de facto state of civil war. Police officers are ambushed, cars and buildings are torched, and even buses have been hijacked at gunpoint and then set on fire.
It? What's "it?" Your quote is a complete fabrication, you made it up. I never said it.
I can't provide a source because, as I already said, there's no single, specific source for it, and I don't keep a collection of bookmarks just so I can use them in Internet debates, and it's completely ridiculous to assume that I would. Also, since the opposition never cites any sources either, I don't see why I should.
The credibility of my sources is irrelevant, as I already said (you should actually read posts instead of making them up and then replying to the strawman you created). Regardless of what source I provide, it will be dismissed as biased, extremist right wing propaganda. It has happened every single time, and will continue to happen. So why bother linking to anything.
Amazing. Suddenly I'm disrespecting the Holocaust victims because... I support Israel. That makes sense. If I became a Neo Nazi, would I then be respecting those victims? How does this thing work?
Israel is always singled out for no logical reason. It's always the exception, always criticized for anything it does or doesn't do, and people will probably never shut up about Israel's history, or stop demanding that Israel concede all of its territory to the friendly, peaceful Muslims who have suffered under the jackboot of the Great Zionist Conspiracy for so long.
It's obviously anti-semitism.
So now the ongoing holy war is my fault? Did I invent it or something?
Clearly Christian acts of terrorism easily outweigh Islamic terrorism, at least in some bizarre alternate leftist universe where Christianity is a vile cult of death that's only barely restrained by secularism, and constantly on the verge of committing genocide againts unbelievers and infidels (completely unlike Islam which is a Religion of Peace).
If a Muslim or Christian commits a terrorist attack, their religion only counts if it had something to do with the attack. If a Christian's terrorist attack was not commited because of religion, then religion is irrelevant. Even if religion was a factor, then it was not necessarily valid; was the act in accordance with mainstream or traditional Christian beliefs? Did anyone support it? And so on.
The US, Britain, Canada, Spain, Australia, Denmark (or Norway, don't remember which), Czech Republic, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Thailand, India... all of these countries have been struck by terrorists and/or terrorist plots have been discovered, in addition to many cases where the intent to commit a terrorist attack is strongly evident, even if the authorities don't think so. In Thailand, people are killed on a weekly basis. But yeah, there's really nothing to worry about because it's all made up by Fox News and their crack team of extremist right wing propaganda agents, overseen by GWB.
Like where? I predict that you will not be able to answer. Not even once has anyone ever told me where I can find this mythical source of unbiased, 100% accurate information.
There's no specific source for it (and I said that many are foreigners, not all or most of them), and I don't keep a list of bookmarks just so I can quote them in Internet debates. Besides, no matter what source I provide, it will be automatically dismissed as biased extremist right wing propaganda. It has happened every single time, and will continue to happen. So really, it would be pointless.
I never see if there are followups to the stories, so I don't know. However, they're always along the lines of "Muslim man caught with C-4 in his home and a map of the subway system."
Yeah, because Fox is part of the global US government conspiracy that controls all the media in the universe. Common knowledge.
So they're soldiers. And they supposedly outnumber the Jihadists. What's your point?
You people can't be this dense.
Mind explaining what the hell you're talking about?
The terrorists.
That's what the terrorists do.
There's no collateral damage in the US now, is there? So again, what's the big deal? What has changed?
Broad point of view? Didn't you just say that collateral damage didn't matter during WW2 because it occured elsewhere, to other people? Is that the kind of broad point of view you're advocating?
So if I'm free over here, but some guy in Africa (or somewhere) is not free, it means that I'm not free either? What a fascinating definition of freedom.
Yeah, it's terrible how US troops go around shooting and blowing up civilians at random, or executing people because of religious reasons.
Seriously, why do you have a world view that can only survive through lies and delusions? Why do you need to alter reality to conform to your ideology, instead of the other way around?