erynthered Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Good show ol' Chap, way to come out against these terrorist: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=45221 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 Nice picture. http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/su...erroristkid.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Good looking fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Nice picture. http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/su...erroristkid.jpg 379738[/snapback] permission denied by the server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works". I feel a bit of a double standard here. When we do it, its just part of war. When they do it, its an outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works". I feel a bit of a double standard here. When we do it, its just part of war. When they do it, its an outrage. 379789[/snapback] You sort of miss the point, bubba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works". I feel a bit of a double standard here. When we do it, its just part of war. When they do it, its an outrage. 379789[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Who made this guy as scholar? I want to see credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Who made this guy as scholar? I want to see credentials. 379800[/snapback] Probably the same people that made worldnetdaily a credible news source... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 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. 379799[/snapback] Thats true, but its a different perspective. To them, they aren't targets, but they are also collateral damage. The difference is deeper in my opinion - we actively try to reduce collateral damage, while they don't. I think the distinction should be on a basic human rights level, not an outrage of something that we both do from our own perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Thats true, but its a different perspective. To them, they aren't targets, but they are also collateral damage. The difference is deeper in my opinion - we actively try to reduce collateral damage, while they don't. I think the distinction should be on a basic human rights level, not an outrage of something that we both do from our own perspectives. 379815[/snapback] You related to Bill Moyers? He was ranting on NPR about how US Soldiers are like Bin Laden. It was lovely. Glad my tax dollars are paying for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Thats true, but its a different perspective. To them, they aren't targets, but they are also collateral damage. The difference is deeper in my opinion - we actively try to reduce collateral damage, while they don't. I think the distinction should be on a basic human rights level, not an outrage of something that we both do from our own perspectives. 379815[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 You related to Bill Moyers? He was ranting on NPR about how US Soldiers are like Bin Laden. It was lovely. Glad my tax dollars are paying for that. 379824[/snapback] Hell no. 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. 379835[/snapback] Interesting. My understanding, as you correctly stated, was the one that had widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim world, I did not realize there was a significant difference between the two interpretations. I shall google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Maybe we need to have our own suicide bombers to sneak in and blow up scum like this idiot. Maybe leak that Islam approves of abortion or something, that should mobilize an army of Christian fundamentalists after them. Or, recruit the Young Republicans, they seem be fanatical enough. Or, we could start things by sending one of our own. I nominate Rich in Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Good show ol' Chap, way to come out against these terrorist: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=45221 379702[/snapback] I wonder how that assmonkey feels about the indiscriminant killing of a few sick muslim clerics? I have no doubt that there are many who would like to help him share that experience. Did he really say that because the term civilian does not exist in his sick world then the terrorists see no distinction between them and soldiers. I always knew that these people were sick, but this goes even beyond my ability to understand. Hate propagators like that bastard sit there behind the walls of their mosques and spew this hate speech and little is done to them. I feel that the day is coming when the fight will be taken to them….in their places of peace. Unfortunately many innocent people will be the victims, and the ones who deserve such a fate will no doubt escape. Perhaps to a cave deep in the afghan mountains or perhaps into some other crude spider hole. Now just to make it clear to the moderators who seem to have me in their sights……I am not advocating the death and destruction of these insane men of peace. I am just wondering what they would think about someone or some group who would target them…..like they do they innocent women and children that they routinely support the murders of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Maybe we need to have our own suicide bombers to sneak in and blow up scum like this idiot. Maybe leak that Islam approves of abortion or something, that should mobilize an army of Christian fundamentalists after them. Or, recruit the Young Republicans, they seem be fanatical enough. 379857[/snapback] mmmmm....self-parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I wonder how that assmonkey feels about the indiscriminant killing of a few sick muslim clerics? I have no doubt that there are many who would like to help him share that experience. Did he really say that because the term civilian does not exist in his sick world then the terrorists see no distinction between them and soldiers. I always knew that these people were sick, but this goes even beyond my ability to understand. Hate propagators like that bastard sit there behind the walls of their mosques and spew this hate speech and little is done to them. I feel that the day is coming when the fight will be taken to them….in their places of peace. Unfortunately many innocent people will be the victims, and the ones who deserve such a fate will no doubt escape. Perhaps to a cave deep in the afghan mountains or perhaps into some other crude spider hole. Now just to make it clear to the moderators who seem to have me in their sights……I am not advocating the death and destruction of these insane men of peace. I am just wondering what they would think about someone or some group who would target them…..like they do they innocent women and children that they routinely support the murders of. 379864[/snapback] Assmonkey. That funky monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Assmonkey. That funky monkey. 379869[/snapback] By the Beastiality Boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works". I feel a bit of a double standard here. When we do it, its just part of war. When they do it, its an outrage. 379789[/snapback] Bluefire are you kidding me??????? You really cannot see the difference between the two? Let me help you !!! 1) Civilians in a non war torn country - otherwise known as innocent people going about thier own little lives. 2) Civilians in a war torn country - That is being attacked not by soldiers but by sick, inhuman lower then ass scum people who for the most part are not even from thier country. Now that we have the two different forms of civilians defined please take note that the civilians in catagory 2) have recntly been liberated and as soon as enough ammunition and other ordinance can be dispursed upon the aformentioned sub-humans then the problem will go away. In the mean time they understand the nature of thier existance. They happened to live under the boot of one of the owrst tirants in history...and now they are free. There is a cost to this freedom just like there was for our country a few hundred years ago. Now the other civilians in catagory 1) they are truely innocent and they are guilty of nothing more then simply getting out of bed in the morning, showering, putting on thier clothes and hittinf the subways abd busses as they head off for work. Nowhere in thier mindset did they expect that they would have to put on thier kevlar vests and don thier chemical masks as part of that daily INNOCENT ritual. The fact that you see no difference between the two...makes you simply to ignorant to converse with. There really is no other way to put it. You have to be able to see the difference if you have even one sliver of decency in you. I for one have my doubts about weather you do...or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 You sort of miss the point, bubba. 379792[/snapback] You are way too kind to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts