Reply With Quote
Found it yet, 2centsworth? It took me about five seconds.
Thanks. I try to pick my spots.
Found it yet, 2centsworth? It took me about five seconds.
Since you need to be spoon fed like an infant -- a really stupid infant -- here you go.
1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Al-Shabaab
5. Ansar al-Islam
6. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
7. Asbat al-Ansar
8. Aum Shinrikyo
9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
11. Continuity Irish Republican Army
12. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
13. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
14. Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)
15. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
16. Hizballah (Party of God)
17. Islamic Jihad Group
18. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
19. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
20. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
21. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
22. Kahane Chai (Kach)
23. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
24. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
25. Lashkar i Jhangvi
26. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
27. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
28. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
29. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
30. National Liberation Army (ELN)
31. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
32. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
33. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
34. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
35. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
36. al-Qa’ida
37. al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC)
38. Real IRA
39. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
40. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
41. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
42. Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
43. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
44. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)
I just put up the whole list. I'm sure you can pick out the ones that aren't Islamic. Oh, that's right, you're too stupid. Just trust me, they're in there. There's even an Israeli group.
And of course that doesn't deal at all with domestic terrorist groups. Unfortunately a list hasn't been as incredibly easy to find as the foreign list, so you have absolutely no hope in finding any information on those yourself, 2cent. Rest assured they exist, though -- if no other reason than because I said so.
So what indeed! You're the one that brought it up, and you're the one that's been seeking the "truth". Don't get pissed at me because you had an abstract take on Guiliani's statement <or, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and get pissed at me>.
Outside of the ones that are linked to Islam, not sure which of those is at war with the US or wants to destroy the US (at least the ones that my stupid self can pin point and "non-Islamic")
Why the are you chiming in?
And you haven't been keeping up with the news if you think these groups have nothing to do with the US and its citizens.
Chill out dumpchumper. I simply made a comment. I was unaware I needed your permition to post in this thread
As I said before, I'm referring to the ones I know: ETA, FARC and Sendero Luminoso, non of which have the capabilities to go to war with the US.And you haven't been keeping up with the news if you think these groups have nothing to do with the US and its citizens.
Neither does al Qaeda.
Terrorism <> war.
I was asked for a list of terrorist groups. I gave a list of terrorist groups. If you don't think any one group is important, please take it up with the US government. It's their list.
What Rudy said made perfect sense. I'm surprised anyone has a prblem with it, unless you only heard a soundbite without context.
I didn't bother reading past the first few threads. I see this subject as pointless, but laughable if that'e the best criticism of his speech.
Now you see how we view most of your posts.
Change "go to war with the US" for "attack the US". ETA, IRA, FARC, etc will probably never attack the US. AQ has, and will probably do it again if allowed.
Another point I found interesting is that from the list, more than 80% appear to Islamic radical groups.
No, Rudy brought it up. And I'm not even talking specifically about my interpretation anymore. Even based on your interpretation it's a confusing concern.
I posted the entire context of the quote. There is no further meaning to be derived from the rest of the speech that would explain why we should be concerned that Democrats unfairly grouped terrorists with terrorists instead of specifying Islamic terrorism as the country's biggest concern.
I think the best criticism of his speech is that it catered only to the lowest common denominator of blind Rah-Rah Republican loyalists, and anyone with half an ounce of objectivity and rationality should have found the speech insulting to their intelligence. I'm guessing you loved every minute of it.
It's the same sort of rhetorical thinking that drives the infantile references to the Democratic candidate as "Hussein." It's an effort to directly associate (even if through subtlety) Obama with Islam and, by extension, with terrorists. Again, if the Democratic candidate was named George Barack Williams and all things remained the same, I doubt that any speechwriter (or speaker) would have made the statement that Giuliani did. But you can't play upon fears if you don't drum up some sort of absurd concerns.
Again, this is not what was asked, and your little impotent quibbling doesn't change that.
No . You really are the sharp one to be able to point that out.Another point I found interesting is that from the list, more than 80% appear to Islamic radical groups.
Genius.
There you go.
"Directly associated" "through subtlety"
If he were trying to make that point, why would he do it with subtlety? Why hide a connection between Obama and Islam in a subliminal message that no one picks up on?
That's the sort of nonsensical utterance reserved for Obama's commissioned Spin Doctors.
It was clearly an assault by the Republicans on their often used talking point that the Dems are weak in the fight against terrorism, weak on National Defense, and therefore unfit to lead the Country.
And with that, you are in the running for the "Stretch Of The Day" award, and considering some of the b.s. posted in this forum, that's saying a lot.
I don't care what was asked. I made a comment and you got y about it.
Ahh . . . you saw it too! I guess you are not that stupid after all.No . You really are the sharp one to be able to point that out.
Genius.
Then I guess you would agree that saying Islamic Terrorists is not trhat far off when 80% (or more) of the terrorist groups included in the list you posted are inded extreme Islamic groups.
I think Chump needs to crawl through the crowd and touch the hem of Jesus' robe...that has been on a menstrual-induced rant for years now.
Well, I disagree. The statement alone has no setup or conclusion. The material just before and for a few minutes after is important:
part of the transcript of Rudy's speech:
We need John McCain to save our economy and make sure it grows, but we need it for a more important purpose. There’s one purpose that John McCain understands, Republicans understand, that overrides everything else: John McCain will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad.
(APPLAUSE)
For — for four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words “Islamic terrorism.”
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please tell me, who are they insulting if they say “Islamic terrorism”? They are insulting terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
Of great concern to me, during those same four days in Denver, they rarely mentioned the attacks of September 11, 2001. They are in a state of denial about the biggest threat that faces this country.
And if you deny it and you don’t deal with it, you can’t face it.
John McCain can face the enemy. He can win, and he can bring victory for this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Let’s look at just one example at a lifetime of principled stands that John McCain’s brought about: his support for the troop surge in Iraq. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq.
And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, when they gave up on Iraq, they had given up on America.
(APPLAUSE)
The Democratic leader — the Democratic leader of the Senate said, and I quote, “This war is lost.”
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
Well, well, if America lost, who won, Al Qaida, bin Laden?
(AUDIENCE BOOS)
In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right, and Barack Obama got it wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
Senator McCain — Senator — Senator McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge, and it was unpopular. What do you think most other politicians would have done in a situation like this?
They would have acted in their self-interest, and they would have changed their position in order to win an election. How many times have we seen Barack Obama do this?
So what part of the "context" you provided explains why Islamic terrorism is the only kind of terrorism we should mention as a concern to our national security?
Islamic terrorism is not the only form of terroriss the US should be mindfull of, but it is by far the one form it should be paying the most attention to.
Communist releated terrorism and drug related terrorism come as distant second a third.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
