What would Nip and Tuck think...

[The JAM]

Well said, Ralph.

[T.s.a.o]

first time I saw Stockholm Syndrome used against liberals.

[Scathach]

[quote="RHJunior"]Congratulations, Scat. By the internal logic of your arguments, <I>the terrorist threat doesn't really exist!</i> Won't the people who are being killed by terrorist bullets and bombs be happy to find out that it's all a figment of their imagination?[/quote]

And now you are resorting to lies? Or is your grasp of logic really that weak?

Nowhere did I say terrorism does not exist. In fact, I even gave you the numbers. 1 in 650,000 people are killed by terrorists.

---You are attempting to compare the statistical probability of a random accident with the likelihood of suffering the deliberate, malicious, PRE PLANNED act of a group of violent people. ---

Like white christian rapists?

----"Most terrorism is domestic." Sure--- if you live in BEIRUT. ---

And if you live in the US. As I quoted, from the FBI, that all the terrorist attacks in 2000 were domestic. In 2001, 12 of 14 were domestic. In case you have trouble with math, 12 out of 14 means most of the terrorism was domestic, being that 12 is a larger number than 2.

----Do you think your fawning subservience will earn you leniency from them? On some level you must, or you wouldn't be so desperate to try and argue apples and oranges. ---

Do you think pretending all terrorists are Islamic will prevent people like McVeigh? Or Rudolph? Or Krar?

----But there have been SEVERAL thwarted Islamic terror plots against American targets over the past five years, including a recent one to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Our national defences are constantly being probed. The threat is real, and ongoing.---

And to date, there have been 66 murders in LA county since January first, putting it at about a murder a day. Please see my earlier numbers for who is doing that murdering. The threat is real, and ongoing. So, why should I be more afraid of the terrorist than the random guy on the corner?

----Yet you're doing just that--- by blaming the people FIGHTING the terrorists, instead of the terrorists themselves, for your fear. ---

That's funny. I've checked my posts, and I haven't said one thing about the people doing the actual fighting of the terrorists. You are providing what is known as a 'strawman'. A fallacy. A lie.

---You equate self-defence with the instigation of violence. ---

Really? Wow, seems you know me so well. Obviously then, you are aware that I, in an act of self-defense, once stabbed a rapist with a screwdriver. I do think it self-defense is justified. However, if in the aforementioned event, I'd then taken the screwdriver and started going after the rapist's family, what would no longer have been self-defense now, would it?

----You blather about choking on food rather than face the issue.
You fear your protectors and rescuers more than you fear the ones attempting to enslave and/or murder you. ---

The ones attempting to murder me aren't the middle easterners. Neither are the folks currently taking away my civil liberties. So tell me again, why should I be afraid of the brown folks when my odds are greater of being killed by a white man?

----Islam TALKS about being "the religion of peace," but Christendom ACTS the part. ---

You don't know much about Christianity either. Allow me to reference Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who have been encouraging a violent response.

As for your blathering about Stockholm syndrome, well, you respond to the goad well. A wonderful little sheep unable to think for yourself. You toe the party line perfectly, and are easily lead to the point that if someone says they like the color red you scream they are a communist.

I've never criticized the soldiers. I have criticized politicians on both sides. I've never stated what we are currently doing in Iraq is wrong. I did state it should never have gotten to that point.

Now, if you are done making things up, think you could apply a little logic and rationality in any future debates?

[StrangeWulf13]

Congratulations, Scat. By the internal logic of your arguments, the terrorist threat doesn't really exist! Won't the people who are being killed by terrorist bullets and bombs be happy to find out that it's all a figment of their imagination?

And now you are resorting to lies? Or is your grasp of logic really that weak?

Nowhere did I say terrorism does not exist. In fact, I even gave you the numbers. 1 in 650,000 people are killed by terrorists.

It's called sarcasm. It's usually used on people who are incredibly stupid. Of course, there are those who are so stupid that even sarcasm doesn't work.

You might wanna get your IQ checked.

You are attempting to compare the statistical probability of a random accident with the likelihood of suffering the deliberate, malicious, PRE PLANNED act of a group of violent people.

Like white christian rapists?

Cheap shot. Let's see some gorram proof before you start accusing Christians of that.

"Most terrorism is domestic." Sure--- if you live in BEIRUT.

And if you live in the US. As I quoted, from the FBI, that all the terrorist attacks in 2000 were domestic. In 2001, 12 of 14 were domestic. In case you have trouble with math, 12 out of 14 means most of the terrorism was domestic, being that 12 is a larger number than 2.

But even if the people who committed these acts were living here, making them domestic, that doesn't mean that the funding and support wasn't foreign. Terrorist cells are domestic threats. But they are funded and supported by foreigners.

And please stop trying to teach Ralph math; your arrogance is showing.

Do you think your fawning subservience will earn you leniency from them? On some level you must, or you wouldn't be so desperate to try and argue apples and oranges.

Do you think pretending all terrorists are Islamic will prevent people like McVeigh? Or Rudolph? Or Krar?

Perhaps not, but then it'd be hard for them to get funding and supplies without our enemies offering them. And only McVeigh counts, as we've already covered. Krar didn't get funding from terrorist groups.

And Rudolph's currently relaxing until next Christmas Eve. Okay, so I don't know who you're refering to, but two out of three ain't bad!

But there have been SEVERAL thwarted Islamic terror plots against American targets over the past five years, including a recent one to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Our national defences are constantly being probed. The threat is real, and ongoing.

And to date, there have been 66 murders in LA county since January first, putting it at about a murder a day. Please see my earlier numbers for who is doing that murdering. The threat is real, and ongoing. So, why should I be more afraid of the terrorist than the random guy on the corner?

Because the random guy on the corner will stop when he has your wallet, your watch, your necklace... and maybe give you a stab in the gut to say "thanks".

The terrorists will torture, maim, kill and humiliate until you're dead or have converted. And they will not stop with you.

If you cannot see this, you are living in a fantasy land of your own making.

Yet you're doing just that--- by blaming the people FIGHTING the terrorists, instead of the terrorists themselves, for your fear.

That's funny. I've checked my posts, and I haven't said one thing about the people doing the actual fighting of the terrorists. You are providing what is known as a 'strawman'. A fallacy. A lie.

You've libeled (sorry Ralph, but slander is spoken ) several law-abiding groups who actively support action against terrorists. Perhaps they're not doing the actual fighting, but they're giving support and deserve respect for that.

Unlike you, who would gladly hand us over to the muslims just so you can have peace and quiet and drink your tea on Saturdays.

You equate self-defence with the instigation of violence.

Really? Wow, seems you know me so well. Obviously then, you are aware that I, in an act of self-defense, once stabbed a rapist with a screwdriver. I do think it self-defense is justified. However, if in the aforementioned event, I'd then taken the screwdriver and started going after the rapist's family, what would no longer have been self-defense now, would it?

Aye, because we all know that fighting off rapists is just like waging war on terror, isn't it? Gimme a break. Your comparison is flawed. We're not interested in the innocent civilians in the middle east, just the terrorists. If everyone there up and handed all the terrorists and all their plans and weapons over to the US, leaving nothing out, we'd gladly pull up our stakes and go home. But seeing as how they're not likely to do that, we're staying.

Matters of war and crime are different. There might be a world court, but it has no more power than the countries it is made up of, and most at the UN would love to see the US burn to ashes. No one else will defend us, so we have to defend ourselves.

You blather about choking on food rather than face the issue.
You fear your protectors and rescuers more than you fear the ones attempting to enslave and/or murder you.

The ones attempting to murder me aren't the middle easterners. Neither are the folks currently taking away my civil liberties. So tell me again, why should I be afraid of the brown folks when my odds are greater of being killed by a white man?

I believe we have a broken record here...

Oh, and the civil liberties thing? Cheap shot. The Patriot Act contains provisions for people to sue the government for wrongful damages. There hasn't been one yet.

Islam TALKS about being "the religion of peace," but Christendom ACTS the part.

You don't know much about Christianity either. Allow me to reference Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who have been encouraging a violent response.

And of course, so is Billy Graham. Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't mean to include an actual upstanding Christian, did you? Because it's much easier to attack the kooks who aren't being nice and possibly skewing the Bible.

As for your blathering about Stockholm syndrome, well, you respond to the goad well. A wonderful little sheep unable to think for yourself. You toe the party line perfectly, and are easily lead to the point that if someone says they like the color red you scream they are a communist.

Okay, now you've gone off the hook. In fact, this has no bearing on the argument at hand. It's a personal attack. Ralph may not be perfect, but the man you speak of is not the man I know. Besides, his reasoning makes sense to me. You haven't even tried to refute it.

I guess since you weren't able to do that, you just decided to resort to slinging mud and insults. I expect the Nazi's to make an appearance soon...

I've never criticized the soldiers. I have criticized politicians on both sides. I've never stated what we are currently doing in Iraq is wrong. I did state it should never have gotten to that point.

And how exactly would you have done? Stop at Afghanistan? Maybe the clean up at 9-11? The grounding of all flights hours after the attacks?

Hindsight is 20-20. We got to where we are by fighting a war against people who would kill and enslave us. But the way you say it, it sounds like we've gotten ourselves into some kind of quagmire.

Hmm... where have I heard that before?

Now, if you are done making things up, think you could apply a little logic and rationality in any future debates?

Only if you bring some to the table, missy. Don't demand of others what you refuse to give yourself.

[Scathach]

---It's called sarcasm. It's usually used on people who are incredibly stupid. Of course, there are those who are so stupid that even sarcasm doesn't work. ---

You mean like republicans?

----Let's see some gorram proof before you start accusing Christians of that. ---

Um, okay. I was raped by a white christian man who went to church every Sunday.

----But even if the people who committed these acts were living here, making them domestic, that doesn't mean that the funding and support wasn't foreign. Terrorist cells are domestic threats. But they are funded and supported by foreigners. ---

Your ignorance is showing. You don't even know who committed the acts.

---Perhaps not, but then it'd be hard for them to get funding and supplies without our enemies offering them. And only McVeigh counts, as we've already covered. Krar didn't get funding from terrorist groups.

And Rudolph's currently relaxing until next Christmas Eve. Okay, so I don't know who you're refering to, but two out of three ain't bad! ---

Of course you haven't heard of Eric Rudolph. He was white. He was Christian. He is a member of Christian Identity, a right-wing terrorist organization.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime ... c-rudolph/

It's obvious RJ hasn't heard of him, what with his BS claim about all the attacks being by brown people.

----The terrorists will torture, maim, kill and humiliate until you're dead or have converted. And they will not stop with you. ---

The man who raped me went on to rape two other women. He'd raped three before me that we know of.

----You've libeled (sorry Ralph, but slander is spoken ) several law-abiding groups who actively support action against terrorists. Perhaps they're not doing the actual fighting, but they're giving support and deserve respect for that. -----

Sorry, but I've read up on the groups, and believe they do indeed belong in the extremist category.

----Unlike you, who would gladly hand us over to the muslims just so you can have peace and quiet and drink your tea on Saturdays. ---

Strawman.

----We're not interested in the innocent civilians in the middle east, just the terrorists. ---

That would explain why so many innocent civilians have been killed.

----If everyone there up and handed all the terrorists and all their plans and weapons over to the US, leaving nothing out, we'd gladly pull up our stakes and go home.---

And if everyone over here handed over every rapist and extremist and child molester, leaving none out, we wouldn't need cops.

Hey, if people like Eric Rudolph didn't exist, we would only have had 1 major attack on US soil in the past decade.

----Oh, and the civil liberties thing? Cheap shot. The Patriot Act contains provisions for people to sue the government for wrongful damages. There hasn't been one yet. ---

Correction - There hasn't been one yet that you bothered to pay attention to. There has been illegal wiretapping, there have been (and still are) people who have been wrongfully imprisoned. I can't even get a court to admit they wrongfully gave me a parking ticket, what makes you think they'll admit to screwups as big as that?

----And of course, so is Billy Graham. Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't mean to include an actual upstanding Christian, did you? Because it's much easier to attack the kooks who aren't being nice and possibly skewing the Bible. ---

As opposed to you only attacking kooks who aren't being nice and possibly skewing the Koran?

Oh, and I've read the bible. So don't give me the 'skewing the bible' argument. Start with Exodus 22:20, go on to Deuteronomy 13:6-16 and 17:2-7, and throw in a little 2 Chronicles 15:13 and Mark 6:11 and 16:16. That should give you a good start, then go ahead and read the rest of the book.

----Okay, now you've gone off the hook. In fact, this has no bearing on the argument at hand. It's a personal attack. Ralph may not be perfect, but the man you speak of is not the man I know. Besides, his reasoning makes sense to me. You haven't even tried to refute it. ---

Actually, his 'reasoning' consisted of a lot of personal attacks on me and claims that I said things I didn't. Might want to work on your double standard there.

----Hindsight is 20-20. We got to where we are by fighting a war against people who would kill and enslave us. But the way you say it, it sounds like we've gotten ourselves into some kind of quagmire. ---

What I said about Iraq is that it 'Was a phenomenally stupid idea based on bad intel and a pack of lies. You cannot plan a war based on wishful thinking. That said, it's too late now, we made the mess, we need to clean it up. '

The intel was bad - Check
Lies were told - Check
The planning of the war was wishful thinking - Check.

All of which, incidently, I also said before we went, so it's not a matter of hindsight.

And, had I the choice, I'd have gone after Saudi Arabia. You know, the country actually affiliated with the attacks on us.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Concerning the man who raped you and several others:

It's my sincere wish that he be fried to a crisp.


Yes, I, a Christian, am wishiing for punishment against someone who has called himself a Christian.

I won't go into analysis of the church the both of you attended (the pastor has a different responsibility alltogether), but I will say, sadly, that the criminal is as much "Christian" as Miguel Hidalgo Y Costilla was a royalist.

Now, whether he has repented of his crimes, serving jail time, and/or getting his life back together and carrying out restitution as best as he can, that will be his decision.

If he is still behaving like a criminal instead of a son of God, then we will turn to:

...no, what I wrote to you was that if anyone called himself a Christian, but instead is a fornicator, greedy, idolater, slanderer/gossip, alcoholic, or extorsioner, don't even sit down to lunch with him!

If he acts more like a criminal than a son of God, then he's not a Christian in my book, nor should he be in yours.

And it's doubtful he is in God's Book, if God hasn't taken him out already, and that's IF he was in there to begin with.


Now then, guys, this discussion is starting to heat up, so please try to keep things to a low blaze.

[takes out his asbestos suit]


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Scathach]

[quote="The JAM"]I won't go into analysis of the church the both of you attended (the pastor has a different responsibility alltogether), but I will say, sadly, that the criminal is as much "Christian" as Miguel Hidalgo Y Costilla was a royalist.[/quote]

I did not attend the same church. The only reason I bother to point out his religion is -

A) He attended church every sunday and I've been told going to church makes one more moral
B) He attempted to use the fact that I (and his other victims) were not Christian to lesson his crime
C) I was informed that if I was a Christian things like this wouldn't have happened.

Before anyone jumps all over that, I'm aware that all of the above three points are complete bullshit to 90% of the Christians out there. What I do point out is that the bombers are just as much anathemas to Muslims as that man (and the others involved) are to Christians.

[EdBecerra]

Before anyone jumps all over that, I'm aware that all of the above three points are complete bullshit to 90% of the Christians out there. What I do point out is that the bombers are just as much anathemas to Muslims as that man (and the others involved) are to Christians.

Actually, they aren't. It's made quite clear in several of the later sections of the Koran that Mohammed considers the human race to be divided into three sections - Islamics, lesser "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians), and Pagans. Pagans are to be converted or killed, no exceptions. "People of the Book" are to be converted, or made into dhimmi (second-class citizens, see the entry in Wikipedia - http://tinyurl.com/9u9sr ). Only those of Islam are to be treated as equals, and Mohammed clearly instructs his people to not stop until the entire world is either converted to Islam or relegated to dhimmi-tude.

In point of fact, the Koran tends to sound as if it were written by two different people, with some sections advocating diplomacy and compromise, and other sections screaming to put all non-believers to the sword. A number of scholars have noted that the sections that are less strident all appear to have been written when Islam was a minor and weak cult, in danger of being crushed by its neighbors, and the more strident sections written during the period of ascendancy, when Islam had enough power to enforce its demands by the sword.

Really, what is needed here - at least in my opinion - is for Islam to go through the same process that Christianity went through, and Judiasm prior to that. The process of being stripped of ALL military power and most of its political power. After the religious wars in Europe, the Church was, for the most part, taken from a position of power where it could field its own armies and reduced to little more than a little old lady whose only threat was that she'd shake her finger at you and screech "You're a NAUGHTY BOY! And I'm gonna tell GOD on you!"

A slight exggeration, perhaps, but fairly accurate of the reduction of the Church's temporal power. And THAT is all I ask of Islam... that it be reduced to the point where, when an imam demands someone's death or a war, his congregation will look at him with an expression of "Shyeah, right. What have you been smoking, and why aren't you sharing?"

A religion is supposed to be a moral referee. And you can't be a referee when you're out there playing in the game.

[Scathach]

---Only those of Islam are to be treated as equals, and Mohammed clearly instructs his people to not stop until the entire world is either converted to Islam or relegated to dhimmi-tude. ---

Apparently, you've never read the bible.

2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

So on, so forth....

[T.s.a.o]

stop please....your scaring me.... I heard someone quoting from the OT, notorious for the book of Job, and tons of pre-salvation judgements of God that make Christians loook like they have Stolkholm Syndrome or are all sadists or worse (whatever insults liberals can come up with)....well Ester and Ruth are cool, maybe the Psalms and Proverbs....but for debating with anti-believers, just stick to the NT please....it will make me feel more comfy here....

[Scathach]

Sorry love, but as Jesus said -

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

..the scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35


As previously mentioned, I've actually read the bible. That's why I'm not a Christian.

[Wanderwolf]

Only those of Islam are to be treated as equals, and Mohammed clearly instructs his people to not stop until the entire world is either converted to Islam or relegated to dhimmi-tude.

In point of fact, the Koran tends to sound as if it were written by two different people, with some sections advocating diplomacy and compromise, and other sections screaming to put all non-believers to the sword.

Well, in the second place, Mohammed didn't write the Q'u'ran. Mohammed was an illiterate former bandit raider, as he himself admitted during his lifetime. The earliest references to the collation of the Q'u'ran date about 200 years after Mohammed died, and some sections vary depending on which tribe's version of the Q'u'ran you're looking at.

In the first place, a lot of the meaning of the Q'u'ran isn't in the Q'u'ran. As far back as the first surviving collation, even the Muslims needed a "playbook" of sorts to know what a given chapter was talking about. The commentaries that resulted are the birthplace of a lot of bin-Laden's twisted ideas about Allah and Mohammed.

For instance, Surah 2:190 states plainly, that Islam should "Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors". 9:4 goes as far as to specify that out-and-out war is only against those who have broken treaties and/or tried to help others destroy you. 2:256 states categorically that a Muslim is not allowed to force a conversion: "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith".

Now, where did the whole mess that a certain spoiled Arab prince named Osama started come in?

"Dhimmu" is originally "protection" or "tutelage", and refers to the treaty Mohammed made with the pagan Kuraysh that allowed the pagan tribe to use an oasis. (The tribe was later expelled by the second Caliph.) Its use to subjugate a people was introduced by the medieval Q'u'ranic commentator, Ibn Kathir.

"Jihad", in its original sense, just means "war". Where it appears in the Q'u'ran, it doesn't even mean "holy war" unless the descriptor, "in the way of Allah" is added. It was Bukhari, the principal collector of the hadiths (sayings of Mohammed, not of God) who proposed that a man who dies in Jihad goes directly to Paradise. Still, it wasn't until Mishkat al-Masabih that the whole "seventy-two wives of the maidens with large dark eyes" bit is added.

You read that right: Rather than being based on the words of the Q'u'ran, Osama bin Laden bases his teachings on a few excerpts of the collected sayings of Mohammed... and you might recall that the Bible has higher standards than that. (It's why the Gospel of Thomas was excluded, after all. Lots of sayings, doubtful provenance.)

So, is Islam a peaceful religion? Originally, by-the-book, yes, in much the same way that, by the book, the most perfect Christian is the one who gives up worldly goods to become a wandering rabbi. By its history, no, it is not: Islam's early history is even bloodier than early Christianity under the Roman Empire, and it only gets worse after the Crusades come in. (Imagine a "Christian" nation run by the younger version of Billy "Hellfire" Graham and you're close.) Pardon the language, please, Lord.

But individually, it varies. It is as inadvisable to judge all Muslims by bin Laden as it is to judge all Christians by the hammy Brother "I have si-i-i-inned" Falwell or the extorting Brother Oral "pay your protection money to the Lord" Roberts. (Wish he *had* been "taken home"...)

Now, on a handful of other items in this thread:

Sue the government? Aye, it's been tried before. Yeah, you can sue the government. Just one tiny problem.

You can't win.

No, I'm not just grabbing that out of thin air. The ACLU sued to receive a list of detained suspects in 2002, and didn't get a list. Ellen Mariani's suit against the Bush administration, while not perfectly sound, has neither been thrown out nor heard. An ACLU suit against the Patriot Act was silenced... under the Patriot Act. And these are just the most recent items. Take it from a part-Cherokee: You never win a court case against the U.S. Government. Even if you win, you'll still lose.

Now, as for Ralph's repeated assertions about Arabs and terrorism, I'll go to the Homeland Security folks for stats:

According to "Patterns of Global Terrorism", the Department of State's annual report on terrorism in the world (2003, the latest year released):

North America has experienced 6 incidents of international terrorism: 2 in 1999, 4 in 2001.

North America has suffered 4,465 casualties from international terrorism, all suffered in 2001.

U.S. casualties for 2003 in incidents abroad were 35 dead, 29 wounded.

In 2003, there were 60 anti-U.S. attacks: 20 in the Middle East, 17 in Western Europe, 14 in Latin America, 6 in Asia, 2 in Africa, and 1 in Eurasia.

Of these 60 events, 3 were suicide bombs. 40 were bombings. 7 were armed attacks. 3 were kidnappings; 2 arson, 2 firebombs, 1 chemical, 1 terrorist skyjacking, and 1 "other" (the mind boggles).

Now the domestic terrorism stats:

According to the FBI, domestic terrorism incidents in the U.S. numbered "more than 6,000" in 2003 alone. (Krar is on the list, of course, since he was in possession of a chemical weapon.) (Oh, and to avoid confusion, the FBI defines "domestic terrorism" as "the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".)

To be fair to you, RH, the "domestic terrorism" stats also include vandalism and assault as well as the more violent bombings and such. Even allowing for that, though...

Yours truly,

The stat-hunting,

Wanderer

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.

2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Good catch. I'll tell you why in a moment.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Deuteronomy 17:12
Exodus 22:19
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Note that ALL of Ezekiel eventually led up to the point of judgment. And there was a very good reason for the judgment.

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

Honey, are you aware of what Bablylon DID?

And why such strict ordinances in the Pentateuch?

Because the nations that lived in Canaan before Israel were the most immoral and bloodthirsty nations on the planet. Israel was ORDERED to wipe them out, and NOT TO MINGLE with them in any way.

They failed, they were contaminated with such horrible practices (like sacrificing LIVING children to stone statues) that God had no choice but to wipe them out. He did live a residue to carry on the promise done to Abraham.

One archaeologist (I don't recall the name), who WASN'T a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, after studying the ruins of an Amorite city, said,

I don't know what God told Israel to wipe them out, but I'm glad He did. If these nations had continued existing, these practices would have eventually wiped out the human race.

Well, I'm translating back from Spanish.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Excellent quote.

And are you aware that he Law has been fulfilled already? Yeshua HaMashiach was crucified, died, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven:

"I've completed the work that my Father has sent me to do..."

Does Babylon exist as it did 2,500 years go? Does Moab, Ammon, Edom, or even the Amorites?

Yes, all those prophecies were true. They came to pass (and there are plenty more that are coming up). And all that was required and ordered in the Pentateuch has been accomplished and fulfilled, and with the sacrifice done on the Cross, all the requirements can be carried over to us, and through Yeshua, we too fulfill the Law, we're cleaned of ALL evil, there is nothing standing between us and God, and now we can enter in His presence without any problem, and be in His presence for all eternity.

And why don't parents apply the death penalty to lazy-rebellious children anymore?

Because with the Law having been fulfilled, we're now in a period of Grace. If we weren't under Grace, there would still be prophets the caliber of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel thundering about upcoming judgments on Israel.

Instead, when dealing with that criminal that attacked you:

...therefore, in the name of Yeshua, turn that man over to Satan for the destruction of his body, in order that his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord Yeshua...

I've seen that happen (yes, in front of me) to 2 people. And yes, those people died. And yes, they repented just before that.

That is grace. Read all of Ezekiel to see just how God feels when He carries out judgment.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Tbolt]

In addition, in New York State alone in 2001, there were 975 'hate' crimes. When similiar attacks occur by Muslims on international soil, they are called 'terrorist activity'.

So then what is your proposal, that interracial violence be reclassified as terrorism?

Going to your source, the FBI paper on Terrorism, Most of the terrorist groups you listed did a lot of property damage, but the body count was rather low. With three notable exceptions.

The ELF and ALF stand out most prominently, for the greatest amount of activity. The ELF alone was responsible for almost $15,000,000 in property damages during the scope of that report. But at least as of the time of the writing of the report neither the ELF nor the ALF has taken human life. Will this change in the future? That remains to be seen.

The most devastating attacks covered in the report were the Oklahoma City bombing, the original WTC attack, and Sept 11. Two of those attacks are linked to international and/or islamic extremism. The third attack was home brewed, but (if the government is to be believed) the perpetrators are either dead or in prison. The masterminds of the foreign attack are still at large. Therefore, I would say that we have more to be concerned over Osama Bin laden than Timothy McVeigh (dead), Krar (Incarcerated), Ted Kaczynski (incarcerated), or Eric Rudolph (incarcerated)

Now, why don't domestic terrorists get more media attention? I wish I could say that this was media responsibility. Most of the groups you listed don't have the numbers to get their message out to the mainstream. Which is probably why they resort to violence. They are like spoiled children throwing a tantrum when they do not get their way. The Majority of the groups you have cited have not done damage in the spectacular way of Oklahoma, WTC, or even Atlanta.

You are definitely correct, though, these groups should not be ignored, and our society would be better off without them.

If we gave full, month long, national media attention to every fruitloop group that performed an illegal action on American soil, what would happen to America's cities? Some racist groups, like the KKK might go away like cockroaches scampering when the light turns on. Other, more politically oriented groups, like the ELF, might thrive trying to top one or the other with the atrocity du jour. Attention is what they want, do we really want to give it to them?

The vast majority of terrorism is domestic.

Could I have a bit of clarification? Are we referring to incidents that occur strictly on American soil? Terrorism against American interests worldwide, or terrorism in general?

(Thanks to Wanderwolf, I think I see the point a little more clearly)

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2002/0202terror.asp

Why is it, when a Muslim man in the middle east guns down a bunch of people on a street corner, it's terrorism, but when a Christian man in the US guns down a bunch of people on a street corner, it's gang violence?

Perhaps because sometimes it is?

Mainly this is because New Yorkers do not strap bombs to their chests and run onto buses loaded with the "target minority" for the express purpose of killing as many as possible. Nor are any of the hate crimes referred to part of an orchestrated attempt to change the geopolitical world through the elimination of an entire country and everyone living in it.

No, they tend to use guns instead of bombs. And as for your 'change the geopolitical world blah blah blah', how is that different than the folks casually tossing around the words 'glass parking lot'?

Where are the "glass parking lots"?

To my knowledge, the US used two nuclear devices on population centers, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After destroying their will to fight we then rebuilt their country to the point that thirty years later they were able to practically destroy American steel industry and dominate American auto industry. I wonder where America would be had Japan won the war instead?

There's a difference between idle threats made by people without the means to back it up, and the body counts seen overseas, and locally.

Now, if the situation had been reversed, and a middle-eastern man attacked a white woman in such a manner, would the middle-eastern man have been called a terrorist?

Probably not. Unless there were a largish organised movement of them. But I hope that the man that attacked your friend ended up with the descriptor "incarcerated". He should have been charged with assault, reckless endangerment, and attempted homicide. Depending on your locality, the charge might be increased to two counts in all cases if the unborn child she was carrying were recognised. I've heard of some municipalities doing that in the case of pregnant women.

Oh, and my odds of being murdered are 18,000 to 1. 32% of murderers are white, 35% are black, but less than 2% are 'other'. So, odds are, if I die violently at someone's hands, it will be either a black or white male. Odds are, if I am the victim of an assault, it will be a white male.

So tell me. Who should I be more afraid of? Al Qaida, or the random white guy on the corner?

Probably neither. I looked at the DOJ figures from 2002 I see where you got your numbers on murder. But you neglected to point out two critical things. First that a random black man is seven times as likely to kill as a random white man. Second that if you are murdered it will most likely be a person of your own race (94% for a black person to be killed by a black person, and 86% for a white person to be killed by a white person, somewhat less in recent years) Although, if you are a victim of random violence, that trend crosses racial barriers more often than not. The greatest probability is that if you are murdered it will be by someone you know.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm

Where is your source of information for the assult statement? Sheesh, trying to get useful information from some of these government web sites is like pulling teeth!

[Scathach]

Domestic Terrorism - By Americans, on American soil.

---So then what is your proposal, that interracial violence be reclassified as terrorism? ---

Any particular reason why hate crimes aren't considered terrorism?

---Where are the "glass parking lots"? ---

If you haven't heard the term before, then you haven't been paying any attention to what is going on in the response to the middle east.

---Unless there were a largish organised movement of them. But I hope that the man that attacked your friend ended up with the descriptor "incarcerated". ---

No, but he did have the descriptor 'beaten within an inch of his life'.

And what happened to my friend was not an isolated incident. During that time, I was also privy to watching a 'good christian fellow', spit in the the face of the young middle eastern woman currently bagging his groceries, and my neighbors, a middle eastern couple, had their car vandalized several times.

---But you neglected to point out two critical things. First that a random black man is seven times as likely to kill as a random white man. Second that if you are murdered it will most likely be a person of your own race (94% for a black person to be killed by a black person, and 86% for a white person to be killed by a white person, somewhat less in recent years) ---

No, I took that into account, as I happen to be white.

My source for the assault statement was not via the WWW, but a conversation with a police officer friend of mine. I tend to trust his judgement more than the media anyway.

---Because the nations that lived in Canaan before Israel were the most immoral and bloodthirsty nations on the planet. Israel was ORDERED to wipe them out, and NOT TO MINGLE with them in any way.---

Not supported by archealogical evidence. Scratch that, disproved by archealogical evidence.

----we're cleaned of ALL evil, there is nothing standing between us and God, and now we can enter in His presence without any problem, and be in His presence for all eternity. ---

That's funny. There would appear to still be evil in the world.

I have read all the bible. It's a violent, bloodthirsty book beyond the little bit I quoted. I also take into account the entire quote, and it's context, and not just the one little world 'fulfill'.

[T.s.a.o]

Um, there shouldnt be any archaeological evidence of that whatsoever, since the Cannanites and their culture were wiped from existence. I'm also sure they deserved it, you just haven't been reading the Redwall series enough.
Read Lee Strobels "The Case For Faith". I'm sure your financially capapble of that.

[The JAM]

That's funny. There would appear to still be evil in the world.

It's the individual who is cleansed from evil when he/she accepts the Sacrifice done.

[T.s.a.o]

wait, don't we sacrifice anything?

noope, you can be as hethenastic a Christian you want to be , you just acquire the Holy Spirit, which implies a ture foolproof moral conscience, and the gift is non-refundable.

[Sun tzu]

That's funny. There would appear to still be evil in the world.

It's the individual who is cleansed from evil when he/she accepts the Sacrifice done.

I'm not certain I follow...I've yet to here about human beings who were 100% good, never mind entire groups of them.

[T.s.a.o]

That's funny. There would appear to still be evil in the world.

It's the individual who is cleansed from evil when he/she accepts the Sacrifice done.

I'm not certain I follow...I've yet to here about human beings who were 100% good, never mind entire groups of them.

by cleasend, means the retribution for being evil is paid for-but that dosen't take away evil or guilt.