Reply With Quote
So Darrin, you thought this was a good speech?
You might hate Darrin, but you've been on this board long enough to know that's not what he meant.
Why do you have to resort to distorting peoples arguments?
So Darrin, you thought this was a good speech?
New York stands for freedom, openness and tolerance. New York's Mayor recently said that New York is "rooted in Dutch tolerance". Those are true words. New York is not intolerant. How can it be? New York is open to the world. Suppose New York were intolerant. Suppose it only allowed people of one persuasion within its walls. Then it would be like Mecca, a city without freedom. Whatever your religion, persuasion or gender is, in New York you will find a home. In Mecca, if your religion isn't Islam, you are not welcome.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims the right to build a mosque, a house of Sharia here - on this hallowed ground. But, friends, I have not forgotten and neither have you. That is why we are here today. To draw the line. Here, on this sacred spot. You know... like Mecca.
I've been on this board long enough to think that is exactly what he meant.
If it's not, I have no idea what he meant. Please fill me in on what he meant.
You're full of .
You're more concerned about ridicule than addressing his point.
You're more concerned with saying I'm full of than addressing his point which you claim is being misread.
The ridicule is just a side effect.
So all this time Darrin has been demonstrating Alqueda was a country?
You're so full of blake, i can't believe I had to ask that question.
I think you're the only one here that truly believes darrin has been arguing that Alqueda was a state, all the others here are just trolling.
Jokes on you.
CD said "Al Qaeda", not me.
I think the underlying notion in Darrin's statement is that there has been a country(ies) that actually has conducted a suicide mission against us. I'm asking "what country was it?"
Obviously I'm not the only one that caught this notion.
yeah you are. You're not taking into consideration the context of this thread. but whatever.
PEOPLE from those countries aren't conducting suicide missions against us.
The only PEOPLE that seem to be involved in this activity just happen to be from Islamic states.
Yes, everyone knows that Al Qaeda is not a country and, anyone who is honest, knows that I never suggested such a thing.
So we were attacked by citizens of the United States of Arabia.
Good thing we struck back.
You never get tired of trying to turn your own ignorance into a generalization. Ever hear of the Tamil Tigers?
Have they been attacking us?
I didn't suggest they have.
You, however, suggested suicide attacks were peculiar to Muslims. They aren't.
Let's point out a distinction though; it's not that TERRORISM is unique to Islam, but suicide bombing does seem to be prevalent among that culture. I have no idea why... you'd think you'd want to keep everyone committed to your cause rather than killing them off.
It is peculiar. I don't think it in any way implies that ALL Muslims are possible terrorists, of course.
Looking at a broader point, why do you think that al quaeda and sympathizers to their cause use suicide bombing at such a (relatively) high rate? A few possible logistical reasons:
1) It's relatively cheap/easy to make a bomb, and other supplies like guns might be limited, meaning only the trusted soldiers get access to weapons. (This doesn't seem to bear out logically though. How hard are guns to purchase for criminals, after all?)
2) It's greatly disturbing psychologically to the occupying force, as any potential "victim" may in fact be an attacker. Additionally, it shows the lengths a group may go to, including death. This could rattle the opposing force.
That's really all I have. Any thoughts WH?
Lebanon's civil war and the Intifada?
It's a tactic, nothing more. Why it should be considered more insidious or pernicious than any other form of mass slaughter escapes me.
Yes, but I fail to see how said tactic could work better in the long run than amassing a militia of like-minded participants. I assume when you're working with bad guys like AQ, they don't really care too much if you off yourself in furtherance of their cause; one less link to lead back to them.
But why the willingness to use this tactic by these members of the populace? I'm sure the poor conditions are a major factor, but does religion have any sort of influence?
In other words, what are the factors that influence a suicide bomber? Poor environment? Low education? Etc etc. After all, I can't imagine many Americans willing to suicide bomb; I would imagine that assembling a small militia would be more feasible for theoretical American radicals/terrorists hoping to accomplish a similar goal.
Additionally, two things stand out to me that isolate a suicide bomber from mass slaughter: as mentioned earlier, the tendency for these suicide bombers to play upon the compassion of those willing to help (similar to a roadside hijacker that sits on the side of the road with a busted tire), and the mindset it would take to sacrifice yourself. It's one thing to slaughter others, it's another to take your own life when you do so.
the tactic is also to promote fear.
ask darrin. he's knows all about that.
Religion can have any sort of influence, yes. For good and for ill.
Well of course WH. The question is, do you think/know it is a significant factor in their choice of tactics? Or is the tactic chosen more due to other factors?
I honestly don't know; figured you might have come across something in your travels that would elucidate this issue.
Sure. The targeting of innocents deserves to be mentioned in connection with preying on people's goodness/confidence in others.
But is the willingness to die as such an aggravating cir stance?
If so, how so?
If Islam as such was a motivator I'd have expected to see more suicide attacks by Muslims before 1980. Islam has been around since the 7th century.
Personally, I don't know.
WRT this, Robert Pape's book on terrorism might interest you. (Disclosure: I haven't read it.) His hypothesis is that terrorism in all its forms mostly aims at political goals. For Papes statelessness/nationalism are better predictors than religion for the frequency of resort to terrorist tactics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
