[J m HofMarN]

If you think that organized crime in Northern Ireland can be separated from the alleged political struggle, then you haven't read enough about it.

I haven't really read up much on the matter, but I can see how it makes sense. I mean, what is the IRA going to do to fund itself, hold a fucking bake sale? Any terrorist/whatever group is going to have to turn to illicit means to fund itself if it lacks significant support from another government. Crazed hatred doesn't pay the bills.

[Deucaon]

For the last time. The British left India because their empire was failing and they lacked the money and will power to hold India in thrawl anymore.

I’m not asking why they left, I am asking why they partitioned India.

And the catholics were there because they had been converted under the French imperialist system which ensured the best schools in the country were....... Catholic! So whether the Cong arose because of the budhist issue or because of the total lack of promised democracy, it still traces back to Imperialism.

Yeah, I’m sure that a peasant cares more about no being able to vote then they care about not being able to worship the religion they believe in. It certainly wasn’t because the peasants were anti capitalism or pro communism and since the French had left it wasn’t about imperialism.

And no, Minh did not liberate a small part of Vietnam. He liberated the entire country. The Imperialist powers forced the North/South split in their efforts to contain communism. That wasnt even necessary since Minh was, first and foremost, a Vietnamese patriot before he was a communist.

Citation needed that Minh “liberated” all of Vietnam (rather then just a small part called “The Democratic Republic of Vietnam” which only existed because the Yanks didn’t have enough balls or logistical support to hold the areas in the north.)

citation:

On what claim?

Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

And please don't just say everything. One of you lot have already asked me for my sources on "everything" and it was rather embarassing.

Well I’m sure that one of you lot (anti Semites) will give me a source where you read the bullshit propaganda which you relay.

3: I havent a clue, you brought it up as a reason that terrorists hate us.

Is India or Pakistan a “western” country? Is Israel or Palestine a “western” country?

4: I'd imagine you were on about religious freedom and freedom of speech since those are the ones that get tossed around as terrorist motivation most often.

It could be that (if they are religious fundamentalists) then they probably don’t like how much rights (i.e. freedoms) women have, et cetera.

[Deucaon]

That's nice. You presented a scenario of terrorists using the mentally challenged as suicide bombers, and I was pointing out that the vast majority of their operatives are willing recruits. And yes, if they volunteer to do it I'd say that means they are in no way unwittind dupes.

Citation needed that those who blow themselves up aren’t “unwitting dupes.”

1: I have plenty of money saved up for a vacation. 2: I'm going to die some day anyhow. 3: I think it's a glorious thing to die for ones beliefs. So I ask again, why have I not blown up Canberra? I disagree with Australian laws, and you guys have freedom of religion, so terrorists should be streaming in to do you harm by your logic. But since they're not, your logic must be faulty.

Well then obviously you don’t believe that attacking Australia would be righteous or make the policy change.

Your thinking is utter nonsense. How could a sophisticated network like Al Qaeda be formed by people who were crazy with hatred? How could Hizbullah, a group that beat back the greatest war machine in the middle east, have done so if they were just a bunch of people crazy with hatred?

You seem to think “crazy with hatred” is the same as “incompetent.”

And yes, terrorists are reasonable. Western journalists interview htem and are not skinned and eaten. They have been known to negotiate, form governments, provide community services, etc. And their acts of unconventional warfare are meant to achieve goals, in a word, to profit them. Not necessarily in a monetary way, but by gaining them freedom, or land, or what have you.

Its funny how every time a terrorist blows up something belonging to a force then that force puts more and more restrictions on freedoms. They do it for freedom because the result is the exact opposite.

Ok. You're saying terrorists lack logic for blowing up the Pentagon after that building acted as a planning site for half a century of genocide, but the people who wandered into Iraq and initiated a completely pointless war, they're not illogical?

Yes it is. I don’t know why the Yanks initiated the many wars against sovereign countries (and some not so sovereign countries.) Perhaps it has something to do with McDonalds... or imperialism?

No, no it is not. What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is the holocaust of the 21st century, and it will one day be recognized as such. The reason the Palestinian population of Israel rose in that time is because of the occupation of Palestinian lands filled with Palestinians (and now being filled with Zionist settlements) see: Chebaa farms, East Jerusalem, West Bank.

So the lack of genocide on the part of the “Zionists” is going to be recognised as the next holocaust... I have come to that conclusion that you’re deluded.

[reiner]

My point exactly. Perhaps there is no "logical" reason. If you are implying that I am trying to give them a logical reason by stating that (the lack of) religious freedoms is a cause then let me answer you with a question: since when was religion ever "logical"?

Not even close to the point I tried to convey.

[civilian_number_two]

Citation needed that those who blow themselves up aren’t “unwitting dupes.”

You seem to think “crazy with hatred” is the same as “incompetent.”

Is this for real? In the same message:

1) you suggest that the suicide bombers, note that you include the alleged highly educated and motivated pilots of 9/11, are "unwitting dupes?" You require a citation to prove otherwise?

2) you insist that the attackers are competent, that "cazy with hatred" does not mean incompetent.

So ... they are hate-crazed and competent unwitting dupes, unless JM can provide a ciation to prove otherwise.

Check.

[Deucaon]

Is this for real? In the same message:

1) you suggest that the suicide bombers, note that you include the alleged highly educated and motivated pilots of 9/11, are "unwitting dupes?" You require a citation to prove otherwise?

2) you insist that the attackers are competent, that "cazy with hatred" does not mean incompetent.

So ... they are hate-crazed and competent unwitting dupes, unless JM can provide a ciation to prove otherwise.

Check.

Having no idea why you are doing something makes you no less effective at doing it. Retarded suicide bombers and child soldiers prove this.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 10 July 2008 - 04:47 PM

[J m HofMarN]

I’m not asking why they left, I am asking why they partitioned India.

Because half of it was Muslim and half was Hindu. So they each got their own country. More than that though, there were seperate independence movements. Pakistan had one and so did India.

Well then obviously you don’t believe that attacking Australia would be righteous or make the policy change.

No. I don't believe attacking Australia would be righteous. Because they havent done anything to me. That's the same reason the terrorists dont attack countries not involved in the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. But if Australia invaded my home town, you can bet I'd happily wage holy war against them. I provided this as proof of why terrorists dont attack places based upon laws or freedom, but upon external policy.

Yeah, I’m sure that a peasant cares more about no being able to vote then they care about not being able to worship the religion they believe in. It certainly wasn’t because the peasants were anti capitalism or pro communism and since the French had left it wasn’t about imperialism.

Yes, people actually DO care about their right to vote, because that ties in to the freedom of religion issue. If they had been allowed to vote, it is projected Minh would have won with around 80% of the vote. He would unify Vietnam and get rid of the legislation against Budhism. And lets not forget that North and South Vietnam had both fought one war already to gain the right to self determination, and then suddenly the US tells the South that they no longer have the right to self determination, and you think they weren't pissed? And you're right, it had very little to do with communism. Nationalism was more a factor, but Communism is a great tool in the struggle for national liberation, and it was used to good effect in Vietnam.

Citation needed that Minh “liberated” all of Vietnam (rather then just a small part called “The Democratic Republic of Vietnam” which only existed because the Yanks didn’t have enough balls or logistical support to hold the areas in the north.)

First off, why are there quotation marks around liberated? If you want to argue that Minh somehow failed to free Vietnam from thralldom, or that he made things worse, please feel free to say so. Your "quotation" marks don't "help" your "argument" at all just by "being" there.

Second, Minh freed all of Vietnam from the French, but then the US came in with the north south split deal. Minh's movement later united all of Vientam under government by the Vietnamese, not by France or America. It may have been after his death, but he was the architect of it.

source needed on Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

There is a conflict between Israel and Palestine. Source: reality. You're not going to get broad sources out of me. I need specific issues.

Well I’m sure that one of you lot (anti Semites) will give me a source where you read the bullshit propaganda which you relay.

Ah yes, one is an anti semite if they oppose Israel. That's a real zinger. Did you know that puts a lot of Jews in that category? And my bullshit propaganda comes from bullshit propaganda mart, the one stop shop for all your bullshit propaganda needs. Once again, I am not going to post every book I've read, every website I go to, and so forth again. If you want my sources on specific matters I'm happy to give that, but to demand my source on everything seems to be asking a bit much.

Is India or Pakistan a “western” country? Is Israel or Palestine a “western” country?

No, but you claimed that they hate "our" way of life, meaning the European based lifestyle. Yes, basically I would say that Israel, Australia and the US all live the western lifestyle to some extent. You were quite nice to point out that terrorism occurs in India and Pakistan, even though they have different lifestyles and different laws. Explanation?

It could be that (if they are religious fundamentalists) then they probably don’t like how much rights (i.e. freedoms) women have, et cetera.

You're grasping at straws and it shows both linguistically and in your argument. It could be that they're motivated by a desire to come put Pamela Anderson in a wedding sack and have the rape with her. Hey, do you know what countries have women's rights? Try Iraq (pre invasion) and Palestine. Now, if I'm not mistaken, there was NO terrorism in Iraq before the US brought it, and "terrorism"(I don't consider fighting occupation to be terrorism) in Palestine is directed at the occupiers, EG the people who do not make any laws concerning the status of women. So why is Qaeda traveling thousands of miles out of their way when there are secular Arab nations with womens rights in their own back yard?

Citation needed that those who blow themselves up aren’t “unwitting dupes.”

See any video by any suicide bomber ever. That's a citation. These people have REASONS to do what they do. A man in a turban doesnt just walk up to them and tell them to carry a ticking package to the local US embassy. The 9/11 hijackers did not believe that they were, in reality, taking the planes to Dairy Queen for a flurry with little chunks of Reeses. When a man willingly sacrifices his life for a cause, it is no longer sensible to claim that he was just unwitting. And how can they be a dupe? A dupe is someone who takes the fall for a crime, usually legally speaking. The bombers in this case die, so they cant really be prosecuted very easily.

[J m HofMarN]

You seem to think “crazy with hatred” is the same as “incompetent.”

Yeah I generally do. If you're motivated only by hatred, much less crazed hatred, you're not going to be very subtle. The 9/11 hijackers lived in the US for months before they did their little deed. Do you think that people "crazy with hatred" could live in a society which they hated (crazily) for several months without doing something? That kind of intense emotion has to have a vent and would necessitate a great deal more malice and cruelty than terrorists typically exhibit.

Its funny how every time a terrorist blows up something belonging to a force then that force puts more and more restrictions on freedoms. They do it for freedom because the result is the exact opposite.

Your last sentence is ridiculously confusing. They do it for freedom suggests some sort of braveheartesque action, but then you qualify that by saying "because the result is the exact opposite" so what I'm getting is that they do it to gain freedom because the result is they lose their freedom. Did you mean "they do it to gain their freedom BUT the result is the exact opposite" or did you mean "they do it to take away our freedom by necessitating crackdowns"

Neither one makes any sense. The US has already propped up enough dictatorships in the Arab world that restrict freedoms, so they havent got a lot to lose, and if you mean that they are using terrorism to try to destroy our freedom........ I don't even know what to say. That is some of the most blatant fear mongering I've ever seen and gives the terrorists a sort of bizarre machiavellian character which doesnt fit with your idea of unwitting dupes crazed with hatred or unwitting crazied hated by dupes, or anything.

Watch a few of Bin Laden's statements. He says that Qaeda's attacks are to force Western citizens to take responsibility for what the governments they elect are doing. We choose our governments, and our government goes and blows up the middle east. Since we chose our government, we chose to do that, and therefore our lives can be taken to pay for the blood we basically voted to spill. Is this logic right? I don't know, but it surely is logical. And that's why you have this "they hate our freedoms" bullshit. Because if Americans actually started listening to Bin Laden and doing the right thing to truly cure the root cause of terrorism, Bush would not only be out of a job, but he'd probably be swinging from a lamp post somewhere as he deserves.

Yes it is. I don’t know why the Yanks initiated the many wars against sovereign countries (and some not so sovereign countries.) Perhaps it has something to do with McDonalds... or imperialism?

I'm going to agree with you here. The US war against Iraq is indeed about imperialism. If you were trying to be sarcastic you kind of failed.

So the lack of genocide on the part of the “Zionists” is going to be recognised as the next holocaust... I have come to that conclusion that you’re deluded.

Have you never watched the news? Have you never heard of the Rafah REFUGEE camp in Gaza? Of refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan? Where do you think those people came from? Maybe they ended up there due to expulsion from Israel? Maybe that has something to do with why, all over the Arab world, the date of the founding of Israel is called Al Naqba (the catastrophe). Have you not noticed that Israel's wall is encompassing Palestinian lands, and that their settlements are built on siezed land? Assuming we ignore the fact that they routinely bomb Palestinian cities, assassinate Palestinian leaders, blockade Palestine to starve people into submission, destroy peoples homes for no good reason, imprison thousands of palestinians, including political leaders, and torture their prisoners ( guess who invented Palestinian hanging? Hint: It wasn't Palestinians) They're still guilty of genocide because the UN ad hoc draft on the prevention and punishment of genocide clearly states that forced expulsion/relocation of people based upon race or religion is genocide.

Having no idea why you are doing something makes you no less effective at doing it.

Really? Cuz I'd think it would.

Retarded suicide bombers and child soldiers prove this.

Retarded suicide bombers are retarded, and child soldiers are children. We are not discussing either. We are discussing competent adults who choose to detonate explosives attached to their person in order to kill those they percieve as the enemies of their people or religion. Why you would compare people mature enough to choose to sacrifice their lives to children, and intelligent enough to think through those acts and justify it, to the mentally challenged, I have no idea.

By the way, just so you dont think we're all simpletons, yes, we all understand your broader argument. Terrorist bombers might be victims of indoctrination or propaganda. You could very well justify your argument by broadening it and say that all fighters in general are therefore unwitting dupes to some extent. You could also say that all governments are oligarchies. Or Ford Tauruses. Once you broaden a statement that far it becomes essentially academic and no longer adds anything to your argument.

I've seen this tactic in the past and I know where it leads.

A"All terrorists are dupes"
B"No they're not, and here's why"
A"Well, everyone who fights is a dupe to some extent"
B"Then why would you even bother to point out that terrorists are dupes?"

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 10 July 2008 - 11:00 PM

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN: Because half of it was Muslim and half was Hindu. So they each got their own country. More than that though, there were seperate independence movements. Pakistan had one and so did India.

Deucaon: So in other words they had to partition because no one wanted to be a religious minority in their own country which happened anyway which is why there were pogroms, assassinations and other terrorist acts which is why I am right.

J m HofMarN: No. I don't believe attacking Australia would be righteous. Because they havent done anything to me. That's the same reason the terrorists dont attack countries not involved in the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. But if Australia invaded my home town, you can bet I'd happily wage holy war against them. I provided this as proof of why terrorists dont attack places based upon laws or freedom, but upon external policy.

Deucaon: So in other words I am right, you don't attack Australia because you aren't crazy with hatred at things you cannot control (i.e. you don't think murdering civilians is righteous).

J m HofMarN: Yes, people actually DO care about their right to vote, because that ties in to the freedom of religion issue.

Deucaon: No, it doesn't. Democracy doesn't have anything to do with basic human needs. Peasants don't care about their right to vote as long as have food on the table and their religious places aren't closed down.

Panem et circenses, et cetera.

J m HofMarN: If they had been allowed to vote, it is projected Minh would have won with around 80% of the vote. He would unify Vietnam and get rid of the legislation against Budhism. And lets not forget that North and South Vietnam had both fought one war already to gain the right to self determination, and then suddenly the US tells the South that they no longer have the right to self determination, and you think they weren't pissed? And you're right, it had very little to do with communism. Nationalism was more a factor, but Communism is a great tool in the struggle for national liberation, and it was used to good effect in Vietnam.

Deucaon: I see... so if the commies were so popular in Vietnam then why didn't they hold votes after they "liberated" the Republic of Vietnam? If communism was so good for Vietnam then why did so many people (literally millions) flee Vietnam when it was "liberated"?

J m HofMarN: First off, why are there quotation marks around liberated? If you want to argue that Minh somehow failed to free Vietnam from thralldom, or that he made things worse, please feel free to say so. Your "quotation" marks don't "help" your "argument" at all just by "being" there.

Deucaon: Because "liberating" should involve actual "liberating."

J m HofMarN: Second, Minh freed all of Vietnam from the French, but then the US came in with the north south split deal. Minh's movement later united all of Vientam under government by the Vietnamese, not by France or America. It may have been after his death, but he was the architect of it.

Deucaon: Mass evacuations, concentration camps and brainwashing isn't what anyone (other then commies and other autocrats) would consider to be "liberation" and Mihn barely penetrated South Vietnam let alone "liberate" it.

J m HofMarN: There is a conflict between Israel and Palestine. Source: reality. You're not going to get broad sources out of me. I need specific issues.

Deucaon: Reality is that there is nothing even close to a holocaust in Israel/Palestine. There are at most 14,000,000 Jews around the world which means that the Jews haven't even recovered from their pre holocaust levels (18,000,000) but the amount of Arabs in Israel/Palestine has continuously increased despite "Zionist aggression" and the supposed "holocaust of the 21st century."

J m HofMarN: Ah yes, one is an anti semite if they oppose Israel. That's a real zinger. Did you know that puts a lot of Jews in that category? And my bullshit propaganda comes from bullshit propaganda mart, the one stop shop for all your bullshit propaganda needs. Once again, I am not going to post every book I've read, every website I go to, and so forth again. If you want my sources on specific matters I'm happy to give that, but to demand my source on everything seems to be asking a bit much.

Deucaon: You cant even prove this "holocaust of the 21st century" because you're full of shit.

J m HofMarN: No, but you claimed that they hate "our" way of life, meaning the European based lifestyle. Yes, basically I would say that Israel, Australia and the US all live the western lifestyle to some extent. You were quite nice to point out that terrorism occurs in India and Pakistan, even though they have different lifestyles and different laws. Explanation?

Deucaon: Because Hindus are constantly under attack in Pakistan and Muslims are constantly under attack in India. I put "our way of life" in quotation marks because there are religious fundamentalist groups in places like America who attack their home country because they are crazy with hatred at things they cant control... in America it usually involves the legality of abortions.

J m HofMarN: You're grasping at straws and it shows both linguistically and in your argument. It could be that they're motivated by a desire to come put Pamela Anderson in a wedding sack and have the rape with her. Hey, do you know what countries have women's rights? Try Iraq (pre invasion) and Palestine. Now, if I'm not mistaken, there was NO terrorism in Iraq before the US brought it, and "terrorism"(I don't consider fighting occupation to be terrorism) in Palestine is directed at the occupiers, EG the people who do not make any laws concerning the status of women. So why is Qaeda traveling thousands of miles out of their way when there are secular Arab nations with womens rights in their own back yard?

Deucaon: So you're saying that religious fundamentalists hate women rights because the US invaded Iraq? You claim there was no terrorism in Iraq prior to 2003... which is a lie since several secessionist groups were constantly fighting against Saddam's regime and committed terrorist acts. Al Qaeda has attacked places "closer to home"... places like Pakistan and Somalia.

J m HofMarN: See any video by any suicide bomber ever. That's a citation. These people have REASONS to do what they do. A man in a turban doesnt just walk up to them and tell them to carry a ticking package to the local US embassy. The 9/11 hijackers did not believe that they were, in reality, taking the planes to Dairy Queen for a flurry with little chunks of Reeses. When a man willingly sacrifices his life for a cause, it is no longer sensible to claim that he was just unwitting. And how can they be a dupe? A dupe is someone who takes the fall for a crime, usually legally speaking. The bombers in this case die, so they cant really be prosecuted very easily.

Deucaon: This guy is called Pekka Eric Auvinen. He committed a massacre last year in Finland. According to your logic (or lack of), because he made a video he is not crazy with hatred at things he has no control over.

J m HofMarN: Yeah I generally do. If you're motivated only by hatred, much less crazed hatred, you're not going to be very subtle. The 9/11 hijackers lived in the US for months before they did their little deed. Do you think that people "crazy with hatred" could live in a society which they hated (crazily) for several months without doing something? That kind of intense emotion has to have a vent and would necessitate a great deal more malice and cruelty than terrorists typically exhibit.

Deucaon: Extremists don't go around shouting that they are extremists. You seem to have stereotypical view that someone who is full of crazed hatred is going to go around the world and tell people that they are going to blow shit up. For instance, you hate Israel. Normally you are just a guy who acts casual but when the subject of Israel comes up you turn into a raving lunatic. Crazed hatred is this implosive hatred people have when a sensitive a subject (which relates to things out of their control) sensitive to them comes up. Sometimes those people get guns and commit school massacres or blow up buses to vent their anger. It doesn't mean there is any logic or reason behind their actions.

J m HofMarN: Your last sentence is ridiculously confusing. They do it for freedom suggests some sort of braveheartesque action, but then you qualify that by saying "because the result is the exact opposite" so what I'm getting is that they do it to gain freedom because the result is they lose their freedom. Did you mean "they do it to gain their freedom BUT the result is the exact opposite" or did you mean "they do it to take away our freedom by necessitating crackdowns"

Deucaon: Its called sarcasm. Terrorists cant die for freedom if the power they fight against is constantly taking away freedoms because of the actions of the terrorists so as to effectively fight the terrorists. Do you see the illogic conclusion of terrorism for freedom?

J m HofMarN: Neither one makes any sense. The US has already propped up enough dictatorships in the Arab world that restrict freedoms, so they havent got a lot to lose, and if you mean that they are using terrorism to try to destroy our freedom........ I don't even know what to say. That is some of the most blatant fear mongering I've ever seen and gives the terrorists a sort of bizarre machiavellian character which doesnt fit with your idea of unwitting dupes crazed with hatred or unwitting crazied hated by dupes, or anything.

Deucaon: The US doesn't export freedom because you cant export freedoms, moron.

J m HofMarN: Watch a few of Bin Laden's statements. He says that Qaeda's attacks are to force Western citizens to take responsibility for what the governments they elect are doing. We choose our governments, and our government goes and blows up the middle east. Since we chose our government, we chose to do that, and therefore our lives can be taken to pay for the blood we basically voted to spill. Is this logic right? I don't know, but it surely is logical. And that's why you have this "they hate our freedoms" bullshit. Because if Americans actually started listening to Bin Laden and doing the right thing to truly cure the root cause of terrorism, Bush would not only be out of a job, but he'd probably be swinging from a lamp post somewhere as he deserves.

Deucaon: Pekka Eric Auvinen.

J m HofMarN: I'm going to agree with you here. The US war against Iraq is indeed about imperialism. If you were trying to be sarcastic you kind of failed.

Deucaon: So when an American president thinks about invading a country he thinks to himself "I am doing this for imperialism." Bravo, maestro... you really have given the reason as to why geopolitical leaders make the decisions they do.

If you cant tell, the sarcasm detector is detecting an extreme amount of sarcasm.

J m HofMarN: Have you never watched the news? Have you never heard of the Rafah REFUGEE camp in Gaza? Of refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan? Where do you think those people came from? Maybe they ended up there due to expulsion from Israel? Maybe that has something to do with why, all over the Arab world, the date of the founding of Israel is called Al Naqba (the catastrophe). Have you not noticed that Israel's wall is encompassing Palestinian lands, and that their settlements are built on siezed land? Assuming we ignore the fact that they routinely bomb Palestinian cities, assassinate Palestinian leaders, blockade Palestine to starve people into submission, destroy peoples homes for no good reason, imprison thousands of palestinians, including political leaders, and torture their prisoners ( guess who invented Palestinian hanging? Hint: It wasn't Palestinians) They're still guilty of genocide because the UN ad hoc draft on the prevention and punishment of genocide clearly states that forced expulsion/relocation of people based upon race or religion is genocide.

Deucaon: Israel bombs Palestinian cities because they are full of soldiers who launch rockets into Israel. Israel has put a trade embargo on the Gaza Strip because the government there has refused to acknowledge the existence of Israel and thus how can Israel trade with a government which doesn't recognise its existence? Israel hasn't relocated the Palestinians, Jews that came during the 1940s legally bought the land off the Palestinians. As for the settlers in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Israel forcibly relocated them (OMG! GENOCIDE!) in 2005 (and that action did nothing to stop the terrorists strikes.)

Expulsion/relocation has only recently been defined as "genocide" (which is bullshit since genocide means the murder or attempted murder of an entire group of people. Its not like homicide means the expulsion/relocation of an individual) which in retrospect would mean that your beloved commies of Vietnam committed genocide on the Catholics, capitalists, etc. as the several million strong Vietnamese diaspora in America and Australia can attest to.

J m HofMarN: Really? Cuz I'd think it would.

Deucaon: You'd be wrong. For instance, a person can know how to use a computer but that person doesn't need to know how it works to use it.

J m HofMarN: Retarded suicide bombers are retarded, and child soldiers are children. We are not discussing either. We are discussing competent adults who choose to detonate explosives attached to their person in order to kill those they percieve as the enemies of their people or religion. Why you would compare people mature enough to choose to sacrifice their lives to children, and intelligent enough to think through those acts and justify it, to the mentally challenged, I have no idea.

By the way, just so you dont think we're all simpletons, yes, we all understand your broader argument. Terrorist bombers might be victims of indoctrination or propaganda. You could very well justify your argument by broadening it and say that all fighters in general are therefore unwitting dupes to some extent. You could also say that all governments are oligarchies. Or Ford Tauruses. Once you broaden a statement that far it becomes essentially academic and no longer adds anything to your argument.

I've seen this tactic in the past and I know where it leads.

A"All terrorists are dupes"
B"No they're not, and here's why"
A"Well, everyone who fights is a dupe to some extent"
B"Then why would you even bother to point out that terrorists are dupes?"

Deucaon: You don't need to know why you are doing something to do it efficiently and since mentally retarded people and children aren't mentally incapable of realizing why they fight they are a good example of this.

I don't believe soldiers who aren't children and who aren't mentally disabled are "unwitting dupes." Especially those in countries which don't enforce conscription.

[civilian_number_two]

ok, i HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. One asks simply for a yes or no, awhile for the other you can be as elabotare as you like.

1) Do you believe that it is the case that in every instance of a mass killing or a terror act, that the villain must necessarily be deluded, insane, retarded, a child, duped by a criminal mastermind, or otherwise unaware of the end goal of his or her actions? In other words, do you take back your earlier claims that the pilots of 9/11 were "highly educated," and now replace it with the idea that they were unwitting dupes? YES or NO?

2) Why is it necessary for you to believe this?

PS: The Australia example in your dialogue above was not proof that you are right, that the terrorists are crazy with hatred and lashing out at people whose freedoms they cannot control. It was exactly proof that there must be some other reason the attacks were made, something specific to the United States.

[Deucaon]

ok, i HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. One asks simply for a yes or no, awhile for the other you can be as elabotare as you like.

1) Do you believe that it is the case that in every instance of a mass killing or a terror act, that the villain must necessarily be deluded, insane, retarded, a child, duped by a criminal mastermind, or otherwise unaware of the end goal of his or her actions? In other words, do you take back your earlier claims that the pilots of 9/11 were "highly educated," and now replace it with the idea that they were unwitting dupes? YES or NO?

I specifically stated those who blew themselves up were probably "deluded, insane, retarded, a child, duped by a criminal mastermind, or otherwise unaware of the end goal of his or her actions" while other terrorists acts had no logic or reason behind them simply because the terrorist made a video beforehand. You should read the entire debate before you engage yourself and end up looking stupid.

Learned in flying a plane =/= knowledgeable in geopolitics. Also, even if they were knowledgeable in geopolitics it doesn't mean they aren't crazed with hatred about what they "know."

So... NO on all accounts.

2) Why is it necessary for you to believe this?

Believe... the truth? I don't know... perhaps because I don't want to delude myself.

PS: The Australia example in your dialogue above was not proof that you are right, that the terrorists are crazy with hatred and lashing out at people whose freedoms they cannot control. It was exactly proof that there must be some other reason the attacks were made, something specific to the United States.

So Al Qaeda blew up the Twin Towers because... it was the centre of the US military? Pentagon makes sense but Twin Towers don't unless they hate America in general (since you don't believe the terrorists attacked the Pentagon we should probably leave that out of the debate.)

[J m HofMarN]

So in other words they had to partition because no one wanted to be a religious minority in their own country which happened anyway which is why there were pogroms, assassinations and other terrorist acts which is why I am right.

terrorism occurs because religious minorities exist? Wot?

Deucaon: So in other words I am right, you don't attack Australia because you aren't crazy with hatred at things you cannot control (i.e. you don't think murdering civilians is righteous).

Well, theres not much I can say. Your "I am right" defense is just iron clad. I havent seen such a masterful debate tactic employed since primary school. And yes, that's the ever loving point. Your Australian laws do not enrage me to the point of needing to blow you up. If you guys came over and bombed my family, that would do it though. Are you getting the point yet?

No, it doesn't. Democracy doesn't have anything to do with basic human needs. Peasants don't care about their right to vote as long as have food on the table and their religious places aren't closed down.

How does the right to vote NOT tie in to freedom of religion. The government decides whether you get religious freedom. So if the democratic process were in place, and the people wanted religious freedom, does it not stand to reason that they would get religious freedom? A country that lacks freedom of religion is not NEARLY as bad as a country that lacks democracy, because while the one only lacks one freedom, the other has a dictatorship that can remove ALL freedoms anytime they want. So, yes, I think that the broken promise of elections and the fact that the South's government was blatantly working for the US was more of a motivation than the lack of religious freedom.

Deucaon: I see... so if the commies were so popular in Vietnam then why didn't they hold votes after they "liberated" the Republic of Vietnam? If communism was so good for Vietnam then why did so many people (literally millions) flee Vietnam when it was "liberated"?

From the wiki on the Vietnam war:

In the words of U.S. President Eisenhower:

It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Hồ Chí Minh would have been elected Premier. Unhappily, the situation was exacerbated by the almost total lack of leadership displayed by the Vietnamese Chief of State, Bảo Đại, who, while nominally the head of that nation, chose to spend the bulk of his time in the spas of Europe rather than in his own land leading his armies against those of Communism.[1]

South Vietnam and its chief supporter, the United States, were not signatories to the 1954 agreement but did agree to respect its conditions. However, later South Vietnam, with the backing of the United States, refused to hold unifying elections, claiming that Hồ Chí Minh could not be trusted due to his affiliation with Communism.

The elections were NATIONAL. how could North Vietnam have held NATIONAL elections if half of the nation refused to participate in defiance of an international treaty?

Because "liberating" should involve actual "liberating."

I am unaware of the conditions required to "actually liberate" a place. Please provide an example of a country that was "actually liberated" from imperialism by force.

[J m HofMarN]

Deucaon: Mass evacuations, concentration camps and brainwashing isn't what anyone (other then commies and other autocrats) would consider to be "liberation" and Mihn barely penetrated South Vietnam let alone "liberate" it.

From the wiki article on the Viet Minh:

"Around 52,000 Vietnamese civilians moved from south to north. However a staggering 450,000 people fled north Vietnam to the south, in aircraft and ships provided by France and the U.S.[30] CIA propaganda efforts increased the outflow with slogans such as “the Virgin Mary is going South.” The northern refugees were meant to give Diem a strong anti-communist constituency.[31]"

Would you not consider 50000 a mass evacuation? And doesnt the fact that the CIA actually helped people leave and told them to do so kind of make the number of evacuees unreliable?

As for your concentration camp claim, Vietnam was in the middle of decades of war. And they needed places to keep their prisoners, hence the prison camps. And the brain washing claim is nonsense unless you can prove that people left the camps having been turned into mindless communist zombies. I don't think they did, so I'm going to say that the reeducation campaign was, at worst, a misguided attempt to ensure that their prisoners would not end up being a danger to the people when they were released.

Deucaon: Reality is that there is nothing even close to a holocaust in Israel/Palestine. There are at most 14,000,000 Jews around the world which means that the Jews haven't even recovered from their pre holocaust levels (18,000,000) but the amount of Arabs in Israel/Palestine has continuously increased despite "Zionist aggression" and the supposed "holocaust of the 21st century."

By 1951, the United Nations (UN) estimated 711,000 Palestinian refugees existed outside Israel,[2] with about one-quarter of the estimated 160,000 Arab Palestinians remaining in Israel as "internal refugees." Today, Palestinian refugees and their descendants are estimated to number over 4 million people.[3]

Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them …. From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah…. No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory…. Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them.[61]

Israeli operations labeled Dani and Dekel that broke the truce was the start of the third phase of expulsions. The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14 when 60,000 inhabitants (nearly 10% of the whole exodus) of the two cities were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.

Following the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, many Palestinians tried, in one way or another, to return to their homes. For some time these practices continued to embarrass the Israeli authorities until finally they passed a law forbidding Palestinians to return to Israel, those who did so being regarded as "infiltrators".[102]

The absentee property played an enormous role in making Israel a viable state. In 1954, more than one third of Israel's Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by Arabs. Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property.[110]

All of that is from the wiki article on Al Nakba. And I don't give a god damn what you consider genocide. When international law terms something genocide, it's genocide. And the expulsion of a million or so people, torture and inprisonment of more, destruction of houses and mosques, siezure of land and property, etc etc, certainly constitutes a holocaust.

Deucaon: Because Hindus are constantly under attack in Pakistan and Muslims are constantly under attack in India. I put "our way of life" in quotation marks because there are religious fundamentalist groups in places like America who attack their home country because they are crazy with hatred at things they cant control... in America it usually involves the legality of abortions.

They are? That's news to me. I wasnt aware of any constant attacks in either country. There are ethnic strifes, sure, but the only region I know of under that much turmoil is Kashmir.

And for gods sake, enough with the crazy with hatred. But wait... America isn't the only country that allows abortions. So why aren't our people "crazy with hatred" going to Cuba or France or wherever to blow people up?

Deucaon: So you're saying that religious fundamentalists hate women rights because the US invaded Iraq? You claim there was no terrorism in Iraq prior to 2003... which is a lie since several secessionist groups were constantly fighting against Saddam's regime and committed terrorist acts. Al Qaeda has attacked places "closer to home"... places like Pakistan and Somalia.

No. I am saying that it is absurd to suggest that terrorists attack the US because we allow women's rights, when some of the countries the terrorists come from permit the same thing. And yes, there were secessionist terrorist groups in Iraq (US funded ones, for those of you keeping score) but how often did they set off a car bomb in Baghdad? Religious extremism was not popular in pre invasion Iraq, and it was a secular regime that respected women's rights. So why werent Qaeda operatives going in to attack them for allowing women's rights?

As for the attacks close to home they target US embassies or US allied militaries. Neither of which have any control over womens rights.

Deucaon: This guy is called Pekka Eric Auvinen. He committed a massacre last year in Finland. According to your logic (or lack of), because he made a video he is not crazy with hatred at things he has no control over.

Wow brilliant. I say that by looking at suicide bomber's videos you should be able to figure out that there is reasoning behind what they do, and you just provide an example of some crazy who made a video. Why stop there? Here's another good argument along the same lines (IE: ignoring the context and just focusing on thinking of ot her people who make videos)

This guy is called Heinrich Munthausen. He made a video of smearing feces all over himself adn then having sex. According to your logic (or lack of), because he made a video he is not crazy.

[J m HofMarN]

Extremists don't go around shouting that they are extremists. You seem to have stereotypical view that someone who is full of crazed hatred is going to go around the world and tell people that they are going to blow shit up. For instance, you hate Israel. Normally you are just a guy who acts casual but when the subject of Israel comes up you turn into a raving lunatic. Crazed hatred is this implosive hatred people have when a sensitive a subject (which relates to things out of their control) sensitive to them comes up. Sometimes those people get guns and commit school massacres or blow up buses to vent their anger. It doesn't mean there is any logic or reason behind their actions.

Aha. So I have crazed hatred as well. My question then is why I haven't gone and blown up Israel yet. Are you prepared to admit that the reason for that might be more because they haven't done anything directly to me than that, I guess, my hatred isn't quite crazy enough?

And no, the people with strong political ideals are not the ones who commit school massacres. You're talking about disorganized random violence, I'm talking about organized freedom fighting campaigns where terrorism is used in a national or regional liberation struggle. Columbine it aint.

Deucaon: Its called sarcasm. Terrorists cant die for freedom if the power they fight against is constantly taking away freedoms because of the actions of the terrorists so as to effectively fight the terrorists. Do you see the illogic conclusion of terrorism for freedom?

Wait wait.... So because people take more of your freedom when you fight them, you shouldn't fight? So, to present an example, when, in Star Wars, Princess Leia says "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your grasp, Lord Vader." She, and the rebel alliance, are somehow in the wrong? Are you suggesting that those who struggle to liberate their countries (or galaxies) are doing the wrong thing simply because their oppressors will then crack down on them?

Deucaon: The US doesn't export freedom because you cant export freedoms, moron.

They sure seem to be good at exporting violent repression though!

Pekka nonsense:

I demand more of a reply than this. I will not accept from you the idea that, because Bin Laden puts his views on the same medium as some people, that those views can be written off and compared to random violence, or German scat fetishists, or whatever.

Deucaon: So when an American president thinks about invading a country he thinks to himself "I am doing this for imperialism." Bravo, maestro... you really have given the reason as to why geopolitical leaders make the decisions they do.

No, he's doing it because he's crazy with hatred.

Deucaon: Israel bombs Palestinian cities because they are full of soldiers who launch rockets into Israel. Israel has put a trade embargo on the Gaza Strip because the government there has refused to acknowledge the existence of Israel and thus how can Israel trade with a government which doesn't recognise its existence? Israel hasn't relocated the Palestinians, Jews that came during the 1940s legally bought the land off the Palestinians. As for the settlers in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Israel forcibly relocated them (OMG! GENOCIDE!) in 2005 (and that action did nothing to stop the terrorists strikes.)

Israel has also forced Egypt to close their border with gaza, which is an illegal breach of international free trade. And I believe I already proved with your precious citations that the Israelis did not pay a penny for the land they stole. As for comparing the RElocation of ILLEGAL Israeli settlers back to THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, to the EXPULSION of LEGAL Palestinian refugees FROM their country of origin, the only similiarity seems to be that people were moved.

Expulsion/relocation has only recently been defined as "genocide" (which is bullshit since genocide means the murder or attempted murder of an entire group of people. Its not like homicide means the expulsion/relocation of an individual) which in retrospect would mean that your beloved commies of Vietnam committed genocide on the Catholics, capitalists, etc. as the several million strong Vietnamese diaspora in America and Australia can attest to.

I don't give a shit how recently it was defined as genocide. Are you going to tell me that the relocation of German Jews to concentration camps did not, in and of itself, represent an act of genocide? And I don't consider the Geneva conventions to be "recent".

And the Vietnamese disapora was arguably more a result of decades of imperialist war in Vietnam more so than any government policy. And the chief purveyor of that war, the US, would therefore be responsible for said disapora.

Deucaon: You'd be wrong. For instance, a person can know how to use a computer but that person doesn't need to know how it works to use it.

We were not discussing how suicide bombs are detonated, we were discussing WHY. I know how to use my computer, and I know how it works, but if I did not know WHY I would want to use it, do you think I would be typing right now? Am I just Microsoft's unwitting dupe? You're suggesting that, because I know how a gun works, I would happily kill someone if I were told to, even if I had no motive whatsoever. Moreover you're suggesting that the lack of a motive would not make my commision of said felony any less likely.

You don't need to know why you are doing something to do it efficiently and since mentally retarded people and children aren't mentally incapable of realizing why they fight they are a good example of this.

I don't believe soldiers who aren't children and who aren't mentally disabled are "unwitting dupes." Especially those in countries which don't enforce conscription.

If child soldiers and the mentally retarded are so efficient, why are they not used more often? Why do we not have a country whose national headgear is the protective helmet? Why are there no mass guerilla movements whose aims are to strike down oppressive bed time laws?

Ok. So not all soldiers are unwitting dupes, even though they all understand that they could die for their cause. So where do you draw the line? When a terrorist detonates a bomb, he's an unwitting dupe, but when an American soldier charges into enemy fire to take out a machine gun nest and dies to kill enemy soldiers, he's NOT an unwitting dupe? What is so different there?

those who blew themselves up are... unaware of the end goal of his or her actions

... Amazing. Positively amazing. I'd like to understand the scenario you're presenting better.

Scene: Afghanistan, exterior:

Terrorist: Here, put on this vest. It's thick to protect against the cold!
Unwitting Dupe: Why thank you kind sir!
Terrorist: Ok, great work. Now here's the secret. This is a technicolor dream vest. All you need do is walk up to American soldiers and press the happy fun time button, and then it turns into a disco ball and you all get to boogie down.
Unwitting Dupe: WEEEEEEEEEEEE! Happy fun time button!

Deaucon: So Al Qaeda blew up the Twin Towers because... it was the centre of the US military?

Because they were a symbol of the US economy's infiltration of the rest of the world. The WORLD trade center. That trade typically involves cut-rate oil flowing from Arab dictatorships that offer the oil at a discounted rate in exchange for the government's complicity in their repressive policies and funding thereof. That's the kind of world trade that probably got them so pissed off. They didnt just choose the buildings because they were "crazy with hatred" If they'd just wanted to kill Americans they could have hit a crowded football stadium, etc.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN: terrorism occurs because religious minorities exist? Wot?

Deucaon: Terrorism occurred in India/Pakistan because there was religious strife. THAT is the difference between Indians and Pakistanis (in case you didn't know.)

J m HofMarN: Well, theres not much I can say. Your "I am right" defense is just iron clad. I havent seen such a masterful debate tactic employed since primary school. And yes, that's the ever loving point. Your Australian laws do not enrage me to the point of needing to blow you up. If you guys came over and bombed my family, that would do it though. Are you getting the point yet?

Deucaon: So 9/11 occurred because... members of the Al Qaeda family were killed by... accountants?

J m HofMarN: How does the right to vote NOT tie in to freedom of religion. The government decides whether you get religious freedom. So if the democratic process were in place, and the people wanted religious freedom, does it not stand to reason that they would get religious freedom? A country that lacks freedom of religion is not NEARLY as bad as a country that lacks democracy, because while the one only lacks one freedom, the other has a dictatorship that can remove ALL freedoms anytime they want. So, yes, I think that the broken promise of elections and the fact that the South's government was blatantly working for the US was more of a motivation than the lack of religious freedom.

Deucaon: Apparently there was no religious freedom in the world before democracy.

(sarcasm)

J m HofMarN: From the wiki on the Vietnam war:

In the words of U.S. President Eisenhower:

It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Hồ Chí Minh would have been elected Premier. Unhappily, the situation was exacerbated by the almost total lack of leadership displayed by the Vietnamese Chief of State, Bảo Đại, who, while nominally the head of that nation, chose to spend the bulk of his time in the spas of Europe rather than in his own land leading his armies against those of Communism.[1]

South Vietnam and its chief supporter, the United States, were not signatories to the 1954 agreement but did agree to respect its conditions. However, later South Vietnam, with the backing of the United States, refused to hold unifying elections, claiming that Hồ Chí Minh could not be trusted due to his affiliation with Communism.

The elections were NATIONAL. how could North Vietnam have held NATIONAL elections if half of the nation refused to participate in defiance of an international treaty?

Deucaon: Wikipedia isn't a viable source. Please post a source which doesn't change every 5 minutes.

J m HofMarN: I am unaware of the conditions required to "actually liberate" a place. Please provide an example of a country that was "actually liberated" from imperialism by force.

Deucaon: Your mom.

Lets ask Google for the definition of "liberate" shall we?

emancipate: give equal rights to; of women and minorities
free: grant freedom to; free from confinement
grant freedom to; "The students liberated their slaves upon graduating from the university"
release: release (gas or energy) as a result of a chemical reaction or physical decomposition
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Lets see...

Did Mihn try to grant rights to minorities?

It seems not.

Did he try to free anyone from confinement?

He did the exact opposite (concentration camps, etc.)

Did he grant freedoms?

Since there wasn't any slavery in Vietnam (apart from the slave labour that communists usually enforce) I would have to say no.

Finally... did he realise gases/energy?

I am guessing he did so at least you can say he "liberated" the gases within his bowels.

J m HofMarN: From the wiki article on the Viet Minh:

"Around 52,000 Vietnamese civilians moved from south to north. However a staggering 450,000 people fled north Vietnam to the south, in aircraft and ships provided by France and the U.S.[30] CIA propaganda efforts increased the outflow with slogans such as “the Virgin Mary is going South.” The northern refugees were meant to give Diem a strong anti-communist constituency.[31]"

Would you not consider 50000 a mass evacuation? And doesnt the fact that the CIA actually helped people leave and told them to do so kind of make the number of evacuees unreliable?

Deucaon: So what is your point?

J m HofMarN: As for your concentration camp claim, Vietnam was in the middle of decades of war. And they needed places to keep their prisoners, hence the prison camps. And the brain washing claim is nonsense unless you can prove that people left the camps having been turned into mindless communist zombies. I don't think they did, so I'm going to say that the reeducation campaign was, at worst, a misguided attempt to ensure that their prisoners would not end up being a danger to the people when they were released.

Deucaon: Its good to know that the person I am debating with is an apologist for war crimes. It makes me feel much better knowing that.

(sarcasm)

J m HofMarN: By 1951, the United Nations (UN) estimated 711,000 Palestinian refugees existed outside Israel,[2] with about one-quarter of the estimated 160,000 Arab Palestinians remaining in Israel as "internal refugees." Today, Palestinian refugees and their descendants are estimated to number over 4 million people.[3]

Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them …. From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah…. No longer was there any "reasonable persuasion". Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory…. Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them.[61]

Israeli operations labeled Dani and Dekel that broke the truce was the start of the third phase of expulsions. The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14 when 60,000 inhabitants (nearly 10% of the whole exodus) of the two cities were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.

Following the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, many Palestinians tried, in one way or another, to return to their homes. For some time these practices continued to embarrass the Israeli authorities until finally they passed a law forbidding Palestinians to return to Israel, those who did so being regarded as "infiltrators".[102]

The absentee property played an enormous role in making Israel a viable state. In 1954, more than one third of Israel's Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by Arabs. Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property.[110]

All of that is from the wiki article on Al Nakba. And I don't give a god damn what you consider genocide. When international law terms something genocide, it's genocide. And the expulsion of a million or so people, torture and inprisonment of more, destruction of houses and mosques, siezure of land and property, etc etc, certainly constitutes a holocaust.

Deucaon: Only if you're mentally unstable and unable to comprehend reality. If what you defined as "holocaust" and "genocide" then every war where people were displaced and property was destroyed is a "genocide" and "holocaust" (every war people are displaced and property is destroyed so you're making light of the words genocide and holocaust.)

J m HofMarN: They are? That's news to me. I wasnt aware of any constant attacks in either country. There are ethnic strifes, sure, but the only region I know of under that much turmoil is Kashmir.

Deucaon: There is barely any strife now because a little bit after the partition the Muslim minority in India went to Pakistan and the Hindu minority in Pakistan went to India. Though there are still problems in Bangladesh and Kashmir since those places have religious minorities.

J m HofMarN: And for gods sake, enough with the crazy with hatred. But wait... America isn't the only country that allows abortions. So why aren't our people "crazy with hatred" going to Cuba or France or wherever to blow people up?

Deucaon: Well in France people with crazed hatred riot over other reasons and Cuba is like a giant prison so it is able to easily clamp down on terrorism.

There isn't some kind of universal reason why people commit terrorism like you seem to think.

J m HofMarN: No. I am saying that it is absurd to suggest that terrorists attack the US because we allow women's rights, when some of the countries the terrorists come from permit the same thing. And yes, there were secessionist terrorist groups in Iraq (US funded ones, for those of you keeping score) but how often did they set off a car bomb in Baghdad? Religious extremism was not popular in pre invasion Iraq, and it was a secular regime that respected women's rights. So why werent Qaeda operatives going in to attack them for allowing women's rights?

Deucaon: There was an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein's life in 1982 (long before he fell out of favour with America.) Since then Saddam Hussein kept a tight lid on the country but that didn't stop attacks against his military personal in shape of sniper attacks and bombings in rural areas.

J m HofMarN: As for the attacks close to home they target US embassies or US allied militaries. Neither of which have any control over womens rights.

Deucaon: Which is why its illogical to attack them for giving rights to women which is why you would have to be at least a little bit crazy for attacking those things for that. You see what I mean?

J m HofMarN: Wow brilliant. I say that by looking at suicide bomber's videos you should be able to figure out that there is reasoning behind what they do, and you just provide an example of some crazy who made a video. Why stop there? Here's another good argument along the same lines (IE: ignoring the context and just focusing on thinking of ot her people who make videos)

This guy is called Heinrich Munthausen. He made a video of smearing feces all over himself adn then having sex. According to your logic (or lack of), because he made a video he is not crazy.

Deucaon: Well it shits all over your point that because a person made a video before committing a terrorist attack they weren't crazy.

J m HofMarN: Aha. So I have crazed hatred as well. My question then is why I haven't gone and blown up Israel yet. Are you prepared to admit that the reason for that might be more because they haven't done anything directly to me than that, I guess, my hatred isn't quite crazy enough?

Deucaon: Reread what I wrote.

J m HofMarN: And no, the people with strong political ideals are not the ones who commit school massacres. You're talking about disorganized random violence, I'm talking about organized freedom fighting campaigns where terrorism is used in a national or regional liberation struggle. Columbine it aint.

Deucaon: No... EH&DK has a very straightforward philosophical/social/political belief called "Social Darwinism" which they changed to suit their crazed intentions. Just like other terrorists who justify terrorism by claiming it is written in a holy script or that the ends justify the means (it rarely does.)

J m HofMarN: Wait wait.... So because people take more of your freedom when you fight them, you shouldn't fight? So, to present an example, when, in Star Wars, Princess Leia says "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your grasp, Lord Vader." She, and the rebel alliance, are somehow in the wrong? Are you suggesting that those who struggle to liberate their countries (or galaxies) are doing the wrong thing simply because their oppressors will then crack down on them?

Deucaon: Well its very fitting that you should bring up a fictional event to prove your fictional argument.

J m HofMarN: They sure seem to be good at exporting violent repression though!

Deucaon: People like Hussein and Mugabe repress their people quite well without outside support.

J m HofMarN: I demand more of a reply than this. I will not accept from you the idea that, because Bin Laden puts his views on the same medium as some people, that those views can be written off and compared to random violence, or German scat fetishists, or whatever.

Deucaon: I've already proven that someone making a video before that person commits a terrorist act doesn't mean that person isn't crazy so lets just drop this part of the debate before I embarrass you further.

J m HofMarN: No, he's doing it because he's crazy with hatred.

Deucaon: Perhaps.

Though I think the policy of governments (which usually involves the survival of that government) have more logic then that of terrorists.

J m HofMarN: Israel has also forced Egypt to close their border with gaza, which is an illegal breach of international free trade. And I believe I already proved with your precious citations that the Israelis did not pay a penny for the land they stole. As for comparing the RElocation of ILLEGAL Israeli settlers back to THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, to the EXPULSION of LEGAL Palestinian refugees FROM their country of origin, the only similiarity seems to be that people were moved.

Deucaon: Except Israelites bought the land of the Palestinians so if there was an expulsion of Palestinians then it was legal.

Regardless, since the act alone did nothing to curb terrorist attacks against Israel, it proves that Israel doing anything to appease HAMAS or other terrorist groups which want "Israel wiped off the map" is akin to feeding a crocodile before it eats you.

J m HofMarN: I don't give a shit how recently it was defined as genocide. Are you going to tell me that the relocation of German Jews to concentration camps did not, in and of itself, represent an act of genocide? And I don't consider the Geneva conventions to be "recent".

Deucaon: No, sending Jews to concentration camps didn't constitute genocide. Sending out hit squads to slaughter Jews (among others) on the Eastern Front in 1941 constituted genocide. Gases the Jews in the concentration camps constituted genocide.

J m HofMarN: And the Vietnamese disapora was arguably more a result of decades of imperialist war in Vietnam more so than any government policy. And the chief purveyor of that war, the US, would therefore be responsible for said disapora.

Deucaon: Let me get this right... Vietnamese Catholics and capitalists were sent to concentration camps and fled the communist because... the US was involved.

You're going to have to explain this theory to me more thoroughly.

J m HofMarN: We were not discussing how suicide bombs are detonated, we were discussing WHY. I know how to use my computer, and I know how it works, but if I did not know WHY I would want to use it, do you think I would be typing right now? Am I just Microsoft's unwitting dupe? You're suggesting that, because I know how a gun works, I would happily kill someone if I were told to, even if I had no motive whatsoever. Moreover you're suggesting that the lack of a motive would not make my commision of said felony any less likely.

Deucaon: Prove to me that the suicide bombers aren't "unwitting dupes." Prove to me that they aren't either consumed by hatred, brainwashed, retarded or children.

J m HofMarN: If child soldiers and the mentally retarded are so efficient, why are they not used more often? Why do we not have a country whose national headgear is the protective helmet? Why are there no mass guerilla movements whose aims are to strike down oppressive bed time laws?

Deucaon: ...because children cannot organize themselves because they cant comprehend why they fight. Which is what you would know if you had bothered to read the things you are arguing against.

J m HofMarN: Ok. So not all soldiers are unwitting dupes, even though they all understand that they could die for their cause. So where do you draw the line? When a terrorist detonates a bomb, he's an unwitting dupe, but when an American soldier charges into enemy fire to take out a machine gun nest and dies to kill enemy soldiers, he's NOT an unwitting dupe? What is so different there?

Deucaon: If you sit down with one they would go on a tirade about things that doesn't involve them or say that they are doing it in the name of a higher religious power (so that they may be accepted into their version of afterlife paradise.) If you sit with the other then they wouldn't either of those things.

That is a very general difference between an extremist and a normal person. It really boils down to the individual.

J m HofMarN: ... Amazing. Positively amazing. I'd like to understand the scenario you're presenting better.

Scene: Afghanistan, exterior:

Terrorist: Here, put on this vest. It's thick to protect against the cold!
Unwitting Dupe: Why thank you kind sir!
Terrorist: Ok, great work. Now here's the secret. This is a technicolor dream vest. All you need do is walk up to American soldiers and press the happy fun time button, and then it turns into a disco ball and you all get to boogie down.
Unwitting Dupe: WEEEEEEEEEEEE! Happy fun time button!

Deucaon: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're half blind (and not incredibly stupid) as to not see that was in quotation marks. Though, if you look back throughout this debate you will see no mention of a suicide bomber not knowing what will happen when they push the red button (unless they are mentally retarded or children.)

J m HofMarN: Because they were a symbol of the US economy's infiltration of the rest of the world. The WORLD trade center. That trade typically involves cut-rate oil flowing from Arab dictatorships that offer the oil at a discounted rate in exchange for the government's complicity in their repressive policies and funding thereof. That's the kind of world trade that probably got them so pissed off. They didnt just choose the buildings because they were "crazy with hatred" If they'd just wanted to kill Americans they could have hit a crowded football stadium, etc.

Deucaon: So they blew up the Twin Towers because... they are a symbol of American economic power? Which would mean there was no strategic reason to bomb the Twin Towers save for lowering morale (which only ever works in the minds of lunatics) which is the point of terrorism.