Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Not needed.

 

(2001-2010)



 



 

https://fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf

Thanks, for the info. Any idea where to get the link to WITS? Been looking at NCTC, but no luck finding it so far.

Quote:jj, [BAD WORD REMOVED] are you talking about? Our activities with the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians was a pretty standard proxy war. That's geopolitics. We gave Iraq back to Iraq? [BAD WORD REMOVED]? We went into Iraq under bogus claims of WMD's and imminent risk of nuclear and CBW annihilation. I don't have much beef with GW1, as that was more of an internationally accepted action against an aggressor state. And I don't have much beef against our actions with the mujahideeneither; I will note that proxy wars seem imperialistic to me, but doing what we did there vs the Russians seemed like a shrewd move, even though I do consider it, and most other proxy war actions Imperialistic. Maybe you have a different meaning for Imperialism. And none of this addresses our history with Saddam, or Pahlavi, or any of the other folks in the region. Look, I am not sitting here saying the U.S. is any different from other major powers in its views toward international actions. And this is nothing new. But to claim that the the U.S. hadn't acted in Imperialistic ways again makes me wonder about our different view of the word itself.

As far as that next part, I don't even know what the hell you are going on about. Does sex slavery and defenestration of gays seem bad to me? Well, yeah. You then go off on Saudi Arabia, the country you list earlier as an example of our non-Imperialsim as we are giving them billions to defend themselves. What are you going on about?

Ahh, guess w . t. f. gets scrubbed. Just testing, wonder if wth does as well

Those actions were not motivated by our desire to colonize subjugate and or exploit the resources of the countries that we assisted. So they would not fit the basic definition of imperialism.


In the case of the behaviors exhibited by various terrorist groups and specifically Iris I was simply demonstrating that these individuals display distinct characteristics in line with extreme Muslim Orthodoxy has put forth and codified by law in certain Islamic countries. That defeats the notion that their motivations have nothing to do with religion

Quote:But at the end of the day, the first thing that needs to happen is that Americans begin to realize that what we are seeing is not based on Islam any more than the USA's war on terror is based on Christianity

 

Bull, Muslims have behaved this way against any and all rival religions and cultures consistently for 1,300 years. This isn't something that just happened since 2010, 2001, 1982 or 1946, it's always been this way because it's an innate and unchangeable pillar of the religion. It will always be this way unless they have a major reformation though that seems unlikely.

Quote:about? [/size]

Ahh, guess w . t. gets scrubbed. Just testing, wonder if wth does as well

Hey Biff! May I suggest you edit your post and get rid of the above... Otherwise, you're sidestepping the profanity filter and that'll get ya a paddlin' by our Jungle Overlords...

Quote:Bull, Muslims have behaved this way against any and all rival religions and cultures consistently for 1,300 years. This isn't something that just happened since 2010, 2001, 1982 or 1946, it's always been this way because it's an innate and unchangeable pillar of the religion. It will always be this way unless they have a major reformation though that seems unlikely.

Personally, I have found a great deal of inspiration in Muslim writings, as I have in other religious writings by those such as Theresa of Avila or St John of the Cross. I have found nothing of your "innate and unchangeable violence" in them. I will also note that some members and sects in the Muslim community were far more progressive towards members of other faiths, and women in general, hundreds of years before Christians. So I am not sure about what you are talking. If it is the Shia-Sunni divide, yeah, that has been some pretty violent stuff, as was the Protestant-Catholic violence Christians have experienced. But I am not seeing anything innately more violent or expressionistic than actions take by those of other faiths. Maybe you could elaborate. 

Quote:Thanks, for the info. Any idea where to get the link to WITS? Been looking at NCTC, but no luck finding it so far.

 

WITS is discontinued. Can't find the original PDF, but you can use http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Examine the lives of the two key figures.

Quote:Those actions were not motivated by our desire to colonize subjugate and or exploit the resources of the countries that we assisted. So they would not fit the basic definition of imperialism.


In the case of the behaviors exhibited by various terrorist groups and specifically Iris I was simply demonstrating that these individuals display distinct characteristics in line with extreme Muslim Orthodoxy has put forth and codified by law in certain Islamic countries. That defeats the notion that their motivations have nothing to do with religion

 

This is your quote, not mine:  Imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means"

Proxy wars, Coups, covert insurrections, direct military invasion. How do these not fit the above definition of "extending influence" or use of "military force, or other means". Again, I am not stating that this is an American thing, pretty much all of the major players have done it, and even some of the lesser ones like Iran. But the U.S. does have a long history of such actions, so what seems to be your claim that we do such things out of the goodness of our hearts (while not invading, committing coups against, or otherwise 'extending or influence' against countries that are equally oppressive but more aligned to our geopolitical goals )seems to ignore reality..

Quote:WITS is discontinued. Can't find the original PDF, but you can use http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Awesome, thanks! Will check it out.

Once you've read the Quran, I'm not sure how a reasonable person could come to any other conclusion other than that Islamic terror is never going away no matter how much some want us to acquiesce and play nice or stop pursuing American interests abroad. You could argue that many of the verses are not to be taken literally but that would still leave quite a few where you just can't do that. You have to wonder how a rational person could pick up that book and be convinced of its truth and fall in line (which could be said about any religious text, but no other religious text advocates violence like the Quran does as far as I know). No completely rational person would. However, rational people do irrational things all the time because behaviors and beliefs become their nature through culture, upbringing and other stimuli.


Are we obligated to allow a person to migrate to this country from anywhere? Should we apply a greater level of discrimination on who is allowed to come here? Does a Muslim person tend to assimilate better, worse or about the same as a non-Muslim person when joining American or any other western society?


I don't hate Muslims. I've casually known a few here in Jacksonville and in my judgement I've never personally encountered a bad apple that I'm aware of. Shad Kahn is a Muslim that I respect and admire. I just don't think it's worth the risk to invite many more to come here knowing that of all the religious and cultural groups they are the least likely to assimilate into American society even generations later. Sometimes common sense has to override ideology. I'm all for fairness and not penalizing thought or speech, but if you identified a certain trait that meant someone had a significantly higher chance of mass violence than someone without that trait would you do nothing with that knowledge as far as allowing that person to become a citizen of your country? I'm not saying the answer is an easy one, but it should be at least up for debate.

Quote:Examine the lives of the two key figures.

Are you talking about Jesus and Muhammed? Should we include Moses, given Matthew 5:17? Do we need to go to Leviticus? Pretty sure that if you look in either the Bible or the Koran you will find descriptions of aggressive actions.

JW posted a link that I am in the process of checking out regarding violence by ideology type, and I am checking that out. I have previously stated my concerns about influence of Sharia. I am not disregarding the possible influence of religion on some people's actions. Still, to this point, I am not seeing anything endemic about Muslim terrorism as opposed to other terrorism that would, for example, come close to justifying something like a blanket ban on immigration. Speaking of which, I know all this back and forth can get muddled, but let me know your views on post 442, want to see where you stand on some of our previous discussions.

Quote:Once you've read the Quran, I'm not sure how a reasonable person could come to any other conclusion other than that Islamic terror is never going away no matter how much some want us to acquiesce and play nice or stop pursuing American interests abroad. You could argue that many of the verses are not to be taken literally but that would still leave quite a few where you just can't do that. You have to wonder how a rational person could pick up that book and be convinced of its truth and fall in line (which could be said about any religious text, but no other religious text advocates violence like the Quran does as far as I know). No completely rational person would. However, rational people do irrational things all the time because behaviors and beliefs become their nature through culture, upbringing and other stimuli.

 

From what I understand,in the Skeptics Annotated Bible, the count runs about two to one with references to exhortations to violence, Bible to Quran. Does this mean that Christian terror is 1/2 as likely to go away, given your logic?



Are we obligated to allow a person to migrate to this country from anywhere? Should we apply a greater level of discrimination on who is allowed to come here? Does a Muslim person tend to assimilate better, worse or about the same as a non-Muslim person when joining American or any other western society?

 

Good questions. I happen to think that offering refugee status is a pretty nice thing to do, but not sure if that meets what you mean by 'obligated'. Not sure that Muslims have assimilated differently, but I really care about assimilation about as much as I do about political correctness, which is to say, very little. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by assimilation. 



I don't hate Muslims. I've casually known a few here in Jacksonville and in my judgement I've never personally encountered a bad apple that I'm aware of. Shad Kahn is a Muslim that I respect and admire. I just don't think it's worth the risk to invite many more to come here knowing that of all the religious and cultural groups they are the least likely to assimilate into American society even generations later. Sometimes common sense has to override ideology. I'm all for fairness and not penalizing thought or speech, but if you identified a certain trait that meant someone had a significantly higher chance of mass violence than someone without that trait would you do nothing with that knowledge as far as allowing that person to become a citizen of your country? I'm not saying the answer is an easy one, but it should be at least up for debate.

 

"knowing that of all the religious and cultural groups they are the least likely to assimilate into American society even generations later." Well, you just seemingly answered your own previous question. Any backing for this?


 

It absolutely should be up for debate. As I read somewhere, "Come now, let us reason together". Seems like a pretty good suggestion.  Let's say that you determine that redheads are 1.25 times as likely per capita of immigrants to do something bad. Do you ban immigration for redheads? I imagine you would probably think that we should see if there is a causal relationship. Also, for discussions sake, what are the benefits of said immigration. Let's say you knew that if you let in 2000 immigrants from FUBARistan 100 would be a new drain on society, 1899 would be productive to great citizens, and one would kill fifty current citizens. let's say you also knew that if you didn't let them in, 500 of them would be killed. How do you balance these things. Balancing such possible outcomes seems to be a big part of the immigration issue.

Quote:Bull, Muslims have behaved this way against any and all rival religions and cultures consistently for 1,300 years. This isn't something that just happened since 2010, 2001, 1982 or 1946, it's always been this way because it's an innate and unchangeable pillar of the religion. It will always be this way unless they have a major reformation though that seems unlikely.

Today I learned that Islam is the only religion with a history of barbaric violence...


I would submit to your that cultures and those in power of those cultures are responsible for violence and barbarism, and they have co-opted many every major religion throughout history to justify it.

Quote:Today I learned that Islam is the only religion with a history of barbaric violence...


I would submit to your that cultures and those in power of those cultures are responsible for violence and barbarism, and they have co-opted many every major religion throughout history to justify it.

And there would be peace on earth if no religion exists, right?

Quote:Today I learned that Islam is the only religion with a history of barbaric violence...


I would submit to your that cultures and those in power of those cultures are responsible for violence and barbarism, and they have co-opted many every major religion throughout history to justify it.

While I might modify that to say individuals are responsible, I think I get what you are saying. 

 

Still, for discussions' sake, let me throw this out and see what you think. A lot of folks get upset when a city or state has, say, the 10 commandments on government property. They object to the violation of separation of church and state. If such separation is good, why is it so? Also, if such separation is good, what are we to make of areas where Sharia is in effect? 

 

I am not sure of the actual impact of Sharia in terms of, say, homosexuality. I have read some reports that say 'dozens' of homosexuals were killed in an area through Sharia. Given what I understand about percentages of homosexuals, dozens seems to be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the likely practicing homosexuals, so I wonder what that actual societal impact is. Any death is a tragedy. I am just trying to get a handle on what happens in a society with Sharia. Also, even if the state 'only' kills dozens, are there many more killed without recrimination by private individuals? Trying to get an idea of the extent of the repression.

 

I am not saying that we need to go on an anti-jihad against societies with Sharia. But others have raised the issue as one impacting individuals. Wondering if there is any way to delineate how much is possible ideological versus well, the standard issues of power, money, and revenge.

Quote:And there would be peace on earth if no religion exists, right?

 

Not exactly the way I read it. Given your previous posts, I presume you are not serious, and the above is your attempt at wit, but hey, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Quote:Once you've read the Quran, I'm not sure how a reasonable person could come to any other conclusion other than that Islamic terror is never going away no matter how much some want us to acquiesce and play nice or stop pursuing American interests abroad. You could argue that many of the verses are not to be taken literally but that would still leave quite a few where you just can't do that. You have to wonder how a rational person could pick up that book and be convinced of its truth and fall in line (which could be said about any religious text, but no other religious text advocates violence like the Quran does as far as I know). No completely rational person would. However, rational people do irrational things all the time because behaviors and beliefs become their nature through culture, upbringing and other stimuli.


Are we obligated to allow a person to migrate to this country from anywhere? Should we apply a greater level of discrimination on who is allowed to come here? Does a Muslim person tend to assimilate better, worse or about the same as a non-Muslim person when joining American or any other western society?


I don't hate Muslims. I've casually known a few here in Jacksonville and in my judgement I've never personally encountered a bad apple that I'm aware of. Shad Kahn is a Muslim that I respect and admire. I just don't think it's worth the risk to invite many more to come here knowing that of all the religious and cultural groups they are the least likely to assimilate into American society even generations later. Sometimes common sense has to override ideology. I'm all for fairness and not penalizing thought or speech, but if you identified a certain trait that meant someone had a significantly higher chance of mass violence than someone without that trait would you do nothing with that knowledge as far as allowing that person to become a citizen of your country? I'm not saying the answer is an easy one, but it should be at least up for debate.

Did you read the Quran from cover to cover?

Also, this may be off topic and a little old but I don't want to rake through pages in this thread about Omar's alleged ISIS relation.


Let's consider the following:


ISIS is notorious for being savage and absolutely ruthless towards homosexuals by regularly be heading them and systematically executing them.


Omar was a usual at the Pulse night club. There are also claims that he was a closeted homosexual.


Why would ISIS, knowing of their hate for anything gay, want to claim Omar as one of them when they would certainly execute Omar if they had the chance to?


Doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:Also, this may be off topic and a little old but I don't want to rake through pages in this thread about Omar's alleged ISIS relation.


Let's consider the following:


ISIS is notorious for being savage and absolutely ruthless towards homosexuals by regularly be heading them and systematically executing them.


Omar was a usual at the Pulse night club. There are also claims that he was a closeted homosexual.


Why would ISIS, knowing of their hate for anything gay, want to claim Omar as one of them when they would certainly execute Omar if they had the chance to?


Doesn't make sense to me.

No idea about his orientation. If he was closeted, well, that makes the whole thing even weirder, if possible. Of course he could have been scouting the location. The only real link to ISIS I am aware of is his call right before he acted.

Quote:Are you talking about Jesus and Muhammed? Should we include Moses, given Matthew 5:17? Do we need to go to Leviticus? Pretty sure that if you look in either the Bible or the Koran you will find descriptions of aggressive actions.

JW posted a link that I am in the process of checking out regarding violence by ideology type, and I am checking that out. I have previously stated my concerns about influence of Sharia. I am not disregarding the possible influence of religion on some people's actions. Still, to this point, I am not seeing anything endemic about Muslim terrorism as opposed to other terrorism that would, for example, come close to justifying something like a blanket ban on immigration. Speaking of which, I know all this back and forth can get muddled, but let me know your views on post 442, want to see where you stand on some of our previous discussions.

Yes the two men.