Crap Throwing Monkey

DEFINE. "AGENT". Maybe it wouldn't be so amazing if you knew what a CIA "agent" actually was, you chucklehead.

Actually, technically he was paraphrasing the request "Define 'Agent'" for the benefit of those in the audience who were apparently unable to comprehend it the first time. I just want to know which word you stumbled on: "define" or "agent"? Why on earth not?

Cool! Then I'm doing policy right now too!

While you're at it, every single idiot driver on the planet seems to crowd the Legion Bridge at about 5:10pm every day. I don't suppose you can toss a little something that way?

"Wasted practice targets"

"Target practice"

What do you season that with? Beet juice?

How the hell do you think I'm managing to tolerate this stupid argument?

Like any properly constructed system of reasoning, it's logical and consistent if you accept the a priori assumptions underpinning it. Given the a priori assumptions al-Siba'i starts out with (which basically amount to "This is the Word of Allah and the Truth, whereas this is not"), his statements are valuably informative and well-reasoned. And don't even begin to argue with me, Rich. You wouldn't know a fact from an a priori assumption if it walked up and bit you in your flatulent ass.

No, what they are doing is blowing sh-- up. "Terrorist" speaks to their motivation, not their actions. I mean, yes, it's extremely likely that they are, in fact, terrorists. That does not mean, however, that the word is an objective term.

It probably took me twenty seconds for the actual quiz, and 2:40 waiting for pages to load. I can't control the quality of the internet connection in the office.

Note, though, that I didn't say it doesn't have widespread acceptance, I said I wasn't willing to assume it did. Based on my personal experience (namely, more than a little with Muslims, albiet none with avowed Wahabbists), not one Muslim that I know advocates that specific interpretation of Islamic Law. And looking at history, too...your best known (and hence presumably most active and supported) intra- and international Islamic terrorist groups weren't religiously motivated - they were either leftist or Arab nationalist organizations. The religion of Islam as a primary motivation for terrorism, as far as I can tell, first started in 1979 with the Iranian and Pakistani messes (Pakistani mobs sacked the American Embassy in Pakinstan in 1979 - apparently a little-known fact overshadowed by the Iranian hostage crisis), and only started to gain speed when the fall of the Soviet Union ultimately marginalized the leftist organizations and left a power vacuum for the fundamntalist organizations (i.e. al Qaeda) to fill. So why SHOULD al-Siba'i's interpretation be thought of as widely held, given that until relatively recently it wasn't even used as a justification? Just my opinion (and analysis)...I could be wrong. But even if I am, I'm not as wrong as Rich.

In other words, "Why not go the extra mile and be subjective?" I think that question pretty much answers itself.

The difference is even deeper than that: in Islamic law, there's no such thing as collateral damage. We actively try to reduce it; not only do they not actively try, they don't even recognize it exists. The caveat there being that "Islamic Law" refers specifically to the interpretation that al-Siba'i seems to adhere to. I'm not willing to postulate that his interpretation has widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim world...but I AM willing to postulate that it has widespread acceptance throughout the fundamentalist Sunni groups that form the base demographic of the current crop of terrorists. And if you actually read some of al-Siba'i's stuff...there's a lot of good info on the terrorist mindset in there. Apparently he's a former associate of some senior al Qaeda people (including Zawahiri, with whom he apparently fell out in 1999), and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if his "doctorate" was in Islamic Law from a Pakistani Wahabist madrassa. At any rate, anyone who can read his stuff without blindly dismissing it as "barbaric" or "criminal" can get a lot of good info out of it.

Probably the same people that made worldnetdaily a credible news source...

There's a different between "targets" and "collateral damage". While it's a fact of war that civilians die in war, we try to avoid it as much as possible. We sure as hell don't say "Well, it's war, so let's shoot 'em." and justify it ex post facto with scripture.

It depends. Which one played for the Cardinals?

"Democrats"?

I think we should keep Bledsoe at his current contract...

It'll be a hell of a lot less after I put you on ignore.

Vague? They set off bombs. Ergo, they are bombers. Looks pretty solid to me, not a hell of a lot of wiggle room there. "Terrorist", on the other hand...that's a loaded term. Accurate,yes, but loaded. "Bombers" is merely accurate.

I scored 5. I'm a moderate centrist. What a !@#$ing surprise. I knew that BEFORE I took the quiz. I want the last three minutes of my life back.

They are, after all, just exercising their right to free speech...

Clearly you've never heard Gene Frenkle's opinion on that.

Yeah. He pissed off Gene Frenkle.