So when exactly is it terrorism?

[Polaris]

Right wingers dismiss terrorist acts commited by right wing white Christians as being terrorism. It was without question an act of terrorism, but to the rapture right, white people are not terrorists.

"lone nut" = Christian or Jew

"terrorist"= Muslim

all clear now? good.

When they're non-white.

It's terrorism when brown people do it.

Whew, nobody light a match around here, the place would go up like a tinderbox with this much straw.

 

[loverofzion]

please provide an example of someone in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising who was individually wronged by the Nazis.

I do hope this is a rhetorical question.
Either that or you are wholly ignorant about WW II; the Reich's policies pertaining to Jews; the collective rounding up of the Jews and their being placed in ghettos; the ultimate gassing and shooting and starving and torture of said Jews.

WTF are you talking about- name one individiaul harmed by said government and the Warsaw ghetto?

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ Pay attention to the context. Good to see Skeptics signature quote is getting some hits

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the notion that this was a terrorist attack. If Stack was part of some group that was agitating against taxes, there would be a stronger argument. But yeah, it seems like this was a lone kook. Terrorism implies in my mind that there is a larger movement that will go on even if the individual terrorists die; see Black September, the Bader Meinhoff gang, etc, even the SLA. I don't see that here.

So the Unabomber wasn't a terrorist?

 

[Thunder]

I do hope this is a rhetorical question.

it was an extremely rhetorical question. Skeptic knows this.

he put it in his sig. anyways.

 

[WildCat]

Responding to this post from another thread here, because it refers to this thread:

you guys that put out of context quotes in your sigs for cheap attack value are laughable. You in particular are worse because you defend your out of context links by simply blatantly lying about them.

you say the quote is about Jews in the Warsaw ghetto not being "wronged by the Nazis". Its not......read it.... Parky was talking about the wrongs done to palestinians in the territories and Wildcat used the laughable argument technique of asking Parky to give an example of a particular palestinian that has been "wronged" A particular trait of the denialist.....checkpoints for example, these have a detremental effect on the lives of people. Wildcat wants an example of a particular palestinian that has been affected by the checkpoints. Something parky can't reasonably be expected to supply. Its a diversionary technique much favoured by deniers.

Parky answers by asking Wildcat to provide a particular example of a Jew in the warsaw ghetto that was wronged by the Nazis.....in order to point out the sillyness of the particular example request....NOT, as you lie.....to claim in any way that Jews were not wronged in the warsaw ghetto.

you persistantly fabricate stuff and then argue against your own fabrications...

laughable.

No, The Fool, as anyone can see in context parky (Thuner) was claiming that Palestinian suicide bombers had been wronged by the Israelis, I asked him for evidence of his claims. As it turns out, parky couldn't name a single suicide bomber who was the victim of something Israel did.

Why he then asked the bizarre question about Jews and Nazis that you don't ever see outside of Holocaust deniers I have no idea.