Homegrown Terrorists

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What do you all think?

You know my answer. :yourock:

 

[fossten]

I must admit that I've learned a great deal from Groovin8's posts. I can not say the same for Fossten. It is sad to see someone get their rocks off insulting anyone with a different point of view.

The rest of us have managed to tone down the hostilities yet fossten persists in trying to force his opinions down our throats. He has even taken to calling people liars. I believe his personal attacks have gone on far too long and I think it is time for something to be done about it.

What do you all think?

I think you should stop crying like a little baby every time someone gives you a taste of your own medicine. You are the master of name-calling on this forum; I don't do one-tenth the insulting and hating you do.

I'm not here to coddle you, not here to teach you. If you don't have the good sense to accept information that is accurate and true just because you don't personally like the person sharing that information, that's your own problem.

You libs don't scare me one little bit. Anytime you guys want to start keeping score and add up all barry's (or Johnny's, for that matter) personal attacks and compare them to mine, GIVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT. As I've said before, I don't have a thing to worry about.

 

[barry2952]

Oh well, he still doesn't get it. We can always ignore him and hope he'll go away. Let's try that.

No Fossten. If you'd read my posts I don't hate anyone except George Bush. I hate George Bush because I believe he has been far less than truthful with the American people and I believe that he will be held accountable for it.

I called someone a moron early on in my stay here and I was soundly thrashed for it. I think maybe Kbob might remember that. I don't think I've done that since then. There is a fine line between ribbing someone and stabbing them. You seem to miss the distinction.

The object of Saturday nights chat was supposed to be about toning down the disagreeable posts. Your name came up frequently. We all determined that we wanted to keep the format that had developed over time. That format clearly does not allow for your type of personal assaults.

If I can change, so can you.

 

[Gruuvin8]

My intention of this thread:
1) To point out that religion-fueled terrorism is not only limited to muslim extremists. I used Rudolf as an example.
2) To question hypothetically, "how many more homegrown terrorists have been spawned by BuSh and his actions in Iraq".

What do you mean by "spawned"? Bush and Blair are taking a brutal tyrant out of power and establishing freedom, democracy, education, and prosperity in a country that has been oppressed. We did not send troops to Iraq to kill innocent people like the terrorists do in London and New York. The people the US military are fighting in Iraq are insurgents that oppose freedom, not the innocent bystanders who are greatful for the US establishing freedom. Don't forget that the Iraqis praised the US actions when they pulled down the statue of Saddam. Then insurgents who oppose freedom came out of the woodwork to fight -- they should lose, by coalition force, to protect what the iraqis want.
The people the terrorists kill are innocent bystanders. They do nothing to stop the military; they only try to create fear so that the US will stop defending the Iraqis freedom. Bush did not create terrorists. It is their own hatred of freedom for all (infidels) that causes muslims to become terrorists -- dictated directly by islam.
If you blame Bush's actions as wrong because you think those actions are responsible for creating terrorism, then you must also think that pregnant women and their surgeons are wrong because they created, or "spawned", terrorists who blew up abortion clinics. By the same reasoning, we could argue that you "spawn" hostility in these forums because you push issues we don't agree with. We all know the truth. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you pose a viewpoint we don't like and we become hostile, it is our fault. If a man uses the guise of christianity (which opposes violence) to blow up a clinic, you can not blame christianity, or the actions of the woman or surgeon; you must blame the man.

If a man wants to kill innocent Americans and Londoners who want to see the middle east become free, and he kills these people because his religion tells him to do exactly that and because of the hatred in his heart, you can only blame the terrorist for hating and killing, and you can certainly question the religion that has brainwashed him into doing such horrible things, but you can not blame the Americans (Bush included) or Londoners (Blair included) for the terrorist's actions.
Bush and Blair have created the solution to end terrorism through freedom and education (not killing innocent people); they have not created the terrorists. You have been pushing this twisted view of ill-founded logic for a while now and we know it. We are not missing your point -- you are missing the point! You are wrong!
Check Mate!

 

[Gruuvin8]

btw.... oil DOES play a part in this conflict in two ways.
Bush is a smart oil man, and he knows that the spread of terrorism and tyranny through islam is sitting on the energy that fuels the world. He knows this is very dangerous for the whole world. Instead of taking the oil away from the terrorists, he is taking the terrorists away from the oil. He is not trying to control or steal the oil. He is saying to the Iraqi people, "here, have freedom and prosperity to take control of your oil so you can play fair with the rest of the world." Our involvement in Iraq may not be perfect, but in the end, it is a win win situation for all, including (especially) for the Iraqis.

The fear of angering those who control this oil is what causes the other major power players in the world to "hush up" about islam and not expose it for how it is brainwashing its followers to hate and kill all non-muslims. The fear of exposing Bush and Blair's intentions as "good" is what causes the leftist media to "hush up" about the truth about islam.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What do you mean by "spawned"?

You answered your own question......

Then insurgents who oppose freedom came out of the woodwork to fight --

IOW, the invasion of Iraq gave them reason to pick up arms and become terrorists. I in NO WAY implied that BuSh or Blair strapped bombs onto innocent people and told them "Here, now go be a terrorist".

Bush and Blair are taking a brutal tyrant out of power and establishing freedom, democracy, education, and prosperity in a country that has been oppressed.

Yea! Whoopie!

We did not send troops to Iraq to kill innocent people like the terrorists do in London and New York.

Never said we did.

The people the US military are fighting in Iraq are insurgents that oppose freedom, not the innocent bystanders who are greatful for the US establishing freedom.

Duh!

Don't forget that the Iraqis praised the US actions when they pulled down the statue of Saddam.

Double Duh!

Then insurgents who oppose freedom came out of the woodwork to fight --

EXACTLY!

they should lose, by coalition force, to protect what the iraqis want.

:I

The people the terrorists kill are innocent bystanders. They do nothing to stop the military;

Nope, can't STOP the US military forces, but nearly 1800 deaths is certainly taking a bite out of it.

they only try to create fear so that the US will stop defending the Iraqis freedom.

Yep.

Bush did not create terrorists. It is their own hatred of freedom for all (infidels) that causes muslims to become terrorists -- dictated directly by islam.

Here's where my communication skills must be lacking. In my mind, "create" and "spawned" are two different things, while you apparently see them as being the same. My bad, see above clarification ("the invasion of Iraq gave them reason to pick up arms and become terrorists.")

If you blame Bush's actions as wrong because you think those actions are responsible for creating terrorism, then you must also think that pregnant women and their surgeons are wrong because they created, or "spawned", terrorists who blew up abortion clinics.

Nope, don't agree. In the first example, the terrorists are responding to an action that was not condoned by the governing power. In the second example, the terrorist was responding to an action that WAS condoned by the governing power.

By the same reasoning, we could argue that you "spawn" hostility in these forums because you push issues we don't agree with.

:F

We all know the truth. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you pose a viewpoint we don't like and we become hostile, it is our fault.

Amen.

If a man uses the guise of christianity (which opposes violence) to blow up a clinic, you can not blame christianity, or the actions of the woman or surgeon; you must blame the man.

Read up on Eric Rudolph, you'll find that his radical version of christianity fostered hate and violence. Why can't you blame his "religion"? Mohammed's interpretation of Islam certainly is NOT the only "religion" on the face of this earth that desires "total world domination" at the expense of "killing infidels" as necessary.

If a man wants to kill innocent Americans and Londoners who want to see the middle east become free, and he kills these people because his religion tells him to do exactly that and because of the hatred in his heart, you can only blame the terrorist for hating and killing, and you can certainly question the religion that has brainwashed him into doing such horrible things, but you can not blame the Americans (Bush included) or Londoners (Blair included) for the terrorist's actions.

Again, see above clarification ("the invasion of Iraq gave them reason to pick up arms and become terrorists.")

Bush and Blair have created the solution to end terrorism through freedom and education (not killing innocent people); they have not created the terrorists. You have been pushing this twisted view of ill-founded logic for a while now and we know it. We are not missing your point -- you are missing the point! You are wrong!
Check Mate!

Again, see above clarification ("the invasion of Iraq gave them reason to pick up arms and become terrorists.")

KING ME! :facesjump

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The fear of exposing Bush and Blair's intentions as "good" is what causes the leftist media to "hush up" about the truth about islam.

If the truth be known, you probably have that backwards:

The fear of exposing the truth about islam is what causes the leftist media to "hush up" about Bush and Blair's intentions as "good".

I agree crushing terrorism (regardless of the root cause) is a good a noble cause. I don't think ANY one here argues with that. Going after OBL and al-Quida after 9/11 was a GOOD thing. BUT, making a wrong turn into Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan, when there were many other bigger fish to fry, and end up biting off more that we can chew, was a potentially deadly mistake. That's MY opinion and I'm sticking to it.
:ban

 

[Gruuvin8]

To question hypothetically, "how many more homegrown terrorists have been spawned by BuSh and his actions in Iraq". My proof that BuSh has "spawned" terrorists is that the recent attacks in London were by people who are essentially "homegrown", and they were acting in retaliation of Britan's presence in Iraq, which is a result of BuSh's declaration of war.

so what's the answer? how many? and who would you then blame? I think you have finally admitted that you can only blame the one who commits the actions -- blame the terrorists for the terrorism and blame Bush for trying to protect the world from terrorists. But you can't come clean and straight up admit it -- you still have not made a point. So tell us, who is to blame for terrorism, Bush or the terrorists?

...making a wrong turn into Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan, when there were many other bigger fish to fry, and end up biting off more that we can chew, was a potentially deadly mistake.

I agree that there are some things that Bush is lacking on like border control, and excessive spending, but the problem of Saddam wasn't any smaller a fish to fry than the rest. ya think it takes all our military to find one guy? he is doing a great job at hiding out (the wuss) but we have not stopped looking for him, and we'll get him when we can. But, if the neighborhood is being raped and nobody will help, do you do nothing for fear of getting hurt? that's why we're in iraq. The UN was doing nothing, so the USA and commonwealth strapped on their stones and put a stop to it. Those who oppose obviously don't know or have what it takes to defend a neighbor in need.

The fear of exposing the truth about islam is what causes the leftist media to "hush up" about Bush and Blair's intentions as "good".

Wait a minute... I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying because I may agree with that statement even more, and I'm surprised. You think that the reason the media does not want to let Bush and Blair look good is because they are afriad that in doing so they will expose islam as being bad?
Why would the media be afraid to expose islam's dark side? if they did it would make Bush and Blair's intentions look good. And we all know that the leftist media doesn't want to do that, and I can believe that! So either both our statements mean the same thing, or something else about islam causes the media to fear exposing it so much that they instead have to make Bush and Blair look bad... which I also agree with (on a much deeper and generally unaccepted explanation)... except I don't know what it is you are implying that makes the media so fearful of exposing Islam. Is it that the media and islam is being run by the same master? (i think so) You only made the statement more confusing by not saying why the media is afraid of exposing islam. actually.. heh heh.. now I am getting confused!!!

 

[barry2952]

Is it that the media and islam is being run by the same master? (i think so)

I'm not fighting, I'm just questioning your thoughts on this. Please expand.

 

[Gruuvin8]

I'm not fighting, I'm just questioning your thoughts on this. Please expand.

heh heh... that would open a whole new pandora's box..... so i'll give johnny floor first.

 

[barry2952]

heh heh... that would open a whole new pandora's box..... so i'll give johnny floor first.

You opened the box. What does Johnny's response have to do with my request?

 

[Gruuvin8]

You opened the box. What does Johnny's response have to do with my request?

because i wanna know what johnny means by this statement:

The fear of exposing the truth about islam is what causes the leftist media to "hush up" about Bush and Blair's intentions as "good".

...before i agree or expound on what I would mean by it. It's the most interesting statement ive seen in the political threads (the way i read into it), however I am first interested in what johnny thinks is the reason the left media does not expose islam and so makes Bush and Blair look bad to protect it. If johnny and I agree on that statement, then technically he opened the box.
besides.... I dunno if it would be considered proper by the admins if i went on about it.... some people defiantly disagree with the notion that there are greater forces at work than what can only be seen... and might just write someone off as crazy who would assert as much. so there are lots of reasons I don't go on about it.

 

[fossten]

No Fossten. If you'd read my posts I don't hate anyone except George Bush. I hate George Bush because I believe he has been far less than truthful with the American people and I believe that he will be held accountable for it.

No, you hate Bush because that's what you've been programmed to do by the continuously-discredited Bush-hating media and all your Michael Moore types. You are so ready to believe in a conspiracy theory that you consistently ignore any exculpatory facts.

I called someone a moron early on in my stay here and I was soundly thrashed for it. I think maybe Kbob might remember that. I don't think I've done that since then. There is a fine line between ribbing someone and stabbing them. You seem to miss the distinction.

Oh, so moron is the only word you can't use? What about ignorant? If you can explain what you think is the distinction, I'm all ears. I don't have to defend myself to you. I have to account to Bryan for what I say to a certain extent. But you go crying to him every time I hurt your poor wittle feewings. And I don't even call you names. You don't like my words because they are effective, and they leave you exposed.

The object of Saturday nights chat was supposed to be about toning down the disagreeable posts. Your name came up frequently. We all determined that we wanted to keep the format that had developed over time. That format clearly does not allow for your type of personal assaults.

If I can change, so can you.

You haven't changed. You still call people names. The fact of the matter is that you couldn't even spell out what the format allows if I asked you to. I have been in close contact with Bryan this whole time, so I know my
:q :q :q :q is straight. My so-called personal assaults are far more subtle than yours, and much more on the money.

 

[Gruuvin8]

hostility is the worst way to get someone to see things from your point of view.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

so what's the answer? how many? and who would you then blame? I think you have finally admitted that you can only blame the one who commits the actions -- blame the terrorists for the terrorism and blame Bush for trying to protect the world from terrorists. But you can't come clean and straight up admit it -- you still have not made a point. So tell us, who is to blame for terrorism, Bush or the terrorists?

Terrorists are to blame for terrorist actions (i.e.: "terrorism"). Bush is to blame for prodding that hornets nest and activating more people, who would've otherwise never taken up arms, to become terrorists. I've never intended to imply otherwise, and I don't know how to be more explicit in my explanation. And I've never denied that Bush had "good intentions" of "protecting the world from terrorists", I've only contended that his technique for doing so has fatal flaws. FACT IS, neither Bush or Cheney have see actual military action against a real enemy FIRST HAND. They CANNOT POSSIBLY APRECIATE what it means to cover the back of the guy fighting next to you so that he'll cover your back so that you both can go home alive. How then would one expect them to be qualified to lead the US into war, let alone a war against "terrorism" and "terrorists"? You see our presence in Iraq as "Bush trying to protect the world from terrorists". Well that's all fine and dandy, but while he's attempting to do that, he's stirred the hornets nest and applied a fresh new coat of paint to that target painted on all our backs. Yeah, certainly that was an "unintended consequence", but none the less validates my contention that Bush and Cheney have not earned the right to take the US to war. How's that saying go? "The road to damnation is paved with good intentions" or something like that.

Wait a minute... I'm not quite sure I understand what your saying because I may agree with that statement even more, and I'm surprised. You think that the reason the media does not want to let Bush and Blair look good is because they are afriad that in doing so they will expose islam as being bad?
Why would the media be afraid to expose islam's dark side? if they did it would make Bush and Blair's intentions look good. And we all know that the leftist media doesn't want to do that, and I can believe that! So either both our statements mean the same thing, or something else about islam causes the media to fear exposing it so much that they instead have to make Bush and Blair look bad... which I also agree with (on a much deeper and generally unaccepted explanation)... except I don't know what it is you are implying that makes the media so fearful of exposing Islam. Is it that the media and islam is being run by the same master? (i think so) You only made the statement more confusing by not saying why the media is afraid of exposing islam. actually.. heh heh.. now I am getting confused!!!

In simplistic terms, in the "PC" world we live in, the media (left, right or otherwise) isn't going to say much bad about any religion (affecting large, orgainized groups of people), for fear of pissing them off and getting backlash (either in the form of actual terrorist acts or lost revinue from advertising sponsers). Therefore, keeping hush prevents, or at least hinders them from revealing how good Bush / Blair's intentions really are (not necessarily that they are trying to make Bush / Blair look bad........ some of their actions do that without any help at all). BUT, you've touched on the idea of a much deeper, darker, more mysterious set of forces at play here that resides under the surface and crosses all political and religious boundries which, in all honesty, I too might also contend is the "grand master puppeteer". I have only recently started learning about this idea, so I'd have to reserve expounding on it further until I learn more, and as you say, avoid being labeled as crazy.
:Beer

 

[Gruuvin8]

Terrorists are to blame for terrorist actions (i.e.: "terrorism"). Bush is to blame for prodding that hornets nest and activating more people, who would've otherwise never taken up arms, to become terrorists. I've never intended to imply otherwise, and I don't know how to be more explicit in my explanation. And I've never denied that Bush had "good intentions" of "protecting the world from terrorists", I've only contended that his technique for doing so has fatal flaws. FACT IS, neither Bush or Cheney have see actual military action against a real enemy FIRST HAND. They CANNOT POSSIBLY APRECIATE what it means to cover the back of the guy fighting next to you so that he'll cover your back so that you both can go home alive. How then would one expect them to be qualified to lead the US into war, let alone a war against "terrorism" and "terrorists"? You see our presence in Iraq as "Bush trying to protect the world from terrorists". Well that's all fine and dandy, but while he's attempting to do that, he's stirred the hornets nest and applied a fresh new coat of paint to that target painted on all our backs. Yeah, certainly that was an "unintended consequence", but none the less validates my contention that Bush and Cheney have not earned the right to take the US to war. How's that saying go? "The road to damnation is paved with good intentions" or something like that.

I guess i can not really disagree except that I dont know if there really was a better way that would have resulted in a much different outcome. I think things always get worse before they get better because in any way change is implemented, there will be resistance. I dont think there is a perfect plan. lets just hope the plan works in the end.

In simplistic terms, in the "PC" world we live in, the media (left, right or otherwise) isn't going to say much bad about any religion (affecting large, orgainized groups of people), for fear of pissing them off and getting backlash (either in the form of actual terrorist acts or lost revinue from advertising sponsers). Therefore, keeping hush prevents, or at least hinders them from revealing how good Bush / Blair's intentions really are (not necessarily that they are trying to make Bush / Blair look bad........ some of their actions do that without any help at all).

:I whats that saying... "the love of money is the root of all evil

BUT, you've touched on the idea of a much deeper, darker, more mysterious set of forces at play here that resides under the surface and crosses all political and religious boundries which, in all honesty, I too might also contend is the "grand master puppeteer". I have only recently started learning about this idea, so I'd have to reserve expounding on it further until I learn more, and as you say, avoid being labeled as crazy.
:Beer

and there lies the evil :I