151–160 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A B Breivik at least claimed not to be a personal believer in Christianity. Also his notes leave little doubt that he didn't practice Christianity. And he sure isn't a Muslim.
He doesnt identify as atheist per se and his statements on religion are ambiguous. He says, for example, that he prayed to God during attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious about the use of present tense. From the top of my mind: Madrid - London subway - Beslan (not sure if that is Europe) - All these are committed by people who claim to be Muslims aren't they? On the other hand you have Oslo/Utøya which was committed by an atheist / agnostic. Please don't misinterpret me: I have Muslim friends as well. I just want to stick to the facts. (and get my facts updated if necessary)
Wow, you remembered three! Well done! However, over 2000 terrorist attacks occurred in Europe in the last decade, so you'll need to remember more than three to attempt to show that most of them were muslim in origin/motivation. Here's a hint: You won't manage to find many more than ten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Islamic terrorists is not a defined enemy; many people are Islamic, and any of them could be terrorists. The list of who is considered a terrorist is secret and we are not privy to which people or even organisations are considered enemies in this war on terror. The US is also frequently attacked by Christian terrorists. Terror aims to scare a population, but more importantly to drive a wedge between a government and…
Yup, it's been stated over and over by terrorist organizations that this is one of their intended goals. Thinking about where we were as a country around the time of the 1998 embassy bombings and where we are today would be jarring if I wasn't so desensitized to it.
If the true horrors of violence were shown without censorship, all day, every day in the news media, so nobody could escape facing the world as it is, I have faith the public would be so disgusted and so outraged that they would move heaven and earth to find a solution.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bae_1304490155
Watch and cry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace the word "Islamic" with "Poor and Black/Brown" and you've selected the same group of people. Imagine being in Northern Ireland 20 years ago and stating the fact that all of the terrorist attackers were performed by "Catholics". Or in the Deep South 40 years ago (or today) and saying that all of the people charged with stealing are "Black". Or that most of the people with AIDS are "Gay". Unfortunately, the bla…
> Pretending that it is tied to religion is just weakly hidden fear-of-the-other. The killers are quoting from religious text and openly declare they are fighting a religious war. If there were only one or two people doing this, you could claim they were mentally ill, but you have thousands of people doing this, all over the world. You can't tar everybody with the same brush, but it's obvious that religion is part of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Approval voting, for example. Rank voting is ripe for tactical voting, too.
All voting systems are ripe for tactical voting; approval voting has the additional problem that ballots lack consistent meaning (a ranking, especially if it doesn't use forced preferences because it allows ties, has consistent meaning; "approval" vs. "disapproval" does not.) The problem with FPTP isn't that its ripe for tactical voting, its that it maximizes the difference in expressed preferences that are completel…
How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process" to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?
Your question itself falls victim to one of the biggest fallacies highlighted by this article: that is, you accept that government accusation (e.g. that someone is an al-Qaeda member) is tantamount to guilt. Establishing the truth of such an accusation is the very objective of due process. Thus, your question is internally inconsistent and circular. It literally cannot be answered.
Then what is the effective and ethical way of waging war against non-uniformed enemy? Arrest everyone then try them? What if it's not practical to do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent citizens And if they weren't?
I don't know of any case where they specifically targeted people they thought were innocent. Can you provide anything to support that claim?
I don't know if it is common for u.s. army to kill people without targeting them but if it is the case they should better learn how to aim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Killing is killing. Drone strikes hit incorrect and innocent targets ~90% (needs citation) of the time. Are you saying that's any better?
(needs citation) You won't find one, given that it's not true. Are you saying that's any better? Are you actually asking if accidentally killing innocent people is better than routinely and intentionally killing innocent people, like this: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013%5C01%5C11... ?
Really? :) http://presstv.com/usdetail/189661.html
>Are you actually asking if accidentally killing innocent people is better than routinely and intentionally killing innocent people, like this:
An innocent person dead is an innocent person dead. Regardless of whether it's an accident or intentional its still wrong. 'Accidentally killing' hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of 'all that is good and great' is disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Islamic terrorists sent mail bombs to a bunch of scientists, bombed the Olympics in Atlanta, and destroyed that federal building in Oklahoma City, too, right?
You've picked out data points in the USA. Check out what's going on in Burma, Thailand and the Philippines. Step back and look at events around the world, you'll see a clear pattern.
Narrow and blind hatred from other people lets them continue doing it. The number of people killed under the guard of the "new" Burma far exceeds the toll in Nairobi and Nigeria.