Boston Marathon explosions......

[The Thriller]

I don't get the uproar over whether to call him a terrorist or criminal? Could someone explain to me why am radio and fox are up in arms over this? If he's a terrorist... What... Is he hanged? If he's a criminal, what he is lethally injected? Is someone more deader if they are hanged? Or less deader if they are lethally injected? Does mass even have a capital punishment? So is he less deader if he has to spend the rest of his life being raped in the shower nonstop for the next 70+ years? I don't get it/

And it's not like bombing is exclusively done by terrorists. Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building and killed a lot more people if memory serves. I don't really recall him being defined as a "terrorist." Do we call Muslims who blow stuff up terrorists and white Christians who blow stuff up as angry crimials wanting to protest their government?

I just don't get the uproar over obama's words and why so many are upset over him being tried. Isn't he a naturalized citizen anyway? Someone please enlighten me because this looks like yet another petty lame *** attack by the right.

 

[Sandy Braille]

I do not think you understand the gif you posted.

I don't think I understand the word-choice behind "you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist-sympathizer", and then acknowledging that there is a difference between understanding and sympathizing-- and somehow claiming that your previous post is in accordance with that.

 

[Scat]

I don't think I understand the word-choice behind "you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist-sympathizer", and then acknowledging that there is a difference between understanding and sympathizing-- and somehow claiming that your previous post is in accordance with that.

Subtlety is often difficult to understand for some.

 

[Sandy Braille]

Subtlety is often difficult to understand for some.

Giving a straight answer is often a difficulty for others.

 

[Scat]

I don't get the uproar over whether to call him a terrorist or criminal? Could someone explain to me why am radio and fox are up in arms over this? If he's a terrorist... What... Is he hanged? If he's a criminal, what he is lethally injected? Is someone more deader if they are hanged? Or less deader if they are lethally injected? Does mass even have a capital punishment? So is he less deader if he has to spend the rest of his life being raped in the shower nonstop for the next 70+ years? I don't get it/

And it's not like bombing is exclusively done by terrorists. Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building and killed a lot more people if memory serves. I don't really recall him being defined as a "terrorist." Do we call Muslims who blow stuff up terrorists and white Christians who blow stuff up as angry crimials wanting to protest their government?

I just don't get the uproar over obama's words and why so many are upset over him being tried. Isn't he a naturalized citizen anyway? Someone please enlighten me because this looks like yet another petty lame *** attack by the right.

Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. I'm not sure why you would call him anything but. Same for the Boston bombers.

 

[Gameface]

Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. I'm not sure why you would call him anything but. Same for the Boston bombers.

But they are also criminals. It doesn't take away from their condemnation to call them criminals OR terrorists.

There's nothing magic about proclaiming an act or a perpetrator a terrorist.

 

[Scat]

Giving a straight answer is often a difficulty for others.

Let me give it a try. You're a dumbass. How did I do?

 

[Sandy Braille]

Let me give it a try. You're a dumbass. How did I do?

Extremely predictably.


Resorting to insults to cover up loose-statements is the American way.

 

[UGLI baby]

#hateforsandy

posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO

 

[The Thriller]

But they are also criminals. It doesn't take away from their condemnation to call them criminals OR terrorists.

There's nothing magic about proclaiming an act or a perpetrator a terrorist.

Exactly. So again, what's the big deal here? I really want to know. Is there THAT much of a difference in the way he will be tried? His punishment? I'm pretty sure his life is over whether he is tried as a criminal or terrorist. Soooooooooo can someone please explain to me why foxnews in particular is going crazy over this?

Criminal v terrorist? Seems like we are arguing about the same color.

 

[MVP]

Timothy McVeigh: "Science is my religion"

In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs. Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

So he was not an atheist. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Siro]

SiroMar: I find your point about the Islamic Golden age being HELD back by Islam laughable-- of course, I can understand why you argue it, as it fits your "religion represses progress" rhetoric, but choosing the Golden Age of Islam as a definitive proof of this is a very, very weak stance.


Also, I know you know that I meant that Islam shouldn't adopt its principles of 700 CE. I am saying that there was a very long span of time where they held views that were the MOST progressive relative to the rest of the world. We should try and understand a)what the sociological factors underlying that society where; b) how things have changed, and why; c) is there anyway we can try and get modern Islam to revert back into the times where Education (first and foremost-- after all, the first word that Allah told the prophet Muhammad through Gabriel was "Read", as you know), Philosophy, and Co-habitation with those of different ethnicities, races, and faiths. Muhammad was seen as a radical when he appointed Bilal ibn Raba as the Muezzin-- yet you say that Religious forces led to things like racial inequality, and reversed education.

I don't see any indication that you actually know much about the subject beyond what Muslim children are taught in school. So I can live with you finding my opinion laughable. I'll continue to live in the real world, were statements about religion's tendency to hinder progress are as obvious as the sky is blue.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that Islam itself caused the decline of the Muslim state. Neither was it responsible for its rise. Muslim's egalitarian treatment of conquered people established a sense of equality and kinship (as long as you turn away from paganism, and preferably all non-Muslim religions), unity of rule across vast lands with vast resources created stability and prosperity, and a series of progressive Umayyad and Abbasyd Khalifs who encouraged the pursuit of science from all known sources and cultures resulted in a vibrant intellectual milieu that advanced science immeasurably. But the religious aspects of the empire were as backwards then as they are now. The examples I gave about the need to pay protection tax if you're not Muslim, or the legal status of women have nothing to do with the era. They come straight from the Quran. You can ignore them in the modern world, of course. Christians do it all the time.

The decline is very complicated, like the collapse of any great empire. But Islam played a role in it, just as Christianity played a role in the decline of the Roman Empire. It is the same role Islam played in response to European colonization in the modern era. Muslim thinkers steered the panicked populace desperate for guidance in an anti-philosophical/scientific path, and one that decries all progress as the reason for the decline, and calls for a more theological lifestyle based on the strictest interpretation of religious tenets. There were others who disagreed and tried to survive the tough times by sticking to what always worked, but the fanatics waged as ruthless a war against them as they did in recent history when nationalists and socialists tried to modernize the Muslim world (see Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential Islamist thinkers).

 

[babe]

The supposed rationality of Liberalism/Darwinism is as dangerous as the supposed irrationality of Islam. They are both enemies to our Judeo-Christian America.

On Rationality and "scientism":

Assigning the development of human reason to a non rational process like natural selection ends up undermining our confidence in reason itself. After all, if reason is merely an unintended byproduct of a fundamentally non rational process then what grounds do we have for regarding its conclusions as objectively true. -C.S. Lewis
Even Darwin himself questioned whether the conclusions of a mind developed by Darwinian process could be trusted.

nobody read your post, or got your point about the presence of the word "supposed".


looks like we have some folks in here who are all wrapped up in themselves. They didn't notice my link for EJ Wells either. Rather a case of "No Room in the Inn" for actual information.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_muslimbrotherhood01.htm

"Islam" with only fourteen hundred years' traditions has been about everything the human mind can imagine. It is a religion. . . . that is, it is a wave of the human hand towards an unknown infinity. . . . and it is a defined pattern for human behavior as wildly detailed as any system of compliance ever used by government to regulate human actions.

"Progressive" "thinkers" pushing for "change" want christian religion deep sixed but are determined to promote both Marxist rhetoric against religion on one hand, and the Nazi hijackers of Islam on the other, with the absolute purpose to put on another World War show that will kill a billion humans.

I think the "science" that is valid in regard to relatedness among species and the possible lines of development that has produced our abundance of life is pushed to break down christianity, and when the dust settles after the Next War, we'll see islamic faith relegated to the dustbin of "history" as well. The fascists who ran the show in WWII gave huge gains to supposed "Marxists" on purpose.

The moneyed elites use puppets to catch our attention, divide us into hostile camps, and turn us one against another and heat us up to the unreasoned rage it takes to get us shooting statist-controlled guns at one another under false-flagged armies.

 

[The Thriller]

So can anyone answer my questions? I seriously want to know why foxnews is making this such a big deal

 

[Scat]

So can anyone answer my questions? I seriously want to know why foxnews is making this such a big deal

Criminal = a person that commits a crime for their own gain.
Terrorist = a person that commits a crime for ideology and to instill fear.

 

[Gameface]

Criminal = a person that commits a crime for their own gain.
Terrorist = a person that commits a crime for ideology and to instill fear.

So what magically occurs when we use the right word?

 

[Siro]

So what magically occurs when we use the right word?

What are you asking? It clearly makes a difference to the process of coming up with a solution. If someone commits a crime, you look for what typically correlates with crime. Was it caused by poverty? Out of anger? Was he just a sociopath? And depending on the answer, you can look for applicable solutions. If it is a terrorist act, then the cause is very likely to be different.

No single categorization fully explains a social phenomenon, but using a less descriptive category when a better one is available is pointless.

 

[Gameface]

What are you asking? It clearly makes a difference to the process of coming up with a solution. If someone commits a crime, you look for what typically correlates with crime. Was it caused by poverty? Out of anger? Was he just a sociopath? And depending on the answer, you can look for applicable solutions. If it is a terrorist act, then the cause is very likely to be different.

No single categorization fully explains a social phenomenon, but using a less descriptive category when a better one is available is pointless.

So if in the course of making a speech I call the Boston Marathon bombers "criminals" have I somehow done an injustice to someone? Have I misspoke?

 

[Siro]

So if in the course of making a speech I call the Boston Marathon bombers "criminals" have I somehow done an injustice to someone? Have I misspoke?

Not really, terrorism is a crime. I suppose the opposite would be incorrect and unhelpful. But I don't see anything wrong with calling a terrorist a criminal.

My response to you was independent of what the others were arguing. I wasn't talking about the tactics used by a conservative organization to emotionally manipulate its audience. I was only saying that using the correct description is better than the using the wrong one. And that it makes an objective real-world difference, and not just an arbitrary principled stance.

 

[babe]

So what magically occurs when we use the right word?

you're asking the wrong question.

The right word does the "magic" of correctly describing the act and it's motivation.

The right question will lead to actually discussing the relevant issue in a meaningful and helpful way.