Egyptian Terrorists Attack US on 9/11

[The Annoyed Man]

Have you all considered for a sec the content of the said movie is a total lie, a slander. I have. The slander, if it is such (I have not seen it), does not justify for even one second the murders and rioting that followed. Artists in the U.S. have depicted the cross of Jesus immersed in urine, movies in which Jesus has carnal relations with a prostitute, not to mention other abominations. Yes, there were protests, but they were completely non-violent, and somehow, no buildings were burned, nobody was murdered for it, and the "artists" in question slept soundly in their beds at night. Why? Because we are not a barbarous and murderous people. Neither, for that matter, are most Muslims. But unfortunately, the reality is that there are some people who self-identify as Muslims who are members of that group which Michael Medved described as ROPO ("religion of perpetual outrage" see my previous post), and they are clearly insane......because a sane person does not commit murder over an insulting movie.

BTW, Extremists picked 9/11 11th anniversary to attack and the movie-cause was irrelevant. Inflaming the feelings of the mass of Muslims resulted in a predictable outcome as stated above. Until THIS reply, I have not addressed the video. You want my opinion? I think it was dumber than a bag of hammers, and I think the idiot who published it ought to be shunned because he is an unwise dirtbag, but that is all I think. He did not commit a crime, because offending someone is not a crime. If it were, then the above mentioned "artists" would all be in jail, and they clearly are not. However, the murderers who killed because they were offended clearly DID commit a crime. Also, if you reread my previous posts, you'll see that I did not address the timing of the recent attacks. My references were to the original event itself.

TAM, I see the difference, however justifying collateral damage, the death of civilians is problematic. Why, Because Terrorists are claiming the same principle, that in-order to harm US, killing US civilians as matter of collateral damage is acceptable. BTW, Terrorists even claim that killing innocent Muslims as collateral-damage is acceptable under the same principle. Terrorists or Extremists who call themselves Muslims would target Muslims who do not agree with their sick and deviant mentality first. I'm not justifying civilian deaths; I'm merely point out that they are a fact of war. You're conversing with someone whose mother survived a nazi invasion, occupation, and a corresponding Allied invasion, full scale all out world war which raged back and forth across the city in which she lived.....not to diminish the tragedies of Lebanon, but a war that was MUCH more devastating and killed MANY more civilians than died in Lebanon. War is absolute heck. In WW2, civilians died in the millions as "collateral" casualties. I am not saying it is OK. I AM saying it is a fact of war. If I were a terrorist or resistance fighter, I would not bring the war home to my family. That is an act of indecency. Why would I not do that? I would not do it precisely because I would not want to risk that my wife and children would be killed by the missile aimed at me. "Men" (and I use quote marks deliberately) who drag their families into harm's way are no kind of man at all. It is the act of an immoral coward. Do I want their families to die? No, of course not. But I DO want the terrorist to die. Men who hide behind the skirts of their women are contemptible. It is easy to criticize without offering alternative solutions. In my original post where I mentioned the threat to women and children, it is NOT that I think they are legitimate targets, it is that I think that when they are collaterally killed in pursuit of a terrorist, the moral responsibility for that rests on the terrorist's shoulders........in the same way that if you and I rob a bank together and get in a gunfight with police, the deaths of any civilians caught in the crossfire is on OUR shoulders, and not on the police, regardless of who pulled the trigger.....because if there had been no bank robbery, there would be no civilian deaths. By extension, if there were no terrorism, there would be no pursuit of terrorists; and if there were no pursuit of terrorists, there would be no collateral killing of their families. The alternative is to simply do nothing and just absorb the terrorist attacks and move on. That's an unrealistic expectation.

Answers in red above....

TAM,

1) Do not use red for replies, please use blue. Why? I need a reason. Otherwise, I use red simply because it is more easily discernable to aging eyes like my own as "Not Black." I'll use blue this time, but I'll need a reason to not continue using red, just because I don't like being manipulated.

2) In Civil war, Civilian damage and massacre, kidnapping and killing for fun, are more devastating than just collateral damage. I survived my first 26 years of life in Beirut Lebanon. That period, was up to 1994, four yrs after the so called the end of Lebanese Civil war, 1974-1990. A total of 17 yrs, of mayhem and ridiculous killing. In one incident out of many, my whole family was inside our apartment, the top-most floor, when 10-12 rds of 82mm mortar rounds fell on our apartment. By grace of our Creator, Allah. none of us, had single physical scratch. Ever lasing psychological effect lives with us till date. In 1982 invasion of Beirut by Israeli forces, After the cession of hostilities, I came to find on my bed a 1/2 of 155mm shell a gift from the invaders forces, the Israelis. I think anyone at my age at that time 14 would not harbor good feelings for those who live south the border. My mother does not hate the Germans, and she has many very good friends who are German. She once had a 500 lb aerial bomb land in the courtyard of their family home, demolishing it entirely. And by the way, all of this happened in the ME.....she was born and raised in Algiers and lived there as well as Tunis and other north African cities (and I, for what it's worth, was born in Casablanca, Morocco). She ate rats and cats for a while during that war because that was all there was to eat.......and she does not hate the Germans OR Germany. Why is that? I believe that it is because "forgiveness" is a common expression of western culture because of the influence of the Christian church on that culture. It is my observation that "forgiveness" is a foreign concept almost anywhere in the ME. Because there is no forgiveness, there can be no peace. I would love nothing more than to forgive and forget, but you know as well as I do that there is a certain element that will NEVER forgive the imagined slights against them (you can't forgive, where there is nothing to forgive), and I am not willing to accept the murder of an occasional American citizen as the "dhimmi" price of not murdering all of us.

War would only make more enemies and not friends. That is FALSE! Germany and Japan have been close partners of the U.S., and German has been an ally of the U.S. (and a NATO partner) ever since 1945, when both countries were bombed back into the stone age after having been lead by autocratic dictatorial regimes into a war they could not win in an era of total war. The Germans and Japanese are fundamentally decent people who allowed themselves to be deceived into supporting a great evil. When those regimes were driven from the earth, it was like blinders had been lifted from their eyes. Radical islamists have apparently not performed enough atrocities against mainstream Muslims in order to motivate the mainstream to police their own and stop the atrocities. And until that happens, those same radical islamists will continue to perform atrocities against American targets in the ME and in the U.S. (can you say, "Fort Hood?"). Your solution is that we should just "shut up and take it," "because war would only make more enemies and not friends." Well here's a truth also: if we just "take it," it won't stop the ongoing terrorists because they don't respect weakness and they will use it to justify continuing the attacks........with the tacit approval of the mainstream Muslim community, because it is all somehow all the failures of their own culture to provide peacefully for all of their needs is "our fault," but it SURELY WILL NOT make us more friends. It will only make us more despised and disrespected than we already are. I would rather have them as a friend, but that isn't going to happen because THEY don't want it. Since I can't have them as a friend, and I have to have them as an enemy, I'd rather they be an enemy that fears us too much to attack us. The ball is in their court. They can have it either way, but they cannot have it BOTH ways. Nobody can, including the U.S.

3) The cause and effect story and who started what that lead to more violence and death is too problematic. Cause, for the extremists, US has only 3 goals in the Middle-East
A) Oil Yes, and unapologetically so. And if ME nations don't want to sell it to us, then DON'T SELL IT TO US......but don't blame us for buying it. Besides, there isn't a single oil producing nation in the ME whose citizens don't enjoy a better lifestyle than they would have because their economies export oil to the U.S. and other western nations. On the day that the U.S. and other western nations stop buying ME oil, those economies AND the lifestyle they buy will disappear, and those nations will revert to abject poverty.........so sure, I'm all for pulling out and not buying anymore of that damned oil. I would MUCH rather that we drill drill drill right here in the U.S., becoming energy independent and then no longer having to give money to foreign nations that hate us, and no longer having our own economy subject to the whims of the very dictators you don't like. Screw 'em.
B) Protecting Israel, an occupier of Arab land and a colony-state since British Occupation of Palestine after 1918. But not the Arab occupiers since the Jewish Diaspora?....
C) US is only interfering and supporting oppressive regimes in the ME. Like Saddam Hussein's in 2003?


US foreign policy is by design is to serve the US interests first at the cost of others. Of COURSE! And Iran's foreign policy in Venezuela serves Iran's interests first at the cost of others. And Russia's foreign policy in Syria serves Russia's interests first at the expense of others.........but somehow the U.S. is wrong when WE do it? Give me a break.

Edited to fix a spelling error....

[Beiruty]

Blue, like Blue states, leaning right, conservative, red states are like NY and CA. Did I confuse you?!
Seriously, Red signify blood and anger. Blue, like the sky and ocean, signify tranquility.

As you stated, for me red is not good on my againg eyes, blue or green reads better.

[Dave2]

Blue, like Blue states, leaning right, conservative, red states are like NY and CA. Did I confuse you?!
Seriously, Red signify blood and anger. Blue, like the sky and ocean, signify tranquility.

As you stated, for me red is not good on my againg eyes, blue or green reads better.

What about this color?

[hillfighter]

[ Image ]

Rule 2: Don't let your muzzle cover anything you're not willing to shoot.

Rule 4: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

[Beiruty]

Blue, like Blue states, leaning right, conservative, red states are like NY and CA. Did I confuse you?!
Seriously, Red signify blood and anger. Blue, like the sky and ocean, signify tranquility.

As you stated, for me red is not good on my againg eyes, blue or green reads better.

What about this color?

Has the proven calming effect, even though the effect will wear off with time. I will take it.

[Beiruty]

TAM,
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say or write. You are reading between the lines of things that I did not state nor I do agree with.

Take a break from this thread.

I am out.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM,
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say or write. You are reading between the lines of things that I did not state nor I do agree with.

Take a break from this thread.

I am out.

Beiruty, I will say this one thing, and then I will bow out of this thread also, and that is this: I didn't put words in your mouth. What I did was follow your words to their logical conclusions. Sometimes those conclusions can make one uncomfortable, and that is when one has to start confronting one's own words.

Peace out.

[ClarkLZeuss]

The answer is to minimize and eliminate the support that extremists may cultivate. And, this on both sides. Do not forget that there are extremists from many other religions, including Christianity.

What matters is that targeting civilians as per Islamic law, is forbidden.

Beiruty, I have read a lot of what you've written on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to address you respectfully. Your underlined statement above is rather troublesome and I need to address it, because IMO it is a false moral equivalency. Which violent Christian extremists are you referring to? And why would you label them Christian - how are they using Christian teaching to justify their violence?

[Beiruty]

The answer is to minimize and eliminate the support that extremists may cultivate. And, this on both sides. Do not forget that there are extremists from many other religions, including Christianity.

What matters is that targeting civilians as per Islamic law, is forbidden.

Beiruty, I have read a lot of what you've written on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to address you respectfully. Your underlined statement above is rather troublesome and I need to address it, because IMO it is a false moral equivalency. Which violent Christian extremists are you referring to? And why would you label them Christian - how are they using Christian teaching to justify their violence?

Example, A living current-day Templar Knight, a crusader, or so he does claim:


Latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world ... wanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ClarkLZeuss]

Beiruty, I have read a lot of what you've written on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to address you respectfully. Your underlined statement above is rather troublesome and I need to address it, because IMO it is a false moral equivalency. Which violent Christian extremists are you referring to? And why would you label them Christian - how are they using Christian teaching to justify their violence?

Example, A living current-day Templar Knight, a crusader, or so he does claim:
[ Image ]

Latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world ... wanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I am familiar with this man (and personally disdain him). He is Western, white, non-Jewish, non-Muslim, and calls himself a Crusader. How does that make him a Christian? Which Christian teaching was he following?

[The Annoyed Man]

The answer is to minimize and eliminate the support that extremists may cultivate. And, this on both sides. Do not forget that there are extremists from many other religions, including Christianity.

What matters is that targeting civilians as per Islamic law, is forbidden.

Beiruty, I have read a lot of what you've written on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to address you respectfully. Your underlined statement above is rather troublesome and I need to address it, because IMO it is a false moral equivalency. Which violent Christian extremists are you referring to? And why would you label them Christian - how are they using Christian teaching to justify their violence?

Example, A living current-day Templar Knight, a crusader, or so he does claim:
[ Image ]

Latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world ... wanted=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One man, who by the way is obviously insane, as are the stupid morons who attacked our embassies and killed an ambassador and 3 others over a movie so stupid that it is only rivaled by the people who murdered them.

[ClarkLZeuss]

One man, who by the way is obviously insane, as are the stupid morons who attacked our embassies and killed an ambassador and 3 others over a movie so stupid that it is only rivaled by the people who murdered them.

Btw, minor but very important clarification: that movie was not why Stevens and others were killed. It was simply the cover being used by a group who pre-planned the attack:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico- ... 35664.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ghostrider]

Beiruty wrote:The answer is to minimize and eliminate the support that extremists may cultivate. And, this on both sides. Do not forget that there are extremists from many other religions, including Christianity.

What matters is that targeting civilians as per Islamic law, is forbidden.

Beiruty, I have read a lot of what you've written on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to address you respectfully. Your underlined statement above is rather troublesome and I need to address it, because IMO it is a false moral equivalency. Which violent Christian extremists are you referring to? And why would you label them Christian - how are they using Christian teaching to justify their violence?

the Crusades?
the inquistion?
the KKK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... _terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread642190/pg1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

Beiruty wrote:The answer is to minimize and eliminate the support that extremists may cultivate. And, this on both sides. Do not forget that there are extremists from many other religions, including Christianity.

What matters is that targeting civilians as per Islamic law, is forbidden.

Beiruty, I have read a lot of what you've written on this forum, and I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to address you respectfully. Your underlined statement above is rather troublesome and I need to address it, because IMO it is a false moral equivalency. Which violent Christian extremists are you referring to? And why would you label them Christian - how are they using Christian teaching to justify their violence?

the Crusades?
the inquistion?
the KKK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... _terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread642190/pg1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the same way that modern more moderate muslims would tell me that the extremists who killed our ambassador were not muslims, I'm telling you that the KKK is/was NOT a Christian organization. As for the Crusades and Inquisition, first, you've got to go back several centuries to find examples? Really? And by the way, the Crusades were at least partially a response to the Saracen invasion of an already Christian europe from the Balkans to Spain, and an attempt to push them back out. So who's the aggressor then? Muslims conveniently forget that part when they bring up the crusades. You're certainly allowed your opinions, but you are not allowed your own set of historical facts.

[ghostrider]

In the same way that modern more moderate muslims would tell me that the extremists who killed our ambassador were not muslims, I'm telling you that the KKK is/was NOT a Christian organization.

But doesn't the KKK claim to be a Christian organization?



Is Oslo recent enough? :-)
http://clancop.wordpress.com/2011/07/23 ... t-radical/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;