Somehow, you still manage to miss the point. I'm not asking you for your social security number, I'm asking that you identify yourself with an anonymous handle so that in the future if we debate there might be some context. I can't just debate every anonymous commentator that I encounter as the same person. For continuity's sake I prefer to know that I'm at least debating the same person that I was in a previous conversation or not.
Other than sheer laziness or cowardice, there is no logical reason as to why you would not create a username. You can call yourself "commentator 1" for all I care. If you click the "username" link in my first comment it will force you to make a blog, but there's no need to maintain it to have an ongoing blogger persona.
I'm not afraid to debate any ideas you may present, but apparently you are too afraid to identify yourself within even the vaguest of frameworks.
I condemn all intentional targeting of women and children. This is the primary tactic of the enemy, not us or Israel. I defy you to present a shred of proof that the US intentionally targeted women and children. What other conspiracy theories do you buy into I wonder?
Quibbling over Jihad vs. Hirabah is a distinction without a difference. Islamic Jihad is, in common parlance, short-hand for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. We're not required to learn every nuance of Islam in oder to know who the enemy is.
I love how westerners, in order to be politically correct, are required to know all of the ins and outs of Islam yet, the people who are actually corrupting what we're constantly told is a religion of peace -the Islamic terrorists who target women and children in the name of Allah- are rarely questioned openly by their fellow Muslims.
What would your response to this be? Is terrorism acceptable to you when it advance something you support? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States
It's pretty interesting reading. Especially the part that says, "The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
Using this definition, which I paraphrased in my previous comment, it is impossible to suggest that it is even possible that the US government committed or can commit acts of terrorism.
Even still, I defy anyone to provide any kind of proof that our government has ever set out to kill women and children.
In the unconventional type of war that we are engaged in, I would grant latitude to various arms of the government in order to better protect us. For example, I have no problem with water-boarding as I imagine you do. But I do have a problem with and have never heard or seen any proof of, the fact that even the CIA would intentionally target woman and children, which the terrorists do on a regular basis. Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists kill so many woman and children that they’re proud of it. This is surely is the other side of the spectrum from what our country's philosophy is.
10 comments:
What is your definiotion of terrorism?
Anonymous, if you can't be bothered to create a blogger username, something that takes all of five minutes, I can't get too exited to debate you.
Believe it or not, you are not the only one who comments anonymously and I prefer to have some idea as to whom I'm debating.
It doesn't matter who I am, what matters is the ideas I am posing.
Somehow, you still manage to miss the point. I'm not asking you for your social security number, I'm asking that you identify yourself with an anonymous handle so that in the future if we debate there might be some context. I can't just debate every anonymous commentator that I encounter as the same person. For continuity's sake I prefer to know that I'm at least debating the same person that I was in a previous conversation or not.
Other than sheer laziness or cowardice, there is no logical reason as to why you would not create a username. You can call yourself "commentator 1" for all I care. If you click the "username" link in my first comment it will force you to make a blog, but there's no need to maintain it to have an ongoing blogger persona.
I'm not afraid to debate any ideas you may present, but apparently you are too afraid to identify yourself within even the vaguest of frameworks.
By that definition many of the activities of Israel and the U.S would be terrorist actions. Why do you not condemn these actions with the same vigor that you condemn what you call "Islamic Jihad" (which is actually a very bad description for Islamic terrorism that shows an extreme naiveté of the religion, Hirabah is the appropriate term)?
I condemn all intentional targeting of women and children. This is the primary tactic of the enemy, not us or Israel. I defy you to present a shred of proof that the US intentionally targeted women and children. What other conspiracy theories do you buy into I wonder?
Quibbling over Jihad vs. Hirabah is a distinction without a difference. Islamic Jihad is, in common parlance, short-hand for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. We're not required to learn every nuance of Islam in oder to know who the enemy is.
I love how westerners, in order to be politically correct, are required to know all of the ins and outs of Islam yet, the people who are actually corrupting what we're constantly told is a religion of peace -the Islamic terrorists who target women and children in the name of Allah- are rarely questioned openly by their fellow Muslims.
Look up the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. Car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, etc. It has all the hallmarks of a terrorist organization.
Do you back off that easy?
What would your response to this be? Is terrorism acceptable to you when it advance something you support?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States
It's pretty interesting reading. Especially the part that says, "The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
Using this definition, which I paraphrased in my previous comment, it is impossible to suggest that it is even possible that the US government committed or can commit acts of terrorism.
Even still, I defy anyone to provide any kind of proof that our government has ever set out to kill women and children.
In the unconventional type of war that we are engaged in, I would grant latitude to various arms of the government in order to better protect us. For example, I have no problem with water-boarding as I imagine you do. But I do have a problem with and have never heard or seen any proof of, the fact that even the CIA would intentionally target woman and children, which the terrorists do on a regular basis. Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists kill so many woman and children that they’re proud of it. This is surely is the other side of the spectrum from what our country's philosophy is.
Post a Comment