Shane Costello
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,232
Originally psoted by Undercover Elephant:
Well maybe you could start a thread expressing your annoyance at the democratic deficit and mismanagement of funds at the EU, instead of expressing your delight at the deaths of 3,000 innocent people at the WTC.
Well maybe you could start a thread expressing your annoyance at the democratic deficit and mismanagement of funds at the EU, instead of expressing your delight at the deaths of 3,000 innocent people at the WTC.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Shane
I made one flippant comment which I have withdrawn and repeatedly apologised for making. I did not start a thread to express my delight at the deaths of 3000 innocent people. So why say that I did?
I made one flippant comment which I have withdrawn and repeatedly apologised for making. I did not start a thread to express my delight at the deaths of 3000 innocent people. So why say that I did?
Shane Costello
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,232
Originally posted by Undercover Elephant:
Freudian slip, perhaps?
Freudian slip, perhaps?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Ummm... you do know what a stereotype is, don't you?Q-Source said:
By the way Q-Source... Nice sig. Just curious, do you support Rik's views? Or did you include his quote because I included UCEs? Or is it only ok for the anti-war people to include other's quotes in their sig?
UndercoverElephant said:
That's because most people here regard JK as a kook and expect nothing of substance from him. No expectations=no outrage. And that's something you two have in common.
Hope you enjoyed the 24/7 coverage of 9/11, kook. Pardon me for summarily dismissing your idea of international justice, but your stance has just placed you somewhere between chimpanzees and sewer rats on the I-give-a-◊◊◊◊ scale.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
UndercoverElephant said:
If you think that nobody challenges him, then see his postings in the religion forum. Personally, while I agree with the idea that Iraq should be invaded, I disagree with almost everything else he says. (And I've challenged him on certain points on the past.) Most people probably just tune out what he posts; for me, its not worth my time and effort to challenge him on small points of his posts, while people like you post opinions and facts which are more deserving of challenge. (At least on politics.)
Politics makes strange bedfellows. Q-source (a former communist and current socialist) is on the same side of the war debate as shanek (a libertarian). Jedi (christian) is on the same side of the debate as myself and other athiests.
Am I one of the 'others'? Really, I'd like to know.UndercoverElephant said:
Keep in mind, I'm not American, I'm Canadian. I support military action after hearing from many news sources (both pro and anti war), and coming to my own conclusions.
Do you have a list of the 'others' that you think have attitudes that lead to 9/11? I'd like to see your list. I'm sure the 'others' would like to know how you characterize them.
Segnosaur said:
Of course I know.
I just copied literally the word from Mike B.'s quote
As you have noticed, English is not my first language. I trust on English speakers' grammar. But in this case, I shouldn't have trusted on his grammar. Blame Mike too.
BTW, anytime you want, we can discuss in Spanish.
I don't support that guy's views (they are disgusting). But, yes, in this case I have to thank you for giving me a brilliant idea of how to discredit people.
Q-S
UE,
Are you so sure that Al Queda and other terrorists do what they do for what you would consider noble reasons?
You have put yourself out as a radical environmentalist and anti-globalization. You feel that it is important to stop the American "empire" because it is a threat to these two things. You seem to be sayint the Sept. 11 attack was a reaction against the US for its actions in these regards.
According to OBL's own words his agenda is quite different from yours. His anger over "crusader" and "kafir" women going around uncovered in the holy land where "the prophet received the word of Allah" (Saudi Arabia) and the fact that western armies (non-Muslim) were guarding these holy shrines was his main motivation. The Kyoto Protocols and other things had nothing to do with it.
In his latest tape (if it is him) he specifically railed against "socialism" in the Muslim world because it was an affront to the Shiaara law which must be instituted.
It could be that the people you see as quasi-freedom fighters are nothing of the kind, but are instead bigots who wish to impose their religious views on those around them...
Are you so sure that Al Queda and other terrorists do what they do for what you would consider noble reasons?
You have put yourself out as a radical environmentalist and anti-globalization. You feel that it is important to stop the American "empire" because it is a threat to these two things. You seem to be sayint the Sept. 11 attack was a reaction against the US for its actions in these regards.
According to OBL's own words his agenda is quite different from yours. His anger over "crusader" and "kafir" women going around uncovered in the holy land where "the prophet received the word of Allah" (Saudi Arabia) and the fact that western armies (non-Muslim) were guarding these holy shrines was his main motivation. The Kyoto Protocols and other things had nothing to do with it.
In his latest tape (if it is him) he specifically railed against "socialism" in the Muslim world because it was an affront to the Shiaara law which must be instituted.
It could be that the people you see as quasi-freedom fighters are nothing of the kind, but are instead bigots who wish to impose their religious views on those around them...
Segnosaur said:
I too would want to know this. Is there a hierarchy of people that are "asking" for it? If a terrorist from the South Pacific blows up something in Paris would that be fine because it was a reaction to the French testing their bombs there and sinking the Rainbow Warrior, and France is so much more powerful than the South Pacific.
Would African farmers be justified blowing up things in Europe in retaliation for the high tarriffs that are hurting their economies that the EU has?
I don't believe this for a second, but I think UE's ideas are a slippery slope that quickly justify any type of terrorism.
I mean if you want to go back, even not that far, in history every one in the Western World is asking for it from the Third World.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
It wasn't the spelling of stereotype I was concerned about. (In fact, I may be spelling it wrong myself.)Q-Source said:
The concept of a stereotype is that you assign qualities to people based on some characteristic. (All French will surrender, all Canadians play hockey, etc.) You seem to condem the U.S. for its actions, but then turn around and stereotype them. As it ever occured to you that many (if not most) supporters of the war give their support based on logical reasons?
Well, you can't really credit me... others have been doing it long before I did it.Q-Source said:
However, I do find it hypocritical. You condemmed me for doing it, yet you are willing to do it yourself. Did you somehow lower your standards? Or did I convince you of the validity of doing it? Or perhaps your 'condemnation' wasn't really that strong. (Based only on the fact that UCE had your same viewpoint.)
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
NoZed Avenger said:
While waiting, I came agross this gem:
So, as killing thousands of innocents during 9/11 was the moral choice for the terrorists, I tend to doubt the apology.
Was it an apology in that the sentiment was obviously wrong, or that it was received badly?
NA
Guest
Unregistered
G
Mike B. said:
There are many reasons for anti-Americanism. I do not agree with the Islamic motivations of Al-Qaeda.
Segnosaur said:
Yes, I think I made the mistake to use stereotypes (correct word). So, then I completely disagree with those "logical reasons" that you are referring to. I know that the US public opinion has a very particular point of view about the world outside them. It is quite comprehensible, such as my point of view. Ultimately, our opinions depend on our background, on what we consider to be unfair and wrong.
I came to this forum and I was very honest about asking you to remove that sig. But I have seen that the tactics of people here are very low and mean. Many of them do not deserve the respect that I thought they deserved. It is quite disappointing.
Q-S
Guest
Unregistered
G
NA
I am not a muslim. But I can guarantee you that the people who carried out the 9/11 attack did so believing very much that it was an act of great moral value. Islam sees America as a glorification of everything which is evil. Money, greed, idolatry, etc...
I have been quite clear about this. I apologised because I made a false statement for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. I did not cheer when the WTC came down, and saying that I did served no purpose other than to be deliberately offensive.
I am not a muslim. But I can guarantee you that the people who carried out the 9/11 attack did so believing very much that it was an act of great moral value. Islam sees America as a glorification of everything which is evil. Money, greed, idolatry, etc...
I have been quite clear about this. I apologised because I made a false statement for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. I did not cheer when the WTC came down, and saying that I did served no purpose other than to be deliberately offensive.
UndercoverElephant said:
OK, so why did Sheiky Kalid Mohammed, the force behind he S11 attacks lead the life of a millionaire playboy before he was driven into hiding?
Why did the "holy matyrs" of the S11 attacks freely avail of the evil ways of western culture before the attack? Prostitutes, pay per view movies and luxury hotels was the order of the day for some.
Once again your claims don't stand up to even the most cusory tests against availble information.
Guest
Unregistered
G
UndercoverElephant said:
So now they weren't muslims?
And I suppose George Bush isn't a Christian?
To be honest, I don't really see the point in this line of debate. Politics and religion really don't mix.
And getting back to the title of this thread......
Blair is ever more on his own. It looks right now like there isn't even going to be a vote on a second resolution. If so, Blair is in deep political doo-dah. The Americans will go without any 2nd resolution, but his own party will rebel en masse if he tries to send British troops into action without UN backing. And lame arguments about how 1441 already authorises war might work on the US public but they won't work on the European public and they won't work on the parliamentary labour party. Blair needs that second resolution.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
His point - a valid, cogent one - was that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not a religious zealot. The hijackers weren't following the dictates of the Koran regarding living the holy life.
They were obviously motivated by something other than religious fanaticism, since living according to the Koran wasn't that important to them, apparently.
They were obviously motivated by something other than religious fanaticism, since living according to the Koran wasn't that important to them, apparently.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Troll said:
Maybe not, but felling the most potent symbol of American capitalism and slaughtering loads of Infidels at the same time is considered the highest form of moral behaviour according to Islam.
They were far closer to being true Muslims than George Bush is to being a true Christian. Islam encourages violence. Christianity expressly forbids it, even when it is being used against you.