Why Terrorism Doesn't Work

[quote]hedo wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:

Jesus himself used terrorism that is still relevant to millions today.

You have a really whacked out definition of terrorism. How many non-combatants did Jesus target with violent action?

Brainwashing? Possibly. Fraud? Depends on your point of view. Terrorism? Hardly.

IMO, even calling Mohammed a terrorist is a highly dubious association.

“Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (OR THREATENED) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.”

Jesus threatens literally every human being with an eternity in hell if they do not conform to his ideological goals.

Mohammad too.

Either way, terrorism does work and has been an effective tool of population control for at least as long as recorded history.

If I remember my Catholic Education correctly Jesus offered salvation and redemption. He didn’t threaten to “send” anyone to hell, merely pointed out the consequences and wages of sin.

The road to hell is walked by the individual and he isn’t driven along the way. He goes there on his own.
[/quote]

Now that is entirely different of course.

The threat is allready out there, but only HE can save us.

Like all the terrorists out there (mushroomcloudalquaeda9-11-SaddamWMDs) and only THEY can save us.

It may be a tad more elegant but saying “do this or I`ll kill you” or “do this or they will kill you” both means instilling fear for political reasons.

You could call the second “alarmism” if it makes you feel better.

[quote]hedo wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:

Jesus himself used terrorism that is still relevant to millions today.

You have a really whacked out definition of terrorism. How many non-combatants did Jesus target with violent action?

Brainwashing? Possibly. Fraud? Depends on your point of view. Terrorism? Hardly.

IMO, even calling Mohammed a terrorist is a highly dubious association.

“Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (OR THREATENED) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.”

Jesus threatens literally every human being with an eternity in hell if they do not conform to his ideological goals.

Mohammad too.

Either way, terrorism does work and has been an effective tool of population control for at least as long as recorded history.

If I remember my Catholic Education correctly Jesus offered salvation and redemption. He didn’t threaten to “send” anyone to hell, merely pointed out the consequences and wages of sin.

The road to hell is walked by the individual and he isn’t driven along the way. He goes there on his own.

[/quote]
If you believe in the Bible, God created everything we know, including heaven and hell and the distinctions between sinful activities and “lawful” activities.

Then he lays out specific rules for you to follow and the necessity of worshipping his son to avoid hell and go to heaven.

He tells you that if you don’t comply to his terms that he placed you in, you will go to hell.

That is like Hitler and the Nazis setting up concentration camps with furnaces, rounding up jews and telling them they can do as the Nazis say or burn.

This is what the islamic terrorists do as well. “wear a burka, pray 6 times per day, yada yada yada or lose your head.”

Jesus came from the culture we are fighting right now and undoubtedly shared many traits. He just used threats of after life pain and torture as he didn’t have enough support to raise his own military.

By definition, Jesus using fear and the threat of eternal torture if you don’t follow him is terrorism.

this confirms the point that terrorism is effective. over two thousand years later, people are still scared in to his ideology.

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:

Jesus himself used terrorism that is still relevant to millions today.

You have a really whacked out definition of terrorism. How many non-combatants did Jesus target with violent action?

Brainwashing? Possibly. Fraud? Depends on your point of view. Terrorism? Hardly.

IMO, even calling Mohammed a terrorist is a highly dubious association.

“Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (OR THREATENED) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.”

Jesus threatens literally every human being with an eternity in hell if they do not conform to his ideological goals.

Mohammad too.

Either way, terrorism does work and has been an effective tool of population control for at least as long as recorded history.

If I remember my Catholic Education correctly Jesus offered salvation and redemption. He didn’t threaten to “send” anyone to hell, merely pointed out the consequences and wages of sin.

The road to hell is walked by the individual and he isn’t driven along the way. He goes there on his own.

Now that is entirely different of course.

The threat is allready out there, but only HE can save us.

Like all the terrorists out there (mushroomcloudalquaeda9-11-SaddamWMDs) and only THEY can save us.

It may be a tad more elegant but saying “do this or I`ll kill you” or “do this or they will kill you” both means instilling fear for political reasons.

You could call the second “alarmism” if it makes you feel better.[/quote]

Except that if we are to believe that jesus is god himself, he has total control over the situation. He created it, he forces people in to it or he tortures them forever. Very middle eastern in thinking. Jesus isn’t from a culture of white washed chapels and slacks on sunday with followers consisting of people who want to feel good about themselves once a week.

He is from a culture similar to the modern day, militaristic middle east. He didn’t have an army, so he threatened with God, Eternity, Satan and Hell. Psychological warfare and terrorism.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Prison planet is the most ridiculous pile of shit for information ever.[/quote]

AHAHAHAHA… Compared to who?!

The New York Times’ role in promoting war on Iraq

Fox News: Civil War in Iraq “Made Up By The Media?”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/01/fox-media-civil-war/

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592

Study Reveals Media Organizations Publish Internet-Only Content to Boost Iraq Coverage
findings from the study indicate many media outlets also self-censored their reporting on the conflict in Iraq because of concern about public reaction to graphic images and details about the war…
http://journalist.org/news/archives/000194.php

But I’m sure to a lot of people, Alex Jones sounded like a “ridiculous pile of shit” by publicly predicting a large scale “bin Laden” led terrorist attack back in July of 2001…

Well, Liftvs, it was a nice thought, but I’d concider the thread offcially hi-jacked. It’s a shame too, it could have been a good discussion, but we are left with yet another “I am right, you’re wrong” pissing contest.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Well, Liftvs, it was a nice thought, but I’d concider the thread offcially hi-jacked. It’s a shame too, it could have been a good discussion, but we are left with yet another “I am right, you’re wrong” pissing contest.[/quote]

I believe that is called a debate. The point missed by most people so far seems to be giving supporting reasons for their stance.
This is how conversations progress.

Actually the title of this thread should be named “WHO actually benefits from terrorism”

Its TRUE that it doesn’t work for the groups accused of it – thats a giant clue.

Cheney ties election result to chance of terror attack
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-07-cheney-terror_x.htm

U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

Lieberman Uses Foiled British Terror Plot To Push For Greater U.S. Domestic Spying
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/01/lieberman-domestic-spying/

Government terrorist warnings boost President Bush’s approval ratings, a Cornell sociologist finds

So terrorism does actually work – the question is, for who?

Question. Conspiracy theories aside – what incentive did the Bush administration have to try and stop 9/11?

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Question. Conspiracy theories aside – what incentive did the Bush administration have to try and stop 9/11?[/quote]

Over 3000 lives.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Actually the title of this thread should be named “WHO actually benefits from terrorism”

Its TRUE that it doesn’t work for the groups accused of it – thats a giant clue.

Cheney ties election result to chance of terror attack
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-07-cheney-terror_x.htm

U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

Lieberman Uses Foiled British Terror Plot To Push For Greater U.S. Domestic Spying
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/01/lieberman-domestic-spying/

Government terrorist warnings boost President Bush’s approval ratings, a Cornell sociologist finds

So terrorism does actually work – the question is, for who?[/quote]

Terrorism is at the root of the effectiveness of war and certainly has worked for centuries. I have addressed this already.

The logical leap that bush attacked back after 9/11 to increase his own standings is bunk however.

you are quoting sources that may correlate with current events but have no proof of causation (in this context) what so ever. Just paranoid speculation that bush is starting wars for his own gain.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Question. Conspiracy theories aside – what incentive did the Bush administration have to try and stop 9/11?

Over 3000 lives.[/quote]

C’mon. Remember Hurricane Katrina?

These are all the same corporate guys who put drugs on the market with full knowledge of fatal side-effects

…sell AIDS tainted blood

…shut down power grids during heat waves to manipulate energy prices
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8796

…and start pre-emptive wars.

Get real.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Terrorism is at the root of the effectiveness of war and certainly has worked for centuries. I have addressed this already.

The logical leap that bush attacked back after 9/11 to increase his own standings is bunk however.

you are quoting sources that may correlate with current events but have no proof of causation (in this context) what so ever. Just paranoid speculation that bush is starting wars for his own gain. [/quote]

What paranoid speculation? Are we or are we not at war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

The neocons said, on the record, they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” to justify to the public and our allies a reason to militarily remake the Middle East – and then they got it.

If they said they NEEDED IT, it actually doesn’t make sense that they would have tried to stop it – which of course they didn’t.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
Terrorism is at the root of the effectiveness of war and certainly has worked for centuries. I have addressed this already.

The logical leap that bush attacked back after 9/11 to increase his own standings is bunk however.

you are quoting sources that may correlate with current events but have no proof of causation (in this context) what so ever. Just paranoid speculation that bush is starting wars for his own gain.

What paranoid speculation? Are we or are we not at war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

The neocons said, on the record, they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” to justify to the public and our allies a reason to militarily remake the Middle East – and then they got it.

If they said they NEEDED IT, it actually doesn’t make sense that they would have tried to stop it – which of course they didn’t.[/quote]

I don’t care what the “neocons” said. Bin Laden is an islamic terrorist. Not an American “neocon”.

This does not by any stretch mean the “neocons” caused or encouraged 9/11 or the subsequent war.

Who are you to say iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Hussein certainly was not an american supporter. Do you honestly believe he turned a blind eye at any change to hit us? You are kidding yourself if so.

He was also a genocidal dictator following hitlers example.

What are your thoughts on our help in liberating Europe and the Jews from the Nazis?

Or are you one of those people who deny the holocaust ever existed?

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:

Who are you to say iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
[/quote]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Remember, Bush even said so himself. Of course, he only admitted to this after his administration implied the opposite before the war and even a year or two into it.

No he certainly wasn’t, but we did support him however, as he was “following hitlers example”.

Interesting. You go from asking the question above to…

[quote]
Or are you one of those people who deny the holocaust ever existed?[/quote]

labeling JTF a holocaust denier.

Quite the leap you’re making.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:

Who are you to say iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Remember, Bush even said so himself. Of course, he only admitted to this after his administration implied the opposite before the war and even a year or two into it.

Hussein certainly was not an american supporter.

No he certainly wasn’t, but we did support him however, as he was “following hitlers example”.

What are your thoughts on our help in liberating Europe and the Jews from the Nazis?

Interesting. You go from asking the question above to…

Or are you one of those people who deny the holocaust ever existed?

labeling JTF a holocaust denier.

Quite the leap you’re making.

Dustin[/quote]

There is definately a bit of spin on your reply.

Iraq may not have officially been a part of 9/11 but as you acknowledged, Saddam was certainly not a US supporter. In fact, i’d wager he hated us after the first gulf war.

America isn’t the only nation to hire and send mercenaries to do it’s bidding. Saddam certainly could and plausibly would have “unofficially” dispatched aid to Al Quaida as they planned attacks on the US.

I’m sure there are tons of classified documents we unfortunately may not see for decades, if ever, concerning all sorts of information regarding the current issues.

Bush did state that officially, as a political body, Iraq was not involved. That doesn’t necessarily mean a thing.

We did support hussein, and al quaeda as we had a common enemy years ago. Maybe we knew what was going on at the time maybe we didn’t. We did use them to help us fight the cold war (unofficially making it a “hot” war of course though technically it was a cold war). Shortly after, we invaded them for many reasons, their genocide included. Who knows, maybe as we allied with them we discovered what was going on.

Either way, Hussein was very Hitleresque and the comparison still stands.

I asked if JTF was a holocaust denier. I didn’t label. That is quiet a leap you are making.

[quote]Ren wrote:
They hate us for our freedoms…[/quote]

In a roundabout way. The fanatics actually do believe in the sins, punishments, creeds and commands of the Koran. They actually do believe we are blasphemous in our actions and that we should be punished.

They don’t hate us for our freedoms per say, but for our disregard of their law which they consider absolute eternally. (much like fanatical christians).

And they act accordingly.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
pat36 wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Question. Conspiracy theories aside – what incentive did the Bush administration have to try and stop 9/11?

Over 3000 lives.

C’mon. Remember Hurricane Katrina?

These are all the same corporate guys who put drugs on the market with full knowledge of fatal side-effects

…sell AIDS tainted blood

…shut down power grids during heat waves to manipulate energy prices
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8796

…and start pre-emptive wars.

Get real.[/quote]

That’s right! I forgot Israel and the U.S. conspired the send hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. My bad, I appologize for being so short sighted.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:

America isn’t the only nation to hire and send mercenaries to do it’s bidding. Saddam certainly could and plausibly would have “unofficially” dispatched aid to Al Quaida as they planned attacks on the US.
[/quote]

You accuse me of spin, yet provide a “could have, might have” theory that has no absolutely no evidence to support it.

Hussein was a typical dictator in that he actively sought to eliminate any individual or group whom he perceived as a threat to his power. Al Queda would have been no different. Hussein would have seen them as subversives and thus not want them in his country. Plus, Iraq was a secular nation, Al Queda, obviously is the opposite. OBL was not a fan of Hussein in any way, shape, or form.

Our government knew for a fact what kind of groups they were and who they were dealing with. Heck, the CIA trained groups similar to Al Queda when they were fighting the Soviets.

I wish that was the case.

[quote]
I asked if JTF was a holocaust denier. I didn’t label. That is quiet a leap you are making. [/quote]

You asked him one thing, then asked if he was a “holocaust denier”. That’s an odd question to ask and a bit ridiculous at that.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
You asked him one thing, then asked if he was a “holocaust denier”. That’s an odd question to ask and a bit ridiculous at that.

Dustin[/quote]

The only thing that makes that question rediculous is that JTF has answered that before. He is in fact a holocaust denier and posted several hundred rediculous links to back it up. Texasguy hasn’t be around here that long to have seen it, but I have and most everybody else has too. Even the leftists, terrorist supporters among us know JTF is over the top in his hatred of all things Jewish.


Looks like JTF’s been tp England lately.