Compare and contrast:

[Silver]

Story A:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543&page=1

Story B:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html

Interesting, no?

[stinkyboy]

So, to be clear. You're only a terrorist if you are Muslim right?

[moff_quigley]

Jeez guys he was gonna bomb Fred Phelps and his whacked out "church." Would that have been a bad thing?

[Silver]

Jeez guys he was gonna bomb Fred Phelps and his whacked out "church." Would that have been a bad thing?

Yes.

I disagree with Fred Phelps, and I hope he dies an absolutely horrible death, as soon as possible. That sentiment applies to everyone of his followers as well. Having said that, religious and politically motivated violence is never a good thing in a civilized society.

[Kihaji]

Yes.

I disagree with Fred Phelps, and I hope he dies an absolutely horrible death, as soon as possible. That sentiment applies to everyone of his followers as well. Having said that, religious and politically motivated violence is never a good thing in a civilized society.

As opposed to random and frivolous violence?

Also, who defines what "civilized" is?

[Silver]

As opposed to random and frivolous violence?

Also, who defines what "civilized" is?

Random violence falls under the **** happens, welcome to the universe theme.

The way I'm using civilized in this context: A secular non-dictatorial society.

[RenegadeRick]

So, to be clear. You're only a terrorist if you are Muslim right?

That might be the media tries to spin it, but apparently more Americans in general support violent attacks against civilians than Muslim Americans, or even Iranians do.

In this article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html) (for which I hope the link works :redface: ), a recent poll found that 80% of Iranians thought that violent attacks against civilians are never justified and 80% of American Muslims agreed that violent attacks against civilians are never justified. However, 54% of Americans believe that violent attacks against civilians can be justified.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/RlRBwqGM06I/AAAAAAAAAAs/LMpygoqQwt8/s400/poll.bmp

Apparently America's Soldiers have a higher moral standard than the general population.

More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed Friday. . . .
...
About 10 percent of the 1,767 troops in the official survey -- conducted in Iraq in the fall -- reported that they had mistreated civilians in Iraq, such as kicking them or needlessly damaging their possessions.

See? Only 1/3 of the troops support torture and only 10% have admitted to abusing civilians.

So who are the terrorists again? It must be the Americans...

Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."

[LordOpie]

I'm not trying to justify or condone anything, but statistics are stupid and not knowing all the details on how they were collected make interpreting them difficult.

For example...However, 54% of Americans believe that violent attacks against civilians can be justified.
Since many of America's enemies are not soldiers of an official state -- hence terrorist -- they're considered civilians, yeah?

How about instead of civilian, ask the question again with "innocent bystander"?

[stinkyboy]

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=52589827

[RenegadeRick]

I'm not trying to justify or condone anything, but statistics are stupid and not knowing all the details on how they were collected make interpreting them difficult.


98% of all statistics are totally worthless. I agree wholeheartedly.

However, these studies show such a huge variation in response that there may actually be some merit to their findings.

Just from looking at the linked in graphic, where we can see the question that was asked, almost twice as many Iranians as Americans said that bombings intentionally aimed at civilians are never justified. More than twice as many Americans as Iranians felt these types of attacks were often or sometimes justified.

Sure, maybe it is because Americans think that civilian is just another term for Enemy Combatant. Yeah, that must be it. :happydance:

[LordOpie]

Sure, maybe it is because Americans think that civilian is just another term for Enemy Combatant. Yeah, that must be it. :happydance:

no, not even a little.

Again, a terrorist is not a soldier, but a civilian.

Were such terms as "soldier", "terrorist", and "civilian" defined the same way (if at all) to all the people taking the survey?

[RenegadeRick]

Were such terms as "soldier", "terrorist", and "civilian" defined the same way (if at all) to all the people taking the survey?
probably not. and that is what makes the statistics here generally worthless.


Again, a terrorist is not a soldier, but a civilian.

Not exactly... I asked Google to define terrorist (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aterrorist) and the first definition mentioned using the "disguise of a civilian." Ok, I can understand the confusion here. However, the 4th definition mentions "violent action targeting civilians exclusively." This seems to fit the spirit of the question quite well.

So there you have it: 54% of Americans support terrorism. :cheers:

[fluff]

no, not even a little.

Again, a terrorist is not a soldier, but a civilian.

Were such terms as "soldier", "terrorist", and "civilian" defined the same way (if at all) to all the people taking the survey?

Well mate, why don't you define them?

[DaveW]

Since many of America's enemies are not soldiers of an official state

Yes, that sounds like civilian to me.

[JRogers]

probably not. and that is what makes the statistics here generally worthless.


Not exactly... I asked Google to define terrorist (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aterrorist) and the first definition mentioned using the "disguise of a civilian." Ok, I can understand the confusion here. However, the 4th definition mentions "violent action targeting civilians exclusively." This seems to fit the spirit of the question quite well.

So there you have it: 54% of Americans support terrorism. :cheers:

So the September 11th attacks on the Pentagon were not terrorist in nature?

Terrorism is a matter of perspective- one man't freedom fight is another's terror plot.

[Silver]

I'm not sure how civilian was understood in the Iranian part of the survey, but I do know what the word means in English. So, taking the Iranian part out, we still have the American part, which is disturbing. 46% think never is the proper response to attacking civilians. We are indeed a Christian nation, so I'll leave you with a quote from the good book:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20:10-18)

We're not Christian enough. We should have the women and children of Baghdad as slaves in work camps, when we're not busy taking our God sanctioned sexual pleasure with their bodies...

[kidwoo]

How could there be Jebusites when baby jebus hadn't even been born yet?


^That is old testament right?

[Silver]

^That is old testament right?

Hell yeah! I like using OT quotes because it makes the Jews look crazy as well as the Christians. More bang for my buck, y'know...

[Tmsracing37]

I'm not sure how civilian was understood in the Iranian part of the survey, but I do know what the word means in English. So, taking the Iranian part out, we still have the American part, which is disturbing. 46% think never is the proper response to attacking civilians. We are indeed a Christian nation, so I'll leave you with a quote from the good book:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20:10-18)

We're not Christian enough. We should have the women and children of Baghdad as slaves in work camps, when we're not busy taking our God sanctioned sexual pleasure with their bodies...

Let make something clear, As a child I was never force to go church, As long as I can remember my parents never went church, but there has been things that I have experience and some things that have happen to me that encouraged me to pick up bible and read it. Also I am not preacher, This I what believe from reading bible.

yes in the old testament god was ruthless and fearful to keep the people of the land straight, but I believe through the life of his son God witnessed the uniting of people through love and compassion that his son showed and that is why its stresses in the new testament that only way into heaven is through the teachings of your savior Jesus Christ.

[Silver]

yes in the old testament god was ruthless and fearful to keep the people of the land straight, but I believe through the life of his son God witnessed the uniting of people through love and compassion that his son showed and that is why its stresses in the new testament that only way into heaven is through the teachings of your savior Jesus Christ.

So, you're saying that an all powerful God was really just a dickhole until he sobered up and found Jesus later in life? You may not be an effective apologist for your religion, but I do have to give you points for being honest.

Do you realize that your Lord shares many of the characteristics of a drug addict and a spoiled child?

[Tmsracing37]

Do you realize that your Lord shares many of the characteristics of a drug addict and a spoiled child?[/QUOTE]

No i did not, Do you sure share many of the characteristics of a drug addict and a spoiled child?[/QUOTE]

[Tmsracing37]

im sorry i take that back..i was acting like child.

[Silver]

im sorry i take that back..i was acting like child.

I'm not being snarky, I'm quite serious.

Let me put it another way: Do you realize that your description of the God you worship (before Jesus) is a perfect description of Saddam Hussein?

[Tmsracing37]

Let me put it another way: Do you realize that your description of the God you worship (before Jesus) is a perfect description of Saddam Hussein?[/QUOTE]

No, And once again this is own translation of the bible , but


Many people raped, killed, stole, and cared for only themselves and therefore the Old Testament law was given to the people of the land by God. God gave Moses a covenant and warn the people that if they do not follow the covenant, then they will suffer the pain, suffering, and death they bestowed onto they’re neighbors.
The Old Testament law was only temporary and was, consequently, to come to an end. The Old Testament, then, should not be regarded as the Law of God's people today since as a law it served its purpose, was fulfilled, and removed from authoritativeness by the death of Christ

[LordOpie]

I'm not being snarky, I'm quite serious.

Let me put it another way: Do you realize that your description of the God you worship (before Jesus) is a perfect description of Saddam Hussein?
ah, the good old days when the Jews ran the planet!

[Silver]

The Old Testament law was only temporary and was, consequently, to come to an end. The Old Testament, then, should not be regarded as the Law of God's people today since as a law it served its purpose, was fulfilled, and removed from authoritativeness by the death of Christ

So, God was a strongman who picked out a group of followers, and he promised them that if they were loyal to him, he'd make sure that they stayed on the gravy train.

Like I said, sounds a lot like Saddam Hussein.

As for the part I quoted, let your fellow Christians know that. They didn't seem to get the clue and are still fond of quoting parts of it when it suits them.

[Silver]

ah, the good old days when the Jews ran the planet!

Do you think God the father is circumcised or not?

Maybe we can kill Ted Haggard, have him suck God's dick, have Jesus resurrect him, and find out?

[Tmsracing37]

Do you think God the father is circumcised or not?

Maybe we can kill Ted Haggard, have him suck God's dick, have Jesus resurrect him, and find out?


With an attitude like that how are you any better than
Saddam Hussein???

[Silver]

With an attitude like that how are you any better than
Saddam Hussein???

I've never killed anyone or ordered their death. That's for a start.

I'm insulting Ted Haggard, by the way, not God. (Insulting God would be odd. Much like insulting the tooth fairy. Have I insulted the tooth fairy by referring to him as a fairy? Maybe you can find a believer and ask him for me?) A huckster who made himself rich partly by preaching against the "homosexual agenda" who got caught with a cock in his mouth and a taste for methamphetamine deserves less respect than I'm giving him. He had a very large following...do you think the chances are good that there is a teenager under Haggard's leadership who is dead in the ground now due to suicide because he could not bear being gay? I'd say the chances are pretty high.

By merely asking the question of how I'm better than Saddam Hussein, you show yourself to have the moral development of a fetus. It's not too late to abort...

[LordOpie]

...
Welcome to the forum! We can always use fresh blood.

Do you think God the father is circumcised or not?
uhh, I make it a point to not think about other guy's junk.

[Silver]

uhh, I make it a point to not think about other guy's junk.

If your parents were Orthodox Jews, you probably had an old man put his penis in your mouth when you were a child.

Almost makes you Catholic...ironic, no?

[LordOpie]

If your parents were Orthodox Jews, you probably had an old man put his penis in your mouth when you were a child.

Almost makes you Catholic...ironic, no?

I wasn't an Orthodix jew.

[kidwoo]

I wasn't an Orthodix jew.

I wasn't either but damn if it don't sound tempting now!

[fluff]

uhh, I make it a point to not think about other guy's junk.

Close shave there Loopie?

[$tinkle]

Close shave there Loopie?leave it to you type to drop a wallace & gromit reference