It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Hussra wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:

Why? Why the fuck would you allow that to go unchallenged? You sound like a beta male.


people who use terms like beta/alpha male are either omega males or first year english lit students.


Shut up, pussy.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16843
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
:wink:

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16843
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Spaulding wrote:

You seem to believe that Muslims or Islamic countries hate the US for military and political interference. If that is true why are there terrorist attacks within predominantly Muslim countries or places such as India?



Image

get it? "practice" suicide bombings. :o Ok, maybe not as funny as WWN but I lol'd.

Don't they usually target "Western targets" / Westerners? e.g., the 2008 Bombay / Mumbai attacks. Like if you can quote the Koran, or, better yet, Quran, then, Allahu Akbar, you get to live.

And then there's this:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Spaulding wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:

Honestly not sure what your question/observation is.


You seem to believe that Muslims or Islamic countries hate the US for military and political interference. If that is true why are there terrorist attacks within predominantly Muslim countries or places such as India?


You're confusing me with someone else.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Hussra wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:

Why? Why the fuck would you allow that to go unchallenged? You sound like a beta male.


people who use terms like beta/alpha male are either omega males or first year english lit students.


Shots fired at SomeGuy.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Spaulding wrote:
So why all the attacks in other countries? Iraq, Somalia, any of the "stans", India, etc? There is a suicide bombing or execution everyday. I don't follow...anything closely enough to know about any of the motivations for the European attacks. It's not here yet. I'd like for it to not be here.


That's the question Ltg had no answer for yesterday. Or today, and the next day and the next day...

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If American intervention was the cause of terrorist groups then you think the answer would be easy. They say if you stop bombing and attacking our citizens we will disband. We say ok and all of a sudden terrorism is gone as they got their wish. Does anyone think that would work?


"Terrorists groups" is a generalization. Not all terrorists groups are out to destroy Western civilization. Most could frankly care less about the United States.

Hezbollah was created because of U.S. intervention in Iran and the Middle East. AL Queda was not created because of the U.S. but they targeted the U.S. because of intervention in the Middle East. ISIS is an outgrowth of U S. intervention in Iraq.

Would we be as accepting of similar actions if these actions were conducted by Middle Easterners in the U.S.?
You keep on avoiding the question.

If American intervention is the cause of this then wouldn't it be a fairly easy solution to work out a deal where the terrorist groups disband and we stop bombing and killing civilians? I'm referring to something sort of like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army.

Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If it wouldn't then why not?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Last edited by Brick on Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.


:lol:

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.
Don't make it more than it is. The question is just a way to highlight the idea that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. If it were really that simple then the answer to that question would be pretty simple too.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
So why all the attacks in other countries? Iraq, Somalia, any of the "stans", India, etc? There is a suicide bombing or execution everyday. I don't follow...anything closely enough to know about any of the motivations for the European attacks. It's not here yet. I'd like for it to not be here.


That's the question Ltg had no answer for yesterday. Or today, and the next day and the next day...


I tried to give you the out and you should have taken it. If it is all about destroying Christianity then why has there been conflict between Sunni and Shiite for CENTURIES? If there is such a United Islamic Front against Christianity then why is there such intra Islamic Conflict? Islamic countries have no problem warring with each other. The Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq have been in conflict well before there ever was an Isis. While they were warring where was this great assault on Christianity that you speak?


There have also been numerous Muslim countries that had no problem assisting the United States over the years. Even Iran attempted to assist the U.S. post 9/11.

Terrorism exists in just about every country on earth including the U.S. I never said that terrorism began with U.S. policy in the Middle East. What I did state was that attacks on the U.S. by Middle Eastern terrorist groups began with U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Attempts by some to turn this into a modern day Holy War are misguided and seek to divert attention from the role played by the United States.

Isis in Iraq didn't exist prior to the U.S. invasion. There definitely was not a terrorist problem in Iraq. That situation among others was entirely created by the U.S. invasion. Colin Powell and others predicted this would happen in 1991 that is GHW resisted regime change.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.
Don't make it more than it is. The question is just a way to highlight the idea that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. If it were really that simple then the answer to that question would be pretty simple too.


Yep. Good way to move the turnbuckle yet again. Standard all or nothing argument which relates to absolutely nothing that I have stated. Noted scholar Denisdman had no problem deciphering the point being made.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.
Don't make it more than it is. The question is just a way to highlight the idea that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. If it were really that simple then the answer to that question would be pretty simple too.


Hey I like it.

"If you believe that would end Islamic terrorism, tell me why not."

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.
Don't make it more than it is. The question is just a way to highlight the idea that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. If it were really that simple then the answer to that question would be pretty simple too.


Hey I like it.

"If you believe that would end Islamic terrorism, tell me why not."
:lol: Oh....

Yeah, that needs an edit.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Do you believe that would end Islamic terrorism? If so, why not?


Classic Rick.
Don't make it more than it is. The question is just a way to highlight the idea that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. If it were really that simple then the answer to that question would be pretty simple too.


Hey I like it.

"If you believe that would end Islamic terrorism, tell me why not."
:lol: Oh....

Yeah, that needs an edit.

:lol:

No way. Leave it.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Yep. Good way to move the turnbuckle yet again. Standard all or nothing argument which relates to absolutely nothing that I have stated. Noted scholar Denisdman had no problem deciphering the point being made.
Ok then. Cool.

I'll ask you a different question then. Is American intervention in the Middle East the cause of Islamic terrorism?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Yep. Good way to move the turnbuckle yet again. Standard all or nothing argument which relates to absolutely nothing that I have stated. Noted scholar Denisdman had no problem deciphering the point being made.
Ok then. Cool.

I'll ask you a different question then. Is American intervention in the Middle East the cause of Islamic terrorism?


I will ask you a question. Is Islamic terrorism the cause of the KKK?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.
So why not just answer the question and say that "No, American intervention is not the cause of Islamic terrorism"?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57670
long time guy wrote:
Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention ....... My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention.


huh?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
RFDC wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention ....... My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention.


huh?
:lol:

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.
So why not just answer the question and say that "No, American intervention is not the cause of Islamic terrorism"?


Because that was never the point that I made. I keep stating that it isn't relevant to what I'm referencing. Seriously Brick and I mean this in all honesty. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Or do u simply like to frame arguments to fit your belief system? It is a choice that is "binary" in nature.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
RFDC wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention ....... My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention.


huh?


Apparently you and Brick are working out of the same do it yourself comprehension kit.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80568
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wATMBqNl6Pc

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57670
long time guy wrote:
RFDC wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention ....... My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention.


huh?


Apparently you and Brick are working out of the same do it yourself comprehension kit.

Is dodgeball your favorite game?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Clearly you are deflecting because you know it directly contradicts what you have said for pages.


The deflection was initiated by you and others that choose to ignore the role played by the U.S. Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention you made it about Islamic on Islamic attacks. Terrorism predates both the creation of the United States and the creation of Islam also. My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention. That was yours once you couldn't prove that aggression against the U.S. began with Islamic radicals.
So why not just answer the question and say that "No, American intervention is not the cause of Islamic terrorism"?


Because that was never the point that I made. I keep stating that it isn't relevant to what I'm referencing. Seriously Brick and I mean this in all honesty. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Or do u simply like to frame arguments to fit your belief system? It is a choice that is "binary" in nature.
So for the record, you do not think that American intervention is the cause of Islamic terrorism. Is that correct?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
RFDC wrote:
long time guy wrote:
RFDC wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Once I demonstrated with FACTS that Islamic aggression against America started following American intervention ....... My argument was never that terrorism started with U.S. intervention.


huh?


Apparently you and Brick are working out of the same do it yourself comprehension kit.

Is dodgeball your favorite game?


If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.




A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.



Here is my original point. Is there anything factually incorrect in this statement? It is also the reason that Brick's question isn't relevant.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group