<sigh>Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I'm glad you're not in a position of power. Nuke? Seriously?
Printable View
<sigh>Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I'm glad you're not in a position of power. Nuke? Seriously?
Hey, it sure beats having to learn arabic to order a big mac.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
We could put them in all the FEMA trailers that were not used for hurricane Katrina.
hell, let's just put them all in New Orleans. It'll suit the purpose just fine.
I cant belive some of the things said about the poor people in Iraq. You know not everyone is a terrorist right? "Nuke" them..that seems to be the mainstream american opinion about middleeast people...What the hell? They're people like you and me. Poor children wounded from american bombs...bleh it sickens me..
And I defenitly dont think its right to label someone as a terrorist "just in case". And what is said in the original post that we in Sweden have serious problem because of refugees..I'd like to know the source of that because I havent noticed a thing.
Once again I'll point out that the majority of terroist attacks within the US have been carried out by white christian males. Not that I'm advocating that that particular group get rounded up, as I might be mistaken for one, but the paranoia is always directed at somebody who is "other". We can do well enough for terrorist bombings in the US without anybody elses help.
Plenty of things wrong with that. The reason the bases were closed is we were spending buckets of money RENTING the land they sit on. Every base closed overseas has been converted to something else because it wasn't our base to start with. We were leasing it.
Does the FIRST attack on the world trade center ring a bell? The bomb in the van in the parking garage?Quote:
The only example I can think of is the bombing of abortion clinics - from what I am told by the US religious left this is just as bad if not far worse than flying planes into crowded buildings...
What about Oaklahoma City. It is general knowledge the guy who did that was a Branch Dividian, which (was) is a Christian sect. The fact is that more wars have been fought over Christianity than any other war.
I happen to know quite a few Muslims, and Nowhere in the Koran does it condone killing people by blowing yourself up. REAL Muslims condemn those who do these things. For those who haven't read the Koran, Take the Jewish Testament and retell every story in it from the point of view of a different brother.
I for one don't see color/race/creed. I have to be continually reminded that i am a whigger.
You'd pee on the pot plants too if you didn't have plumbing. Ever meet a real Mexican? They are conditioned to wipe their ass and throw the paper in the trash, not the toilet because the sewer system can't handle toilet paper.
If Iraq was in the US liberating us from illegal immigrants, i think we'd be blowing ourselves up and sniping from rooftops. WE ARE AN OCCUPYING ARMY. I don't care how BUSH paints it. Iran is a nation that gets over half of its power from nuclear reactors. The FACT is they have been "enriching" uranium since they had one reactor. All enriching consists of is using the same rod more than once. It is much more efficient because it uses more of the uranium in the rod. But because a byproduct is plutonium it has been banned in the u.s. Well not every country has their own source of uranium. They are in the same boat we are in with Gas. We have go get it from someone else because we don't have enough of our own. Note i sad GAS not oil. We import 10% of our gasoline because we don't have enough refineries thanks to the demand from Sport Utility vehicles (whose sales were increased by the fact gas was 86 cents a gallon back then). Who cares if it gets 5 mpg if gas is 88 cents? I think it was some kind of collaberation. They lower gas prices now so automakers can turn record profits and build a huge demand for the future and THEY get record profits.
Thats all i have (for now...)
You are a whigger.
What the heck is a whigger, anyways?
A hint; the "wh" comes from "white", namely the colour of the skin of the person in question. This person adopts the mannerisms of an individual whose skin is of a somewhat darker nature, apparently to the extent that they believe themselves to be of that racial origin. It has thus been decided (in court) that use of the slur from which the second part of the word "whigger" is derived does not constitute a rascist attack when uttered by said person, on the grounds that it cannot be rascist when used by a person who is, or believes themselves to be, of the minority thereby insulted.
Apparently.
They should stand and fight for their country. But being as they were all complacent under Saddam - that's a very wishful thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigB
There are three battles in Iraq:
1) Shia fanatic vs Sunni fanatic.
2) Power hungry cleric vs power hungry politician.
3) Al Queda vs American soldier.
You have to realize its a battleground of many 'armies' and opposing forces and foreign meddling.
well there's a power vacuum over there. The fact is that saddam had the 2nd largest army in the world not to invade anyone else, but to keep his own country pacified. And we send over a fraction of that number of troops and expect to do the same thing.
The difference is the American army has to be PC. Saddam's army did not.
I'm not sure that's statistically true but if it is I'm damn sure that Iraq has only been a significant source of terrorist activity since the coalition invaded. Afghanistan was a different story, it was a significant source of terrorism, but I suspect the vloume has been increased rather than decreased by recent Western actions.Quote:
Most terrorist activity somehow roots back to Iraq and Afghanistan.
At this point I'm going to bow out of this thread. I didn't agree with the initial post but at least it was making a point. Since then it has descended into the type of hatred and bigotry I haven't seen expressed in the UK since Enoch Powel's rivers of blood speech, even extending to the advocation of genocide.
Here's a lengthy 7 page NY times article that talks of muslims and SvedenQuote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/ma...rssnyt&emc=rss
I got to page 2 and decided I had better things to do of course.
You are confusing Timothy McVeigh with David Koresh (hence the name "Davidians"). McVeigh was not motivated by a love of God - he was motivated by a sheer hatred of government. Of course this has stopped exactly nobody on the political left from labeling him a "Christian religious zealot." It just fits too well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Huh? When/where? Name one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I have yet to hear ANY Muslim condemn ANY terrorist act. Most Muslims will remain silent and cower in fear lest they be deemed "un-Islamic" and suffer the same fate as the Muslim terrorists' victims. Even my Muslim neighbors here in Cleveland are too terrified of their own religion to say anything.
Oh please. http://www.vbforums.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism
Timothy Mcveigh was one of David Koresh's Disciples. He stood up in court and not only stated this, but that Oaklahoma City was revenge for what Janet Reno did in Waco.
From what I know Timothy McVeigh never heard of Koresh until Reno's botched assault at Waco. It was only after the fire that McVeigh became enraged enough to visit the compound. Again, McVeigh's actions in OKC were not religiously motivated despite all attempts to make it such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
And an A for effort, penagate. That list was compiled by UNC-CH Sociology professor (and Muslim apologist) Charles Kurzman in an attempt to show us unenlightened, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers that all Muslims aren't bad people.
Sorry, but a couple dozen condemnations (mostly from the US & UK) out of a religion of many millions does nothing to ease my fears of fanatical Islamic supremacists chopping off my head.
I have deleted a few posts - please keep to the thread topic, and be careful of the nature of the things you say.
It doesn't matter what you want this forum to be, it is meant for serious discussion.
by homer13j:
You asked for one, and he gave you more than one.Quote:
Huh? When/where? Name one.
In the very least, he disproved you extremely hyperbolic assertion that you "have yet to hear ANY Muslim condemn ANY terrorist act."
First you assert that there isn't a single Muslim who has every done that, then penagate shows you several, and then you complain that there weren't that many?
I know this is mainly a coding forum, and perhaps you are just venting, but if you stick to logical claims, you would be taken much more seriously.
Once again, i have to point out the obvious:
Not all Muslims live in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have some in my home town. A large majority of them aren't even of that ethnicity. A lot of them are African-american. If you think they Approve of the actions of a few zealots, you haven't been to a mosque ever in your life. It is no different than Judging catholics based on what the pope said. Not only that but most of their actions are not Religiously motivated in the first place.
the fact is that we are occupying militarily. Afghanistan is 100% muslim and Iraq is 97% muslim http://islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm
But whenever they attack our troops or look at a troop crosswise or do whatever you or i would do in their same position, it is "Muslim Extremism" at its worst again. It is FOOLISH to think a Christian or Jew, etc. would act any different in their place, especially considering how many wars have been fought over those two religions. GET A CLUE
also i should point out that on average, one out of every ten people in the united states is Muslim. I guess you know an awful lot of terrorists personally.
He was motivated by lots of things, and they all get intertwined in ways that are difficult to separate. The aryan nation movement is closely tied to a variation of evangelical christianity. Does that make the aryan nation members evangelical christians? Well....some are, some aren't, kind of depends on how you define it. McVeigh was associated with some of the aryan nation related groups. Would he have identified himself as a christian? Probably, but sort of in the way the war in Kosovo was described: A bunch of people not going to church to worship Christ fighting against a bunch of people not going to church to worship Mohammed. You could find devout people on both sides saying this person was or wasn't a member of any particular church, so whether McVeigh was or wasn't depends largely on who you ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
McVeigh was associated with various amorphous groups that roughly align themselves as fundamentally christian, though other christians might disagree with their self assesment.
And what is coding, but thinking logically. Show me someone not thinking logically (and possibly brainwashed by our whitehouse) and i bet their coding sucks too. Maybe some research could be done along those lines. Some kind of defect in the corpus callosum.Quote:
Originally Posted by 18experience
18experience is correct, it was an "extremely hyperbolic assertion." I apologize. I had seen Professor Kurzman's page before and I still say it was produced strictly to satisfy a political agenda.
I am speaking from my own experience with Islam here in Cleveland, Ohio. Almost all Muslims in my neighborhood attend a certain Mosque in Parma that has long been associated with terrorism. Many videos have been smuggled out of the place where the Imams are saying not at all nice things. Recently one of the Imams was deported for terrorist ties. Yet when I ask about these things I get no answers. I am told in no uncertain terms that infidels are never to ask such questions. My own neighbors' universal silence on the subject is disturbing to say the least. This is what I meant by "I have yet to hear ANY Muslim condemn ANY terrorist act." And bring us nicely back to the original thread topic.
It's interesting how large numbers of non-Muslims will go to great lengths to defend Islam while I appear to be the only non-Christian willing to defend Christianity. ;)
I thought about that as I was posting.Quote:
And what is coding, but thinking logically.
I don't know anything about brainwashing (think about that for a second, brain washing...sounds funny), but I bet people who argue from their heart (or gut?) instead of their head have a lot of infinite loops in their programs.
Or, maybe their logic goes something like this.
Strange, but when I put that in VS 2003 (some of you may want to check it in VS 2005 for me), I got an error on that line inside the loop. I mean, it looks perfectly fine, and it compiles, but when it actually runs, something just doesn't make sense.Quote:
While Person = RandomMuslim.Next
DirectCast(Person, Terrorist)
End While
Ahhhhhhh, I don't really feel like debugging it. I think I'm just going to publish it.
I wouldn't call it a direct cast, I'd call it a heightened level of attention. I don't condemn anyone as a terrorist, I'm just saying you can't count any Muslims out of possibly being a terrorist.
Two things:
1. Please form any responses to post #66 into hilarioius code, i.e.:
And please, let's not limit ourselves only to Bush statements and While loops.Quote:
While PresidentBushStillInOffice
'Pro/Anti-Bush statement here
End While
2.
You are absolutely right. However, you can't count ANYONE out of possibly being a terrorist. So, why even say that?Quote:
I'm just saying you can't count any Muslims out of possibly being a terrorist.
So, in reference to my point 1:
I would most likely agree with the output of that program. I am trying to think of a group of people that wouldn't fit into that statement...Quote:
Dim X As String
X = InputBox("Please enter a group of people")
MsgBox("You can't count any " & X & " out of possibly being a terrorist.")
I'm not saying that anyone can't be a terrorist. I'm completely aware that they can. But look at the conflict, and look at the recent history. Most (notice the lack of "All" there) terrorist activity is Muslim, so from a logical perspective, doesn't it make sense to be more cautious with Muslims than with other groups of people? For all we know, RoboDog could be a terrorist, but his culture hasn't acted in that manner, so we don't assume him to be one. Personally, I don't even count him in the group that might be terrorists. Muslims, though, I would be cautious around, not because they're Muslims, but because Muslims have proven to be the main group producing terrorists. If it were the Germans that were doing this, I'd be cautious around Germans... crap, my mother is German...
Anyway, you get where I'm coming from?
Yes, I understand the tendency to think like that. But, your words are wrought with contradiciton.
I get what you are saying. But you just said that the one characteristic you would base cautiousness on is whether or not they are Muslim. Not that you have anything against their religion, its just that you believe most terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims. But, you are still saying that you would be cautious around them simply because they are Muslim.Quote:
Muslims, though, I would be cautious around, not because they're Muslims, but because Muslims have proven to be the main group producing terrorists.
Thats like saying, "I'm not racist, but I would be cautious around black people, but not because they are black. I personally have nothing against dark pigmentation. However, black people produce more criminals than any other group."
Also, I know nothing about RoboDog, but I am certain than anyone might/could be a terrorist. My Mom might/could be a terrorist. Granted, she is a very sweet lady, but she could still be a terrorist.
Negative. It's based around the tendencies of the group of people. Notice my example about the Germans. The fact is, Muslims are mostly responsible for terrorist activity, hence I'm cautious around them. I'm not nearly as cautious around my friends, not completely because they're my friends, but because their ethnic category hasn't proven to produce lots of terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by 18experience
I saw something funny recently about Snoop Dog. He was drug-searched at an airport. Some black group was trying to say it was racially profiling. The rebuttal staement was "We didn't search him because he's black. we searched him because he's Snoop Dog"
This is what background info is used for. Black people don't produce the most criminals. the produce the most criminals that get caught because they usually victimize people instead of corporations. If you have EVER stolen anything (this includes shoplifting a pack of gum) you are a criminal who just hasn't been caught. I don't think RobDog888 could be a terrorist. He obviously stands for good. Look at all the Jedi he trained!
What group? Muslims. I fully believe that you would not feel that way if some Muslims hadn't committed terrorist acts lately. However, that is not the case. So, now, you are basing a decision on whether or not someone is Muslim. Not whether or not they are Muslim and may be a terrorist, because you are already assuming that they might be.Quote:
Negative. It's based around the tendencies of the group of people.
I don't know how to make this any more plain. You are projecting the traits of a small (tiny, in fact) group of people (Muslim terrorists) onto a large group of people (Muslims). That is the definition of stereotyping.
That is saying "I am cautious around someone who is Muslim." For whatever you may have, you are still being cautious around someone simply because they are Muslim.Quote:
The fact is, Muslims are mostly responsible for terrorist activity, hence I'm cautious around them.
We've already been through the fact that it's extremely difficult to figure out which Muslims are terrorists. In fact, it's damn near impossible to until they blow themselves up. And yes, if it were a different group, I wouldn't feel like that about Muslims. I'd feel like that about the group in question. As terrorist activity calms down, so will my feelings about Muslims. I'm cautious around the groups of people who warrant it.
Reminds me of a Bonanza episode. They were going to lock this Black man up because there was an escaped slave on the loose and there was a greater than zero chance it was him. guilty until proven innocent. It's what our country is founded on, after all.
Ok, since I'm not allowed to joke about the third stupidest discussion ever on this forum, may I point out to you rocket scientists a quote from the article..
That is the first freaking sentance in the article. These are people who have pretty much signed their own death warrant in Iraq by helping us infedels out. Not your average explosive wearing muslim fanatic. Way to say thanks guys!Quote:
The United States will soon begin admitting a bigger trickle of the more than 2 million refugees who have fled Iraq, acknowledging for the first time the country may never be safe for some who have helped the U.S. there.
{insult removed by moderator}
Those posts were removed because you caused offence - as could be expected from the subject and the way you worded it.
Whether you like it or not, this site (which includes this particular forum) has rules that need to be abided by.
If you want to stay away from a group that is likely to cause you harm, stay away from drunks. Stay away from drivers, too. And while you are at it, REALLY stay away from drunk drivers.
People have a really bad time evaluating relative risks. We are cavalier about great risks (like driving), and all phobiced up about low risks (like flying, or terrorism). Just give yourself a dope slap and remind yourself that you are just going to die of a heart attack while sitting on the throne anyways, so there is no point in worrying about terrorism.
WOW! I was here for an actual, honest-to-god banning! I got a phone call after reading one post, and when I got off the phone and posted that last thing, MB was here and GONE!!
That's a first for me! It's like seeing a shooting star, only not as common. Call it the shooting of a star, or something like that.
Truthfully, if you divide your risk of dying in an airplane by the number of times you fly, and do the same with driving, you will soon discover you are MUCH more likely to die flying per trip.
An airline pilot has a 1 in 1000 chance of dying in a plane crash (official FAA report). I wonder what the chances are for pilots in single-engine planes?