Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:Really? I thought I'd been quite scathing.

That sir is what you get for thinking!

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:My father hates Arabs, because he was stationed in places like Aden in the 50s and saw how cruel they were to animals.

That does not mean all Arabs were cruel then or that they are now.

Nor is it an excuse for the way he thinks, but it is an explanation.

It doesn't matter what my father thinks about Arabs as long as other people don't uncritically accept his view as the truth.

Mine didn't trust them because they tried to kill him.

Dated an Iraqi girl for a few months. Nice girl, smart, beautiful, absolutely batgak crazy.

I think that's the problem, to most everyone else in the world, Arabs/Muslims/etc are just seen as batgak crazy. But to them, they're perfectly normal and we are the ones that are crazy.

And eventually one side will exterminate the other or die trying.

There are plenty of veterans who do not become bigots after their experience.

olympia wrote:There are plenty of veterans who do not become bigots after their experience.

Their are tons more that do what's your point? Look I understand to many what I say is by all accounts wrong, and yes I am sure to some level my belief is unjust, but I do not go out of my way to make a muslims life hard, I do not tell them my views unless asked, all in all I am rather pleasent towards them. What I feel is that I don't want them in my home, or in my family. I feel my reasons are just and honestly nothing is going to disuade me from them especially after my life experiences. Is it wrong to some I am sure it is, but that is their belief and this is mine.

olympia wrote:There are plenty of veterans who do not become bigots after their experience.

QFT

When I was serving, I worked alongside other soldiers from all sorts of different countries, who held all sorts of beliefs. When I was in basic one of the lads in my section was Muslim from Basra in Iraq. Most of the people I served with couldn't give a toss where you were from or who you prayed to as long as you were watching their backs.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesn't mean all the anit-minaret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.

If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side.

Right, and that's where you get to my first post on the subject. Simply put, the people starting this initiative are racist, but that doesn't mean all the supporters are. Most of them are just falling for the myth of Western culture being under siege, and are being led along by the racist core driving this and similar policies.

No, one of the parties supporting the initiative is racist. The policy was instigated by the Swiss government and for good reason, it draws a line and says to Islam here and no further.
as for the myth that Western culture is under siege, ok, look at the policies of Islamic fundamentalism. They are quite open about it, Islam must replace Christianity and Islamic law must be introduced. Whether it is practical or not doesn't stop it from being a threat, especially if some continue to profess that it is all a myth even after Islamic fundamentalists admit full face that this is what they want to do.

sebster wrote:

After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.

Really? The poster is unclear? The poster with the white sheep kicking the black sheep out of Switzerland is unclear? When the poster comes from a party with a strong record on opposing immigration, particularly black immigrants...

No, the poster is very clear.

The poster is unclear and you are confused.
What is a black sheep? You narrowed it down to 'black immigrants', in fact a black sheep can be any misfit or minority as stated above. You need to look closely at propoganda to understand it, you have not and thus you are confused.
Look again, the poster is not anti black, its anti black sheep and mentions security as the issue. This can be used to represent ANYONE the pary considers a black sheep. homosexuals Jews, immigrants black or otherwise, other faiths etc etc etc. The poster IS unclear.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The problem with that argument is that just by virtue of being in a minority doesn't make one wrong than being in the majority automatically makes one right. Even if the party is in the minority they apparently got a majority of voters to vote for this legislation. The party itself may be in the minority but the sentiment that was expressed, it would seem, is not.

No, they aren't wrong because they're a minority. They're wrong because their racism drives them to thinking their culture is under threat and will be protected by jerking around some people that just want to build a place to pray.

Nope you are wrong again. Its not racism to believe your culture is under threat if the threat is open and undisguised. Read what the Islamic Fundamentalists say they want to do. You are also wrong because they are not 'jerking around people who just want somewhere to pray'. The ban is on minarets, not mosques, its sends a message against proliferation but says that within that limit Moslem citizens can continue as normal. If Mosques were to be banned yes I would agree, but Minarets are not core to Islamic teaching, just tradition and the Swiss have every right to insist that their indigenous tradition takes precedence..

sebster wrote:
You know, the people who you fought in Iraq are actually very different people to the people being jerked around by the Swiss. While Yugoslav muslims and Iraqi muslims share the same broad religion, they are not that similar culturally.

Actually many of the people fighting is Afghanistan are European moslem converts, a frighteningly large number from the UK. Just don't expect the British government to admit this, ask veterans instead. By sticking heads in the sand this nation has birthed a Chimera. You are utterly wrong. The Glasgow bombers were British doctors, the 7/7 bombers were British citizens, the recent arrests across Europe for the aborted repeat attacks of 9/11 were British citizens too. See a pattern, they don't need to get bombers from war torn Islamic republics, you can get them from politically correct states with their heads in the sand. Being brought up with the benefits of western society doesnt stop Islamic Fundamentalism from occuring, furthermore condemnation of the fundamentalists from 'mainstream' moslem community has been very thin on the ground, I remember after the 7/7 London bombings the BBC asking Moslem community leaders to condemn the bombings, most were very evasive, and the best we could see was 'condemnation of all violence'.

sebster wrote:
But the US certainly has a blindspot on Ireland and the Troubles. The number of Americans who are eager to come in and spout absolute nonsense on the issue is amazing.

We agree on something. Part of the problem in the US is a very vocal Irish American lobby which has been quieter once 9/11 taught the US that terrorism against a democratic state was not heroic or positive. You should see some of the crap that they taech on Irish history in some American schools, calling it one sided would be an understatement. I remember US news articles about Irish history school curriculum books in New York, ALL were from a very slanted Republican viewpoint. If you read those at face value in school you would be forgiven for thinking the UK is a colony of the Third Reich.

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesnt mean all the anit-mianret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.

If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side.

Right, and that's where you get to my first post on the subject. Simply put, the people starting this initiative are racist, but that doesn't mean all the supporters are. Most of them are just falling for the myth of Western culture being under siege, and are being led along by the racist core driving this and similar policies.

No, one of the parties supporting the initiative is racist. The policy was instigated by the Swiss government and for good reason, it draws a line and says to Islam here and no further.
as for the myth that Western culture is under siege, ok, look at the policies of islmic fundamentalism. They are quirte open about it, islam must replace Christianity and Islamic law must be introduced. Whether it is partical or not doesnt stop it from being a threat, especially if some continue to profess that it is all a myth even after Islamic fundamentalists admit full face that this is what they want to do.

sebster wrote:

After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.

Really? The poster is unclear? The poster with the white sheep kicking the black sheep out of Switzerland is unclear? When the poster comes from a party with a strong record on opposing immigration, particularly black immigrants...

No, the poster is very clear.

The poster is unclear and you are confused.
What is a black sheep? You narrowed it down to 'black immigrants', in fact a black sheep can be any misfit or minority as stated above. You need to look closely at propoganda to understand it, you have not and thus you are confused.
Look again, the poster is not anti black, its anti black sheep and mentions security as the issue. This can be used to represent ANYONE the pary considers a black sheep. homosexuals Jews, immigrants black or otherwise, other faiths etc etc etc. The poster IS unclear.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The problem with that argument is that just by virtue of being in a minority doesn't make one wrong than being in the majority automatically makes one right. Even if the party is in the minority they apparently got a majority of voters to vote for this legislation. The party itself may be in the minority but the sentiment that was expressed, it would seem, is not.

No, they aren't wrong because they're a minority. They're wrong because their racism drives them to thinking their culture is under threat and will be protected by jerking around some people that just want to build a place to pray.

Nope you are wrong again. Its not racism to believe your culture is under threat if the threat is open and undisguised. Read what the Islamic Fundamentalists say they want to do. You are also wrong because they are not 'jerking around people who just want somewhere to pray'. The ban is on minarets, not mosques, its sends a message against proliferation but says that within that limit Moslem citizens can continue as normal. If Mosques were to be banned yes I would agree, but Minarets are not core to Islamic teaching, just tradition and the Swiss have every right to insist that their indigenous tradition takes precedence..

sebster wrote:
You know, the people who you fought in Iraq are actually very different people to the people being jerked around by the Swiss. While Yugoslav muslims and Iraqi muslims share the same broad religion, they are not that similar culturally.

Actually many of the people fighting is Afghanistan are European moslem converts, a frighteningly large number from the UK. just dont expect the British govenment to admit this, ask veterans instead. By sticking heads in the sand this nation has birthed a Chimera. You are utterly wrong. The Glasgow bombers were Britsh doctors, the 7/7 bombers were British citizens, the recent arrests across Europe for the aborted repaeat attacks of 9/11 were British cirtizens too. See a pattern, they don't need to get bombers from war torn Islamic republics, uou can get them from politically correct states with their heads in the sand. Being brought up with the benefits of western society dfoersnt stop Islamic Fundamentalism from occuring, furthermore condemnation of the fundamentalists from 'mainstream' moslem community has been very thin on the ground, I remebmer after the 7/7 london bombings the BBX asking Moslem community leaders to condemn the bombings, miost were very evasive, and the best we could see was 'condemnation of all violence'.

sebster wrote:
But the US certainly has a blindspot on Ireland and the Troubles. The number of Americans who are eager to come in and spout absolute nonsense on the issue is amazing.

We agree on something. Part of the problem in the US is a very vocal Irish American lobby which has been quieter once 9/11 taught the US that terrorism against a democratic state was not heroic or positive. You should see some of the crap that they tech on Irish history in some American schools, calling it one sided would be an understatement. I remember US news articles about Irish history school curriculum books in New York, ALL were from a very slanted Republican viewpoint. If you read those at face value in school you would be forgiven for thinking the UK is a colony of the Third Reich.

the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.

Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.

Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.

The UK press is still apparently of the opinion this was an 'ordinary' gone postal event. I heard otherwise, but have yet to double source this.

Didn't he scream "Allah Akbar!" before attacking?

That in itself would not make it a terrorist attack.

A lunatic might shout Allah Akbar when playing pool.

SAS soldiers often shout Allah Akbar when attacking. It has been a traditional warcry of the SAS since WW2.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Didn't he scream "Allah Akbar!" before attacking?

that just means god is great.

Oh you guise.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.

Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.

The UK press is still apparently of the opinion this was an 'ordinary' gone postal event. I heard otherwise, but have yet to double source this.

The UK press is full of PC nonsense.

Contacted radical mullah
Had a plan
Others warned about his beliefs
That whole Allah Akhbar thing
He had a freaking business card that said SOA.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.

Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.

The UK press is still apparently of the opinion this was an 'ordinary' gone postal event. I heard otherwise, but have yet to double source this.

The UK press is full of PC nonsense.

Contacted radical mullah
Had a plan
Others warned about his beliefs
That whole Allah Akhbar thing
He had a freaking business card that said SOA.

Even worse is the victems familys may not recieve the veterans death benifits as if they had died in combat. Pure BS, they deserve full military honors and there Purple Hearts.

Though I do agree to a point with you my fellow servicemember on the benefits part they do not in my opinon deserve purple harts. I could see a MSM or something but purple hearts are meant for WIA or KIA in war and though what happened is another stain on the military it is not an act of direct enemy hostilities. This soldier was a member of our armed forces thus committing fratricide(not sure if I spelled that right). Though I do not by any account agree with the actions of him, and feels toture is to sweet for men like him if his victimes were to recieve such a meritorious honor such as a purple heart then it would demean the value of that award and to all those reciepients before them.

For those of you out of country folks a purple heart is an award our nations military gives to soldiers who are wounded our killed while fighting in a military action both abroad, and domestic(hasn't been one of those since the coal miners revolt in the early 20th century).

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.

yes by literal meaning he would be considered a terrorist, but I personally do not believe it was a organized terrorist attack.

Doesn't have to be an organized conspiracy to be a terrorist attack.

The UK press is still apparently of the opinion this was an 'ordinary' gone postal event. I heard otherwise, but have yet to double source this.

The UK press is full of PC nonsense.

Contacted radical mullah
Had a plan
Others warned about his beliefs
That whole Allah Akhbar thing
He had a freaking business card that said SOA.

Going postal because your dog talks to you and going postal because Allah talks to you really isn't all that different. Can't it be terrorism and going postal? Though realistically this was not a terrorist action. For terrorism you need some sort of cause or organizational structure. Or at least an ability to site a reason for an action. It's just crazed violence past a certain point of ambiguity, and while his reasons weren't all that ambiguous in hindsight, neither was the huckabee-cop-killers. Was that terrorism? Terrorism's got a fairly specific meaning, even if that definition has broadened greatly since 9/11 (mostly incorrectly).

Even worse is the victems familys may not recieve the veterans death benifits as if they had died in combat. Pure BS, they deserve full military honors and there Purple Hearts.

Agreed. This event isn't so different than any suicide attack overseas.

You contradict yourself. A suicide attack IS terrorism. Thats what it was.

Frazzled wrote:You contradict yourself. A suicide attack IS terrorism. Thats what it was.

ter⋅ror⋅ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
Use terrorism in a Sentence
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there. This doesn't seem to be about intimidation or coercion, since that requires a living body to really do. This act wasn't the second definition, as that wouldn't even make sense. And it's not really the third as he wasn't governing or seemingly resisting a government (Though that ones pretty arguable, and it comes down to what he says his actual reasons were, whenever he decides to share them. It could be that he was striking at the "west" which could be considered an anti governmental act). Killing for a religion isn't always terrorism. Suicide attacks aren't always terrorism. You have to act with a purpose and your goal has to be to instill fear or intimidate through coercion of violence.

post⋅al  [pohs-tl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the post office or mail service: postal delivery; postal employees.
–noun
2. Informal. postal card.
—Idiom
3. go postal, Slang. to lose control or go crazy, esp. in a violent way.

This was definitely going postal. It may or may not be terrorism depending on your definition of terrorism. If this qualifies as terrorism though so do many, many, many other forms of violence and crime. What's the difference between the columbine kids and these guys? One said Allah Akbar. Were they both terrorism? Thats a genuine quesiton, not a strawman. The term terrorism has changed significantly since 9/11.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there.

OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.

ShumaGorath wrote:–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Doesn't say anything about suicide attack in there. This doesn't seem to be about intimidation or coercion, since that requires a living body to really do. This act wasn't the second definition, as that wouldn't even make sense. And it's not really the third as he wasn't governing or seemingly resisting a government (Though that ones pretty arguable, and it comes down to what he says his actual reasons were, whenever he decides to share them. It could be that he was striking at the "west" which could be considered an anti governmental act). Killing for a religion isn't always terrorism. Suicide attacks aren't always terrorism. You have to act with a purpose and your goal has to be to instill fear or intimidate through coercion of violence.

I think, and don't quote me on this, that Shuma is saying that while a terrorist attack can be done in the form of a suicide bombing/assault...not all suicide assaults are terrorism.

Kanluwen wrote:I think, and don't quote me on this, that Shuma is saying that while a terrorist attack can be done in the form of a suicide bombing/assault...not all suicide assaults are terrorism.

I could agree that there is s statistical chance that could be the case. Then you look at other factors.

Why?
*In contact with radical imams who have been instrumental in previous attacks on US interests-check
*Made similar statements about Islam-check
*Has a business card-check

Yep thats a terrorist nutjob. And before anyone says he was insane I'll agree 100%. I think thats kind of a requirement of the actual field guys.

OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.

So you consider any form of murder suicide terrorism? I mean, I know you're basically nothing but a senseless troll, but I had a legitimate question in my post, and I had hoped you could drop the act for five seconds and answer it. I guess I had hoped for too much considering your track record (and you're a mod?).

So what your saying is a suicide bomb is an act of love? Let's see it puts people into a state of fear...check
-It causes mass amoutns of voiolence.....check
-it keeps people in line through threats and intimidations of killing them... check check and check..

yep seems like terrorism to me.

Yeah, but how's that different then when we bomb? We dropped leaflets before shock and awe (intimidation) dropped hundreds of thousands of pounds of bombs (mass amounts o violence) and routinely and aggressively pursue and kill our "enemies" in the field if they infringe on the laws we set out (keeping people in line).

Are you saying that a predator missile is cupids arrow or something? If you broaden the definition of terrorism to include even the random wacked out crazy then you also include our own military forces and essentially every other form of organized or disorganized violence on the planet. Do you want to be a terrorist? If there is no straight definition for the term, and if all it means is "violent enemy (though given the fact that financial contributers are considered terrorists too)" then what are you left with? I'm not trolling you, and while fraz will probably just keep trolling me (again, how is he a mod?) I would actually like to have this conversation with someone thats served in a military fashion.

Hassan (the Fort hood attacker) was a terrorist. He had openly stated his beliefs that muslims should "rise up" against multinational forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He contacted known Al Qaeda sympathisers in yemen. he shouted Allah Ackbar before opening fire. The point is that it is terrorism - an attack for the purpose of advancing a political/religious agenda through the spread of fear.

On Topic: A secular government legally amended their own constitution with a democratic vote. They outlawed the building of a specific type of tower. Although the motivations behind this move MAY be suspect, I see no real human rights issue.

ShumaGorath wrote:

OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.

So you consider any form of murder suicide terrorism? I mean, I know you're basically nothing but a senseless troll, but I had a legitimate question in my post, and I had hoped you could drop the act for five seconds and answer it. I guess I had hoped for too much considering your track record (and you're a mod?).

.

Why I do believe thats a personal attack.

Kanluwen wrote:I think, and don't quote me on this, that Shuma is saying that while a terrorist attack can be done in the form of a suicide bombing/assault...not all suicide assaults are terrorism.

Thats what I was saying yes. I thought I had been pretty straight about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

OK boys and girls you heard it here first! According to Shuma all those suicide attacks aren't terrorism! Evidently those planes going into the Towers was not terrorism after all. Good to hear. I can sleep soundly at night now.

So you consider any form of murder suicide terrorism? I mean, I know you're basically nothing but a senseless troll, but I had a legitimate question in my post, and I had hoped you could drop the act for five seconds and answer it. I guess I had hoped for too much considering your track record (and you're a mod?).

.

Why I do believe thats a personal attack.

And what you did wasn't? So you have double standards too?

Okay folk. Can we be a bit more calm?

Everyone give a sidehug to the person next to you, and listen to the soothing sounds of Journey.

Kanluwen wrote:Okay folk. Can we be a bit more calm?

Everyone give a sidehug to the person next to you, and listen to the soothing sounds of Journey.

I was doing good right up until you mentioned Journey.