Gravitymaster 0 #26 July 12, 2005 I think it's really an issue of which terrorists are we afraid of the most. I'm not particularly concerned about Jewish, Irish, or Christian Terrorists because there's really no reason for them to want to harm me. I am concerned about Islamic Terrorists because even though they have no reason to hate me personally or my ideologies, they hate me simply because I am an American and apparently that makes me responsible for any real or imagined injustices. So I think the better question is which terrorist group is the average American or European most afraid of? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 July 12, 2005 QuoteA drum though? That's a pretty tall bridge! Hey, I didn't say we'd empty the whole thing in free fall.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #28 July 12, 2005 votes say NOTHING about ability to lead.. it simply means someone won a popularity contest.... would you get in a plane who pilot was 'elected' by the passengers, the majority of whom had only the knowledge of flight they learned from watching television? there are VERY few politicians who are actually good leaders.. real leaders tend to have issues with the backstabbing and 'spin' tactics nessesary to be elected to political office..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #29 July 12, 2005 Quote Yeah, Tom, that's why I pretty much don't visit here much. Lots of parsing for the joy of an internet argument where one participant is driven to exasperation and leaves and the other claims victory. As a new guy here I was perhaps being optimistic that I'd find something more interesting than just 'arguing on the internet for the sake of it'. My apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you've said here. Quote Regarding Mr. Crowley's statement that everybody is guilty, I disagree. If the Unibomber, McVeigh, Eric Rudolph (abortion clinic and Olympic bomber) had all been acting under whatever the christian version of a fatwah is, we'd be rounding up those clergy members for conspiracy and they would have been charged as well. Regardless of their "religion" particularly that nutwad Rudolph there is no mainstream religious tolerance of their actions. If there is an Al Quaeda type of support structure for the McVeigh's and Rudolphs of the world, I'm unaware of it. I'm betting is has something to do with the Colonel with his wee beady eyes, though. Actually there's a couple of places from here we can follow. 1. At what level is clergy helping out? There are clergy that preach hate and intolerance regarding abortion and sexual orientation. We just had a group of them protesting local churches. I haven't read anything about affiliation with any particular hate group with violent histories, but then I've not really done any background reading on them. Does sharing a philosophy with hate groups make them part of infrastructure? It's an interesting thread of thought and brings up some good freedom of speech/thought issues. 2. I'm not in a position to quote statistics, but here's some resources. Before we get into the next bit. Hate Crime is a very hot button issue, it's also a term that can cover a great deal of ground. From calling someone a fag all the way to covering someone in gasoline and setting them on fire with a cigarette. I bring them up simply because the FBI and military consider domestic hate groups to also be terrorists (according to the referenced docs below). I am not saying they are as dangerous as AQ at this point, nor that calling someone a bad name is equal to blowing up a bus. There are also some groups listed who may be here somewhat unfairly because the 'hate' term is flexible. However, as you go through the various violent crimes that *are* present and numerous (especially check the current list of incidents from the splcenter link). First, the FBI's 2000 report on domestic terrorism http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_004.htm Second, from Maxwell AFB, a guide to US domestic terrorism. It's a little out of date... http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/tergps/tgdom.htm A resource listed in this document points towards the following organization for further information of hate groups within the US. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatewatch/fortherecord.jsp A list of hate crimes that have been reported, not all are violent, but a significant portion are. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp The same project's 2004 map of hategroups in the US And finally, here are the 2003 (latest available) hate crime statistics domestically: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf Do they have leadership? yes they do. Do they have infrastructure? yes, albeit limited at this point. (although arguable given the history and penetration into society some of those groups have achieved) All that limits their effectiveness at this point is a) good intelligence work by the US Gov, b) an apathetic mostly moderate society that on the whole is not looking for a cause to fight, c) a catalyst/martyr. It's not difficult to imagine how much worse things would be if they did have the man power and resources that would become available after a catalysing incident. Thanks for your thought provoking response. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 July 13, 2005 QuoteAs a new guy here I was perhaps being optimistic that I'd find something more interesting than just 'arguing on the internet for the sake of it'. Truthfully, as someone who often has to wade through pages and pages of posts in this forum, I'd say that 75% of it is just that--argument for the sake of argument. The relative minority who's actually interested in learning and thinking about things can often be drowned out. Props to you for being part of that minority. QuoteAt what level is clergy helping out? That's a very interesting question. I think it would be interesting to compare the degree of organization, and especially support from relatively "legitimate" looking groups. I suspect that you'll see more of that in the Islamic world, but in neither of those cases (christian terrorism in the US or Islamic terrorism) are you going to come close to say, the level of involvement seen somewhere like, say Northern Ireland. Crossover groups aside, I do think that in the world today we've got more organized, more active, better financed, and more aggressive terrorism coming from the Islamic fundamentalist segment than from any other segment. The especially worrisome thing I see is the global character of those activities. Sitting in Idaho, I could be relatively certain that the IRA wasn't going to blow me up. And sitting in London, you could be equally confident that some American survivalist's weren't threatening your wellbeing. But the Islamic terror movement, in so far as we can call it that, appears to be much more wide spread than any other such thread. That, I think, is why we're seeing more calls for some kind of coordinated global response, and more characterizations of these actions as a "war".-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #31 July 13, 2005 Alex, you've got a lot more energy than me. Clergy and religion to me are really interesting, very well educated guys that I trust with my children. 1. Clergy helping? 2. Statistics. 3. (Do they have leadership? yes they do. Do they have infrastructure? yes, albeit limited at this point. (although arguable given the history and penetration into society some of those groups have achieved) Who specifically? Does clergy help? Yes. Unequiviocally, in my parish. Fathers Jordan and Vicente love my daughters, tell them so, and motivate them towards acting in what an 8 year old interprets to be a "Christlike" way. Often that means picking up litter that missed the can, and just being helpful, friendly and kind. They lead by example. I love them both. Statistics? You and I know better ( you appear to be quite intelligent, and therefore reasonably understand that statistics, once massaged, can make nearly any argument. Other than like ones like "how many of your children have died due to Hamas bombers?" and even then you could argue the sample was not significant. Lastly, who in the Christian "sphere" is sponsoring terrorism. I know lots of East Coasters and even San Franciscans put money in the hat for the IRA in years past, but I don't recall a cardinal or bishop who took the money and bought plastique with it and sent boys off to learn how to infiltrate mobs while wearing suicide vests. This hurts my forearms.. Alex, if you are new, you are worthy of debate. Congratulations, you'lll have fun here. I'm out. Nice job, though. Spark thought without calling anyone an ass hat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 July 13, 2005 And that is a direct result of free enterprise and lighter regulation in action. Glad you're getting paid.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #33 July 13, 2005 QuoteAnd that is a direct result of free enterprise and lighter regulation in action. Glad you're getting paid. Nuh-uh! It's cause the Skreamster is the only guy on his team that wears slacks and a collared shirt to work. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #34 July 13, 2005 I really do want to respond at length about this, but today is not that day due to outside concerns. Condensed: 1. my intention was to question at which point a religious leaders convictions are considered influential to his flock and at what point is it considered leading terrorism. Vehemently pro-life ministers influencing his congregation and it leading to a parishoner going out and killing a doctor who performs abortion (could someone please explain prolifers killing people please.). While the majority of religious leaders and teachers of every stripe are going to be what they should be (supportive, loving, etc). But it's easy enough to watch TV to see some "Christians" who are not teaching the same Christianity of love and peace that many in the world were bought up with. While your personal experience at your parish is a purely positive one (which is how you would wish it) there will always be bad leaders of any religion. Some because people can just be bad (the child abuse within the Catholic church), and some because the sect or cult preach hatred. For example, while you may not feel that preaching racism and white supremacy is outright terrorism there are some that would feel that any religious leader who held the values of the KKK and used biblical scripture to defend their position would appear to be little better than an extremist muslim Iman telling his congregation to kill the infidel. 2. Yeah, my apologies for not being clearer, my intention wasnt to bury anyone in statistics, but to show real incidences, which is why I suggested reading through the slpcenters list of incidents and looking at the map. The data from the FBI just shows raw data that isnt really useful except to say 'yeah, it does go on and the FBI consider it domestic terrorism' which is where I wandered into the discussion. 3. Well, the KKK and it's offshoots for one, given it's influence during the 20th century, the neo-nazi groups (post ww2, although the roots were sown in the US before that). In fact, worldwide there is growing interest in the structure of extreme right wing neo-nazi parties both here in the US and western europe. With the rise of the internet enabling secure communications the game has been taken to another level. What used to be lone nuts running around causing small amounts of damage has turned into a worldwide gathering, whcih while small is not insignificant. "Who is sponsoring terrorism?" Perhaps an equally fair question would be: "what is the percentage of muslims leaders who sponsor terrorism and actively speak out against the west?" In otherwords, I dont know if that data is publicly available. What is sponsoring terrorism? We know that groups such as Christian Identity are practicing Christians and obviously hold weekly services - I would imagine that their church/ministry would provide assistence, or at least moral and spiritual support. This site: http://www.kingidentity.com/ and I tried to prove this was a parody site but didnt discover anything in the short time - maybe I'll check into it further. They also have a little webstore for tapes, videos and books. Maybe its a hoax. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c106.html http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/identity.html Great link! http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS01/50709002 article from 7/9/2005 recounting an extremist terrorist act. Looking up "christian violence terrorist" will bring up a whole list of interesting articles to read regarding the rise of the Christian Extreme Rights use of violence against gays and all things pro-abortion. "PAUL JENNINGS HILL - 2nd to fully defend the innocent against future acts by an active aggressor who was clearly unjust; a cold blooded murderer. A former Presbyterian minister on death row who killed two abortion providers " - yeah, pulled from a pro-life page where they have an honor roll of people who have performed violent crimes against abortion clinics and doctors. There's a lot of this stuff out there, Google will unearth things that you wouldnt believe existed. There's more than one Christianity just as there is more than one form of Islam. Forgive me, but “the vast majority of world citizens respect the Christian people and the Christian faith. After all, there are millions of peace-loving Christian Americans.” As for your final question, I'm sorry I dont understand: are you asking if I think the priests who collected for the IRA didnt realize that they were supporting a terrorist organization who killed innocent Englishmen by planting bombs in public places? or are you saying that you're sure they didnt realize what they were doing and can I think of any American priests who have handled weaponry and helped terrorism that way? Hopefully I've answered the latter, I can't really speak for the former. Hell, this was the condensed version!? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #35 July 13, 2005 Quote...Vehemently pro-life ministers influencing his congregation and it leading to a parishoner going out and killing a doctor who performs abortion... Wacko people are going to do wacko stuff. Folks will then cast about searching for something to blame it on. They'll settle on video games, or rock music, or religion, because it's an easy explanation that doesn't challenge them to face the facts that sometimes wacko people just do wacko stuff because they are wacko--and they're no way to prevent that. Even if you could totally eliminate all vestiges of Christianity, Quake, Judas Priest, and Islam from the world, we'd still have wackos out there doing ridiculous things, and saying twinkies made them do it. And then we'd have concerned citizen's groups running around trying to ban twinkies...-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #36 July 13, 2005 If that's not at length, I'm doomed. One answer, and not meant to be flippant. Somebody should have killed Mengela. He was a Dr. who did horrible things including abortions with a fascination on twins. Truth be told, we learned a lot from his research (I have read) but his methods were inhuman. I am pro life (but strangely, as an American Catholic, pro law at the same time which means that you are free to have an abortion in my state, CA, and always will be as regardless of Roe V. Wade, our constitution guarantees the right) Killing him in the name of life would have been ok. I would have killed him. Yikes. I'm really out now, Alex. You are good. JP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #37 July 13, 2005 Quote Wacko people are going to do wacko stuff. Folks will then cast about searching for something to blame it on. They'll settle on video games, or rock music, or religion, because it's an easy explanation that doesn't challenge them to face the facts that sometimes wacko people just do wacko stuff because they are wacko--and they're no way to prevent that. Absolutely, someone is always going to scream about a cardboard box telling them to sodomize monkeys, but I wasnt trying to discuss blame of a few crazies. I believe my intent was clear when taken in context with the rest of my post. At which point does a religious leader start to be considered an influence? I followed up with information regarding the KKK and Christian Identity, both major hate groups who have a history of criminal behavior, both of which are organized to some extent (the KKK far more than CI), and as such have rallys and talk about their God given right to their ideology (I have listened to several speeches given at these types of rallys, without exception the rhetoric included a heavy dose of fire and brimstone christian preaching). I realize that to consider a perversion of something you hold to be deeply true and used for hate must be a difficult thing to understand or even want to acknowledge. I would imagine that many muslims feel similar (actually they do, I asked them). That was my intent, not the lone wacko theory. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 July 14, 2005 QuoteThat was my intent, not the lone wacko theory. I guess the point I was trying to make is that almost anyone who would murder a bunch of innocents is a lone wacko. Whether or not he's using religion (or whatever else) as an excuse is beside the point. He's still a wacko, no matter how he wants to justify his wacko-ness. The fact that he uses something (whatever it is) as a justification isn't really a reflection on the underlying thing.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #39 July 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat was my intent, not the lone wacko theory. I guess the point I was trying to make is that almost anyone who would murder a bunch of innocents is a lone wacko. Whether or not he's using religion (or whatever else) as an excuse is beside the point. He's still a wacko, no matter how he wants to justify his wacko-ness. The fact that he uses something (whatever it is) as a justification isn't really a reflection on the underlying thing. Tom, this is where we are at a unique point in history. The men who did the 9/11 aircraft attack, and the men who did the London transit attack were not "lone wacko's" by a LONG shot. They were like the Kamikaze's. Fierce believers. Not whack jobs. Products of a life long culture of reightiousness of action against the enemy. There was no lack for kamikaze pilots. Until we took over the educational institutions of a nation and systematically brainwashed them into democracy over a generation. We did that with Japan and Germany. I think we would consider that a crime against humanity these days. We told Japan "your religion is wrong. Here, here, and here. This is your new truth. Obey" and they did. I don't think we have the stomach to do that with the radical elements of Islam. Until something astoundingly bad happens and we open the gates of hell on some people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #40 July 14, 2005 So then I guess the question is: Do we treat them as individual criminals, or do we try to engage in some kind of massive re-education (as in post WW II Japan, for example)? It doesn't sit well with me to punish an entire culture because of the actions of a few. But then again, if the entire culture is truly the root cause? I wonder what the Islamic equivalent of a karaoke bar is?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #41 July 14, 2005 lemme just sum it all up for y'all, bcause some of these posts are too damn long: AL QUAEDA SUCKS HAIRY DONKEY BALLS!! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #42 July 14, 2005 QuoteSo then I guess the question is: Do we treat them as individual criminals, or do we try to engage in some kind of massive re-education (as in post WW II Japan, for example)? I really don't think there's an easy or fast solution. In my opinion the only way to combat an ideology is with an alternate, more positive replacement that goes far enough towards resolving conflict that you can capture the moderates and weaken the power base of the extremists. In any country it is something that would need to be done over time with a lot of investment, possibly generations. The CIA have shown a lot of skill over the years in performing these types of operations, so there are precedents. Between programs like that and some measured use of covert ops to take down whatever part of the structure you can, preferably without inflaming the population and undoing the rest of your work, all the better. Unrealistic in the real world, but the most logical model in my mind for the following reasons: - people are people, most want freedom of thought, basic comforts and food/jobs, perhaps a luxury or two. This is true of any culture, not all people who profess a belief in a religion have the same amount of fervor or extremism. - as argued earlier, overt aggression merely plays into the hands of the extremists (of any stripe, anywhere.). It's harder for someone to foam at the mouth about the enemies evils if they're making positive change while not randomly shooting innocent civilians. - just like Ron and EB3B(sorry, can't recall the full name) are unwavering in their positions, shouting at someone and telling them that everything they have built their personal and cultural identity around is wrong and evil simply pisses people off and makes them even more sure that you're evil and/or ignorant and/or mentally defective in relation to their standards. Now, I realize I said that it would take time, and the costs would be great, but this - to me - is the difference between a true war on terrorism and simply using it as an excuse to publicly justify military actions which would be unjustifiable in any other situation. I realize that I'm walking on shaky ground here in the eyes of some, but based on publicly available data from resources both domestic and foreign since early 2002, it is my opinion that justifying the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terror is not only grossly deceptive but something that will damage the US and the world's perception of it for a long time. Quote I wonder what the Islamic equivalent of a karaoke bar is? Having sat through some interesting evenings of karaoke I feel that to answer that question would be in really poor taste. ;-) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #43 July 14, 2005 QuoteSo then I guess the question is: Do we treat them as individual criminals, or do we try to engage in some kind of massive re-education (as in post WW II Japan, for example)? It doesn't sit well with me to punish an entire culture because of the actions of a few. But then again, if the entire culture is truly the root cause? I wonder what the Islamic equivalent of a karaoke bar is? Dude, that is it. Unrelated, but a favorite memory of a military retirement in the old O Club in San Mateo was a beautiful filipina singing "Peelings, nutting more dan Peelings, trying to por-get my, peelings ub lipe!" Maybe that's it. Good thing were not in charge. I'd start with mandatory leg warmers for the chicks and all men wearing mullets. Good night. Time for English humour. Cheers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites