London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chngd]

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Voidwar:
Is it outrageous to continually duck questions ?

What's your problem, you do it all the time?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Marilyn Monroe:
I think it's reasonable in these times to investiagte anything suspicious.

I don't think any Muslim would question that fact. They know they are under scrutiny. Come on! I think anybody calling Pakistan too much should be looked at.

It's really guilty till proven innocent in reality. That's a fact of life. That's how everybody feels, and I don't think that many people really care about being monitored if it makes them safer. The terrorists have caused this. It's their fault.

I see your point. Although I don't agree with some of it. But the biggest thing I have issue with is that it is all THEM! That is just way too convenient to apply a simple-minded solution to a very complex problem.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Marilyn Monroe:
I think I have the truth, but it's possible you are in total denial.

I think what I said was a lot clearer than what you said. Broadstroke? 9/11 was a broadstroke if ever I saw one. It was all on our soil. They were all pretty much Americans that got killed. This had to be a huge motivator for all terrorists everywhere. How this affected our economy, how it made us afraid to fly. It caused a lot of trouble. So if that's a broadstroke, ok. The terrorists were Muslims. That's curious to me. Suspicious. Broadbrush? You betcha!

You're acting like all terrorists are on entity that think alike and act in unison. What about Oklahoma City? Was he a muslim?

 

[DeeJayH]

What's your problem, you do it all the time?

are you a boxer?
because the way you ducked this was rather reminiscent of past champs

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DeeJayH:
are you a boxer?
because the way you ducked this was rather reminiscent of past champs

Ducked what?

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

Re: London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chn

:applaud

Yup...

Well, if the shoe fits! :2wave:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Marilyn Monroe:
Well, if the shoe fits!

Wear it on the other foot?

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

You're acting like all terrorists are on entity that think alike and act in unison. What about Oklahoma City? Was he a muslim?

A lot of Muslim terrorists are acting in unison. Al Qaeda is a unison group. They have leadership. A lot of the insurgency in Iraq has leadership. They aren't all acting alone.

Oklahoma City was homegrown, they weren't acting with a large group as far as we know.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Marilyn Monroe:
A lot of Muslim terrorists are acting in unison. Al Qaeda is a unison group. They have leadership. A lot of the insurgency in Iraq has leadership. They aren't all acting alone.

Oklahoma City was homegrown, they weren't acting with a large group as far as we know.

Oklahoma City was done as a response to Waco. You don't think a similar situation is happening in Iraq?

The insugency in Iraq is less than 10% of the resistance. We are fighting Iraqis that are resisting our illegal occupation of their country.

What did you think was going to happen when we layoff over 100,000 members of their military, then make a law that they cannot participate in the re-construction of their country, which puts them in a situation where they are un-employed with no way to feed their families and the only thing they have been trained to do, is war.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

I see your point. Although I don't agree with some of it. But the biggest thing I have issue with is that it is all THEM! That is just way too convenient to apply a simple-minded solution to a very complex problem.

I appreciate you saying you agree with some of it. That is nice of you.

:smile:

 

[MSgt]

You're acting like all terrorists are on entity that think alike and act in unison. What about Oklahoma City? Was he a muslim?

Again with this? Why do you insist on pretending that you haven't learned anything on this site?

1) What the hell does the individual McVeigh, who lacks the encouragment of a religious base, have to do with a terrorist organization, which has the encouragment and moral support of millions of religious Radicals?

2) In what way do you see the treatment or reaction towards an individual terrorists in a civilization who clearly defines that individual as a terrorist....and the treatment or reaction towards a terrorist organization in a civilization who clearly defines that organization as a "devine works of God." the same thing?


Again...by attempting to compare the two situations as the same thing you are being irresponsible to the situation.


And as far as what is occurring in Iraq, we are witnessing the barbarities of their culture. Nothing more. When you can't get what you want...kill for it. When your hate and racism runs so deep that you would murder over it indescriminately, then you doom your society to failure. The Sunni had every availability to be a part of their futures when all of Iraq went to the booths. They chose to behave in the manner in which Saddam taught them - defiance towards the basic human rights and organization through brutality. Spinning the situation into some rediculous notion that by disbanding the highly corrupt military and not allowing the Baathist Party to have a say so on the future of Iraq is low even for you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Again with this? Why do you insist on pretending that you haven't learned anything on this site?

What I learn, is none of your business.

Originally posted by GySgt:
1) What the hell does the individual McVeigh, who lacks the encouragment of a religious base, have to do with a terrorist organization, which has the encouragment and moral support of millions of religious Radicals?

Just the example I used to demonstrate that not all terrorists are one entity acting in unison as some would infer when they speak of, "The Terrorist!" Just like the criminal, or the drug addict, it is totally absurd to think in these terms.

Originally posted by GySgt:
2) In what way do you see the treatment or reaction towards an individual terrorists in a civilization who clearly defines that individual as a terrorist....and the treatment or reaction towards a terrorist organization in a civilization who clearly defines that organization as a "devine works of God." the same thing?

What I don't see, and what you have never proven, is their entire culture embracing these actions as "devine works".

Originally posted by GySgt:
Again...by attempting to compare the two situations as the same thing you are being irresponsible to the situation.

So is taking what I said out of context to make yours.

Originally posted by GySgt:
And as far as what is occurring in Iraq, we are witnessing the barbarities of their culture.

And ours.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Nothing more. When you can't get what you want...kill for it.

But first, we had to attack, then we could kill, then we could get what we want!

Originally posted by GySgt:
When your hate and racism runs so deep that you would murder over it indescriminately, then you doom your society to failure.

And if it doesn't, our indescriminate weapons will do the trick. Cluster bombs, DU and WP, they will bring the doom if you can't.

Originally posted by GySgt:
The Sunni had every availability to be a part of their futures when all of Iraq went to the booths. They chose to behave in the manner in which Saddam taught them - defiance towards the basic human rights and organization through brutality.

I don't see us winning any Nobel's over there.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Spinning the situation into some rediculous notion that by disbanding the highly corrupt military and not allowing the Baathist Party to have a say so on the future of Iraq is low even for you.

Whether it's low or not, that's what happened.

 

[Iriemon]

Again with this? Why do you insist on pretending that you haven't learned anything on this site?

Why do you insist on pretending that you are the sole source of accurate information why you concede you are no expert on this.

 

[Iriemon]

And as far as what is occurring in Iraq, we are witnessing the barbarities of their culture. Nothing more. When you can't get what you want...kill for it. When your hate and racism runs so deep that you would murder over it indescriminately, then you doom your society to failure. The Sunni had every availability to be a part of their futures when all of Iraq went to the booths. They chose to behave in the manner in which Saddam taught them - defiance towards the basic human rights and organization through brutality. Spinning the situation into some rediculous notion that by disbanding the highly corrupt military and not allowing the Baathist Party to have a say so on the future of Iraq is low even for you.

Gysgt: I thought about our discussions when I read this article researching another link:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...7/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq?mode=PF

The gist of the article is that recent studies based on case studies of terrorists in Iraq and interrogations of the people caught trying to get into Iraq show that most never had anything to do with terrorism, and were going into Iraq on a jihad to repel the infidel occupiers of holy lands, which they view as defensive.

1. Do you think this is just BS? Is it impossible to believe that people who would otherwise have nothing to do with terrorism are being motivated because of the infidel occupation of their holy lands?

2. Assume it is true, and that most of the terrorists operating in Iraq are doing so only because of the indefinite occupation by US forces, and that our occupation is serving as a impetus for the creation of new jihadists. What implications does that have for US policy and whether the US should maintain an indefinite occupation and thus serve as a magnate for new terrorists, versus announcing a date we will withdraw our forces, which presumably would reduce that incentive.

 

[MSgt]

What I learn, is none of your business.

ok.

Just the example I used to demonstrate that not all terrorists are one entity acting in unison as some would infer when they speak of, "The Terrorist!" Just like the criminal, or the drug addict, it is totally absurd to think in these terms.

So is taking what I said out of context to make yours.

Oh.

What I don't see, and what you have never proven, is their entire culture embracing these actions as "devine works".

So...your argument is that as long as you have one individual who hates his terrorist organizations and martyrs for his God in the Middle East..."entire" is false? Let's get past the pettiness. There is no need to prove that which is obvious. However, I have continued to prove this and so have the events in the Middle East for over two decades. Here is a little more concrete proof from men who study this and are considered experts in the field...

1) Arnaud de Borchgrave - Senior Adviser and Director
Center for Strategic and International Studies...."One percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million Muslim fanatics who believe America is the Great Satan, fount of all evil, to be attacked and demolished. Moderate Islam has yet to find a voice that will roll back the extremists, a sort of Islamic Martin Luther [the original, not the one who misappropriated his name] or a Mohandas Gandhi."

http://www.grecoreport.com/radical_islam_rising.htm

2) Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is an international business strategist who has been a consultant to governments, international agencies, and boards of some of the world's largest corporations. Among his nine books are....
"Among the close to one million Dutch Muslims, about 95 percent are moderates. This implies that there are up to 50,000 potential radicals." That means 5 percent in the Netherlands are Radical.

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-14.htm

3) Though I agree with many of his views, I do not subscribe to his naive views on what a moderate Muslim is. However, Dr. Daniel Pipes is a leading nationally published Commentary and Analysis on Militant Islam and a renowned Middle East expert. He is the author of 12 books...."Militant Islam derives from Islam but is a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, millenarian, anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, jihadistic, and suicidal version of it. Fortunately, it appeals to only about 10 percent to 15 percent of Muslims, meaning that a substantial majority would prefer a more moderate version."

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/010540.html

4) Jonathan Schanzer is a Soref fellow at The Washington Institute, specializing in radical Islamic movements. Mr. Schanzer holds a bachelor's degree in international relations from Emory University and a master's degree in Middle East studies from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he wrote his master's thesis on the modern history of militant Islam. More recently he studied at the Arabic Language Institute of the American University in Cairo......"Consider bin Laden's own words. "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars...We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God." Adherents of militant Islam account for some 15-20 percent of the Muslim world."

http://www.meforum.org/article/168

With numbers this substantial, you choose to stand back and not identify an entire culture? You choose to be blind to what we are facing in the Middle East and still cling to the prospect that these terrorists are simply "rogues of Islam? Let's pretend that these studies don't exist. Let's just simply look at the events in the Middle East....

1) Hezbollah - an organization obviously created and maintained for the sole purpose of committing destruction and genocide. Millions and millions of Shi'ites in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran love them and stand beside them in "defense of Islam."

2) Al-Queda - an organization obviously created and maintained for the sole purpose of attacking the "Great Satan" and hiding these attacks under rediciulous demands that no one in the west can meet. Millions and millions of Islamists have been convinced that Bin Laden's Islam is of the purest kind. Even Jordanians cheered for them against America and Israel until Zarqawi showed them what they really were and bombed and murdered Muslims in Jordan.

3) Danish cartoons - thousands and thousands of of Muslims across the region rioted and caused a lot of damage. Those that didn't riot merely stayed inside for fear of their own people.

4) Iranian art exhibit - A nation is celebrating cartoons that celebrate the genocide of a people. They do this out of petty revenge for a few Danish cartoons that painted a portrait of what the Radical Islam has done to their religion.

I can't fathom how you insist that thsi is not a cultural problem.

And ours.

But first, we had to attack, then we could kill, then we could get what we want!

And if it doesn't, our indescriminate weapons will do the trick. Cluster bombs, DU and WP, they will bring the doom if you can't.

I don't see us winning any Nobel's over there.

Again with this too? Still discovering what you believe in? There is no Gandhi in the Muslims world. There is no Martin Luther King jr. in the Muslim world. If you feel that you can convert and fill one of those positions then go for it. There can be no peace without first raising the gun. Determined men do not simply change their culture and religion because you wish to love them into a warm feeling. Your freedoms have been built and maintained on the killing of enemies all over the world. Other people on the international arena enjoy freedoms based on our maintenance of beating back our enemies all over the world.

Try to be less ungreatful and more of a realist.

Whether it's low or not, that's what happened.

...and? Your point was to bash these events as if you had a rerspectful stage to accuse the U.S. (yet again) for what their culture is guilty of. Your "lowness" comes into play when you assume that you can use the disbanding of the Iraqi military as a reason for why they commit violence. You furthered this "lowness" by implying the U.S. of wrong for now allowing the Baathist Party to have leadership in the new Iraqi government. Such "lowness" would also see the Nazi Party reinstated after Germany fell to the allied victory.

Like I've said before, you war protesters (in which some of you pick and choose which wars to claim a Gandhi-esque position) destroy any credibility you have when you distort, misuse, or simply lie about the events.

 

[MSgt]

Why do you insist on pretending that you are the sole source of accurate information why you concede you are no expert on this.

I pretend nothing. I simply do not choose to base opinions on nothing and I have studies and continue to study the issues of the Middle East. The difference is that I have learned on this site and I do not choose to pretend that I am ignorant of basic information in order to continue an absurd argument whenever is suits my fancy. We should learn and move on to better discussions. Some don't like to learn things that would disrupt their fantisized dreams of what is occurring.

Anti-war protesters are rarely interested in the issues. They focus on the headline and remain in a comfortable stupor of what is "right and wrong." Then they parade around how better they are by being able to point out violence. Where's the talent in this?

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Let's make two facts on "Terrorism" in the History of USA.

1. In terms of Deaths and lo$$ of Property value most terrorists have been in majority Christian and mostly white; be that of extreme leftist, rightist, anarchist or religious types. It far outshadows the WTC death count and Lo$$.

2. Though US domestic non-muslim terrorists still operate and exist and are charged and convicted of some plot or possesion to this day we rarely find these stories on the front page or at all. Why is that? It detracts the definition of terrorist and muslim as the same--as these domestic terrorists always recieved massive media attention before 9-11, except if acquitted--in which the media wouldn't report it as to make their case of presuming their guilt. Even in the cases of hate crimes--these have gone down in the attention of media coverage. And in fact doing a search on DP I see many posters including the one quoted below couldn't care less and berated a poster for posting such domestic terrorism news reports as being white and christian.

GySgt quote: 1) What the hell does the individual McVeigh, who lacks the encouragment of a religious base, have to do with a terrorist organization, which has the encouragment and moral support of millions of religious Radicals?

GySgt, we all have our areas of expertise and I see US born domestic terrorism and the White Patriot Seedline Identity genre doctrine is your weakness. First off, McVeigh did have a religous-political base in which he was introduced by Terry Nichols who gave him a book called the Turner Diaries the white supremacist bible of domestic civil race war where all race traitors will be killed, all coloreds sent back home, etc--in fact he read this book while in combat during Desert Storm. When McVeigh would be pulled over and arrested just after the bombing, some quotes would be found in the car. Nichols was on record on attending meetings by James Wickstrom, a Posse Comitatus leader who is known as one of the biggest Religous White Supremacist leaders in the nation whose span goes back to the 70's and whose seedline Identity (Jews are of Satan, Whites are Hebrews) followers have been charged with crimes and murders throughout all decades. McVeigh would say everything he learned-introduced was via Nichols. McVeigh would be traced for calling a compound called Elohim city. A haven of religous-political fanatics in which the other "unproven" (german citizen)culprit in the OKC bombing had visited. McVeigh wasn't a individual and wasn't the only one just convicted in the case. He had a religous base--though maybe not as much as "millions" of muslims, the numbers would be hard to accurately estimate; but terrorism nonetheless. In fact when the WTC was bombed they claimed they (Seedline followers) jumped for joy just like those Muslims in the middle east.

 

[MSgt]

Gysgt: I thought about our discussions when I read this article researching another link:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...7/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq?mode=PF

The gist of the article is that recent studies based on case studies of terrorists in Iraq and interrogations of the people caught trying to get into Iraq show that most never had anything to do with terrorism, and were going into Iraq on a jihad to repel the infidel occupiers of holy lands, which they view as defensive.

I didn't read your link, because I haven't the time anymore. Work is getting rediculous. However, based on your summary, I can assume what it states and reply....

1. Do you think this is just BS? Is it impossible to believe that people who would otherwise have nothing to do with terrorism are being motivated because of the infidel occupation of their holy lands?

It is in no way "BS," but it is not concrete. This has been the occurence the whole time. We have always suspected this, because it is common sense. The deep rooted beliefes in "God" that we see in this culture should automatically tell us that many will come to fight in defense of their God, but only after time we were able to come to a conclusional analysis. In the beginning, the Al-Queda insurgency was obviously crossing into Iraq to kill Americans and fight (Due largely to the fears of our enemies about the prospect of a Muslim government that recognizes the equal basic human rights of Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds). Soon after, the local Sunni, angry at the prospect of being equal to the Shi'ites and Kurds, joined with Al-Queda to "fight for Islam against the invaders." It was during this time that we started getting from our interrogations (many choose to call it "torture.") that some were honestly coming to Iraq to simply fight against the "infidel invaders." In the fall of last year, the local Sunni and others seperated from the Al-Queda organization, because they did not like the targetting of Sunni Muslims. Al-Queda in Iraq today is very unorganized and no where near the threat they were a couple years ago. What has been our biggest threat in Iraq has been the rebellious local Sunni fighter and those Muslims that have come to honestly fight for their beliefs. But, today, we also see the local Sunni Muslim faction is indiscriminantly murdering Shi'ite Muslims...just like the Al-Queda faction.

So...the report is true, but it is also conflicting with the events of the most deadliest numbers of the insurgency. Because of this reasoning for why individuals are fighting against us, we do our best to seperate those Muslims who are destined for Gitmo (terrorists) and those Muslims who need imprisoned in places like Abu-Ghraib for the time being. It is impossibloe to be completely accurate, because no one captured admits that they are "terrorists." Even the most under educated amongst the terrorists know that by declaring that they are "defending Islam against the American aggression," they will be treated with better care.

(Please refrain from the needless remarks of the Abu-Ghraib scandel.)

2. Assume it is true, and that most of the terrorists operating in Iraq are doing so only because of the indefinite occupation by US forces, and that our occupation is serving as a impetus for the creation of new jihadists. What implications does that have for US policy and whether the US should maintain an indefinite occupation and thus serve as a magnate for new terrorists, versus announcing a date we will withdraw our forces, which presumably would reduce that incentive.

This is a good point. With the standing up of Iraqi forces in Iraq from one area to the next, I actually do believe that we are coming to a time where we can safely declare an end date for our occupation. This would curb those Muslims that feel that we are there in the manner of "conquest." I also believe that President Bush is shying away from this out of intellectual habit. The issue of the Middle East has and will always be in a transitional changing mode, especially since taking down Saddam. We have to be able to accept these changes and react as best we can. The Bush administration needs to realize this and stop pandering to the ego of Rumsfeld.

 

[Gill]

1. In terms of Deaths and lo$$ of Property value most terrorists have been in majority Christian and mostly white; be that of extreme leftist, rightist, anarchist or religious types. It far outshadows the WTC death count and Lo$$.

Really? Why don't you educate us and give us some names from the past 25 years.

 

[cherokee]

Re: London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chn

Really? Why don't you educate us and give us some names from the past 25 years.

He cant.
The only group he could even come close to would be the IRA.

Sorry people but right here, right now the most active terrorist groups are based in Islam.

 

[talloulou]

Re: London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chn

I just got back from vacation. When boarding the plane they had the national guard pulling people out of the boarding line for more checking. I was at the end of the line and thought it would be fun to see if I could pick the people that would be pulled out of line. Fat chance of that! :rofl First there were two guys who looked middle eastern traveling together. I thought they were obviously the first choice! Yet they weren't pulled. Then there was a guy traveling by himself carrying no bags...nothing nada. I thought for sure he would get pulled. Nope. An old old chinese lady with her head bent facing the ground while she shuffled along in slippers was pulled out of the line! WTF. Then me and my 5 year old daughter were pulled out. :rofl My daughter was patted down! She thought it was funny. But come on WTF are they doing? It almost seemed like men who looked possibly middle eastern were specifically not targeted! Talk about PC gone array.

Meanwhile the national guard makes a big production about searching a 5 year old's back pack and an old old lady. Good grief. I totally wouldn't mind them searching little kids and old women as long as they also searched the obvious choices. But no the obvious choices walk right on by. We aren't safe people!

 

[Deegan]

Re: London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chn

I just got back from vacation. When boarding the plane they had the national guard pulling people out of the boarding line for more checking. I was at the end of the line and thought it would be fun to see if I could pick the people that would be pulled out of line. Fat chance of that! :rofl First there were two guys who looked middle eastern traveling together. I thought they were obviously the first choice! Yet they weren't pulled. Then there was a guy traveling by himself carrying no bags...nothing nada. I thought for sure he would get pulled. Nope. An old old chinese lady with her head bent facing the ground while she shuffled along in slippers was pulled out of the line! WTF. Then me and my 5 year old daughter were pulled out. :rofl My daughter was patted down! She thought it was funny. But come on WTF are they doing? It almost seemed like men who looked possibly middle eastern were specifically not targeted! Talk about PC gone array.

Meanwhile the national guard makes a big production about searching a 5 year old's back pack and an old old lady. Good grief. I totally wouldn't mind them searching little kids and old women as long as they also searched the obvious choices. But no the obvious choices walk right on by. We aren't safe people!

I often wonder if they are sometimes intimidated in some small way, to actually pull the Arabs out of line. Either that or just ashamed or embarrassed, either way it's unacceptable.

I am always singled out, but I think it's due to my size, I can understand this, but it can be frustrating, especially when I am in a hurry. So is it o.k that I am profiled, I think so?

 

[talloulou]

Re: London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight [title chn

I often wonder if they are sometimes intimidated in some small way, to actually pull the Arabs out of line. Either that or just ashamed or embarrassed, either way it's unacceptable.

I am always singled out, but I think it's due to my size, I can understand this, but it can be frustrating, especially when I am in a hurry. So is it o.k that I am profiled, I think so?

I just thought it was really odd. I understand that crazy jihadists may in fact resort to using old ladies or women with small children so I don't actually have a problem being searched or targeted. But ever since 9/11 when traveling on planes I feel like it's my duty to be very aware of who is around me and what they are doing. And I definitely always take notice of those who look, to me, like they warrant close attention. :rofl It's just amazing that none of the 5 people I picked out were chosen by the guard. They were the obvious choices....at least in my mind. They also pulled a girl out of line who was traveling with her boyfriend. They didn't pull him only her. Which is fine but you'd think if that couple raised an eyebrow they'd have pulled both of them. Perhaps the guard guys know something I don't know but it was odd.

 

[MSgt]

Let's make two facts on "Terrorism" in the History of USA.

1. In terms of Deaths and lo$$ of Property value most terrorists have been in majority Christian and mostly white; be that of extreme leftist, rightist, anarchist or religious types. It far outshadows the WTC death count and Lo$$.

Depends on how you choose to look at it, but if we are talking "history," let's use the Islamic side as well. And let's refrain from labeling every single act of war a "terrorist" act. We can find a Christian terrorism on a massive scale in the 16th century alone. But of course, this war is not about dealing with the terrorists of the Christian world in history...it is about addressing the Islamic terrorism of today.

2. Though US domestic non-muslim terrorists still operate and exist and are charged and convicted of some plot or possesion to this day we rarely find these stories on the front page or at all. Why is that? It detracts the definition of terrorist and muslim as the same--as these domestic terrorists always recieved massive media attention before 9-11, except if acquitted--in which the media wouldn't report it as to make their case of presuming their guilt. Even in the cases of hate crimes--these have gone down in the attention of media coverage. And in fact doing a search on DP I see many posters including the one quoted below couldn't care less and berated a poster for posting such domestic terrorism news reports as being white and christian.

This would a media and an individual issue. The defintion of terrorism is plainly described in black and white....

Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

...this does not state that terrorism is the act of Muslim people and does not state that "white Christians" are exonerated from their acts.

As far as your need to single me out...spend more time reqading my posts instead of jumping in to criticize what you obviously are confused about. I am the wrong individual, in which to build a stage upon. As far as your use of the word "berated," Billo and I have thousands of posts between us and it is just more of the same argument that goes back a year.

GySgt, we all have our areas of expertise and I see US born domestic terrorism and the White Patriot Seedline Identity genre doctrine is your weakness.

I have many weaknesses, but I am some what familiar with many aspects of cultural terrorism.

First off, McVeigh did have a religous-political base in which he was introduced by Terry Nichols who gave him a book called the Turner Diaries the white supremacist bible of domestic civil race war where all race traitors will be killed, all coloreds sent back home, etc--in fact he read this book while in combat during Desert Storm. When McVeigh would be pulled over and arrested just after the bombing, some quotes would be found in the car. Nichols was on record on attending meetings by James Wickstrom, a Posse Comitatus leader who is known as one of the biggest Religous White Supremacist leaders in the nation whose span goes back to the 70's and whose seedline Identity (Jews are of Satan, Whites are Hebrews) followers have been charged with crimes and murders throughout all decades. McVeigh would say everything he learned-introduced was via Nichols. McVeigh would be traced for calling a compound called Elohim city. A haven of religous-political fanatics in which the other "unproven" (german citizen)culprit in the OKC bombing had visited. McVeigh wasn't a individual and wasn't the only one just convicted in the case. He had a religous base--though maybe not as much as "millions" of muslims, the numbers would be hard to accurately estimate; but terrorism nonetheless. In fact when the WTC was bombed they claimed they (Seedline followers) jumped for joy just like those Muslims in the middle east.

This, of course, is correct and I appreciate the contribution. However, my point was not to portray Timmy as a solo terrorists without some sort of support. My point was to show that a cultural religious support is absent in America. We will not find Christian leaders across America praying for the protection of the Timmy Mcvieghs nor will we find masses of American Citizens honoring his deeds. All terrorists have some sort of support, whether it be financial or simple cheers. My point was to show the differences in culture.

Also, there is a difference in definitions as far as terrorists goes. McVeigh, while being religious, didn't commit his deed in the name of "God" and he didn't seek to punish for sins. His issue was against the government and so he bombed a government building. This is "Practical." Meaning that we can frown and detest his deed, but we can understand them. We can even deal with him, because in his mind, he is warning and seeks to improve the society he lives in.

An "Apocalyptic" terrorist is only interested in revenge and seeks to murder anyone that believes in another "God." He so believes that his life on earth is so worthless and hopeless, that he seeks salvation by doing "God's" work on earth. There is nothing more blasphemous than that of the self-appointed executioner of God. In Islam, this is even more dangerous, because an already brutalized religion is immersed in a region of desperation. Their religion demands the death of infidels and in times of desperation and change, men will always seek those scriptures that give them control of their destinies. Those human monsters, and their charismatic leader who planned 9/11, were not interested in improving life. They sought revenge. Men who kill in the name of their God and seek reward for it in the after life can not be dealt with. They must be killed.

All cultures have seen the Apocalyptic vision of terrorism. Today's vision happens to come from Islam and from the most failed region on Earth.

 

[Red_Dave]

The terror alert has been raised to its maximum for all U.S. flights after the British broke up a huge plot to fly about ten planes from Britain into the U.S. to be used as missiles.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207682,00.html


Now my first thought is about all the fighting between responsible British leaders who have been trying to increase national security with sensible post 7-7 policies and the far left fanatics who, just like ours, oppose any and all measures any intelligent human being would take to prevent further attacks.

We are not the only country with a loud liberal noise machine that puts itself in the way of apt national security measures at every turn.

But apparently, the far left in Britain, just as in this country, shouldn't be listened to seeing as how the "fascist" policies of Tony Blair are clearly preventing mass murder quite well...and without violating anyone's ACTUAL rights.

Example:

"U.K. PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR WANTS TO EXPAND THE POWERS OF POLICE WHEN IT COMES TO DETAINING TERROR SUSPECTS. HERE'S NICOLE PETALLIDES WITH THE LATEST UPDATE. >> HI, SUZY. THAT'S RIGHT. PRIME MINISTER SAYS HE FAVORS INTERVIEWING THEM FOR THREE MONTHS INSTEAD OF 14 DAYS."

Global Broadcast Database. European Market Rpt. 10:00 AM Bloom. July 26, 2005. STATION: 0 BLOM National.

Blair has made many wise moves like this and been attacked for virtually all of them by the far left in that country.

Portraying opposition to blairs anti-terror laws as being limited to the far left is inaccurate as the main oppossition to the laws came from the concervative party [not to mention most of blairs own labour party]. Not to mention that fact that Tony Blairs policys are well to the left of many [if not most] in the democratic party in the U.S.

I was against them because they gave the police to much scope to arrest people for what they said/wrote. Im very wary of this because if the government can control what we read and hear, they can [to an extent] control what we think and say.

The origional terroism bill allowed the police to arrest detain and deport [in the case of foriegn nationals] anyone guilty of condoneing terroism.Now this sounds ok but the bill itself doesnt give any legal definition of what terroism is.

Its sometimes defined as any illegal action against governments. Matin luther king, the american founding fathers, nelson mandela and the founders of the irsh republic. All fit this definition.

Its otherwise described as using violence to fufill political objectives. Most states do this.

Given the huge scope this leads us. The police would have a huge amount of potential to arrest people who are no threat. Not to mention the fact this law could easyly be exploited to limit free speach.