Terror attack in Austin Texas

[eyeball]

Really? Can you link to the ransom notes then?

No, they're secret and instead of ransom notes we use security certificates and other extra-judicial contraptions.

Care to list the dictators we are employing and their so called victims?

It's too long, I doubt if the forum software would allow the millions of names that would fill it.

[DogOnPorch]

No, they're secret and instead of ransom notes we use security certificates and other extra-judicial contraptions.

It's too long, I doubt if the forum software would allow the millions of names that would fill it.

In other words...no...he can't name any.

[Guest American Woman]

Good Christ.

This is in answer to American Womnan, DogonPorch, and M. Dancer.

Of COURSE the West has been directly complicit in the terroristic attacks on innocent civilians...and not only in the context of war (since that's being summoned as a breezy justification.)

The West is entirely culpable in terrorism.

Intentionally culpable.

It's not even a debatable matter.

And you ALL know this. Why the pretence?

I don't think I have to spell the examples out, do I?

If we can't have honest debates--because pride or nationalism or doublethink or whatever the hell it is gets in the way....well, that's very frustrating.

I was very specific in my definition of terrorism and asked when the west has sought out killing civilians; when that has been the goal. And I'm talking recent history here, in case I have to spell that out.

So perhaps you could be more specific than "directly complicit" and give examples that fit the criteria I cited. Then, perhaps, we could have an "honest debate." Because, yes, when you don't give examples when I gave a very specific example, it is indeed "frustrating." You go on and on about how the west has been "intentionally culpable," going so far as to say "it's not even a debatable matter," yet you don't give one example that fits the definition of terrorism as we are clearly referring to it.

So please me one example that fits this criteria: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...

Give me one example where that has been our goal.

Thank you.

Edited February 25, 2010 by American Woman

[Gabriel]

Wrong again. I said FROM a certain group, not FOR a certain group. And yes I had the wrong word, I meant inherit not inherent.

Edit .... i should have said this instead.

I said you inherited a hatred FROM a certain group. I should have put more emphasis on FROM.

Ooops. My mistake. You've gotta admit, though... your statement could've been understood either say (either inheriting hate from my community or inheriting the enmity of another group). Still, it's bigoted to imply that Muslims hate Jews. Although in the interests of full disclosure, there is definitely an element of animosity between these two groups of people. I've had candid talks with Muslim friends and acquaintances about this subject and they've conceded that they've experienced quite a bit of anti-Jewish sentiment among some of their their fellow Muslims. I, too, have experienced a particular type of resentment towards Muslims among some in the Jewish community. Anyways, my apologies. Still, I find your statement somewhat paternalistic. Maybe I'm just being too sensitive, though. Sorry! I retract my earlier statements.

[JB Globe]

Most likely because a significant number of people haven't declared war against the elite and aren't going around attacking them the way the extremist Muslims who are part of the jihad are.

So it's a numbers game?

The US media will start calling these acts terrorism when more attacks occur?

[Guest American Woman]

So it's a numbers game?

The US media will start calling these acts terrorism when more attacks occur?

My post had nothing to do with what the media calls these acts; I was responding to a post that said there is a double standard in dealing with terrorism because this act didn't didn't receive as much coverage/outrage.

Edited February 25, 2010 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Conservatism used to be a way of thinking that was orgainized - where people conserved what was good and tried and true by time and tradtionion..I suppose that if your great grand father was a pirate or a privateer or some other sort of crimminal - and you become a lawyer and a corporate head- you are a new conservative..

Terrorism is anything that frightens you and generates coercion..the world is full of these types that attempt to rule through fear. Whether it is a welfare worker who insists that you volutneer or else your crumby rent money will not arrive..that's terrible and terrifying-- Or..any person with authority that abuses that authority and gets personal with you when they should be behaving in a no personal proffessional manner - that's a terrorist - The old word was bully. It has nothing to do with ideology..we are surrounded by terrorists domestically and now irritated from abroad..will the war ever end against normal civlized persons?

[GostHacked]

My post had nothing to do with what the media calls these acts; I was responding to a post that said there is a double standard in dealing with terrorism because this act didn't didn't receive as much coverage/outrage.

It should have had a lot more coverage. That I can agree on. I recall there was a small plane that hit a building in NY after 9/11. Out of control, and that was quite prominent in the news for a week or so. It was concluded it was not terrorism, just a simple accident.

[Guest American Woman]

It should have had a lot more coverage. That I can agree on. I recall there was a small plane that hit a building in NY after 9/11. Out of control, and that was quite prominent in the news for a week or so. It was concluded it was not terrorism, just a simple accident.

I don't recall that being any more prominent in the news than this was. This incident did get a lot of coverage, so I'm not sure how people can say otherwise. My comment was in regards to the observation that there would have been more coverage/outrage had it been part of the extremist Muslim jihad against Christians, and it makes sense that it would have for the reasons I stated.

Also, no one in the building was killed. Look at the coverage that the Oklahoma City attack received, and that wasn't Muslims against Christians.

There's just no basis for the claim that there is a double standard when dealing with acts of terrorism.

[Oleg Bach]

It should have had a lot more coverage. That I can agree on. I recall there was a small plane that hit a building in NY after 9/11. Out of control, and that was quite prominent in the news for a week or so. It was concluded it was not terrorism, just a simple accident.

The reports on the Fort Hood terrorist incident were bias and emotional supporting not the fact that terrorism emerged from within- but only attempting to stir up support for a continued over seas fight.

It was not condusive to report at length the incident in Austin, in so far as enhancing the notion of fighting terrorism abroad..this was terrorism from within and was an embarassment domestically- It had the effect of creating a parellel that stated- maybe the terrorist hate our system for the same reason that our domesatic terrorists do- for the fact that the authorities support injustice within as without.