Muslim Terrorists Jailed

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oklahoma City was a one-of-a-kind event, so far. One event does not make a trend. On the other hand, Muslim attacks against Americans are quite numerous, and on-going.

How many Muslim attacks on American soil besides 9/11? Oh right, none. It was one of a kind too.

None successful, no... I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the attempted attacks on Ft. Dix or JFK, just to name a few recent attempts.

You mean the "attempts" that would have never actually worked anyway that were hyped by FOXNews and the Republicans as a misdirection? Those?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Yes, those attacks that COULD have worked if not disrupted, that the MSM tout as "fearmongering" and "misdirection" ...

Or the attempted attack (disrupted in planning stages) on the Sears tower.

Or the attempted attack (disrupted in planning stages) on the NYC tunnels.

ALL Faux News and Republican misdirection...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Oklahoma City was a one-of-a-kind event, so far. One event does not make a trend. On the other hand, Muslim attacks against Americans are quite numerous, and on-going.

How many Muslim attacks on American soil besides 9/11? Oh right, none. It was one of a kind too.

First of all, the events of 9/11 were four attacks. One plane on each of the two World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and the plane that went down in Pennsylvania which might have been headed for the White House.

Second, it's cute the way you try to frame the discussion of terrorism as only on "American soil". But foreign embassies are American soil too. And Americans are killed by terrorists in many places other than America, and that doesn't make them any less dead, or their killers any less terrorists.

Here's a list for you, starting in 1979, of Muslim terror attacks against U.S. citizens, outside of the homeland:

- 1979: The U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran.
- 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
- 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
- 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
- 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
- 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
- 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
- 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
- 1995: 5 dead in Saudi Arabia.
- 1996: 19 dead in Saudi Arabia.
- 1998: 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
- 2000: 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen.

And here are Muslim jihadist murders here at home:

- 1980: Iranian dissident killed in Washington, D.C.
- 1983: leader of the Ahmadiyya Islam sect killed, Canton, Mich.
- 1984: three Indians killed in Tacoma, Wash.
- 1986: doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
- 1990: Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
- 1990: Jewish leader killed in New York.
- 1991: Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
- 1993: two CIA staff killed, Langley, Va.
- 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center, New York.
- 1994: Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
- 1997: Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
- 1999: 217 passengers killed on EgyptAir flight,New York City.
- 2001: 9/11/01.

Would you like more current events, like just in the past few days?

Israel Busts Cell That Allegedly Planned to Kidnap Americans

Canada Mentioned As Possible Terror Target

Indonesia Neutralizes JI as Immediate Threat

Algeria arrests minors at suspected Qaeda-linked training camp

Pakistani Troops raid Al Qaeda training camp

What do all of these terrorist events have in common? MUSLIMS!

Do you actually believe that muslim terrorists are not a threat to American citizens?

[RBM 1]

Intresting too, the new video just released from a Afghan terrorist camp showing a graduation of some 300 suicide bombers going on missions to Canada,USA,Britan and Germany, now i suppose we are to believe from some others here, they are not muslim, when its a terrorist camp run by Muslim Extremist's ?? jezzzz c'mon ppl.. John is on the right track. its 99.5% of the time muslim's who want to destroy

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you actually believe that muslim terrorists are not a threat to American citizens?

Do you actually believe that is the argument being presented to you?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Do you actually believe that muslim terrorists are not a threat to American citizens?

Do you actually believe that is the argument being presented to you?

Seven people have voted to set them free. And you and a few others are spending a lot of time defending muslim terrorists.

So, would you like to answer my question now?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Intresting too, the new video just released from a Afghan terrorist camp showing a graduation of some 300 suicide bombers going on missions to Canada,USA,Britan and Germany

Yep, I've heard that news bit on CNN and talk radio. But can't find a single written story about in the American mainstream media. Curious...

Not to worry though, because John Edwards says that terrorism is just a bumper sticker slogan.

[livendive 8]

Once again, I'm not particularly invested in this argument, but I don't think I'd consider attacks on a US airbase, naval ship, or marine compound to be "terrorism". They are military targets.

Embassies are a bit fuzzier, as they are supposed to be protected soil, however they are clearly extensions of the US government, as opposed to malls, diners, trade centers, etc. I think government offices might fall in the ever dreaded grey area.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[bozo 0]

Quote

Once again, I'm not particularly invested in this argument, but I don't think I'd consider attacks on a US airbase, naval ship, or marine compound to be "terrorism". They are military targets.

Blues,
Dave

You are serious right ?
Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?
How about the cooks in the galley, in the Cole, getting ready for noon chow, while the ship was fueling when the "terrorists" blew them to red dust ?
Where they legitimate ?

There is no grey area here ,Dave, if its soldiers,legitimate members of an opposing army, I would agree with you. These guys are such a loose associtation of radical nutcases they can never be misidentified as such.

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Once again, I'm not particularly invested in this argument, but I don't think I'd consider attacks on a US airbase, naval ship, or marine compound to be "terrorism". They are military targets.

You are serious right ?
Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?
How about the cooks in the galley, in the Cole, getting ready for noon chow, while the ship was fueling when the "terrorists" blew them to red dust ?
Where they legitimate ?

There is no grey area here ,Dave, if its soldiers,legitimate members of an opposing army, I would agree with you. These guys are such a loose associtation of radical nutcases they can never be misidentified as such.

I didn't say anything about the targets being legitimate and don't think they were. I'm just saying that I think of terrorism as being attacks against primarily civilians with the goal of causing fear within the surviving population. Attacking the Cole and the Marines in Beirut was something different that I'm having difficulty picking a word for. That doesn't mean I condone or excuse the actions. In any case, it's merely a case of symantics for me and not something I'm going to argue vehemently one way or the other.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

I see your point and agree with it, in a general manner. That *is* one of the risks that you assume when you're on Uncle Sam's payroll.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[bozo 0]

[reply. In any case, it's merely a case of symantics for me and not something I'm going to argue vehemently one way or the other.

Blues,
Dave

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You are serious right ?
Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?

Soldiers are always a military target.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you actually believe that muslim terrorists are not a threat to American citizens?

Do you actually believe that is the argument being presented to you?

Seven people have voted to set them free. And you and a few others are spending a lot of time defending muslim terrorists.

So, would you like to answer my question now?

Why? You're not reading answers. I gave an explanation (stupid poll options, as typical), and others pointed out how easy it is to yank your chain.

[bozo 0]

Quote

Quote

You are serious right ?
Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?

Soldiers are always a military target.

Says you...and your opinion.

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[billvon 2,471]

>Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A
>PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?

Yep. Same reason we considered the Iraqi Army, even when they were just trying to survive, a legitimate military target.

>How about the cooks in the galley, in the Cole, getting ready for
>noon chow, while the ship was fueling when the "terrorists" blew them
>to red dust ?

How about the cooks in the Republican Guard barracks, just trying to feed their troops when we blew them to tomato paste? Was that different?

They were in the military. That makes them military targets. Doesn't make their deaths any more "acceptable" but it does make them military, not civilian, targets.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are serious right ?
Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Soldiers are always a military target.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Says you...and your opinion.

The Marines were there to support our objectives in the region.....it did not help that the ships offshore.. including some rather large ones were lobbing shells over the coast and into the Bekaa Valley. That pissed off the Iranians there who got their surrogate stooges AMAL.. to do the deed..

I think we got pretty good payback for that.. considering we helped Sadaam after taht and the Iraquis killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians for us.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are serious right ?
Do you consider the 200 + Marines killed in Lebanon, ON A PEACEKEEPING MISSION a legitimate Military target ?

Soldiers are always a military target.

Says you...and your opinion.

It's not an opinion that soldiers are members of the military, nor that they are the targets of our enemies. That's true by definition. You're viewing these events emotionally, and that usually means objectivity is lost. I don't fault the Japanese for the surprise attack on Pearl than I do the US for nuking two cities at the end.

At the start of Gulf War II, we blew up a house we hoped had SH inside. I'm sure it had civilians inside. Collateral damage is the euphamism for the not quite military deaths that happen when force is exercised.

Why are Muslims overrepresented, or as suggested, the only scourge in our life now?

Do the math. 40% of the world is Chinese or Indian. Both are nuclear nations as well as highly trade dependent on the US, so armed conflict isn't going to happen. The EU is in a similar category, and the former members of the British Empire (Canada, Australia) are allies. Who's left? South America and the Muslim world.

But if you think this is due to religion and not politics, you need to study your history.

[bozo 0]

[reply
It's not an opinion that soldiers are members of the military, nor that they are the targets of our enemies. That's true by definition. You're viewing these events emotionally, .

[Weezil 0]

Quote

Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tits on page 3 have no bearing upon the accuracy of the story of jailed muslim terrorists on page 1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The trouble with that argument is that the SUN has been proven in court to be an unreliable source, and as all can see, it panders to the public's desire for titillation.

So who knows if this story is true or not? I don't think it's our job to prove that it's false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neither is it my job to prove that it's true. You can take it or leave it - it doesn't matter to me. But the veracity of the story from The Sun can be proven through numerous other news sources, and I provided a link to some of those other stories for those who wished to check.

Quote

Well, I guess you conceded the point I was trying to make, although it took a long time getting there.

Quote

It's interesting that rather than discuss the terrorists and their plots against the U.S. and U.K., all some people want to do is bash The Sun. I guess that's more important.

Erm, well it seemed like that for you. I pressed you in 3 previous posts (1, 2 and 3) to answer some of the more pertinent points raised in this thread.

Just look back and read them this time. In each case all you did was press the point further of us questioning the integrity of the sun, without discussing anything else.
Well, we did you the courtesy of replying to your posts, maybe you could return the courtesy of replying to mine?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I pressed you in 3 previous posts (1, 2, 3) to answer some of the more pertinent points raised in this thread... In each case all you did was press the point further of us questioning the integrity of the sun, without discussing anything else... maybe you could return the courtesy of replying to mine?

I spoke my view on the matter, and you spoke yours. I even gave you the last word on it, and you have now taken that last word three times. I'm okay with that. That's what this forum is for - to allow each of us to express our opinions. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I said what I had to say, and I'm done with it.

The journalistic standards of "The Sun" is not what this thread is about (re-check the subject title). If you wish to obsess about that, then feel free to start your own new thread on the matter.

It is time for you to quit beating this dead horse, and just be content that you got to voice your opinion, and have it heard. It's up to the individual readers to decide for themselves whether they feel the story was reported accurately and fairly.

Now it's time for you to let it go. Move on.

[Weezil 0]

[:) ]I think I'll do just that. I've been lurking here a along time., nice to join in.

Maybe go back to lurking for a while

Thanks for your time

Blue skies.....

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

...
The journalistic standards of "The Sun" is not what this thread is about (re-check the subject title). If you wish to obsess about that, then feel free to start your own new thread on the matter.
.....

Does it hurt to be beaten with own weapons? Holy Crab, John, how many times did you propose ".... to start your own new thread.."?

You started a lousy one, what do you expect? It really surprises me to notice that some posters tried to be serious with their replies on such a BS.

Running out of gas (or ammo), John?

dudeist skydiver # 3105