More reason for you Terrorist Supporters to Cheer

[shamrock_uk]

Just as a slight point of information, the word translated into 'virgins' can also be translated into 'angels' with arguably much more accuracy. You will not find many Islamic scholars translating it as 'virgins'...

And i'm going to suprise by agreeing with TL's infamous 2nd post:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Bullshit. Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't make it so. FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail.

"Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't make it so" - a reasonable statement.

"FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail." - also true, some people do argue against the US and Israel 100% of the time. Also note the presence of the and/or - TL is not saying that the two must go together, simply that they might.

(Edits and additions....)

[ 06-18-2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Ronn_Bman]

If this is true, I'm going to have to seriously rethink my conversion.

[Timber Loftis]

the ones you call terrorist supporters, that can see that both sides have to take some blame, it dosn't mean they support terrorists

The hypothetical or actual people I referred to do not lay blame on both sides. In fact, they have almost never given any quarter in continuing to argue that Palestine and the Iraqi insurgents are in the right in defending their homes, and that they only use the tactics that are necessary.

If you want to discuss someone who lays blame on both sides, well that's me -- so you're preaching to the choir.

And kudos to Shamrock for being good at reading what I actually said rather than what he wanted to hear.

[ 06-18-2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: "Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't ake it so" - a reasonable statement. "FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail." - also true, some people do argue against the US and Israel 100% of the time. Also note the presence of the and/or - TL is not saying that the two must go together, simply that they might.

Noticed that as well, actually; but that doesn't mean I'm gonna cut him some slack for it. Ironically enough, it appears to be a nice example of the infamous manipulative debating technique that he so often seems to revile in people like Michael Moore.

[ 06-18-2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Timber Loftis]

Untrue, Grojlach. It wasn't meant to be manipulative at all. It was meant to keep me from getting thrashed for saying something that was untrue.

I think that arguing against the US and Israel 100% of the time no matter the circumstance, ascribing all fault for the Middle East woes to them, not blaming Muslim extremists for their terrorist tactics, etc. -- are all possible substitutes for "supporting terrorism." They are exactly what I meant by "thinly veiled" support for terrorism. When I see this sort of evidence day in and day out consistently in every instance of discussion, I draw my conclusions.

One instance would not be enough, of course -- it's the pattern of behavior over time that gives away the underlying beliefs.

LOOK -- I've said enough on this. The one who ought to be here discussing this isn't, and it's not fair for me to continue to rail about it, even if I am just reacting to what others are saying. I'm done now discussing this thing. It doesn't mean I capitulate, it just means I don't want to be unfair to absent members.

[Black Baron]

Pfui. One has to wonder, if the USA army can defend "The rock" from chicken invasion. With all the respect that i feel for USA and its army, i alsways ask myself "Won't they ever learn?? ". How many times must they fel into the same trap? Can't they just secure the area? Pick 10-30 soldiers, give them bullet waists, transportable bunkers (Made from stel&concrete and you transport them in a car. These bunkers israely stile, are immune to rpg, unless fired from above, f.e. from upper storey of a building), machine guns, ammo, and these things that stop fast cars ( Pieces of steel with nails in them. You drop them on the road, and no private car would ever go through). Train some dogs to sniff out explosives and you will reduce the TA in no time. Who runs the city warfare there?
I think that an amateur.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Black Baron: Pfui. One has to wonder, if the USA army can defend "The rock" from chicken invasion. With all the respect that i feel for USA and its army, i alsways ask myself "Won't they ever learn?? ". How many times must they fel into the same trap? Can't they just secure the area? Pick 10-30 soldiers, give them bullet waists, transportable bunkers (Made from stel&concrete and you transport them in a car. These bunkers israely stile, are immune to rpg, unless fired from above, f.e. from upper storey of a building), machine guns, ammo, and these things that stop fast cars ( Pieces of steel with nails in them. You drop them on the road, and no private car would ever go through). Train some dogs to sniff out explosives and you will reduce the TA in no time. Who runs the city warfare there? I think that an amateur.

We don't want to hurt anybody, we have to respect their diversity. You know rules in a knife fight kinda stuff.

Personnaly I'd surround the city in question inform all inhabitans(sp?) they have x number of hours to leave, they must leave BUTT NAKED, so we can see if their carrying any weapons, anyone or anything left in the city after the set time would be killed. Then I'll drop some daisy cutters and Napham the city, then bring the leaders of every city in Iraq to view the smoldring ruins and inform them this is what will happen to you city if the attacks aren't stopped. To hell with the UN what the hell are they going to do? pass a resulution so the hell what they don't have the guts to back it up.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: We don't want to hurt anybody, we have to respect their diversity. You know rules in a knife fight kinda stuff. Personnaly I'd surround the city in question inform all inhabitans(sp?) they have x number of hours to leave, they must leave BUTT NAKED, so we can see if their carrying any weapons, anyone or anything left in the city after the set time would be killed. Then I'll drop some daisy cutters and Napham the city, then bring the leaders of every city in Iraq to view the smoldring ruins and inform them this is what will happen to you city if the attacks aren't stopped. To hell with the UN what the hell are they going to do? pass a resulution so the hell what they don't have the guts to back it up.

I would laugh at you. But somehow it would just take away the horror I just felt at reading your words.

Read them again. Then imagine a Russian general in the Cold War saying the same thing about an American city. What right do you have to do that to another country? I'm pretty sure if Russian nukes flattened LA or New York 'just because they could' and they decided to crack down on some enemies, your opinion would be very different. Come on!

In any case, the actions you describe are hardly the mark of a so-called 'liberating force'. Not much point in bringing democracy (contradiction that it is) to a country which has no cities left.

(Edits)

[ 06-18-2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[skywalker]

Originally posted by John D Harris: I'm going to defend TL on this one, just like I defended Skywalker before.

Huh? What'd I do? I haven't around much at all lately! But I do appreciate the defense, where and whenever it was, John. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

Democracy is a contradiction?