What do you know about terrorism?!

[Booko]

I agree, it was an incredibly dumb word to use. However, to attempt to say that because that word was used it constitutes "proof" those fighting in the war on terror are on some Christian religious mission against Muslims is a bit dishonest.

It's only dishonest if the person claiming it's proof truly understands that here the term "crusade" is understood differently.

My take on the reactions I hear from those in the Middle East (and sometimes elsewhere) to the use of "crusade" is they see it their way and don't actually get that we use the term quite differently here.

In which case, that would just qualify as a misunderstanding, not dishonesty.

 

[Comprehend]

It's only dishonest if the person claiming it's proof truly understands that here the term "crusade" is understood differently.

My take on the reactions I hear from those in the Middle East (and sometimes elsewhere) to the use of "crusade" is they see it their way and don't actually get that we use the term quite differently here.

In which case, that would just qualify as a misunderstanding, not dishonesty.

I agree, and I did mention that in post 17 when I said: "Muslims may only have one understanding of the word "crusade" but American do not."

Also, since it was explained in the actual text that was being quoted (that there are many ways the western world uses the term "crusade" and so even if Truth didn't understand that there are different uses of the word before he quoted the text, he should have been made aware of it when reading the article he quoted from.

Having said all of that, you are right. I can't really argue that it was dishonest without knowing that he was aware of different understandings of the word. My argument should have been that since the western understanding of the term is explained in the article quoted by truth, he should have known that it was not proof and therefore if he didn't know, he negligently presented evidence.

I didn't know I would need to use mens rea evidence rules when posting on RF but I guess they do come in handy.

 

[Comprehend]

If you don't see "*** MOD POST ***" at the beginning of a post, you should assume I'm acting as a user.

I'm a user too, you know.

And Jay is a big boy and can handle himself. If I've misunderstood something, I'm sure he'll clear it up for me.

I know, but even when you aren't speaking "ex cathedra" you still have larger than normal influence, it's like dictum from the Supreme Court or something.

I just thought it was interesting that both of you commented on Jay's picture but did not mention Truth's picture. I thought it was obvious that Jay's was in response to Truth's. Normally, one would be more upset with the instigator rather than the escalator... at least IMO.

 

[Booko]

I agree, and I did mention that in post 17 when I said: "Muslims may only have one understanding of the word "crusade" but American do not."

Yeah, I only just now got to reading that post. Too many motherly interruptions, alas.

Having said all of that, you are right. I can't really argue that it was dishonest without knowing that he was aware of different understandings of the word. My argument should have been that since the western understanding of the term is explained in the article quoted by truth, he should have known that it was not proof and therefore if he didn't know, he negligently presented evidence.

I didn't know I would need to use mens rea evidence rules when posting on RF but I guess they do come in handy.

It just pays to be a little careful in this medium and ask some probing questions before tossing out the accusations.

I've been bitten too many times myself when I've failed to do so. :foot:

 

[TashaN]

I suspect it's a lot like trying to define pornography ("I know it when I see it.")

I think all of us can recognize pornography when we see it but i don't think it's the same as terrorism because we still don't agree about it's true meaning till now.

No, I don't think the VT shooting would qualify, because where are Cho's idiological or political reasons? He was mental is all.

There is a social reasons, and why do you assume he was mental? did they prove that?

Dig up some articles on McVeigh. He's referred to as a domestic terrorist.

massive explosion collapsed the north half of the building. In the explosion, 168 people died and 850 more were injured

Oh dear Booko, this one is so obvious.

I remember the Troubles (my best friend was nearly blown up by an IRA bomb, for that matter), and the IRA was widely called a terror group though clearly none are Muslims.

The Tamil Tigers are called a terrorist group here. Again -- not Muslims.

I'm sorry for what happened to your friend. Believe me, i'm just trying to point at how people define terrorism nowadays, comparing it to the avilable definitions. Everybody knows of course that terrorist attaks are not done just by muslims, but it's the impression i get that whenever a muslim do something bad, so it's an organized terrorist attack, but not if it was done by a non-muslim. I'm not talking about obvious big cases but normal basic stuff like the shooting in that university. I bet that they would call it a terrorist attack if it was done by muslims. You see now the double standard !!!

There does seem to be a higher than usual incidence of terrorism coming from largely Muslim parts of the world. I don't think that's because there's something wrong with the message of Islam as much as there are social/economic/political reasons that lead to violence.

Goodness knows, the unresolved Palestinian/Israel issue is like a festering wound. The longer we take to find some justice for everyone there, the more problems we're all going to have.

BINGO.

I guarantee that Mr. Bush, even now, has no freakin' clue what "crusade" sounds like to a Muslim.

If you did word assoiation with him and mentioned "crusade" he would probably respond "Billy Graham." :yes:

:biglaugh:

Unfortunately, if you live here and don't take the time to look elsewhere for information, you won't have a clue how others see it.

If my fellow Americans had a clearer idea of what we've been up to, they'd never support it. As it is, there are serious rumblings about where all the money is going and whether we should be destroying our kids' future for all this.

As always, Daddy Warbucks is makin' out just fine.

Many of them have been brainwashed, i believe, through media and political statements--lies--by Bush and those in charge around him. Also. it's a real problem when some people think that they are superior to others or hold the belief that they are the most ethical people in the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm a user too, you know.

And Jay is a big boy and can handle himself. If I've misunderstood something, I'm sure he'll clear it up for me.

(For the record, I believe that you did, in deed, misunderstand the post, but I also believe that I was largely responsible for the misunderstanding.)

 

[TashaN]

The word can (of course) be used subject to the point one is trying to make, i.e
from the definition beneath:-
From the Etymology on line dictionary

Thanks Michel, this will really make us think deeply about the usage of this word.

Frubals.

 

[TashaN]

Well, the area has been one of strife for millenia, which is pretty common in any area that's a geographic crossroads. It's also been an area of great creativity and innovation, which is a historical fact often lost in discussions.

So sadly.

Countries stopped overt forms of imperialism. That doesn't mean they haven't found other ways to exert imperial power.

(I'm curious...has anyone here read "Confessions of an Economic hit man?" I've only heard the author interviewed, but I find what he has to say intriguing.)

hmmm, interesting.

We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sure you could find many sites around the internet where smearing members is much better appreciated than it is here.

In this case, you are far more sure of yourself than warranted.

At the very least, you owe Truth an apology, Jay.

Not in the least. Nor do I owe an apology to those who promote or otherwise enable those who dilute the meaning of terrorism in an effort to justify it.

 

[TashaN]

HI, I dont agree with you that the two shooting incidences were terrorist at all - and no its not because they were not muslim! Yes, there are as upsetting and heart renching as terrorist attacks are but there is a major difference.

Name a terrorist that has worked alone?.... you cant! Terrorists are part of a group, a cult if you like, they even have training to become terrorists in special camps. They use religion as their excuse and reasoninng for their attacks. If I do this Allah will grant me that!

I guess you imagined a muslim terrorist group while you are typing this post. j/k

I don't think religion is the only cause for terrorism, and also, terrorist can work alone too.

Working at a lakeside campground near his old Army post, McVeigh constructed an ANFO explosive device arranged in the back of a rented Ryder truck. The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate (an agricultural fertilizer) and nitromethane, an explosive motor-racing fuel.

On April 19, 1995, McVeigh drove the truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices and day-care center opened for the day.

In the explosion, 168 people died and 850 more were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Bombing

Thanks Booko for reminding me of this incident.

The shootings were just maniacs who lost it and went on a killing spree for the fun of it! Terrorists - believe it or not there is reasoning and logic behind it (for them!)

I think you may be trying to defend your faith a bit too much here.

First of all, how do you know he was just a maniacs? I don't think you can prove that, so according to the definition, he is just another terrorist because there is reasons for why he did what he did there and LOGIC behind it.

Ok, let me tell you something about Muslims and it's a great chance for others to understand what i gonna say, so everybody should listen crafully to what i gonna say. I'll try to analyze for you how do muslims think and what they believe in. You won't find a muslim to explain these things for you everyday.

Start with reading this thread to understand what does our religion mean to us.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50065

Also, If you all noticed the kind of posts muslims have in here, you would know by now that Islam is a complete life style for us.

One more thing, read with me this quote from one of the threads in the Islam DIR.

"He who is killed fighting for Allah's cause is a martyr, he who dies in the cause of Allah is a martyr, he who dies in an epidemic is a martyr, he who dies from a stomach disease is a martyr, and he who dies of drowning is [also] a martyr." (Reported by Muslim.)

Also, Sa`id ibn Zayd reported that the prophet (pbuh) said:

"He who is killed while guarding his property is a martyr, he who is killed while defending himself is a martyr, he who is killed defending his religion is a martyr, and he who is killed protecting his family is [also] a martyr." (Reported by Ahmad and Tirmidhi. The latter considers it a sound hadith.)

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=819807#post819807

So, as you can see, Islam is the centre for us on how to act in this life, but that doesn't mean of course that all muslims are following what Islam really teach, but just doing what they feel to do then hope to be rewarded for that, because they BELIEVE that what they do is just a duty which any muslim would do so, because he/she is just defending muslims land. Therefore, their intentions are not evil at all, they are just trying to express physically that they refuse to be invaded by other countries, but so sadly, when they don't find someone to listen, a memmber of any organization will give him/her a chance to fulfill his dream. Then, he will think that just because he defended what he believe in, (taking in consideration that Islam is a complete life style for him) so he will mention religion in every step he do, and mention that he is doing it for Allah, because this is his duty as a muslim. He doesn't hate the west just because they are the west, nor he hates your freedom. It's nothing personal for him, it's just business. Something he has to do, that's all.

Note that, Islam being the centre of his life is not the problem, please don't forget that, but the problem is that whenever he do something whether it's a political or any other reason, he will say that he is doing it for Islam, as anyone else will claim that he is doing it for freedom, democrasy, ethics, etc. I hope you got what i'm trying to say, because sometimes i can't express myself well in english for it's not my first language.

I think you prob feel isolated because you are a muslim and you feel people will use that against you. But just because it makes you feel like that, doesnt mean you should deny what terrorism really is, and start saying all murderers are terrorists.

I don't feel isolated, and i don't understand why you think i'm denying anything, i'm just trying to listen, share and understand. I don't think any murderer is a terrorist, just give yourself some time to think of what you just said.

You religion is Good, the people who use it for these attacks are bad. If it was people using the christian faith I would say the same thing!

So there is a big difference between the classified terrorist attacks and the shootings - both and bad but they are different!!!

Can i assume that If the shooting was done by a muslim, you will say for gurantee that it's not a terrorust attack, it's just shooting?

Think before answering this question.

 

[TashaN]

Which war? If you are going to discuss the root meaning of terrorism why did you immediately bring up "this war". This only exposes your own bias.

It was just an example, because Bush said the war on terrorism is nothing but a crusade war, so i had the impression that he meant to use it in a religious way which is contrary to the various definitions we have got, which doesn't include any religious motivation as a must for violence to be terrorism. I hope you will get it by now.

You stop short on underlying relevant parts of the definition you wish to use to define the Va. Tech shooting as a terrorist act because if you didn't...your definition fails.

Well, as a start, that guy is not an organization, he didn't target any property, and i don't believe he did it for a political reasons. The definition cover most of cases and i just underlied the relevant part because the deinition say (or .. or .. or .. or) so you have to pick the relevant info.

If a muslim shot a couple of people in a university then yes, it is highly probably that people will call it a terrorist act.

Thank you for confirming my points.

Now everybody can see clearly the double standard in dealing with the word "terrorism". Also, they can notice how important it's to involve in such a discussion.

I should frubal you for your honesty. :yes:

 

[TashaN]

you are claiming that NOBODY who talks about terrorism knows what it is? That doesn't make much sense.

If nobody knows what terrorism is then you would not know what it is and therefore couldn't say whether others knew what it was or not... your statement is a contradiction.

Read the OP again.

The FBI iteslf, DOES define terrorism, they just said that no definition is universally accepted which is entirely different.

That means, what you might think of as terrorism is not UNIVERSAL and no body should be forced to believe in and interpret this word the way you do, that was the whole point. Thank you.

Can you find a legitimate definition that would not include an act such as 9/11?

We are talking about terrorism in general as usage, but not about a specific incident.

Nope. There was no intention in the shooting to intimidate or coerce a society

How do you know?

... or government for either an ideological or political reason so your example fails and your analysis is wrong. It does not fit the first definition.

It's just "or" so it's not a must to be a political one for instance.

Your assumption is wrong. I would categorize Eric Rudolph's bombing of an abortion clinic in Atlanta to be an act of terrorism.

From Wiki:

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on July 27, 1996 in Atlanta, Georgia during the 1996 Summer Olympics, the first of four committed by Eric Robert Rudolph. Two people died, and 111 were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

I forgot to mention that i meant, the media after 9/11, not before that.

Bush did not call it a crusade in the historical Christian v. Muslim sense

Of course i'm aware of the possible meanings of this word but how do you know which one was that and be so sure of it, this is the question.

You have to understand context, Muslims may only have one understanding of the word "crusade" but American do not.

LOL, i can say the same about how many americans think of the word Jihad and terrorism. Therefore, you must learn context before teaching it to me.

Why would anyone see this as a crusade in the religious sense?

Are you serious?

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen ... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075950,00.htmlhttp://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

And

"According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

Got it? I know that you know all this, just refreshing your memory.

this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it

Read my posts and you will see my proofs.

After 9/11 I was invited to speak at the Virginia Military Institute on the subject of Terrorism and did so. They seemed to think I knew a little bit about it.

Poor them !!!

No wonder alot of people have a misunderstanding about the nature of terrorism if those who explain it to them share the same understanding for the word as you do.

 

[TashaN]

I agree, it was an incredibly dumb word to use. However, to attempt to say that because that word was used it constitutes "proof" those fighting in the war on terror are on some Christian religious mission against Muslims is a bit dishonest.

Dishonest?

Are you calling me liar?

Just go to google and type the word "crusade" and tell us what was the first hit.

My argument should have been that since the western understanding of the term is explained in the article quoted by truth, he should have known that it was not proof and therefore if he didn't know, he negligently presented evidence.

That might be true only if your President wasn't claiming he is taking instructions from God to invade other countries.

 

[Comprehend]

Read the OP again.

I did, you said: "even those who talk about terrorism don't know what it's (sic)."

and that means as I have already said:

you are claiming that NOBODY who talks about terrorism knows what it is? That doesn't make much sense.

If nobody knows what terrorism is then you would not know what it is and therefore couldn't say whether others knew what it was or not... your statement is a contradiction.

please try actually responding rather than dodging the point.

That means, what you might think of as terrorism is not UNIVERSAL and no body should be forced to believe in and interpret this word the way you do, that was the whole point. Thank you.

No.:sorry1:

What that means is that when YOU said: "If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us..." You were completely wrong, just like I said.

I also explained that: "That does not mean that some acts do not fit all definitions, nor does it mean that the definitions are not so similar as to allow for a general understanding of what terrorism is."

and you conveniently did not respond to that explanation. Would you please not dodge this point and respond to it. You have a habit of simply deleting the portions of my posts that you can't or won't respond to... I would appreciate it if you responded to even the "tough" parts.

If your english is not good enough to understand the argument above, I can simplify the words I have used.

We are talking about terrorism in general as usage, but not about a specific incident.

yes but I am proving to you with 9/11 that the definitions of terrorism are so similar that all definitions will allow for a general agreement on what is and is not terrorism. By using the specific incident as an example, I can show that the definitions all agree that 9/11 was an act of terrorism.

Surely you understand how using a specific incident helps to illustrate a general point don't you?

like this SPECIFIC EXAMPLE FROM THE OP:

Let's have an example ...

US university shooting kills 33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm

Federal Officials: At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266310,00.html

please try to stay consistant and don't use pretend excuses to avoid my argument.

How do you know?

because if that were the case, he would have to actually make his demands known to us.

However, we already know that he was insane. He was ruled legally insane before the shooting. All of the people who knew him thought he was crazy.

So, like I said, you analysis fails. Would you like to try to find another example or are you not giving specific examples anymore?

It's just "or" so it's not a must to be a political one for instance.

yes, I know what "or" means, your analysis fails both.

I forgot to mention that i meant, the media after 9/11, not before that.

LOL. oh, how convenient, you get proven wrong so you change the rules... I see. Well how about you find an example of something after 9/11 that should have been called a terrorist attack that wasn't then?

Of course i'm aware of the possible meanings of this word but how do you know which one was that and be so sure of it, this is the question.

oh good, since you are aware of the different possible meanings, booko's defense of your argument fails and what I asserted now stands unchallenged.

Because if he did, he would talk about it being a battle between Christians and Muslims. He doesn't ever do that and if he did, there wouldn't be countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan helping us.

Is Saudi Arabia a Christian crusading country?

LOL, i can say the same about how many americans think of the word Jihad and terrorism. Therefore, you must learn context before teaching it to me.

That is called a "non-sequeter"

I don't really want to teach you logic but here is a quick lesson. Your conclusion does not follow your premise. In fact the two almost have nothing to do with each other.

You said talked about what you think "many americans" think about the word Jihad and terrorism. Lets imagine the premise is true, that many americans only think there is one definition of jihad and terrorism. That also means that SOME don't. Which also means that you have not shown that I think that and therefore am in need of learning context.

class dismissed.

Are you serious?

yes, quit editing my posts and then responding to the edited part.

I said: Why would anyone see this as a crusade in the religious sense? America is a secular nation, UK is a secular nation, etc etc. The fight is not lead by any church leaders but by world leaders, Saudi Arabia for example is fighting against Al Qaida, would you call Saudi Arabia Crusaders?

Would you like to answer?

Got it? I know that you know all this, just refreshing your memory.

I can't believe you posted that like you did. (actually I can, it is becoming a habit for you to be fast and easy with the truth).

First off, the supposed quote is from Abbas, the Palestinian leader and correct me if I am wrong but the Palestinains haven't exactly been "pro-american" for the last 50 years eh?

From the same article:

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.

Clearly, we don't yet know what Bush said, or why.

Finally, the article said they know nothing until the White House confirms that is a correct translation and account of what was said. Do you have a White House confirmation of the statement?

Read my posts and you will see my proofs.

Wrong. I have already read your posts and there is no evidence to back up your statement.

also, quit editing my posts, it is dishonest and it makes you look bad.

you said "This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth. "

and I said:

this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it, if not, you might as well say "many people believe in Santa Claus, he is real."

Anyway, I guess the entire point of this thread was to say that nobody can accurately say what a terrorist is but that is clearly false. While not everyone agrees on any single definition, almost every definition is sufficiently similar to allow for a general understanding and non-specific consensus of what does and does not constitute a terrorist act.

Poor them !!!

No wonder alot of people have a misunderstanding about the nature of terrorism if those who explain it to them share the same understanding for the word as you do.

that is all you could come up with? A personal insult?

Very becoming of a mod to insult people...

Why don't you try responding this time, you didn't make an argument about anything I posted, you simply deleted, ignored or made excuses for why you shouldn't answer and then finally you insulted me.

I thought mods were held to a higher standard?

 

[Comprehend]

Dishonest?

Are you calling me liar?

Just go to google and type the word "crusade" and tell us what was the first hit.

you tell me.

1. In order for the use of the word "crusade" to constitute proof it could only have one meaning. If it has mulitple applicable meanings, you could not honestly say that the use of the word consitutes proof.

2. You claimed it was "proof" that this war was about religion.

3. You have since admitted that you knew there was more than one understanding of the word.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

That might be true only if your President wasn't claiming he is taking instructions from God to invade other countries.

you mean that joke of a quote you came up with?

I would call using that quote more than a little misleading since the same article also says the following:

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.
Clearly, we don't yet know what Bush said, or why...

Again, lets try not to make things look like they are saying something they aren't...

If you have a confirmation from the white house I would be happy to reconsider the quote as being genuine, but since even the author of the article said that they didn't know what was really said and that a confirmation was needed from the white house, don't you think that is a little important to have?

 

[Comprehend]

It's only dishonest if the person claiming it's proof truly understands that here the term "crusade" is understood differently.

Of course i'm aware of the possible meanings of this word but how do you know which one was that and be so sure of it, this is the question.

Any questions?

 

[TashaN]

you are claiming that NOBODY who talks about terrorism knows what it is? That doesn't make much sense.

Dude, it was a figure of speech. So, get over it, and concentrate on the definition of the word, and if you still want to argue about this so i don't have time for that. That's why i asked to read the whole OP again to understand what i really meant.

What that means is that when YOU said: "If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us..." You were completely wrong, just like I said.

Why?

I also explained that: "That does not mean that some acts do not fit all definitions, nor does it mean that the definitions are not so similar as to allow for a general understanding of what terrorism is."

and you conveniently did not respond to that explanation. Would you please not dodge this point and respond to it. You have a habit of simply deleting the portions of my posts that you can't or won't respond to... I would appreciate it if you responded to even the "tough" parts.

I know from my experince that sometimes people go into the details of their examples and can't go back to their original OP again and you can see that clearly in RF. I simply answered what i thought to be your main points and leave the unnecessary examples, but that doesn't mean i didn't read them, but my answers will cover them as well.

You said that some acts might be so clearly fit to all the definitions but there is a confusion which we have to settle about the majority of the so called terrorist attacks.

If your english is not good enough to understand the argument above, I can simplify the words I have used.

I'll keep that in mind and ask you to simplify for me when i need that, thanks for the offer.

yes but I am proving to you with 9/11 that the definitions of terrorism are so similar that all definitions will allow for a general agreement on what is and is not terrorism. By using the specific incident as an example, I can show that the definitions all agree that 9/11 was an act of terrorism.

What do you call any attack against the US army in Iraq? is it terrorism or not?

like this SPECIFIC EXAMPLE FROM THE OP:

please try to stay consistant and don't use pretend excuses to avoid my argument.[/quote]

???

because if that were the case, he would have to actually make his demands known to us.

He doesn't have to in order to fit into the definition given in the OP.

However, we already know that he was insane.

Did they prove that?

So, like I said, you analysis fails. Would you like to try to find another example or are you not giving specific examples anymore?

It didn't fail, and i already gave another example about Iraq.

yes, I know what "or" means, your analysis fails both.

Nope. You didn't prove it to me yet.

LOL. oh, how convenient, you get proven wrong so you change the rules.

I'm not changing anything, and there is no certain rules we have to be abide with. I simply told you honestly what was in my mind when i wrote the OP and you are free whether to accept it or not, because i'm just showing my opinion, nothing else. My OP wasn't written by God or something !!! Sheesh.

oh good, since you are aware of the different possible meanings, booko's defense of your argument fails and what I asserted now stands unchallenged.

Because if he did, he would talk about it being a battle between Christians and Muslims. He doesn't ever do that and if he did, there wouldn't be countries like Saudi Arabia and Japan helping us.

He is not stupid to say it's a war between Christians and Muslims, dude, this is politics. By the way, Saudi Arabia is not helping you in Iraq or Afagnistan but they are simply protecting their country.

I don't really want to teach you logic but here is a quick lesson. Your conclusion does not follow your premise. In fact the two almost have nothing to do with each other.

You said talked about what you think "many americans" think about the word Jihad and terrorism. Lets imagine the premise is true, that many americans only think there is one definition of jihad and terrorism. That also means that SOME don't. Which also means that you have not shown that I think that and therefore am in need of learning context.

class dismissed.

Thanks for the class, but i don't know what are you trying to prove here because you didn't answer me yet. I'm not saying everybody believe the same thing but many people have diffeent understanding and context have nothing to do with what Bush said because he is a devout Christian and you dismissed the quote i provided about Bush saying that God is istructing him to be a President and attack other countries.

Would you like to answer?

I already did.

I can't believe you posted that like you did. (actually I can, it is becoming a habit for you to be fast and easy with the truth).

First off, the supposed quote is from Abbas, the Palestinian leader and correct me if I am wrong but the Palestinains haven't exactly been "pro-american" for the last 50 years eh?

Abbas is.

Finally, the article said they know nothing until the White House confirms that is a correct translation and account of what was said. Do you have a White House confirmation of the statement?

I don't, because if it was wrong, they would deny it quickly.

Abbas is an ameican pupit and he doesn't dare to say something against Bush unless he is sure about it.

Wrong. I have already read your posts and there is no evidence to back up your statement.

also, quit editing my posts, it is dishonest and it makes you look bad.

you said "This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth. "

and I said:

this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it, if not, you might as well say "many people believe in Santa Claus, he is real."

Are you saying when Bush said it's a crusade war no body thought it's a Crusade war?

Anyway, I guess the entire point of this thread was to say that nobody can accurately say what a terrorist is but that is clearly false. While not everyone agrees on any single definition, almost every definition is sufficiently similar to allow for a general understanding and non-specific consensus of what does and does not constitute a terrorist act.

Wrong. We will see after you reply to the example i gave you.

that is all you could come up with? A personal insult?

lol. If you considered that a personal insult so just report it and we don't have time to talk about it here and save your words for the topic at hand.

you tell me.

1. In order for the use of the word "crusade" to constitute proof it could only have one meaning. If it has mulitple applicable meanings, you could not honestly say that the use of the word consitutes proof.

2. You claimed it was "proof" that this war was about religion.

3. You have since admitted that you knew there was more than one understanding of the word.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Read my reply above and google the word crusade, then give me your hit there. That's all it takes to know what i mean.

you mean that joke of a quote you came up with?

Read above.

 

[Comprehend]

Dude, it was a figure of speech. So, get over it, and concentrate on the definition of the word, and if you still want to argue about this so i don't have time for that. That's why i asked to read the whole OP again to understand what i really meant.

I did read the whole OP. You are avoiding the issue once again. really it must get tiresome to hide from every point.

Why?

I already have shown why, go back and read it. then try to respond to it with something of substance.

I know from my experince that sometimes people go into the details of their examples and can't go back to their original OP again and you can see that clearly in RF. I simply answered what i thought to be your main points and leave the unnecessary examples, but that doesn't mean i didn't read them, but my answers will cover them as well.

which is just a long winded way of saying you dodged the question. anyone noticing a pattern here? :cover:

You said that some acts might be so clearly fit to all the definitions but there is a confusion which we have to settle about the majority of the so called terrorist attacks.

wow, how surprising. You are explaining why you can't respond...

I'll keep that in mind and ask you to simplify for me when i need that, thanks for the offer.

great.

What do you call any attack against the US army in Iraq? is it terrorism or not?

Not. That is war.


And to nobody's surprise, you didn't answer my question.

???

in case you were wondering, "???" does not constitute an actual response.

please respond to the points I make with some substance.

He doesn't have to in order to fit into the definition given in the OP.

yes he does. That is the only way he could have sought to influence society or government.

Did they prove that?

LOL.

Insanity is not something you prove, it is something you determine. He was determined to be insane by a court of law a period of time before the shooting.

It didn't fail, and i already gave another example about Iraq.

yes, it did fail and I have shown how, and if you would like to argue that it didn't, you will have to actually argue with some evidence or something. You can't simply assert that it didn't fail.

what was the example about Iraq, I didn't see it.

Nope. You didn't prove it to me yet.

I don't need to prove it. I have demonstrated it, and you have offered no rebuttal besides an assertion which means exactly nothing.

I'm not changing anything, and there is no certain rules we have to be abide with. I simply told you honestly what was in my mind when i wrote the OP and you are free whether to accept it or not, because i'm just showing my opinion, nothing else. My OP wasn't written by God or something !!! Sheesh.

uh... yes, you did change the rules of the thread. When you write an OP, it sets out certain guidelines, you left them open until I proved you were wrong. Then you changed the guidelines of the thread to rule out the way I proved you wrong.

You don't seem to take it very well. Why not just accept that I gave a valid example showing your argument to be wrong. It isn't that difficult.

He is not stupid to say it's a war between Christians and Muslims, dude, this is politics. By the way, Saudi Arabia is not helping you in Iraq or Afagnistan but they are simply protecting their country.

Anytime Saudi Arabia takes out Al Qaida capabilities and personnel, they are helping in the war on terror. They are both fighting the same enemy.

Why wouldn't Bush say it if that is what is was? He is a Christian, if this were a war between Christians and muslims as you claim, then why would the christians be afraid to say it? Were the Christians afraid to say it in the past?

Thanks for the class, but i don't know what are you trying to prove here because you didn't answer me yet. I'm not saying everybody believe the same thing but many people have diffeent understanding and context have nothing to do with what Bush said because he is a devout Christian and you dismissed the quote i provided about Bush saying that God is istructing him to be a President and attack other countries.

so you are saying that it necessarily has to mean a christian v. muslim crusade because Bush is a christian? I am sorry but I find that laughable.

I dismissed your quote because the very article you quoted it from dismissed the quote. I can't help it, the quote isn't reliable and the article itself said so.

I already did.

Saudi Arabia fights Al Qaida, the same enemy the US fights. If the US is on a crusade against the muslims, so is Saudi Arabia.

Abbas is.

maybe, I couldn't say.

I don't, because if it was wrong, they would deny it quickly.

Abbas is an ameican pupit and he doesn't dare to say something against Bush unless he is sure about it.

and guess what? They did.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-6.html

Q Have you ever heard the President say that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing.
Q Are you aware of the -- there's a BBC broadcast tonight that's quoting the Palestinian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as saying that they were in a meeting with the President in June of '03, and there are some very detailed quotes here, saying that the President said to them, "God told me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan,' and I did," and then "God told me, 'George go and end the tyranny in the Iraq'" and so forth and so on?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments.
Q Were you in the meeting when that took place?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've been in meetings with him with President Abbas; I didn't travel on that trip, if you're talking about to Jordan. But I've been in many meetings with the President with world leaders where he's talked about this.
Q So you don't know about the June '03 meeting? MR. McCLELLAN: No, I checked into that report and I stand by what I just said.


You should have done your own research since you cited such a pathetic article in the first place.

Like I said, you are sloppy with the facts.

Are you saying when Bush said it's a crusade war no body thought it's a Crusade war?

nope. I am saying: this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it, if not, you might as well say "many people believe in Santa Claus, he is real."

Wrong. We will see after you reply to the example i gave you.

Simply asserting that it is wrong isn't a very powerful argument.

what example? and why haven't you responded to my example that I gave you?

You hide from my questions and I answer all of yours. How is that fair?

lol. If you considered that a personal insult so just report it and we don't have time to talk about it here and save your words for the topic at hand.

nah. I'm satisfied with letting people see your cheap shot.

Read my reply above and google the word crusade, then give me your hit there. That's all it takes to know what i mean.

Read above.

that in no way answers this:

1. In order for the use of the word "crusade" to constitute proof it could only have one meaning. If it has mulitple applicable meanings, you could not honestly say that the use of the word consitutes proof.

2. You claimed it was "proof" that this war was about religion.

3. You have since admitted that you knew there was more than one understanding of the word.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

 

[jewscout]

terrorism as a term and an act should not be exclusively linked to Islam. anyone can be responsible for acts of terror...look at Northern Ireland only a few years ago.

terrorism and acts of violence meant to instill terror and fear is a cross-cultural thing.

and of course...it depends on who's looking at what act and who's doing the defining which will determine what people view as "terrorism"

as it's said...one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter...

i think i'll leave it at that...i don't want to get too into rehashing a bunch of old hoo-ha

 

[kadzbiz]

Terrorism? What do I know about terrorism? I don't know anything about terrorism. Who said I knew something about terrorism? If anyone said I know something about terrorism, they're lying. I know nothing, nothing!!

Sorry, I just thought we needed a little lightening up.

Did someone say "light up?"