E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
The problem for you is that the terrorist supporting site is very clear about what the two terrorists planned. It was a suicide bombing. If they didn't plan a suicide bomb attack I wonder why it says they did? After saying they planned a suicide bomb attack it calls the terrorists, heroes. Those heroes are then reported on the site to have been buried in the martyrs graveyard. They really can't be much more clear where their support lies and you haven't condemned their terrorist acts.originally posted by MycroftJust as it’s a simple fact that in the very next paragraph it’s stated that their plan was to throw the explosives at their captors, which contradicts the statement that they planned to blow up themselves and their captors. One does not throw explosives if ones goal is to blow oneself up with someone else. How many times do we have to go over this? With enough editing, you can make anyone seem to say anything.
You haven't answered the question. Are an Irgun spokesman? If you object to the promotion of suicide bombers and terrorists on their site you could ask them to remove the material. That might be a sensible solution. The site is designed to promote a group, which even Hagannah called terrorist.
Sharon is in good company assassinating mere suspects. When terrorists from the Irgun were tried and sentenced to death as per the law, the Irgun kidnapped and hung two innocent British soldiers. Murder and terrorism. That is the legacy the Irgun gave to Palestine. It's a pity that some still follow their lead.
Sorry for having the temerity to ask questions. I really must stop that on a discussion board.No. I believe suicide is wrong, but the fact that these men were to be put to death anyway puts enough moral ambiguity into their suicide that I am content to defer judgment to God, further comment from me is unnecessary. If in that you read something that seems to support suicide, then that has more to do with your reading skills than anything I say.
The fundamental problem for you is that you claim you can with certainty conclude actual influence of one individual on two named individuals with nothing more than similarities, none of which are unique to the individuals concerned. I am happy you are happy with your assertion of actual influence but unfortunately you can't prove it. When you can, be sure to let me know. James Randi is also running a prize for people who are convinced of their assertions and feel they can prove them.Sure I can. That you bring up possibilities from woo-woo land doesn’t in any way take away from the similarities I’ve noted.
I have taken one possibility from the Official Irgun site which is currently praising planned suicide terrorists as heroes. Perhaps that is what you meant by woo-woo land, as I have no idea what woo-woo means exactly. Is it a bad thing for the terrorists of the Irgun to be from woo-woo land?
I see. This merely confirms the dearth of hard evidence for your assertion. When you resort to Occam's razor as confirmation of your claim then you must be getting desperate. Occam's Razor might suggest that two silver balls in a case are made of silver. Unfortunately they might as easily be of different materials.If you google Occam’s Razor you might catch on. Essentially it’s the idea that one shouldn’t look at unlikely possibilities when much more simple and likely possibilities are available. Hoof beats usually mean horses, not zebras.
I am very glad that you aren't in charge of criminal justice. There would be more innocent people on death row if that was your approach to justice. Sorry, silly point. You don't believe in equality of treatment for Palestinians and Israelis either. Your justice is already unfair.
After all this time, you still don't get it. You made a claim of certainty about actual influence. You have repeatedly been given many different possible influences, including an Israeli site which is currently actively promoting planned suicide bombers as heroes on the internet and yet you are certain on the basis of three non-unique connonalities that you have proved actual influence. The girls actually stated who fascinated them. It wasn't Arafat. You feel you have proved something. I am very happy for you.If we disagree on what hard evidence is and what is required to make a case, we can hardly be said to agree on if I have hard evidence or not. What we do agree on is that you’ve failed to provide a more likely candidate to have influenced the Moroccan terrorists.
You do seem to feel happy to speak on behalf of a remarkably eclectic group. Cats and the Irgun. Whatever next?I’ll be more than happy to pass on any comments you may have to my cat, but I have to warn you; she is stubborn and will never confess to having influenced the Moroccan terrorists.