Brevik said "If I had been a bearded Jihadi ... there would not be a need for a psychiatric evaluation," he said. and you know what? hes right.

Think about terrorists. What picture does that conjure in your mind? The general portrayal of a "terrorist" is not of a person in need of medical attention but of a hard calculating demon. This is how they have been presented to us after all.

The religion that is thrown into the stereotype is wrong too imo. Well logically we know that. What it is is "extremism" but that is politically motivated. Terrorism is motivated by politics. Its the definition of terrorism or used to be. Not religion. Religion helps of course especially if you are "giving your life" for whatever your political cause is. It can help give you motivation to go through with your plan I guess.

The thing is we dont really think of terrorists as being mentally insane. We think of them as the big bad monsters we are told to think of them as. In reality they are unbalanced radicals who are extreme in their politics.

Thoughts?

SOB

Exactly. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes.

If Breivik had have been a Jihadi terrorist with a beard, he would have been attacking America and people wouldn't be saying he is insane.

Who and what does a terrorist look like?

Like you and me. You can't fight terrorism because you don't know who they are as much as you like to stereotype them.

There is an old saying, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

On that note USA wages war in Afghanistan against alkida yet supply alkida with weapons and funding in Egypt and Libya to topple Governments.

On the issue of sanity - insanity usually comes with significant mental impairment, whereas terrorism usually requires careful and deliberate planning and even cooperation between many people. If you were going to blow something up, you would not want a lunatic hanging around. This is similar to the legal distinction made between premeditation and a crime of passion or temporary insanity.

On the issue of motivation, when it comes to Islam you are creating a false dichotomy between religion and politics. Under Islam, they are one and the same.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 8:44am:

On the issue of sanity - insanity usually comes with significant mental impairment, whereas terrorism usually requires careful and deliberate planning and even cooperation between many people. If you were going to blow something up, you would not want a lunatic hanging around. This is similar to the legal distinction made between premeditation and a crime of passion or temporary insanity. On the issue of motivation, when it comes to Islam you are creating a false dichotomy between religion and politics. Under Islam, they are one and the same.

Insanity is a legal term - not psychiatric and many ppl who suffer from serious mental illness can and do function in society and even have high IQs. You are confusing mental illness with mental retardation.

I prolly didnt mean motivation. A better word is "excuse" or "reason". Religion is an excuse used over the ages for doing things but terrorists are acting on thier political views. Look @ the unabomber and andres breveik. They arent even muslim.

The question, when using a religious ideology as the "reason" to commit an atrocity is is it really the motive or just an excuse? If it is really the motive, if the individual really believes the voices or the book or what ever told them to then they are prolly legally insane... otherwise no imo

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

The question, when using a religious ideology as the "reason" to commit an atrocity is is it really the motive or just an excuse? If it is really the motive, if the individual really believes the voices or the book or what ever told them to then they are prolly legally insane... otherwise no imo

If we want to understand moslem terrorism, we must seek to understand what justifies moslem terrorism [in the moslem mind].



The fact is that moslems define all aparent circumstances [which we also see in front of our eyes] differently to us [non-moslems], so as to justify their violence against non-moslems.

Q.
Are we [non-moslems] attacking moslems and ISLAM ?

OR, are we non-moslems defending ourselves [and our communities] from ISLAMIC violence [a violence which is 'religiously' justified by moslems and ISLAM] ?





If you listen to moslems talking among themselves, moslems claim and express the belief [in their minds] that the West is oppressing moslems who live in the West, because, we are forcing moslems to obey Western secular law.

Therefore;
Can moslems rightfully claim that we non-moslems are oppressing those moslems who live among us ?

Because that is the claim which moslems make [among themselves], against us !

We non-moslems are the 'oppressors'.

And moslem violence against we non-moslems is justified [in the eyes of moslems] !

And that, is the twisted 'logic' which moslems use, to see themselves as the 'victims', who are justified in fighting and using extreme violence against their 'oppressors' [we non-moslems].



Moslems want Sharia law.

And where there is no Sharia law in a society, THAT, moslems view that circumstance as the oppression of moslems !





We non-moslems are 'criminals', in the eyes of moslems.

That is how ISLAM categorises non-moslems.





+++


The self evident 'religious' paradigm which ISLAM intends to eventually 'communicate' to the whole world, is that 'unbelief' [in Allah] is a crime [against Allah,  ...and, against humanity!].
And good moslems want you 'unbelievers' to understand, that that crime of 'unbelief', >> must << attract 'justified' moslem violence.

You can see that, can't you!?
/sarc off

Koran 2.98
Koran 47:8-11
Koran 4.74-76

The content of those three Koran verse groups, together, form a 'virtuous circle'.
Each verse group firstly confirms and then reinforces the ISLAMIC 'religious' paradigm, that,
1/    unbelief [in man] is a serious 'religious' crime, and that,
2/    good moslems are 'rightly guided' 'crime fighters', and that,
3/    the 'criminals' deserve everything they get [...because Allah states that unbelievers are in league with SATAN]!

Those arguments [above] are 'logically' demonstrated...

1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.].
Koran 2.98
[ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are the declared enemy of moslems.]

2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47:8-11
[ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off]

3/    "...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:...."
Koran 4.74-76
[ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed as being innately evil by ISLAM, and by Allah. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare.
...'those who reject Faith' are also described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.]

Once again...
1/    'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.
2/    The crime of 'unbelief' >> must << be punished.
3/    Punishment of 'unbelief' is morally justified, because, 'unbelief' is a crime.





+++




ISLAM, imo, creates a mental pathology, in those persons who choose to embrace it.

i.e.
ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace it.

ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace its doctrines of hatred.

A hatred directed towards ALL people, and ALL ideas, and ALL concepts, which are deemed to be non-ISLAMIC.



And Western countries, and overwhelmingly the intellectuals in the West, and politicians in the Western countries, see no problem in allowing those persons who embrace the 'ISLAMIC worldview' [who embrace a culture of violence, and ISLAMIC supremacism], moslems, to live and walk among us.

Our intellectuals and politicians, imo, are mad, and morally blind.





In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy.

IMO, the people who are making such claims are either mad, or morally blind [i.e. morally bankrupt].

Geez mate. Calm down. They prolly arent coming to get you tonight.

This thread is not about "muslim terrorism". This thread is about terrorists in general - see how I used breviek as an example and what he said? He isnt a muslim.

I take some issue with some of your points in the previous post but I am not going to address them in the thread because its not what I was talking about. Maybe tomorrow I will start a new thread with a quote of your post.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 8:44am: On the issue of sanity - insanity usually comes with significant mental impairment, whereas terrorism usually requires careful and deliberate planning and even cooperation between many people. If you were going to blow something up, you would not want a lunatic hanging around. This is similar to the legal distinction made between premeditation and a crime of passion or temporary insanity. On the issue of motivation, when it comes to Islam you are creating a false dichotomy between religion and politics. Under Islam, they are one and the same. Insanity is a legal term - not psychiatric and many ppl who suffer from serious mental illness can and do function in society and even have high IQs. You are confusing mental illness with mental retardation. I prolly didnt mean motivation. A better word is "excuse" or "reason". Religion is an excuse used over the ages for doing things but terrorists are acting on thier political views. Look @ the unabomber and andres breveik. They arent even muslim. The question, when using a religious ideology as the "reason" to commit an atrocity is is it really the motive or just an excuse? If it is really the motive, if the individual really believes the voices or the book or what ever told them to then they are prolly legally insane... otherwise no imo SOB

If someone is suicidal that is considered a serious mental illness that needs treatment.

If someone is suicidal and homicidal that is the worst case scenario for mental health professionals to deal with.

A jihadi who is suicidal and homicidal is evidence that taking Islam seriously can lead to mental health issues, they should put a warning label on the Quran like they do with cigarettes.

These suicidal-Homicidal muslims who blow things up in the name of Allah are rewarded with 72 houris and a everlasting erection to service them with in paradise.
This reward system for mass murder is part of the problem.

The 600 page Qadri fatwa was supposed to outaw Islamic terror, if it was not allowed in the first place then why the need for a 600 page fatwa outlawing it?
Qadri is a Sufi so the sunni-salafi-shia will take no notice of that fatwa.

So why are they incarcerated in prisons instead of mental institutions?

IMO Some may do this stuff because they are psychotic and believe in thier voices or books but others cooly plan and calculate without hearing any voices or subscribing to any religion. The point is that if they are muslim we lock them in jails like criminals and if they arent they are assessed for mental illness.

By the way its "terrorism" not "terror" which is an american propaganda term.

SOB

The Nazis portrayed Hitler as semi-deity with the swastika as a placebo crucifix. Same as Lenin's tomb and the crossed hammer-sickle. The old commies were in effect terrorists in US and were illegal in Oz in 1950's. Ku Klux Klan are prolly terrorist and Breivik is one who hates n1gger-lovers.
The abortion-clinic anti-doctor killers have religious motive as with Muslims.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 8:44am: On the issue of sanity - insanity usually comes with significant mental impairment, whereas terrorism usually requires careful and deliberate planning and even cooperation between many people. If you were going to blow something up, you would not want a lunatic hanging around. This is similar to the legal distinction made between premeditation and a crime of passion or temporary insanity. On the issue of motivation, when it comes to Islam you are creating a false dichotomy between religion and politics. Under Islam, they are one and the same. Insanity is a legal term - not psychiatric and many ppl who suffer from serious mental illness can and do function in society and even have high IQs. You are confusing mental illness with mental retardation.

I am not confusing the legal and psychiatric terms, or retardation. Being able to function in society is not quite the same as being invited to help out with putting together a suicide vest or hijack an airplane.


Quote:

The question, when using a religious ideology as the "reason" to commit an atrocity is is it really the motive or just an excuse?

Another false dichotomy. You could ask the same about politics. In truth, any reason could be construed as both motive and excuse.

Put it this way - do you think Osama Bin Laden and his associates would have carried out the 9/11 attacks without first adopting Islam?


Quote:

Look @ the unabomber and andres breveik. They arent even muslim.

You appear to be assuming that there has to be one reason that applies to everyone.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

If it is really the motive, if the individual really believes the voices or the book or what ever told them to then they are prolly legally insane... otherwise no imo

Can you find a judge that agrees with you?

chimera wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

The abortion-clinic anti-doctor killers have religious motive as with Muslims.

There have only been around a dozen abortion clinic workers killed by christian nutjobs in the USA.

Yes they have the same motive as muslims yet they dont get 72 virgins and a everlasting erection in paradise for all eternity as a reward.

Abu thinks that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a hundred years. This sort of nonsense obviously makes terrorism look less bad to the potential terrorist, but it could only be believed through the bias of Islam.

Abu believes these things, but is obviously not insane by any definition. His justification is always political and he will cite endless lists of unrelated grievances from all over the world, but the ultimate reason is obviously Islam.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

So why are they incarcerated in prisons instead of mental institutions? The point is that if they are muslim we lock them in jails like criminals and if they arent they are assessed for mental illness. By the way its "terrorism" not "terror" which is an american propaganda term. SOB

That Fort Hood terrorist was assessed for mental illness i think you will find all major crimes will have medical reports prepared for the courts.

If they want to use mental illness for a defence then what caused this mental illness was it Islamic ideology?

The fact is that the biggest killer of civilians is the US government.

In the past two decades they killed a million in Iraq and a hundred thousand in Afghanistan. Thousands more civilians have been killed by the US in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Saddam alone killed more people than that.

falah wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

The fact is that the biggest killer of civilians is the US government. In the past two decades they killed a million in Iraq

Ths US killed many, and Shia /Sunni wars for Mohammed , (peace be upon him and bless his socks) also killed many fellow Muslims. Not all Muslims are insane, there's a sensible one near here in Taylor Street.
Jews are a bit over the top.
[During December 1945, the focus of the Jewish attacks shifted to RAF airfields, police stations and armories. There was frequent exchanges of fire and some loss of life on both sides. The High commissioner, Lord Gort , left Palestine in November 1945 and was replaced by another British general Sir Allan Cunningham. Cunningham decided to mount a major blow against the IZL and on the 28 to June 1946, 17,000 British troops flooded into Jerusalem to carry out Operation Agatha. The Jewish Agency offices were raided, arms found and the agency shut down, with a large number of Jews suspected of terrorism being arrested. Jewish terrorists soon started planning the a reprisal for Operation Agatha and made plans for the bombing attack on the King David hotel.

The British response to the King David bombing was another 48 hour cordon and search, code named Operation Shark. This operation was mounted by the men and 6th Airborne division. The aim of Operation shark was to remove the few remaining hard core terrorists left on the scene.]

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

Saddam alone killed more people than that.

People like you also said Saddam had WMDs. Some people don't care much for the truth.

Andrew Wilkie knew the truth, and that has come back to bite the Liberal Party.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 9:25am: freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 8:44am: On the issue of sanity - insanity usually comes with significant mental impairment, whereas terrorism usually requires careful and deliberate planning and even cooperation between many people. If you were going to blow something up, you would not want a lunatic hanging around. This is similar to the legal distinction made between premeditation and a crime of passion or temporary insanity. On the issue of motivation, when it comes to Islam you are creating a false dichotomy between religion and politics. Under Islam, they are one and the same. Insanity is a legal term - not psychiatric and many ppl who suffer from serious mental illness can and do function in society and even have high IQs. You are confusing mental illness with mental retardation. I am not confusing the legal and psychiatric terms, or retardation. Being able to function in society is not quite the same as being invited to help out with putting together a suicide vest or hijack an airplane. Quote: The question, when using a religious ideology as the "reason" to commit an atrocity is is it really the motive or just an excuse? Another false dichotomy. You could ask the same about politics. In truth, any reason could be construed as both motive and excuse. Put it this way - do you think Osama Bin Laden and his associates would have carried out the 9/11 attacks without first adopting Islam? [quote]Look @ the unabomber and andres breveik. They arent even muslim.

You appear to be assuming that there has to be one reason that applies to everyone.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

If it is really the motive, if the individual really believes the voices or the book or what ever told them to then they are prolly legally insane... otherwise no imo

Can you find a judge that agrees with you?[/quote]

You said "significant mental impairment". That is retardation. If thats not what you meant then speak up - i use the wrong words sometimes too.

"Being able to function in society is not quite the same as being invited to help out with putting together a suicide vest or hijack an airplane."  <--- Huh? They arent the same thing but they dont require any different mental capacity.

About the motive or excuse. yes you prolly could say the same about politics. Motive and excuse are not the same thing though. Why are you deliberately trying to say they are?

The osama question: sure why not? They were angry with america. Thier motives were laid out in black and white in his declarations of war on america. The fact they were muslims didnt really have anything to do with it (the motivation).

"You appear to be assuming that there has to be one reason that applies to everyone."

Way to go. Try to twist it. I was pointing out to YOU that they arent all muslims.

"Can you find a judge that agrees with you?"

Dont need a judge to agree with  me. Need psychiatrists and psychologists.

Look I do not understand what your point is in all this. What are you saying? Overall? You pick little things out of my posts and disagree with them like you are making a point but I am not understanding the overall point.

I am tired of just explaining minutia with no idea what you are actually getting @.

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

chimera wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 4:35pm: The abortion-clinic anti-doctor killers have religious motive as with Muslims. There have only been around a dozen abortion clinic workers killed by christian nutjobs in the USA. Yes they have the same motive as muslims yet they dont get 72 virgins and a everlasting erection in paradise for all eternity as a reward.

Lol. That is true. But it isnt the motivation. Well maybe for some but doubtful.

SOB

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:30pm:

Abu thinks that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a hundred years. This sort of nonsense obviously makes terrorism look less bad to the potential terrorist, but it could only be believed through the bias of Islam. Abu believes these things, but is obviously not insane by any definition. His justification is always political and he will cite endless lists of unrelated grievances from all over the world, but the ultimate reason is obviously Islam.

Who is abu?

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:31pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 3:31pm: So why are they incarcerated in prisons instead of mental institutions? The point is that if they are muslim we lock them in jails like criminals and if they arent they are assessed for mental illness. By the way its "terrorism" not "terror" which is an american propaganda term. SOB That Fort Hood terrorist was assessed for mental illness i think you will find all major crimes will have medical reports prepared for the courts. If they want to use mental illness for a defence then what caused this mental illness was it Islamic ideology?

I had to look that one up because I didnt know about it. Wikipedia says he was an american muslim psychiatrist so of course he was assessed. In fact I would venture to say that lone gunmen are usually assessed if they survive their rampages.

I am not a psychologist but I am pretty sure mental illness is not caused by religion. In fact I am not sure that the causes of most mental illnesses are known. If it was religion then all religious ppl would be insane so obviously that isnt the answer although a symptom of some mental illness is the radicalisation of whatever religion imo.

SOB

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:

Saddam alone killed more people than that.

Sadam wasnt a "terrorist" - he was a leader of a country.

SOB

You want to take religion out of terrorism. If Sadam was political then he fits your argument.
To make 9/11 political you need a political agenda. Can you suggest a national issue which needed World Trade Center removed?

chimera wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

You want to take religion out of terrorism. If Sadam was political then he fits your argument. To make 9/11 political you need a political agenda. Can you suggest a national issue which needed World Trade Center removed?

I am not trying to take religion out of terrorism. my thread was supposed to be intelligent conversation on the motivations of terrorists and our perceptions of them.

Saddam didnt blow up any trade towers though and he doesnt fit anything because he wasnt a terrorist.

And yes I already stated that Usama bin Ladens declaration of war on america stated his reasons for doing it. Look it up. Oh when looking it up you need to spell his name right - as he spells it.

SOB

I'm trying to be intelligent but haven't had breakfast yet.
You wrote "osama" not usama and lose 1 intelligent point.
The Kurds lost many points from Sadam's terrifying terrorism.
USama is a good Muslim terrorist:
(was a terrorist)
"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999      

chimera wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

I'm trying to be intelligent but haven't had breakfast yet. You wrote "osama" not usama and lose 1 intelligent point. The Kurds lost many points from Sadam's terrifying terrorism. USama is a good Muslim terrorist: (was a terrorist) "The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999

Sorry mate. I didnt mean to imply that you arent intelligent.

Yeah @ quote. the one I saw was 1995 I think. Headed "declaration of war on the United States" or something like that. I will see if I can find it again later. He declared war on america several times and didnt get any response but laughter so resorted to terrorism.

SOB

Probaly if Breivik was sussed as a neo nazi /Red Brigade/ namaste light vibrator, then the terrorist shoes might fit him.

chimera wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 10:00am:

Probaly if Breivik was sussed as a neo nazi /Red Brigade/ namaste light vibrator, then the terrorist shoes might fit him.

Hmm. Are you saying that someone has to be a member of a "terrorist organisation" to be a terrorist? Or something else?

The definition of "terrorism" is political. Not religious. the religion helps though I guess. Brevik did claim his atrocities were committed towards political ends.

Definition of terrorism

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:32am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 6:30pm: Abu thinks that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a hundred years. This sort of nonsense obviously makes terrorism look less bad to the potential terrorist, but it could only be believed through the bias of Islam. Abu believes these things, but is obviously not insane by any definition. His justification is always political and he will cite endless lists of unrelated grievances from all over the world, but the ultimate reason is obviously Islam. Who is abu? SOB

He runs the Islam board. He is a Muslim.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:42am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 11:04pm: Saddam alone killed more people than that. Sadam wasnt a "terrorist" - he was a leader of a country. SOB

Have a look at the post I was responding to.

http://images.smh.com.au/2012/04/16/3223999/breivik-salute-200x0.jpg



http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/purpleslinky/2008/08/12/266431_4.jpg

Quote:

Hmm. Are you saying that someone has to be a member of a "terrorist organisation" to be a terrorist?

Prolly. Do you know of a lone terrorist? I meant in the public view, an organisation helps specify an agenda because the group requires goals to be expressed and agreed.

chimera wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

Quote: Hmm. Are you saying that someone has to be a member of a "terrorist organisation" to be a terrorist? Prolly. Do you know of a lone terrorist? I meant in the public view, an organisation helps specify an agenda because the group requires goals to be expressed and agreed.

Interesting idea. IMO the type of person that becomes a terrorist though is looking for a cause. Something to do it for. Brevik is looking like he wasnt in an org though.

SOB

If not an organisation, then an ideology. It is pretty rare for someone to come up with their own.

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 1:01pm:

http://images.smh.com.au/2012/04/16/3223999/breivik-salute-200x0.jpg http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/purpleslinky/2008/08/12/266431_4.jpg

Caption competition.

I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Brother
It Doesn't Matter If You're
Black Or White

Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now
Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now

It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo

It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo




Whoo, indeed.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 5:58pm:

If not an organisation, then an ideology. It is pretty rare for someone to come up with their own.

Well. Not really. Hybrids of existing ones maybe. Schizophrenics tend to blend together lots of ideologies into something unique to themselves. Eg the guy in tasmania. Dunno if he is classified a terrorist though. I tend to think of usama as one of those though. And Brevik but they are saying he isnt schizophrenic. I dunno.

SOB

My head hurts. Words are getting blurry. If a person causes a sense of terror, is he a terrorist? So any slob with a sharp weapon in a shop is a terrorist, with the ideology of getting cash. The bushfire arsonist.. what was he?  The word carries some idea of a general movement, unless maybe a 1 man-band does terror and gains power by himself. Hard to imagine that except as a bus hijacking - then what?

chimera wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 9:05pm:

My head hurts. Words are getting blurry. If a person causes a sense of terror, is he a terrorist? So any slob with a sharp weapon in a shop is a terrorist, with the ideology of getting cash. The bushfire arsonist.. what was he?  The word carries some idea of a general movement, unless maybe a 1 man-band does terror and gains power by himself. Hard to imagine that except as a bus hijacking - then what?

Not according to the definitions of terrorist. That is just american propaganda that we were subjected to for a while during the invasion of Iraq. They wanted to get the word "terror" out there to cause fear amongst us so we would panic and let them do that stuff.

SOB

Okay. Israeli terrorists. There are plenty of those. They are terrorists because of politcal reasons but are they motivated by religion? Come to think of it werent most of those terrorists on those planes that hit those towers israelis?

Seems to me that there is more and more of this stuff around the world. Ppl like andres popping up all over the place. Policial motivations because theres something wrong with the way we are doing things imo.

SOB

"Not according to the definitions of terrorist."
What is not what?
OED says terrorist is "one who uses terror inspiring methods of governing or coercing government or community".
Sadam was that. Protests that threaten the person of the PM are. The Syria groups on both sides are, as in Libya, or US Civil War. The US revolutionaries like George Washington were and US shock-and-awe in Iraq was. Like 9/11.
Breivik needs a claim to be coercing the Norway government for him to be described as terrorist.

chimera wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

"Not according to the definitions of terrorist." What is not what? OED says terrorist is "one who uses terror inspiring methods of governing or coercing government or community". Sadam was that. Protests that threaten the person of the PM are. The Syria groups on both sides are, as in Libya, or US Civil War. The US revolutionaries like George Washington were and US shock-and-awe in Iraq was. Like 9/11. Breivik needs a claim to be coercing the Norway government for him to be described as terrorist.

What is OED? I provided a link earlier int eh thread for the definition.

Definition of terrorist

The extra definition to "terror" about the weapons was added during the iraq thing. you see? This influenced most ppls perceptions of terrorists to fit the american agenda (of invading iraq!).

Our perception of terrorists is that they are middle eastern gentlemen of the islamic faith. This is not true in reality terrorists can come from any walk of life and race and any "faith" or maybe none @ all though I dont think thats happened yet - maybe it has.

SOB

Definition of a terrorist?


Someone with a towel on their head?

Terrorist leaders meet:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jZxpDOhengc/SW2zDXdCNhI/AAAAAAAABTU/FpOKDg-FNZk/s400/14+1+09+Howard+Bush+medal.jpg

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/1203-obama-favorability-israel.jpg/11143582-1-eng-US/1203-obama-favorability-israel.jpg_full_600.jpg

While I agree with the above on some level I wish the intelligent ppl that were "suspended" would come back so we can have a serious conversation.

SOB

OED is English Oxford Dictionary. Seriously.
Norwegian gentlemen like Breivik don't know whether they are terrorists. SOB (not the OED) is not sure. Dunno. Who does?

chimera wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

OED is English Oxford Dictionary. Seriously. Norwegian gentlemen like Breivik don't know whether they are terrorists. SOB (not the OED) is not sure. Dunno. Who does?

Not sure what that meant.Brievik is a terrorist. Politically motivated. Had an ideology in his manifesto. Killed lots of ppl. Doesnt seem to actually belong to an organisation though.

SOB

Well, who paid for his manifesto?

Breivik may be a lone-wolf terrorist. However he has claimed to be working within an organisation.


Quote:

...Anders Behring Breivik refused to answer prosecutors' questions Wednesday about the anti-Muslim militant group he claims to belong to, as his trial on terror charges for the massacre of 77 people entered its third day. Prosecutors have said they believe Breivik's so-called "Knights Templar" group doesn't exist "in the way he describes it." Breivik insists it does, and said police just hadn't done a good enough job in uncovering it. "It is not in my interest to shed light on details that could lead to arrests," he said... http://news.yahoo.com/breivik-questioned-knights-templar-group-085117374.html

The Knights of Malta are the Red Cross. Their terrorist ambulances hide the evidence of shootings.

chimera wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

Well, who paid for his manifesto?

Huh?

SOB

falah wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Breivik may be a lone-wolf terrorist. However he has claimed to be working within an organisation. Quote: ...Anders Behring Breivik refused to answer prosecutors' questions Wednesday about the anti-Muslim militant group he claims to belong to, as his trial on terror charges for the massacre of 77 people entered its third day. Prosecutors have said they believe Breivik's so-called "Knights Templar" group doesn't exist "in the way he describes it." Breivik insists it does, and said police just hadn't done a good enough job in uncovering it. "It is not in my interest to shed light on details that could lead to arrests," he said... http://news.yahoo.com/breivik-questioned-knights-templar-group-085117374.html

Yeah i know. thats why i said "seems" because we dont really know do we but it seems like he wasnt,

SOB

Now let's get serious and/or intelligent.

Breivik probaly was terrorist but is not called one.
Sadam was not a terrorist says SOB but the US claimed he was because of weapons, says SOB.
He was a terrorist against Kurds but the US was not concerned about that.
He was not terrorist because of WMD, they were the reason to invade. Invading stopped him supporting terror by Al Qaeda.
So he wasn't but he was, and was but he wasn't, but he was with them that was.

chimera wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

Now let's get serious and/or intelligent. Breivik probaly was terrorist but is not called one. Sadam was not a terrorist says SOB but the US claimed he was because of weapons, says SOB. He was a terrorist against Kurds but the US was not concerned about that. He was not terrorist because of WMD, they were the reason to invade. Invading stopped him supporting terror by Al Qaeda. So he wasn't but he was, and was but he wasn't, but he was with them that was.

I didnt say any of that. You did.

Do you have a perception of a typical terrorist in your mind? What is that perception if you have one?

SOB

#1. you say Breivik is right to claim being terrorist, as in #6.
(So he is not being called terrorist now.)
#32. You say Sadam was not terrorist.
#37, #40 You say Iraq was falsely called terrorist because of US propaganda about WMD weapons.
Which all goes to prove that an unclear statement can quickly descend into chaos.
If Breivik has a credible movement against Norway then he is a terrorist. If not he's a crim.

Iraq was a terrorist nation. They attack their neighbours and threaten them and also had release chemical weapon attack on they own people at Halabja.

falah wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Terrorist leaders meet: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jZxpDOhengc/SW2zDXdCNhI/AAAAAAAABTU/FpOKDg-FNZk/s400/14+1+09+Howard+Bush+medal.jpg http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/1203-obama-favorability-israel.jpg/11143582-1-eng-US/1203-obama-favorability-israel.jpg_full_600.jpg

You DON'T sound like you are sufficiently terrorised. Au contraire, you are carrying on as if your civil liberties were intact.
Oh! Wait! They are!

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:20pm:

falah wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 11:10am: Terrorist leaders meet: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jZxpDOhengc/SW2zDXdCNhI/AAAAAAAABTU/FpOKDg-FNZk/s400/14+1+09+Howard+Bush+medal.jpg http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/1203-obama-favorability-israel.jpg/11143582-1-eng-US/1203-obama-favorability-israel.jpg_full_600.jpg You DON'T sound like you are sufficiently terrorised. Au contraire, you are carrying on as if your civil liberties were intact. Oh! Wait! They are!

I find nothing civil about the way the US and its allies 'liberated' these children from their lives:



http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/US-soldier-on-SEAL-team-shoots-dead-nine-sleeping-Afghan-children-before-burning-their-bodies-in-deadly-rampage-that-killed-16.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J3TsuLwgS94/R699jjvb1YI/AAAAAAAAAh0/12U9esvkaMw/s400/Afghan%2Bchildren%2Bdead.jpg

Arabic: "الجمل لا يرى عوجة رقبته" ("The camel cannot see the crookedness of its own neck")
Arabic:"ان كان بيتك من زجاج فلا ترم الناس بالحجارة" ("If your house is of glass, don't throw rocks at others").
Strine: The pot called the kettle black.

chimera wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

"Not according to the definitions of terrorist." What is not what? OED says terrorist is "one who uses terror inspiring methods of governing or coercing government or community". Sadam was that. Protests that threaten the person of the PM are. The Syria groups on both sides are, as in Libya, or US Civil War. The US revolutionaries like George Washington were and US shock-and-awe in Iraq was. Like 9/11. Breivik needs a claim to be coercing the Norway government for him to be described as terrorist.

Who is a terrorist ?

Isn't a terrorist; someone who tries to instil a sense of fear in another person, or group of persons [usually by a threat, or an expectation of violence] ?

And usually, a terrorist has a motive in trying to instil a sense of fear in another person, or group of persons.

Yes ?




But can the motives of a terrorist ever be justified ?

Does a 'terrorist' legitimately ever become a freedom fighter, if his motives are [ever] 'justified' ?


e.g.
Moslem freedom fighters [Jihadists] claim that they are [always] fighting against the oppressors of the people....

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76

chimera wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 8:12pm:

#1. you say Breivik is right to claim being terrorist, as in #6. (So he is not being called terrorist now.) #32. You say Sadam was not terrorist. #37, #40 You say Iraq was falsely called terrorist because of US propaganda about WMD weapons. Which all goes to prove that an unclear statement can quickly descend into chaos. If Breivik has a credible movement against Norway then he is a terrorist. If not he's a crim.

Oh boy. please try to comprehend this.

Brevik is a terrorist by the definition of terrorist. I dont know if "they" (who are they anyway? The media?) are calling him a terrorist now.

It was a totally different topic when I was discussing whether he was a member of an organisation.

Saddam was the leader of a country. A politician. If there were atrocities he personally didnt commit them. Others did.

I do not remember mentioning anything about WMDs in iraq and if you want to discuss them start a new thread.

Do you understand? I dont want to spend all my time explaining crap thats irrelevant to you.

Now you answer my question. Do you have a perception of a terrorist? If so what is that perception?

SOB

For the 3rd time here is the dictionary link to "terrorism"

Link to the definition

Jesus

SOB

US drones killed 2,800 civilians in Pakistan in 7 years

http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20120216/pirhayati20120216130143327.jpg

A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports.


Shahzad Akbar, the director of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, told Press TV on Saturday that only 170 of the people killed in the aerial attacks on the northwestern tribal belt of Pakistan have been identified as militants.

That means that “over 2,800 people were civilians, whose identities are not known, and they have just been killed on suspicion of being militants,” he added.

US President Barack Obama publicly confirmed for the first time in late January that drone aircraft have struck targets inside Pakistan.

Obama said "a lot of these strikes have been in the FATA", the acronym for Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Pakistan contends that the drone strikes are counterproductive.

“We are of the firm view that these are unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable,” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said on January 31.

He added, “Our view has always been very clear and position principled.”

Sixty-four US missile strikes were reported in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal belt last year, down from 101 reported in 2010, according to AFP tallies.

The US claims the airstrikes target militants affiliated with the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and al-Qaeda. But locals say civilians are the main victims.

The aerial attacks, initiated by former US President George W. Bush, have escalated under President Barack Obama.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/238615.html

Poll!

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

chimera wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 4:35pm: The abortion-clinic anti-doctor killers have religious motive as with Muslims. There have only been around a dozen abortion clinic workers killed by christian nutjobs in the USA. Yes they have the same motive as muslims yet they dont get 72 virgins and a everlasting erection in paradise for all eternity as a reward.

So they are just murdering people from the goodness of their heart then?

falah wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:04pm:

Poll!

How about some more options? How about "any fanatic that kills ppl for political reasons" ? Since that is the official meaning it should be an option?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 9:26am:

[quote author=010A0B0F071003620 link=1335389097/53#53 date=1335607948

Brevik is a terrorist by the definition of terrorist.It was a totally different topic when I was discussing whether he was a member of an organisation.

Saddam was the leader of a country. A politician. If there were atrocities he personally didnt commit them. Others did.

I do not remember mentioning anything about WMDs in iraq and if you want to discuss them start a new thread.


Now you answer my question. Do you have a perception of a terrorist? If so what is that perception?
[/quote]
Breivik needs to be able to coerce a government or community, by definition. Is that the situation in Norway?
Hitler, Eichmann, Milosevich and Sadam Hussein didn't pull the trigger on anyone ( ?) but were terrorists by their orders against civialians.
You wrote of Iraq weapons in #40.
Again, Breivik was a terrorist if he coerced govt or community. Otherwise he is a crim. I'm agreeing with you, you raving loony idiot unserious blathering rabbit wheelbarrow.

falah wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

US drones killed 2,800 civilians in Pakistan in 7 years http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20120216/pirhayati20120216130143327.jpg A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Shahzad Akbar, the director of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, told Press TV on Saturday that only 170 of the people killed in the aerial attacks on the northwestern tribal belt of Pakistan have been identified as militants. That means that “over 2,800 people were civilians, whose identities are not known, and they have just been killed on suspicion of being militants,” he added. US President Barack Obama publicly confirmed for the first time in late January that drone aircraft have struck targets inside Pakistan. Obama said "a lot of these strikes have been in the FATA", the acronym for Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Pakistan contends that the drone strikes are counterproductive. “We are of the firm view that these are unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable,” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said on January 31. He added, “Our view has always been very clear and position principled.” Sixty-four US missile strikes were reported in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal belt last year, down from 101 reported in 2010, according to AFP tallies. The US claims the airstrikes target militants affiliated with the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and al-Qaeda. But locals say civilians are the main victims. The aerial attacks, initiated by former US President George W. Bush, have escalated under President Barack Obama. http://www.presstv.com/detail/238615.html

Do you think the US is trying to use fear to manipulate the Pakistani people?

Do you think they are deliberately targeting civilians?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:24am:

Brevik said "If I had been a bearded Jihadi ... there would not be a need for a psychiatric evaluation," he said. and you know what? hes right. Think about terrorists. What picture does that conjure in your mind? The general portrayal of a "terrorist" is not of a person in need of medical attention but of a hard calculating demon. This is how they have been presented to us after all. The religion that is thrown into the stereotype is wrong too imo. Well logically we know that. What it is is "extremism" but that is politically motivated. Terrorism is motivated by politics. Its the definition of terrorism or used to be. Not religion. Religion helps of course especially if you are "giving your life" for whatever your political cause is. It can help give you motivation to go through with your plan I guess. The thing is we dont really think of terrorists as being mentally insane. We think of them as the big bad monsters we are told to think of them as. In reality they are unbalanced radicals who are extreme in their politics. Thoughts? SOB

Nuclear Weapons = impotent greed trying to hide its shrivelled self!

GO UNSUSTAINABLE WAR ECONOMICS

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES, YOU TOO!! aND YOU AND YOU AND YOU!!!!!!!!!!

wHY WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN WHO WE ARE LEADING TO WORLD WAR THREE THROUGH OUR IGNORANCE.

UNSUSTAINABLE GREED BREEDS TUNNEL VISION!

  :-? :-? :-? :-?  :-X

The residents of Guantanamo Bay Health Resort are not soldiers or they would be in US prisoner of war camps and not able to be interrogated, by UN Conventions.
So Al Qaeda in pakistan are not combatants and any bullets are extremist civilian threats. The terrorists are being terrorised by anti-terrorist US justice bombs for democratic free dead civilians.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports.

Of course they're civilians.   All Taliban are civilians.

Swagman wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 4:22pm: A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Of course they're civilians.   All Taliban are civilians.

What were the other 200?

SOB

chimera wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 4:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 9:26am: [quote author=010A0B0F071003620 link=1335389097/53#53 date=1335607948 Brevik is a terrorist by the definition of terrorist.It was a totally different topic when I was discussing whether he was a member of an organisation. Saddam was the leader of a country. A politician. If there were atrocities he personally didnt commit them. Others did. I do not remember mentioning anything about WMDs in iraq and if you want to discuss them start a new thread. Now you answer my question. Do you have a perception of a terrorist? If so what is that perception?

Breivik needs to be able to coerce a government or community, by definition. Is that the situation in Norway?
Hitler, Eichmann, Milosevich and Sadam Hussein didn't pull the trigger on anyone ( ?) but were terrorists by their orders against civialians.
You wrote of Iraq weapons in #40.
Again, Breivik was a terrorist if he coerced govt or community. Otherwise he is a crim. I'm agreeing with you, you raving loony idiot unserious blathering rabbit wheelbarrow.
[/quote]

Yeah but im trying to work out why some "Terrorists" are treated as crims and some as loonies.

SOB

Swagman wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 4:22pm: A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Of course they're civilians.   All Taliban are civilians.

I guess they all wore tea towels and had guns. Shoot! :D

What exactly qualifies as "Pakistani Human Rights"?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:27am:

Yeah but im trying to work out why some "Terrorists" are treated as crims and some as loonies. SOB

Breivik is all 3 at the moment. Is being jailed as criminally insane much different from jail as crim? Is bin Laden's death changed by a definition? Breivik's murder of kids at a political camp was a bad choice of target. Maybe a terrorist group would have told him that. It reduces the application of "terrorist" to him.

chimera wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 9:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:27am: Yeah but im trying to work out why some "Terrorists" are treated as crims and some as loonies. SOB Breivik is all 3 at the moment. Is being jailed as criminally insane much different from jail as crim? Is bin Laden's death changed by a definition? Breivik's murder of kids at a political camp was a bad choice of target. Maybe a terrorist group would have told him that. It reduces the application of "terrorist" to him.

Yeah thats a point. What do the irish terrorists get charged with? Suppose I should look it up. I expect with being crims though. IMO if you are in an organisation with an ideology its criminal but loners are crazy? This may be how it works.

SOB

Ps that poll is pissing me off because i cant answer any of those options and I want to see the results.

The poms are very stiff and charge IRA with "causing explosions". Bad show and all that, what?
Often a loner is loony. Could become an offence?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:25am:

Swagman wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:03pm: freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 4:22pm: A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Of course they're civilians.   All Taliban are civilians. What were the other 200? SOB

Aid workers, politicians, journalists, Pakistani military, police......

Civilians get killed in wars.  More get killed when the enemy use them to hide amongst or as shields.

Swagman wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:25am: Swagman wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:03pm: freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 4:22pm: A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Of course they're civilians.   All Taliban are civilians. What were the other 200? SOB Aid workers, politicians, journalists, Pakistani military, police...... Civilians get killed in wars.  More get killed when the enemy use them to hide amongst or as shields.

I thought "civilians" were ppl that arent in the military.

SOB

falah wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

US drones killed 2,800 civilians in Pakistan in 7 years A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports.

Of course the muslims will create propaganda to claim civillians were killed yet every hellfire missile has video cameras recording what they hit and every missile strike needs approval from someone higher up than the pilot controlling the aircraft.


Quote:

The new America foundation, a washington think tank found that up to 2,551 people have been killed in airstrikes since 2004.Based on press reports it estimates 80% of them were militants, rising to a pretty astonishing 95% in 2010 Source-http://www.economist.com/node/21524916

The truth is always the first casualty in war, Abu has confirmed the shia have a doctrine that allows them to tell lies, the Sunni are only allowed to lie in times of war, to your wife and to reconcile 2 parties.
The muslims are allowed to tell lies and the bullshit flows thick and fast.

That has nothing to do with our perception of terrorists or whether they are insane or criminals.  Go to another thread with that.

SOB

Any crime has a political side to it if you try hard enough.
Wife murder: anti Women's Lib. Ram-raid on bottle shop: anti stock-market consumer rip-off.  Unfair penalty by referree : anti football club high-finance contracts.
Here's my final offer. You find another conspirator with Breivik and I'll give you a "terrorist" quote, no obligation, conditions apply.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:38pm:

falah wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:02pm: US drones killed 2,800 civilians in Pakistan in 7 years A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Of course the muslims will create propaganda to claim civillians were killed yet every hellfire missile has video cameras recording what they hit and every missile strike needs approval from someone higher up than the pilot controlling the aircraft. Quote: The new America foundation, a washington think tank found that up to 2,551 people have been killed in airstrikes since 2004.Based on press reports it estimates 80% of them were militants, rising to a pretty astonishing 95% in 2010 Source-http://www.economist.com/node/21524916 The truth is always the first casualty in war, Abu has confirmed the shia have a doctrine that allows them to tell lies, the Sunni are only allowed to lie in times of war, to your wife and to reconcile 2 parties. The muslims are allowed to tell lies and the bullshit flows thick and fast.

Abu also thinks that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over 100 years and that lying is an integral part of war. So it has been a long time since Sunnis have needed to be honest. But he still likes to bag Shites about the whole taqiyya thing.

Quote:

Abu also thinks that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over 100 years and that lying is an integral part of war. So it has been a long time since Sunnis have needed to be honest. But he still likes to bag Shites about the whole taqiyya thing.

So which are the terrorists? What do they look like? Do they fit the public perception?

SOB

Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:24pm:

Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately.

Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:13pm:

Quote: Abu also thinks that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over 100 years and that lying is an integral part of war. So it has been a long time since Sunnis have needed to be honest. But he still likes to bag Shites about the whole taqiyya thing. So which are the terrorists? What do they look like? Do they fit the public perception? SOB

Jihad Jane was a blonde hair blue eyed revert who let that Islam nonsense rot her brain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8561888.stm


We called them fundamentalists once upon a time before political correctness decidied it was extremist instead of fundamental without checking the facts.

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too?

I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere.

Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:37pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too? I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere. Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this.

The question was not dependent on where your people are located.
I asked if you would be angry.
We would act exactly the same if we were in their position.

9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back.

But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:37pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too? I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere.

So does that mean you against Australian troops killing people in Afghanistan on behalf of the US or are you just being hypocritical again?

Quote:

The question was not dependent on where your people are located.

I don't own any people. Islam permits slavery, but I oppose it.


Quote:

I asked if you would be angry. We would act exactly the same if we were in their position

Wrong. Even the vast majority of Muslims refrain from terrorism. You need a pretty warped world view to support things like 9/11.


Quote:

9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back.

I have never killed anyone.


Quote:

But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11

Someone was. And you support them.


Quote:

So does that mean you against Australian troops killing people in Afghanistan on behalf of the US or are you just being hypocritical again?

I support the war in Afghanistan.

Falah, do you support the 9/11 terrorists?

falah wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:41pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:37pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too? I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere. So does that mean you against Australian troops killing people in Afghanistan on behalf of the US or are you just being hypocritical again?

Why the heck should aussie troops kill ppl in afghanistan on behalf of the yanks? There is no rational reason.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:41pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:37pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too? I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere. Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this. The question was not dependent on where your people are located. I asked if you would be angry. We would act exactly the same if we were in their position. 9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back. But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11

Could someone re-explain that without all the pro nouns please?

Quote:

I support the war in Afghanistan.

Terrorist


Quote:

I don't own any people. Islam permits slavery, but I oppose it.

Yes because thats what I meant by 'your people' isn't it?
At least Islam is honest unlike slimy western liars.


Quote:

Wrong. Even the vast majority of Muslims refrain from terrorism. You need a pretty warped world view to support things like 9/11.

I didn't say we would go commit 'terrorism'.
Yet it is perfectly normal for you to support the war in Afghanistan right?


Quote:

I have never killed anyone.

I never said you did


Quote:

Someone was. And you support them.

Not if they are not victims of US foreign policy

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:48pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:41pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:37pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too? I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere. Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this. The question was not dependent on where your people are located. I asked if you would be angry. We would act exactly the same if we were in their position. 9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back. But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11 Could someone re-explain that without all the pro nouns please?

no

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:48pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:41pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:37pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:24pm: Maybe Abu knows who they are. He has been getting more sympathetic towards the 9/11 terrorists lately. Wouldn't you be angry if someone was killing your people too? I don't own people on the other side of the world. I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere. Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this. The question was not dependent on where your people are located. I asked if you would be angry. We would act exactly the same if we were in their position. 9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back. But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11 Could someone re-explain that without all the pro nouns please? no

Puppet - you wrote most of those pro-nouns so
you should be able to explain them.
::)

Quote:

I don't own people on the other side of the world.

The question was not dependent on where your people are located.

Quote:

I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere.

I asked if you would be angry.
We would act exactly the same if we were in their position.


Quote:

Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this.

9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back.

But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Quote: I don't own people on the other side of the world. The question was not dependent on where your people are located. [quote]I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere.

I asked if you would be angry.
We would act exactly the same if we were in their position.


Quote:

Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this.

9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back.

But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11[/quote]



Puppet - who are they?

Are you deaf?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:11pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:04pm: Quote: I don't own people on the other side of the world. The question was not dependent on where your people are located. [quote]I certainly don't want to go on a killing spree to keep up with the killing sprees elsewhere. I asked if you would be angry. We would act exactly the same if we were in their position. [quote]Have you figured out yet whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing? People are interested in your views on this.

9/11 was unfortunate but necessary, you kill millions of people don't complain when they want to kill you back.

But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11[/quote]



Puppet - who are they?

Are you deaf?[/quote]The term would be blind but I think you can work it out, it doesn't really need to be explained

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:04pm:

But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11

You'll have people wondering if you're a sock for It_is_the_light next.

muso wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:12pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:04pm: But then it is unlikely they were even behind 9/11 You'll have people wondering if you're a sock for It_is_the_light next.

There are other people on here that can review evidence not just it is the light

Puppet - I can't take you seriously.
This thread is a waste of time.

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Puppet - I can't take you seriously. This thread is a waste of time.

When did I ask you to take me?

Quote:

. So which are the terrorists? What do they look like? Do they fit the public perception? SOB

Killing civilians was the purpose of bombing Coventry and Dresden. Phosphorus bombs on city suburbs were only to cause population deaths. Like Kissinger did in Cambodia.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:26pm:

Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:25am: Swagman wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:03pm: freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 4:22pm: A Pakistani human rights lawyer says over 2,800 of the 3,000 people killed over the past seven years in non-UN-sanctioned US assassination drone strikes in Pakistan were civilians, Press TV reports. Of course they're civilians.   All Taliban are civilians. What were the other 200? SOB Aid workers, politicians, journalists, Pakistani military, police...... Civilians get killed in wars.  More get killed when the enemy use them to hide amongst or as shields. I thought "civilians" were ppl that arent in the military. SOB

Like I said Taliban are civilians... :(

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:18pm: Puppet - I can't take you seriously. This thread is a waste of time. When did I ask you to take me?

Puppet - have you become a homo?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Puppet - I can't take you seriously. This thread is a waste of time.

This thread is about our perceptions of terrorists. The perception the yanks and the media want us to have is of a middle eastern man but that is a false stereotype imo.

SOB

chimera wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:47pm:

Quote: . So which are the terrorists? What do they look like? Do they fit the public perception? SOB Killing civilians was the purpose of bombing Coventry and Dresden. Phosphorus bombs on city suburbs were only to cause population deaths. Like Kissinger did in Cambodia.

Yeah. I have trouble with this term "civilians". Most terrorists are civilians too.

SOB

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 9:20pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:19pm: Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:18pm: Puppet - I can't take you seriously. This thread is a waste of time. When did I ask you to take me? Puppet - have you become a homo?

Take me to your bat cave bobby and have your way with me

Quote:

Yeah. I have trouble with this term "civilians". Most terrorists are civilians too.

What trouble is that? The citizens of Coventry and Dresden were just civilians at home. The terrorists were the military tacticians and political chiefs. The UK air-marshall "Bomber" Harris was snubbed after the war for his terrorism.

Isnt the term terrorist just "underfunded militia".

A "Freedom fighter" is underfunded militia on your side.

A "terrorist" is underfunded militia not on your side.

Both can target civilians because its far more cost-effective for their lean budgets.

An "army" is usually well-funded militia. These target civilians as much as anyone. (eg carpet bombing Baghdad)

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 11:06am:

Isnt the term terrorist just "underfunded militia". A "Freedom fighter" is underfunded militia on your side. A "terrorist" is underfunded militia not on your side. Both can target civilians because its far more cost-effective for their lean budgets. An "army" is usually well-funded militia. These target civilians as much as anyone. (eg carpet bombing Baghdad)

Yeah. I guess. But we need a better wrod because "terorist" is so broad. A lone gunman like Brevik who was doing his killing for political purposes also falls under the label.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 10:24am:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 9:20pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:19pm: Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:18pm: Puppet - I can't take you seriously. This thread is a waste of time. When did I ask you to take me? Puppet - have you become a homo? Take me to your bat cave bobby and have your way with me

I am worried about you Puppet.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 11:06am:

Isnt the term terrorist just "underfunded militia". A "Freedom fighter" is underfunded militia on your side. A "terrorist" is underfunded militia not on your side. Both can target civilians because its far more cost-effective for their lean budgets. An "army" is usually well-funded militia. These target civilians as much as anyone. (eg carpet bombing Baghdad)

That is my understanding. The funding is linked to legitimacy in the sense that they have the support of the nation and a mandate to potentially drag that nation into war. A terrorist can drag two countries into war against the will of both countries, just like Osama did.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 11:06am: Isnt the term terrorist just "underfunded militia". A "Freedom fighter" is underfunded militia on your side. A "terrorist" is underfunded militia not on your side. Both can target civilians because its far more cost-effective for their lean budgets. An "army" is usually well-funded militia. These target civilians as much as anyone. (eg carpet bombing Baghdad) That is my understanding. The funding is linked to legitimacy in the sense that they have the support of the nation and a mandate to potentially drag that nation into war. A terrorist can drag two countries into war against the will of both countries, just like Osama did.

How exactly did Usama do that? Which 2 countries?

Since he was saudi and most of the guys on the planes were saudi - wouldn't saudi be one of those countries? Only war I remember was yanks invading iraq. That had nothing to do with usama whether he instigated the 11/9 thing or not.

SOB

Ordinary citizens in Iraq, Afghanistan who fire rifles at US troops to defend national rights would be freedom fighters.
If they set bombs in crowded streets, even to hit some US troops along with their own citizens, that is terrorism.
Breivik was probably neither if he had no political plan.

Quote:

How exactly did Usama do that? Which 2 countries?

The US and Afghanistan. It should be fairly obvious how he did it.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:37pm:

Quote: How exactly did Usama do that? Which 2 countries? The US and Afghanistan. It should be fairly obvious how he did it.

No. How did he do it? He wasnt in afghanistan. They werent afghanis on the planes. How did he do it? Seems to me bush did it.

SOB

"In mid-1997, the Northern Alliance threatened to overrun Jalalabad, causing bin Laden to abandon his Nazim Jihad compound and move his operations to Tarnak Farms in the south.

Another successful attack was carried out in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan. Bin Laden helped cement his alliance with the Taliban by sending several hundreds of Afghan Arab fighters along to help the Taliban kill between five and six thousand Hazaras overrunning the city..

Despite the multiple indictments listed above and multiple requests, the Taliban refused to extradite Osama bin Laden. They did however offer to try him before an Islamic court if evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks was provided. It was not until eight days after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban finally did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial in return for the United States ending the bombing."

chimera wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:54am:

"In mid-1997, the Northern Alliance threatened to overrun Jalalabad, causing bin Laden to abandon his Nazim Jihad compound and move his operations to Tarnak Farms in the south. Another successful attack was carried out in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan. Bin Laden helped cement his alliance with the Taliban by sending several hundreds of Afghan Arab fighters along to help the Taliban kill between five and six thousand Hazaras overrunning the city.. Despite the multiple indictments listed above and multiple requests, the Taliban refused to extradite Osama bin Laden. They did however offer to try him before an Islamic court if evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks was provided. It was not until eight days after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban finally did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial in return for the United States ending the bombing."

I kinda remember this but they werent actually sure he was there. Besides if he caused the war why is it still going on?

SOB

Taliban jihadi :" Yes we have a cave at Nazim Jihad and there are piles of robes in the back corner. Some of them move a bit and we believe one heap may be Usama spelt with U. Not sure. He's a bit secretive and his beard makes him not easy to identify and he mumbles. Bad teeth. But hey it may be Usama, why not (peace be upon him)."

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:09am:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 8:37pm: Quote: How exactly did Usama do that? Which 2 countries? The US and Afghanistan. It should be fairly obvious how he did it. No. How did he do it? He wasnt in afghanistan. They werent afghanis on the planes. How did he do it? Seems to me bush did it. SOB

Where was he?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:26pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 9:09am: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 8:37pm: Quote: How exactly did Usama do that? Which 2 countries? The US and Afghanistan. It should be fairly obvious how he did it. No. How did he do it? He wasnt in afghanistan. They werent afghanis on the planes. How did he do it? Seems to me bush did it. SOB Where was he?

Well I could be wrong but from what I remember @ the time of the 11/9 thing her as in america. They kicked him out after it.

SOB

Do these dudes look like terrorists to you?
............................................................

Operation: Entrapment - Cleveland bomb "plot" masterminded by FBI agents

http://rt.com/files/usa/news/cleveland-fbi-bomb-may-433/douglas-l-r-joshua-anthony.n.jpg

Federal agents announced on Tuesday that they successfully thwarted plans to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. What was left out of most reports, however, was that the FBI was instrumental in plotting the potential attack.

As is the case with most terrorist attacks revealed by the FBI, from the very beginning of the alleged crime until this week’s arrests, the charges introduced by federal agents were orchestrated by undercover agent provocateurs.

Five men were arrested in the Cleveland area on Monday for charges of conspiracy and the use of explosive materials. According to the criminal complaint released this week by the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, prosecutors link Brandon Baxter, 20; Anthony Hayne, 35; and Douglas Wright, 26, to an anti-government plot that involved bringing a large bridge in the region crashing down with the aid of at least two accomplices.

"The individuals charged in this plot were intent on using violence to express their ideological views,” explains Special Agent Stephen D. Anthony of the Cleveland Division of the FBI this week.

Taking a closer look at the federal complaint against the five men reveals that although the suspects are believed to have expressed anti-government sentiments and disdain for major financial corporations, the impetus in the would-be bombing was the urging of undercover agents that had infiltrated a group of friends and encouraged them to consider acts of terrorism. Although the incident is still developing, federal authorities have submitted statements and recordings stemming from conversations their contacts had with the alleged terrorists, and unsurprisingly the mainstream media is largely ignoring one key problem with the federal probe: the FBI provoked members of an Occupy Wall Street off-shoot to embrace terrorist-like crimes despite voicing from the start that they were opposed to such.

http://rt.com/usa/news/cleveland-fbi-bomb-may-433/

Yes, you are wrong.

It was some prominent Saudis that got kicked out while planes were otherwise grounded - that got the Americans wound up a bit.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:47pm:

Yes, you are wrong. It was some prominent Saudis that got kicked out while planes were otherwise grounded - that got the Americans wound up a bit.

Like I am going to take your word for it after the way you treat me in here. You show me a link.

SOB

Quote:

Federal agents announced on Tuesday that they successfully thwarted plans to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. What was left out of most reports, however, was that the FBI was instrumental in plotting the potential attack.

Yeah its not the first time either.  Entrapment.

SOB

falah wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

The fact is that the biggest killer of civilians is the US government. In the past two decades they killed a million in Iraq and a hundred thousand in Afghanistan. Thousands more civilians have been killed by the US in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

how about that city in iraq - faluja. Geez.

SOB