United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[HOZ]

Feel free to browse yourself since you are so enlightended.
http://www.cfr.org/issue/456/
Please note the sheer number of groups with Islamic, Islamist, Martyrs, and such versus the others.

They are in the news more because of the sheer number of their activities and their numbers period. They dwarf the rest. Have read through. Only the IRA can come close to meeting the numbers that the Islamic one put up in murder.

Now I will take 2 groups from each. 2 Muslim; 2 Western

Well lets start with the IRA;

This is the the Splinter groups from the Provisional IRA.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9240/...dcrumb=default
Experts aren’t sure, but they estimate that there may be as many as 150 active members of the Real IRA, around 100 active members of the Continuity IRA, and perhaps fifty of the Irish National Liberation Army. Each group is small enough to be vulnerable to informers, both from the IRA and from British or Irish security forces.

At it's height the Provisional IRA was at 300 or so members. But they have given up the fight. So we'll go with the splinter groups.



ETA: Who has recently decided to stop any and all terrorist activities. No numbers but then they were considered to be smaller than the IRA and certainly less effective.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9271/...paratists.html


Hezbollah; http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/...hizbullah.html
How big is Hezbollah?

Its core consists of several thousand militants and activists, the U.S. government estimates.



Armed Islamic Group(known by its French acronym, GIA)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9154/...islamists.html

The GIA is now thought to have between a few hundred and a few thousand operatives and is listed on the U.S. roster of foreign terrorist groups.


I rest my case.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I just re-read your post. I'm a bit speechless, I have to say. I'm going to guess that 20th-century history isn't your strong point.

haha

Actually have a minor in history. No need to be speechless.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Calgary Flames

I don't see any Buddhist's flying planes into buildings..

Nope, me either.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

-From your posts, I'm guessing you don't consider McVeigh and his ties to Supremacists, and the Ryder Truck special he delivered to be evidence of this.
- I'm sure B'nai B'rith or Southern Poverty Law Center could supply you with some hate crime stats, but I'm sure you'll dismiss them.
- There's also that thing in the Fatherland, but I'm not sure you believe that actually happened.
- Google RaHoWa or check out a few hate sites. Then tell me if they don't "think" that way.



At the end of the day it's all about people that take their religion or beliefs to the extreme that's causing that all. Al Qaeda is to Islam, as what the KKK is to Christianity. To think that everyone of a certain religion wants to take down a Federal Building or World Trade Center is incredibly naive.

First of all, I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. What I said was that not all muslims are terrorists. I did add that most terrorists ARE muslims. Take it for what it's worth, but it's true, right now.

The IRA is done. Timothy McVeigh had ties to anarchists, extreme libertarian groups, anti-government groups, I don't recall him being tied to white supremists groups. Regardless, if he did associate with them, that was never his reasoning to target that building in Oklahoma City. He stated it was retaliation against the FBI and ATF for Waco and another action in Montana of which, I can't recall the name of at the moment.

And to accuse me of being a holocaust denier is just sick. I would like an apology please.

Coincidentally or not, Mein Kempf has been a best seller in Farsi for over 5 years and alot of arabs and especially those of the 'Persian persuasian' consider themselves to be white, or aryan as it is. Not all of this is motivated by Islam.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Terrorism is just a tactic. It is not bound to any religion or race, and it has existed as long as civilization. It's also not easily definable.

Were Viking raids "terrorism"? Barbarian raids on Roman outposts? North American settlers who dispersed natives by the barrel of a gun?

Some media outlets define every single insurgent that attacks a military target in Iraq as a "terrorist". If that is the case, then Western Civilization was built on a terrorism foundation.

Before the Geneva convention was passed, there was no definition of terrorism. Note that chivalry and honour served in it's place before that time. Illegal combatants are terrorists. Plain and simple. We cannot pass 20th Century morality on 10th century Vikings.
If we did, we'd call most of the Indian tribes in North America terrorists.
And that simply is not the case.

[White Doors]

Most of the anger towards what I said is basically an attempt to be politically correct. When being 'PC' blinds you to the truth, you had better re-examine why it is you are being PC. Intentionally blinding oneself to reality is dangerous.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

The vast majority of terrorists who earn time in the North American press are Muslim.

The correct quote is this:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

It was written by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, and appeared the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of Cairo after the Beslin massacre in Russia.

The full article is re-printed here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/wosse605.xml

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The two you stated....
The Vikings conquered as well as raided and pillaged. (Many Kings and lords of Europe can trace their lineage back to the Vikings.) Terrorists don't do these things. They are not out for financial gain.

Settlers were looking for land to "SETTLE". Terrorists could care little for land or settling.

I would argue that many of the Iraqi insurgants/terrorists, are in fact in it for financial gain, they want the US out so they can do whatever they want. Surely not all, but I would bet that is the motive of many of them.

As far as the settling goes, Care to explaine the motives behind Palestinian terrorists?

Terrorism is a tactic, it has nothing to do with motive, religion, or anything else.

And come on, are you seriously using Wikipedia as a source for an arguement?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Feel free to browse yourself since you are so enlightended.
http://www.cfr.org/issue/456/... I rest my case.

You rest your case on a neo-conservative think tank paid for by neo-conservatives and designed to support the objectives of the neo-conservatives? CFR is about as credible as the Hertitage Foundation, which means they are not, unless you read the Washington Times and New York Post or listen to Rupert Murdoch's broadcast network. CFR is propaganda organ of the right wing and is paid handsomely to do so. CFR is financed by the following:

John M. Olin Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation
William H. Donner Foundation
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

All neo-conservative foundations unashamed at promoting the neo-conservative view. Not a very credible source.

Here's a list of active terrorist groups around the world from two seperate sources with differing ideologies.

http://www.ict.org.il/organizations/org_frame.htm
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

Terrorism is an international problem and not just a middle eastern problem or muslim problem. The reason it is such a problem in the muslim world is because of the fragmentation and tribal structures which prevents modern military constructs from being utilized. Their only alternative is to turn to the terrorist and guerilla methodology of war. This is the only way the poor can fight back, whether we like it or not. Don't just focus on how many terrorists are from a certain place, but also look at the reasons why the people are forced to turn to that method of fighting back. This is completely lost in the argument.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The two you stated....
The Vikings conquered as well as raided and pillaged. (Many Kings and lords of Europe can trace their lineage back to the Vikings.) Terrorists don't do these things. They are not out for financial gain.

What does financial gain have to do with anything? If some organization flew planes into buildings for financial gain, then you wouldn't consider that a terrorist act? I certainly would. Some Palestinian suicide bombers are known to do it for money for their families. Do you not consider them terrorists?

Settlers were looking for land to "SETTLE". Terrorists could care little for land or settling.

Terrorists do not care about settling land? Where did you get that idea? The IRA, the former ETA, and Tamil Tigers all care about settling land - I guarentee you that. As well, one of Al Qaeda's prime goals is to disperse western influence from the Middle East, and declare a pan-Islamic state from Afghanistan to Israel. How is that different from colonialists dispersing native civilians by the use of violence in order to create a country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The are both forms of Manifest Destiny.

I hope you don't get everything from Wikipedia. It's a good general source, but what they say is not always accurate.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Before the Geneva convention was passed, there was no definition of terrorism. Note that chivalry and honour served in it's place before that time. Illegal combatants are terrorists. Plain and simple. We cannot pass 20th Century morality on 10th century Vikings.
If we did, we'd call most of the Indian tribes in North America terrorists.
And that simply is not the case.

The Geneva convention has about as much relevance to Islamic fundamentalists as the UN has to neo-Conservatives. ie. It's good when it serves your own purposes, but easily ignorable every other time.

I'm sure you could go all around the world, and find many other definitions for terrorism outside of the European definition.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The correct quote is this:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims."

It was written by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, and appeared the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of Cairo after the Beslin massacre in Russia.

The full article is re-printed here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/wosse605.xml

Cowperson

Lots of muslims in the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), or FPMR (Chile), or National Liberation Army (Columbia), or FARC (Columbia), or Autodenfensas Unidas de Columbia (Columbia), or Zviadists (Georgia), or Revolutionary Nuclei (Greece), or Revolutionary 17 (Greece), or Revolutionary People's Army (Greece), or Morzanist Patriotic Front (Honduras), or Kach (Israel), or Kahane Chai (Israel) (both financed by the United States and European interests BTW), or Aum (Japan) or Chakaku-ha (Japan), or Japan Red Army (Japan), or CIRA (Ireland), or IRA (Ireland), or LVF (Ireland), or Orange Volunteer (Ireland), or RHD (Ireland), or Shining Path (Peru), or MRTA (Peru), or ABB (Phillippines), or NPA (Phillippines), or ALIR (Rwanda), or RUF (Sierra Leone), or ETA (Spain), or GRAPO (Spain)?

Come on Cow, terrorism is an international problem affecting many countries. The focus on the middle east is a media creation. There are terror organizations active in North America for crying outloud. Many gangs, militias and fringe political movements are much better organized, have more members and do much more damage to the country and infrastructure than these much more publicized organizations. If the media picked up on half the crap that goes on in the country, but defined as "violent crime", they would realize that there are terrorist organizations dotting our landscape as well. But we are lead to believe that only those who bow to the east to pray five times a day are capable of being terrorists. Have we become this blind?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Lots of muslims in the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), or FPMR (Chile), or National Liberation Army (Columbia), or FARC (Columbia), or Autodenfensas Unidas de Columbia (Columbia), or Zviadists (Georgia), or Revolutionary Nuclei (Greece), or Revolutionary 17 (Greece), or Revolutionary People's Army (Greece), or Morzanist Patriotic Front (Honduras), or Kach (Israel), or Kahane Chai (Israel) (both financed by the United States and European interests BTW), or Aum (Japan) or Chakaku-ha (Japan), or Japan Red Army (Japan), or CIRA (Ireland), or IRA (Ireland), or LVF (Ireland), or Orange Volunteer (Ireland), or RHD (Ireland), or Shining Path (Peru), or MRTA (Peru), or ABB (Phillippines), or NPA (Phillippines), or ALIR (Rwanda), or RUF (Sierra Leone), or ETA (Spain), or GRAPO (Spain)?

Come on Cow, terrorism is an international problem affecting many countries. The focus on the middle east is a media creation. There are terror organizations active in North America for crying outloud. Many gangs, militias and fringe political movements are much better organized, have more members and do much more damage to the country and infrastructure than these much more publicized organizations. If the media picked up on half the crap that goes on in the country, but defined as "violent crime", they would realize that there are terrorist organizations dotting our landscape as well. But we are lead to believe that only those who bow to the east to pray five times a day are capable of being terrorists. Have we become this blind?

I merely provided the correct quotation and source for a comment made earlier.

The person making the comment is a prominent but moderate Muslim.

He's also a prominent Muslim media person in answer to your "media creation" comment.

If you don't like it, talk to him.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I merely provided the correct quotation and source for a comment made earlier.

The person making the comment is a prominent but moderate Muslim.

He's also a prominent Muslim media person in answer to your "media creation" comment.

If you don't like it, talk to him.

Cowperson

Yes, and I was just pointing out that he is incorrect. I really don't care if he's a moderate Muslim, in the media, or what, he is incorrect. Terrorism reaches far beyond the Muslim world and is not a creation of one relgious faction or another. Don't get your udders in a twist.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

And to accuse me of being a holocaust denier is just sick. I would like an apology please.

You kind of brought it on yourself by claiming that White Supremacists had never killed Jews for ideological reasons. In point of fact, Mr. "History Minor," the holocaust isn't even the only time that has happened, but is one of a long list of instances dating back to medieval times.

Maybe you should have paid a little more attention in your 4 history classes.

As for the so-called "statistical proof" that most terrorists are muslims--I suspect that what we'll find is that a lot depends on 1. your definition and 2. the particular theater of global politics you happen to be paying attention to. You don't think there are THOUSANDS of militants in Darfur who could be described as terrorists? No-one's denying that terrorism is a problem in the middle east. But it might be time to take off the FoxNews blinders: there's a whole world out there.

[greasesuck]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20890224991194

Here's a good video about the conspiracy.

and about the cell phones here you go

http://gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_co...ere_impossible

I will find more links about the cell phones.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I would argue that many of the Iraqi insurgants/terrorists, are in fact in it for financial gain, they want the US out so they can do whatever they want. Surely not all, but I would bet that is the motive of many of them.

As far as the settling goes, Care to explaine the motives behind Palestinian terrorists?

Terrorism is a tactic, it has nothing to do with motive, religion, or anything else.

And come on, are you seriously using Wikipedia as a source for an arguement?

I needed to find a definition for a terrorist and wikipedia was the easiest. If you have another source please feel free to add.

Insurgents versus Terrorists. From what I gather they are pretty much separate organisation only combining or allying when their goals are the same or similar. There have been instances that the insurgents have turned on the terrorists and from what I suspect the Insurgents are slowly moving away from Al Queda.

Well the Palestinians and the IRA goals are/were the same. The removal of a supposed supressor. Their ultimate goal is certainly land but when they commit terrorist acts they are striking civilians and are not trying to occupy land through those actions. ie. When a hommicide bomber blows themselves and dozen others to kingdom come Hamas isn't moving in and pitching tents.

The comparison to settlers is assinine

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What does financial gain have to do with anything? If some organization flew planes into buildings for financial gain, then you wouldn't consider that a terrorist act? I certainly would.


Terrorists do not care about settling land? Where did you get that idea? The IRA, the former ETA, and Tamil Tigers all care about settling land - I guarentee you that. As well, one of Al Qaeda's prime goals is to disperse western influence from the Middle East, and declare a pan-Islamic state from Afghanistan to Israel. How is that different from colonialists dispersing native civilians by the use of violence in order to create a country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The are both forms of Manifest Destiny.

I hope you don't get everything from Wikipedia. It's a good general source, but what they say is not always accurate.

I was looking for a good definition. It was quick and easy. Feel free to provide another.

I will concede the land issue to a point. But you idea that settlers were in anyway similar to terorists is silly. Yes the ultimate goal of those terrorists are about territory but the removal of another from territory they beleive to be their own. Their methods are not about occuppying land after they make a terrorist attack. Tamils have a military that fights for land....they use suicide bombers to scare their opposition. Not for territorial gain.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The Geneva convention has about as much relevance to Islamic fundamentalists as the UN has to neo-Conservatives. ie. It's good when it serves your own purposes, but easily ignorable every other time.

I'm sure you could go all around the world, and find many other definitions for terrorism outside of the European definition.

It's the law. There are laws in war.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You rest your case on a neo-conservative think tank paid for by neo-conservatives and designed to support the objectives of the neo-conservatives? CFR is about as credible as the Hertitage Foundation, which means they are not, unless you read the Washington Times and New York Post or listen to Rupert Murdoch's broadcast network. CFR is propaganda organ of the right wing and is paid handsomely to do so. CFR is financed by the following:

John M. Olin Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation
William H. Donner Foundation
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

All neo-conservative foundations unashamed at promoting the neo-conservative view. Not a very credible source.

Here's a list of active terrorist groups around the world from two seperate sources with differing ideologies.

http://www.ict.org.il/organizations/org_frame.htm
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

Terrorism is an international problem and not just a middle eastern problem or muslim problem. The reason it is such a problem in the muslim world is because of the fragmentation and tribal structures which prevents modern military constructs from being utilized. Their only alternative is to turn to the terrorist and guerilla methodology of war. This is the only way the poor can fight back, whether we like it or not. Don't just focus on how many terrorists are from a certain place, but also look at the reasons why the people are forced to turn to that method of fighting back. This is completely lost in the argument.

Lanny...seriosly....give the conspiracy theories a rest. What frikk'n planet are you from?

The site is a NON-partisan site. A quick look at the place and it is quite obviously NOT some propaganda machine.

Time to come home Lanny....Earth to Lanny.....

http://www.cfr.org/bios/11490/

Executive Bush Planted Editor FOR Porpoganda

Michael Moran
A writer and broadcaster on foreign and national security affairs and a former correspondent for the BBC, MSNBC and Radio Free Europe, Moran is now in charge of the editorial vision of the Council’s website, cfr.org, and contributes analysis to it and other publications.
Expertise:

International news coverage, free expression and Internet policy abroad, U.S. media strategy and public diplomacy.
Experience:

Senior correspondent, MSNBC.com (2003-05); senior producer, International News and Special Reports, MSNBC.com (1996-2003); U.S. affairs analyst, BBC World Service (1993-96); senior editor, Radio Free Europe (1990-93), former reporter for Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (1985-88).
Languages:

Fluent in German; familiar with Spanish.

BBC...MSNBC...total Neocon!!!!!!!!!! The fluent in Spanishand German is just to throw people. He is really from the South East of the Good'ole US of A!! Hee Haw!