IDBillzFan Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 That's what you wrote. You can keep trying to argue whatever your point is all day long, but in the end, the only thing anyone needs to know is this: your intellect begins and ends with the notion that, to you, wiping the floor with someone on an internet message board is a thing. It's not a thing. Not to adults. When you grow up, maybe we'll pick this conversation up again. Meanwhile, keep battling with birdog. He's completely on your level.
....lybob Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 How do you propose we solve this ISIS problem, love and compassion? I'd send them guns and ammo - cobalt 60 in the stocks of the rifles and abrin in the cordite of the ammo
/dev/null Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 I have more than one grandfather, you know. Sounds like a title for the sequel to Heather Has Two Mommy's. But written by Greggy
FireChan Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) You can keep trying to argue whatever your point is all day long, but in the end, the only thing anyone needs to know is this: your intellect begins and ends with the notion that, to you, wiping the floor with someone on an internet message board is a thing. It's not a thing. Not to adults. When you grow up, maybe we'll pick this conversation up again. Meanwhile, keep battling with birdog. He's completely on your level. Someone's a witttle upset. Is your avatar Tim Graham because you strive to be as thin-skinned and moronic as him? Edited June 22, 2016 by FireChan
Deranged Rhino Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 Sounds like a title for the sequel to Heather Has Two Mommy's. But written by Greggy You promised not to spoil the title of my latest work! That's the last time I send you an early draft...
Joe Miner Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Sounds like a title for the sequel to Heather Has Two Mommy's. But written by Greggy Two Mommy DCTommy
B-Man Posted June 23, 2016 Author Posted June 23, 2016 Q: Would people be straining for such nuance and distinction if he were Christian? A: No Next question. .
4merper4mer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Over my head? You know who will never have the freedom to buy assault weapons? 50 people in Orlando. Because they're dead. Find my deeper meaning, hombre. Oh the irony of needing me to spell out why the Orlando shooting doesn't fit the criteria I posted after insulting my intelligence. Here's a hint, "conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by a small collection of individuals directed by some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity." Where was the direction? Where was the identifiable chain of command? Group of individuals directed by a movement? Perpetrated by a sub-national or non-state entity? Oh. I bet 9/11 didn't have that either though! Oh. 1. Missing the point fallacy. Try again. 2. Link. The link contains a suggestion of direction from ISIS. If not direct, it could have easily been seen by Mateen and acted upon. If Mateen interpreted as a direction and acted upon it, then its net impact was certainly that of a direction. His 911 call seems to indicate he might possibly have been aware of the existence of ISIS. He was neither a national group, indeed he was subnational and he was not a state entity. It seems clear that ISIS is willing and happy to provide direction to its followers even if they have never met, spoken with, texted or otherwise contacted these followers. Because they communicate in an unusual fashion does not diminish their threat or changes its definition. 9/11 on the other hand was not terror as it does not meet your criteria. It is 15 years after the attack and we still have not fully come to grips with who fit where in their chain of command thus we have not been able to define it, the members did in fact wear specific Muslim headwear and there are serious questions about nation-state support for Al Quaeda, specifically Saudi Arabia. Of course I'm being facetious in calling 9/11 non-terror, but your ridiculous claptrap of a definition leaves holes that Mack trucks can be driven through in arguing either way, And that is just a subset of your laundry list. If an asteroid the size of Alabama was bearing down on Earth and we decided to change the definition of asteroids requiring them to be as big as Texas, would we be less threatened?
FireChan Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 1. Missing the point fallacy. Try again. 2. Link. The link contains a suggestion of direction from ISIS. If not direct, it could have easily been seen by Mateen and acted upon. If Mateen interpreted as a direction and acted upon it, then its net impact was certainly that of a direction. His 911 call seems to indicate he might possibly have been aware of the existence of ISIS. He was neither a national group, indeed he was subnational and he was not a state entity. It seems clear that ISIS is willing and happy to provide direction to its followers even if they have never met, spoken with, texted or otherwise contacted these followers. Because they communicate in an unusual fashion does not diminish their threat or changes its definition. 9/11 on the other hand was not terror as it does not meet your criteria. It is 15 years after the attack and we still have not fully come to grips with who fit where in their chain of command thus we have not been able to define it, the members did in fact wear specific Muslim headwear and there are serious questions about nation-state support for Al Quaeda, specifically Saudi Arabia. Of course I'm being facetious in calling 9/11 non-terror, but your ridiculous claptrap of a definition leaves holes that Mack trucks can be driven through in arguing either way, And that is just a subset of your laundry list. If an asteroid the size of Alabama was bearing down on Earth and we decided to change the definition of asteroids requiring them to be as big as Texas, would we be less threatened? Let's just take a step back together here. 1. I'm just going to leave this alone right now. 2. Stretching so hard here, man. C'mon. That's a "kill list" of a completely different part of Florida. And it directed him to shoot up a gay club across the state? If a US drone is directed to bomb Afgahnistan, and it goes and bombs Pakistan, is the director the one with the agency here? Did Mateen even mention this kill list? How do you know he saw it? He was absolutely aware of ISIS. I won't question that. In regards to 9/11 we are absolutely aware that some chain of command existed. We have no idea if that's the case in the Orlando attack. Al-Quaeda definitely qualifies as a non-state entity. You stretched quite a bit here. As for "If an asteroid the size of Alabama was bearing down on Earth and we decided to change the definition of asteroids requiring them to be as big as Texas, would we be less threatened?" The answer is no. The point I tried to make above, but was probably unclear in doing so, is that calling it an asteroid or a meteor or an ostrich changes nothing. Just like calling Mateen a terrorist changes nothing. By your own admission, he had no direct contact with ISIS. So what are we supposed to do about it to stop lone-wolf style attackers who are inspired by terror groups? Nothing. If he's loony, or a terrorist, or a loony terrorist, it doesn't make a lick of difference. He acquired weapons and fired on innocents, and he won't be the last. Whether one of these psychos are inspired by video games or ISIS or Charlie Manson doesn't matter. The only way this is different from some other psycho loosing bullets in a public place is the ranting **** he said beforehand. He's not part of a terrorist group that we can follow. He didn't have a weapons supplier, or a dossier giving him a mission, or directions from some shadowy figure we can go after. He was just nuts. That's it. Edited June 23, 2016 by FireChan
Magox Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 It's like watching you guys Add 7 + __ = ___ And all of you have the correct answer somehow.
Joe Miner Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 It's like watching you guys Add 7 + __ = ___ And all of you have the correct answer somehow. That pretty much sums (haha) up PPP as a whole.
Azalin Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Why does a person need the backing or blessings of an "official" terror group for their acts of violence to legitimately classified as terror? Why does the act have to involve targeting people in general, instead of targeting a single group, to be considered terrorism? Does the act have to be inspired by extreme religious doctrine or belief? Can't a person live a perfectly normal life, and one day decide to kill people in the name of a deity and/or terror group, and have it be called exactly what it is - terror? I don't get why this is even an argument. Do you bomb abortion clinics? You're a terrorist. Do you blow yourself up at an airport? You're a terrorist. Do you fly hijacked planes into buildings, set off pressure cooker - shrapnel bombs at marathons, blow up federal buildings, or spray enough hot lead to slay 49 people in a dance club? Well then, you're a terrorist. How is this even being debated?
FireChan Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) Why does a person need the backing or blessings of an "official" terror group for their acts of violence to legitimately classified as terror? Why does the act have to involve targeting people in general, instead of targeting a single group, to be considered terrorism? Does the act have to be inspired by extreme religious doctrine or belief? Can't a person live a perfectly normal life, and one day decide to kill people in the name of a deity and/or terror group, and have it be called exactly what it is - terror? I don't get why this is even an argument. Do you bomb abortion clinics? You're a terrorist. Do you blow yourself up at an airport? You're a terrorist. Do you fly hijacked planes into buildings, set off pressure cooker - shrapnel bombs at marathons, blow up federal buildings, or spray enough hot lead to slay 49 people in a dance club? Well then, you're a terrorist. How is this even being debated? If that's your argument, I assume you think that the Sandy Hook shooter and the Confederate Flag church shooter (I can't remember his name) were both terrorists? If so, that's fine by me. Greggy's point, which I've sortve hijacked, is that they don't fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" as our country defines it as our War on Terror. Edited June 23, 2016 by FireChan
Magox Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Greggy's point, which I've sortve hijacked, is that they don't fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" as our country defines it as our War on Terror. Either A) You don't know that or B) You don't believe the "lone wolf" form of Jihadism falls "under the umbrella of terrorism".
sodbuster Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 http://www.thedailyliberator.com/orlando-shooters-gay-lover-reveals-real-motive-nightclub-massacre-not-islamic-terror/ Here's the original piece, of you can read spanish: http://www.univision.com/noticias/masacre-en-orlando/entrevista-exclusiva-presunto-amante-de-omar-mateen-dice-que-la-masacre-en-orlando-fue-una-venganza-relacionada-con-su-sexualidad
4merper4mer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Let's just take a step back together here. 1. I'm just going to leave this alone right now. 2. Just like calling Mateen a terrorist changes nothing. By your own admission, he had no direct contact with ISIS. So what are we supposed to do about it to stop lone-wolf style attackers who are inspired by terror groups? Nothing. If he's loony, or a terrorist, or a loony terrorist, it doesn't make a lick of difference. He acquired weapons and fired on innocents, and he won't be the last. Whether one of these psychos are inspired by video games or ISIS or Charlie Manson doesn't matter. The only way this is different from some other psycho loosing bullets in a public place is the ranting **** he said beforehand. He's not part of a terrorist group that we can follow. He didn't have a weapons supplier, or a dossier giving him a mission, or directions from some shadowy figure we can go after. He was just nuts. That's it. 1. Apology accepted. 2. I was going to address the first part of what you wrote but expect it would just lead to more back and forth. The overall point is that whatever definition you set up, it can be wordsmithed. When I got to the part I left in the quote above the first sentence made me shake my head because you can't really be that naive, can you? Then I read the rest.....yup. I made no admission that he had no direct contact with ISIS, I simply made no claim that he did. I don't now that he did so I made no claims based on what could be a false assumption. There is a difference between that and "admitting there was none". You are bad at arguing. Charlie Manson's influence seems to have faded. The influence of ISIS needs to fade too. It does make a difference if he shoots up a place in the name of ISIS because there seem to be a lot of that going around these days. It was not just because he was nuts and acting as if it was is dangerous.
Azalin Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 If that's your argument, I assume you think that the Sandy Hook shooter and the Confederate Flag church shooter (I can't remember his name) were both terrorists? If so, that's fine by me. Greggy's point, which I've sortve hijacked, is that they don't fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" as our country defines it as our War on Terror. I do consider Roof to be a terrorist, but Lanza was insane. The difference in my mind being that I would have Lanza treated and medicated like he should have been in the first place, then locked away until he died. Roof on the other hand, I'd have put to death if convicted.
FireChan Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 1. Apology accepted. 2. I was going to address the first part of what you wrote but expect it would just lead to more back and forth. The overall point is that whatever definition you set up, it can be wordsmithed. When I got to the part I left in the quote above the first sentence made me shake my head because you can't really be that naive, can you? Then I read the rest.....yup. I made no admission that he had no direct contact with ISIS, I simply made no claim that he did. I don't now that he did so I made no claims based on what could be a false assumption. There is a difference between that and "admitting there was none". You are bad at arguing. Charlie Manson's influence seems to have faded. The influence of ISIS needs to fade too. It does make a difference if he shoots up a place in the name of ISIS because there seem to be a lot of that going around these days. It was not just because he was nuts and acting as if it was is dangerous. Compare ISIS-influenced attacks in the US in the last 5 years compared to non-ISIS attacks. Seems to be a lot going around? That's bull ****. And yes, with the information we have available, there has been no direct contact. You don't get to assume that there has been. That's just nonsense. Either A) You don't know that or B) You don't believe the "lone wolf" form of Jihadism falls "under the umbrella of terrorism". What don't I know?
4merper4mer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Compare ISIS-influenced attacks in the US in the last 5 years compared to non-ISIS attacks. Seems to be a lot going around? That's bull ****. And yes, with the information we have available, there has been no direct contact. You don't get to assume that there has been. That's just nonsense. Holy crap dude if you're not confident in your ability to argue, just don't argue. I did not assume there had been contact. I purposely went as far as assuming there wasn't any. You took this as my admission that there absolutely wasn't any. Although I would agree that the odds are relatively low, that is not 0% and therefore not: By your own admission, he had no direct contact with ISIS It really isn't that hard to understand. I made my arguments into your crap definition using only known factors. That doesn't mean that I "admitted" anything about unknown factors. They were simply not needed to refute you. Now we're limiting the argument to ISIS influenced attacks "in the US". After three major attacks in France and Belgium and a lot of death in the US two weeks ago, we should only take the US attack into account when assessing the danger of ISIS?
Recommended Posts