Kidnapped Iraqi Archbishop Dead

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.
[/quote]

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
The point is that this death, and so many others, is attributable to the US invasion of Iraq. And trust me, your country is yet to suffer backlashes from that gratuitous act of violence.

Is this a threat?

After 9-11, I don’t remember a lot of Mosques being burnt to the ground. If anything like you mention was going to happen, it would have happened then.

And if we are attacked again, like you threaten, who’s to say there won’t be some kind of spontaneous backlash against Muslims in the US the next time?

‘Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, members of these groups, and those perceived to be members of these groups, have been the victims of increased numbers of bias-related assaults, threats, vandalism and arson.’

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/nordwg_mission.html

It’s not as bad as in Iraq, obviously, but they are in a state of anarchy. It shouldn’t be anywhere near as bad as Iraq.

Edit; forgot to mention the groups were ‘Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South-Asian Americans’

Right, but it’s not as bad as Lebanon or Sudan either, is it?[/quote]

I love Lebanon, but it’s pretty fucked up too. The point is, there was a backlash, and you can’t expect it to be anything other than exponentially worse when the state is in anarchy.

[quote]will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back. [/quote]

We just kicked out a despot.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.

We just kicked out a despot.[/quote]

I’m not even asking for you to put in that kind of effort. Just stop backing people like the Sauds.

[quote]will to power wrote:

I’m not even asking for you to put in that kind of effort. Just stop backing people like the Sauds.[/quote]

Who then would spend billions upon billions of dollars funding the spread of wahabism? Who would fund the radical madrasses in pakistan and every other country on earth? Who would saturate the discourse in islamic beliefs so that only the most fundementalist and primitive interpretations of the religion would be considered pious?

[quote]will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back. [/quote]

Great analogy. You’ve completely turned me around on my views on why there is so much dysfunctionality & violence within those that turn to islam. No doubt the victims of the Bali bombings, London 7-7 bombings would agree with your sentiment. Same for the victims in Thailand, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan to name just a few.

I see your from Australia, and noticed that this cancer has metastasized in your country at a pretty rapid clip. Good luck with that. Be sure not to make them “feel like they are under attack”.

What a Dhimmi.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.

Great analogy. You’ve completely turned me around on my views on why there is so much dysfunctionality & violence within those that turn to islam. No doubt the victims of the Bali bombings, London 7-7 bombings would agree with your sentiment. Same for the victims in Thailand, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan to name just a few.

I see your from Australia, and noticed that this cancer has metastasized in your country at a pretty rapid clip. Good luck with that. Be sure not to make them “feel like they are under attack”.

What a Dhimmi.

[/quote]

Funny, I thought the Dutch were doing all they could to appease islamists, but evidently not enough.

Keep telling me that it’s all about Iraq. I have a dysfunctional bridge of bullshit to sell you too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080314/wl_sthasia_afp/netherlandsattackscrimepakistan;_ylt=ApznfDRBMYgDWYV7rAvRv6tvaA8F

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019686.php

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.

Great analogy. You’ve completely turned me around on my views on why there is so much dysfunctionality & violence within those that turn to islam. No doubt the victims of the Bali bombings, London 7-7 bombings would agree with your sentiment. Same for the victims in Thailand, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan to name just a few.

I see your from Australia, and noticed that this cancer has metastasized in your country at a pretty rapid clip. Good luck with that. Be sure not to make them “feel like they are under attack”.

What a Dhimmi.
[/quote]

People like you made up your minds a long time ago, and I doubt mere logic can change them.

The violence and dysfunctionality is what turns more people to Islam and radical Islamic movements like the nutjobs at AQ. Is your view really so warped that you think people would signing up for organisations like that when they [and their people] have liberty and security? Sure there may be the occasional nut like Japan got with the JRA but nothing like what you’re seeing now.

Also, Australia was not considered a target till it joined the coalition of the willing. It is the perfect example of what I’m talking about.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Funny, I thought the Dutch were doing all they could to appease islamists, but evidently not enough.

Keep telling me that it’s all about Iraq. I have a dysfunctional bridge of bullshit to sell you too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080314/wl_sthasia_afp/netherlandsattackscrimepakistan;_ylt=ApznfDRBMYgDWYV7rAvRv6tvaA8F

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019686.php

[/quote]

I don’t keep up with what the Dutch are doing, but it looks to me like they’re hardly trying to appease Muslims.

[quote]will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Islamist terrorists were planning and executing acts of terror against the US and other nations before the war in Iraq, and will continue to do so. Their rationale for doing so (along with Lixy’s) will continue to evolve since it’s all about keeping Jihad alive and well. All part of the pathology of islam.

Their rationale for doing so is the same as it has ever been; US troops in the middle east, meddling in middle eastern politics, propping up despotic governments, etc. When people don’t feel under attack by the US then they won’t be willing to die to lash back, since there won’t be a reason to lash back.

Great analogy. You’ve completely turned me around on my views on why there is so much dysfunctionality & violence within those that turn to islam. No doubt the victims of the Bali bombings, London 7-7 bombings would agree with your sentiment. Same for the victims in Thailand, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan to name just a few.

I see your from Australia, and noticed that this cancer has metastasized in your country at a pretty rapid clip. Good luck with that. Be sure not to make them “feel like they are under attack”.

What a Dhimmi.

People like you made up your minds a long time ago, and I doubt mere logic can change them.

The violence and dysfunctionality is what turns more people to Islam and radical Islamic movements like the nutjobs at AQ. Is your view really so warped that you think people would signing up for organisations like that when they [and their people] have liberty and security? Sure there may be the occasional nut like Japan got with the JRA but nothing like what you’re seeing now.

Also, Australia was not considered a target till it joined the coalition of the willing. It is the perfect example of what I’m talking about.[/quote]

I’d say you’re right. Your own “mere logic” did nothing for me. Islam is an ideology. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.

Again, enjoy the dhimwit future they have in store for you down under.

How many Chinese troops are stationed in Iraq again?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igQqVQKmdCmxsZAcy4Eui8whV7iw

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
I’d say you’re right. Your own “mere logic” did nothing for me. Islam is an ideology. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.

Again, enjoy the dhimwit future they have in store for you down under.

How many Chinese troops are stationed in Iraq again?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igQqVQKmdCmxsZAcy4Eui8whV7iw
[/quote]

What part of what I said did you somehow interpret as a defense of the ideology of Islam? Was it the part where I suggested not doing things that will drive people to Islam or fundamentalist Islam? Nice strawman.

And again, I didn’t say you’re being attacked because of Iraq, you people are the ones saying that. Iraq has exasperated the situation but the only thing you’ve done to address the issues is overthrow the Taliban.

And did you even read that article? From the article;

‘claims by rights groups and dissidents that the Chinese government was exaggerating a terror threat in its Muslim-populated Xinjiang region to justify a crackdown.’

and

‘The reported incident occurred during an apparent crackdown – ahead of the Beijing Olympics – on dissent among the ethnic Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang, who make up the majority of the population of the region that borders Central Asia.’

Now, consider how little it has to be before the Chinese consider something dissent and what their idea of a crackdown is, and you have yet another retaliation that you’ve tried to dress up as an unprovoked attack. So now we have had example of three countries from you were terrorist attacks began due to the country doing the things I’ve suggested stopping. Thank you for making my argument.

[quote]etaco wrote:
will to power wrote:

I’m not even asking for you to put in that kind of effort. Just stop backing people like the Sauds.

Who then would spend billions upon billions of dollars funding the spread of wahabism? Who would fund the radical madrasses in pakistan and every other country on earth? Who would saturate the discourse in islamic beliefs so that only the most fundementalist and primitive interpretations of the religion would be considered pious?[/quote]

Truly, it would be a horrifying time.

[quote]will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
I’d say you’re right. Your own “mere logic” did nothing for me. Islam is an ideology. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.

Again, enjoy the dhimwit future they have in store for you down under.

How many Chinese troops are stationed in Iraq again?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igQqVQKmdCmxsZAcy4Eui8whV7iw

What part of what I said did you somehow interpret as a defense of the ideology of Islam? Was it the part where I suggested not doing things that will drive people to Islam or fundamentalist Islam? Nice strawman.

And again, I didn’t say you’re being attacked because of Iraq, you people are the ones saying that. Iraq has exasperated the situation but the only thing you’ve done to address the issues is overthrow the Taliban.

And did you even read that article? From the article;

‘claims by rights groups and dissidents that the Chinese government was exaggerating a terror threat in its Muslim-populated Xinjiang region to justify a crackdown.’

and

‘The reported incident occurred during an apparent crackdown – ahead of the Beijing Olympics – on dissent among the ethnic Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang, who make up the majority of the population of the region that borders Central Asia.’

Now, consider how little it has to be before the Chinese consider something dissent and what their idea of a crackdown is, and you have yet another retaliation that you’ve tried to dress up as an unprovoked attack. So now we have had example of three countries from you were terrorist attacks began due to the country doing the things I’ve suggested stopping. Thank you for making my argument. [/quote]

You have a problem equating blowing up a plane full of innocents as an “unprovoked attack”. You seem to justify it nicely. I’m sure the folks on that plane would see it your way.

Islam has a way of turning everything on its head. Get back to me with your apologists view on why kill you for cartoons, or movies they didn’t want you to make.

Dhimwit sums it up fairly well.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
You have a problem equating blowing up a plane full of innocents as an “unprovoked attack”. You seem to justify it nicely. I’m sure the folks on that plane would see it your way.

Islam has a way of turning everything on its head. Get back to me with your apologists view on why kill you for cartoons, or movies they didn’t want you to make.

Dhimwit sums it up fairly well.
[/quote]

I love how you continue attacking arguments I didn’t make, and resorting to insulting me because you have nothing substantial to say. I never said the attacks were justified, I said provoked. If I punch you and you shoot me, I provoked you, but your response is not justified.

I also don’t remember killing anyone for any reason, nor calling for people to be killed over cartoons or movies. But please, keep inventing arguments as you sink further and further into bullshit.

Why did the USA set up a government repressive towards Christian in Iraq anyways?

The current Iraq is a “muslim” country, where as Saddam’s Iraq was more inclusive towards Christians. It was pan-arab and secular right?

Wasn’t the main general of the Iraqi Army a Christian during the invasion?

[quote]will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
You have a problem equating blowing up a plane full of innocents as an “unprovoked attack”. You seem to justify it nicely. I’m sure the folks on that plane would see it your way.

Islam has a way of turning everything on its head. Get back to me with your apologists view on why kill you for cartoons, or movies they didn’t want you to make.

Dhimwit sums it up fairly well.

I love how you continue attacking arguments I didn’t make, and resorting to insulting me because you have nothing substantial to say. I never said the attacks were justified, I said provoked. If I punch you and you shoot me, I provoked you, but your response is not justified.

I also don’t remember killing anyone for any reason, nor calling for people to be killed over cartoons or movies. But please, keep inventing arguments as you sink further and further into bullshit. [/quote]

You rationalized someone attempting to blow up a plane full of innocents, and I called you on it. Therefore you are an apologist for islamic terror.

I referred to you as a dhim·wit (dmwt ) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile.

The shoe seemed to fit. No big deal.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
will to power wrote:
I love how you continue attacking arguments I didn’t make, and resorting to insulting me because you have nothing substantial to say. I never said the attacks were justified, I said provoked. If I punch you and you shoot me, I provoked you, but your response is not justified.

I also don’t remember killing anyone for any reason, nor calling for people to be killed over cartoons or movies. But please, keep inventing arguments as you sink further and further into bullshit.

You rationalized someone attempting to blow up a plane full of innocents, and I called you on it. Therefore you are an apologist for islamic terror.
[/quote]

You called me on something that happened only in your imagination. Explaining why someone does something doesn’t mean you’re justifying it. Are you really too thick to understand that? It’s not a complicated concept.

Once again, only in your imagination. The regimes that I’m suggesting not be supported [like the Sauds] are the most fundamentalist, sharia obsessed groups in the Middle East. If anything you are the dhimmi here, since you seem to be against cutting support for these groups.

The rest of my suggestions involve not doing things that lead people to join organisations like AQ or commit acts like the bombing of the plane. What’s that? I’m suggesting social policies that reduce terrorism? Obviously I’m the one who doesn’t care about the innocents.

[quote]will to power wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
will to power wrote:
I love how you continue attacking arguments I didn’t make, and resorting to insulting me because you have nothing substantial to say. I never said the attacks were justified, I said provoked. If I punch you and you shoot me, I provoked you, but your response is not justified.

I also don’t remember killing anyone for any reason, nor calling for people to be killed over cartoons or movies. But please, keep inventing arguments as you sink further and further into bullshit.

You rationalized someone attempting to blow up a plane full of innocents, and I called you on it. Therefore you are an apologist for islamic terror.

You called me on something that happened only in your imagination. Explaining why someone does something doesn’t mean you’re justifying it. Are you really too thick to understand that? It’s not a complicated concept.

I referred to you as a dhim·wit (dmwt ) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile.

The shoe seemed to fit. No big deal.

Once again, only in your imagination. The regimes that I’m suggesting not be supported [like the Sauds] are the most fundamentalist, sharia obsessed groups in the Middle East. If anything you are the dhimmi here, since you seem to be against cutting support for these groups.

The rest of my suggestions involve not doing things that lead people to join organisations like AQ or commit acts like the bombing of the plane. What’s that? I’m suggesting social policies that reduce terrorism? Obviously I’m the one who doesn’t care about the innocents. [/quote]

You keep avoiding the off ramps on this highway of bullshit you’re breezing down. It’s just too much for you to unequivocally denounce the previously noted acts of (islamic) terror. Always assigning a bit of blame to the victims blown on the plane, in the buildings, on the trains, etc., It’s their “social policies” that brought all this to bear after all. I agree with your last sentence though.

We just disagree on everything else. No big deal.

[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Why did the USA set up a government repressive towards Christian in Iraq anyways?

The current Iraq is a “muslim” country, where as Saddam’s Iraq was more inclusive towards Christians. It was pan-arab and secular right?

Wasn’t the main general of the Iraqi Army a Christian during the invasion?[/quote]

We did not go there to install a government of our choosing, we went to take down Saddam. And religion was not one of the modivating factors of the invasion.

The Iraqi people voted and they got the government they choose. It is run by a majority of Shia because there is a majority of Shia in Iraq.

[quote]will to power wrote:

The rest of my suggestions involve not doing things that lead people to join organisations like AQ or commit acts like the bombing of the plane. What’s that? I’m suggesting social policies that reduce terrorism? Obviously I’m the one who doesn’t care about the innocents. [/quote]

So, if a bunch of Christians from Sudan began blowing up Mosques all around the world, hijacking Chinese planes and crashing them into buildings in Singapore, it would be ok because of how Christians are treated in Sudan and because China is giving the government money and weapons to commit genocide?