Hooray - Al Quaida stopped once again

[Jawz II]

I thought it were the Nazis, sorry, my bad, you surely know better

National Socialism was there political allegiance and christianity was their Religion.

If you didnt know that much, what does that make you?

Blah, blah, blah. First go and find out what the word "genocide" means before you use it again.



We are not talking about who killed more. If it was so, then Chinese would be the most brutal people on Earth, since their civil wars have killed more people than any so-called World War.

We are talking about which religion is more violent, which compels its followers to commit atrocities for religious reasons. Muslims, from the day one, waged Jihad against all unbelievers. Holy war, violence, religious zealotry, that's what Islam has been like for most of its history.

So yeah, any analogy to Christianity and others is totally absurd and if you don't get it, it's your problem.

Oh so you get to pick which murders count and which ones don't when youre calling them brutal savages?

Well how convininent! how did you get a cool system like that? you didnt make that crap up by any chance, did you? thats just precious.

All those crimes I mentioned have really happened. And all the people who committed them were really christians, only a fool would say otherwise. Or call it bla bla.

You know nothing of your own history and very little of islams. All you got is the same old tired racist, zenohpobic foolery. Youre not even good at appealing at emotions like a good hatemonger would be, much less logic.

How lame.

Im done talking with you for this time, since I dont do flame wars, but I fully expect future outbursts of hillarity coming from you.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Per capita, there are vastly more Islamic terrorist than non-Islamic ones. Vastly more.
Well, the problem I see with Islam is that it's frequently self-contradictory. I can point you to at least three or four passages that order Muslims to slaughter infidels without mercy. I can also point you to at least three or four passages that specifically say to show mercy to the infidels so that you might convert them.

I'm not sure which of these two philosophies was what Muhammad intended, but judging by his actions I'd imagine that the ultra-violent one based on killing everyone who doesn't agree with you is the original intention, and that the idea of mercy was injected by more level heads well after the fact.

The thing that disappoints me so much about Islam is that its core tenets are so fundamentally sound. I almost converted when I heard the Five Pillars, but then I actually started to read the Koran and discovered all of the insane bits that moderate Muslims either ignore or attempt to explain away.

so bits of the Koran are no longer applicable - given Islam's bloody start. How would you prove that Jihadists carry Allah's order through those bits, those "slaughter the infidel" suras? If they have, then why haven't we had any attacks earlier in the century or even throughout history?

 

[drachasor]

No. He did not. That's the part you're not getting.

No human being can have all the information in the government at his fingertips. There's too damn much of it--why do you think the government has something like a hundred thousand employees to process it all???

All of the needed information was in fact in the U.S. government--but each piece was in a different place, no one person could possibly know where all the pieces were (again, there's far too much info for one person to keep track of), and so you're being completely unreasonable in expecting the government to connect the dots.

Well, so you object to my use of a popular expression, whoopdeedoo.

Bush had numerous departments trying to give him information, he had been told something big was coming. He did nothing to make sure the departments would work together, nothing to gather the information and use, nothing to stop a potential terrorist attack (that ended up happening).

Edit: Ooh, here's a good one--why do you suppose Clinton missed the FIRST World Trade Center attack.....? I'm quite certain you've got a plausible excuse to exonerate him. And there you have it: Presidents do not have all the data. They need their underlings to distill it and catch all the important stuff, and as human beings, said underlings will miss the important stuff sometimes. Which is what happened with both WTC attacks.

Show me how Clinton had tons of information indicating that attack was coming. Show me he had information pointing to some or all of the people involved. Show me despite this he didn't try his darnedest to stop it. Do that and I'll condemn him like I condemn Bush. (You can't do that however, because that wasn't the case for the bombing).

 

[A1CBOZ]

In the regards to Islam vs Christianity. look at these two verses, just one verse from each religion's Holy Books. Each phrase is reportedly spoken by the founder for the religion, Mohammad and Jesus Christ respectively.

Sura 9:5. ...then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem ...

Matthew 5:44 .... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...

I'm not sure about you all, but I see a slight difference...

 

[Verbose]

Well, if the debate is to be held on that level of selective quoting, isn't the real conundrum then why Christians have turned out such right bastards more often than not through history, while the Muslims have unexpectedly always retained a remarkable amount of basic human decency?

Could it be that there are other things at play - at least other sets of quotes?

 

[A1CBOZ]

I was just showing how the religions founders thought and what they told their followers.

Christians have turned out such right bastards more often than not through history, while the Muslims have unexpectedly always retained a remarkable amount of basic human decency?

Your joking right? You have an odd way at looking at mass murder and terrorism...

 

[Peng Qi]

National Socialism was there political allegiance and christianity was their Religion.

If you didnt know that much, what does that make you?

It makes you "not factually challenged." The Nazis in no way affiliated themselves with or endorsed Christianity except among the lowest tiers of power; i.e. those Nazis that knew little or nothing of the atrocities being committed behind closed doors. Hitler was a devout atheist, as were almost all of his close associates.

All those crimes I mentioned have really happened. And all the people who committed them were really christians, only a fool would say otherwise. Or call it bla bla.

Except the massive difference is that the vast majority of Christians who commit a crime don't scream "DEUS VULT!!!" before they do them, whereas the majority of Islamic criminals often do yell something about praise be to Allah or some other nonsense. They harm people because they believe they have been divinely mandated to, whereas Christians by and large do not believe God orders them to harm others, or at least they haven't so much in the last 500 years. Ergo, it is not Christianity that drives their crimes but external factors, whereas with Islamic radicals it is Islam that drives them to villainy.

so bits of the Koran are no longer applicable - given Islam's bloody start. How would you prove that Jihadists carry Allah's order through those bits, those "slaughter the infidel" suras? If they have, then why haven't we had any attacks earlier in the century or even throughout history?

We have, they just didn't use massive explosives because they didn't really, you know, exist yet. As soon as the equipment necessary to create an explosive as large as the ones they use in suicide bombs were widely available, suicide bombings began. Before that, the usual methods were kidnappings and beheadings or massive, organized raids.

 

[BaneBlade]

That it got stomped on constantly, and frequently forced to do things at gunpoint?

That's a very onesided view- i would say it's completely false. Nearly every "Nazi" was raised in the christian tradition as this was and is the predominant religion here. Doesn't did much good, wouldn't you say?

 

[EdCase]

Love seeing all these labels and claims bandied around.
Truth of the matter is rabid adherence to an ideology whether it is dressed up in its best "religious finery" or its natty "political movement suit" will lead to conflict with another that espouses different views.
Its inevitable,unfortunately, and oh so very human.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, so you object to my use of a popular expression, whoopdeedoo.

Bush had numerous departments trying to give him information, he had been told something big was coming. He did nothing to make sure the departments would work together, nothing to gather the information and use, nothing to stop a potential terrorist attack (that ended up happening).

But which nobody knew about until after it happened.

Not buying it, Drach. 20/20 hindsight doesn't cut any mustard with me. You can't expect the terror level to be bumped to Red every time a Muslim radical sneezes. The info Bush had available to him on September the 10th was not conclusive, and here in the States, we have this thing about "innocent until proven guilty". We don't (or, rather, shouldn't) run on half-baked guesswork.

Show me how Clinton had tons of information indicating that attack was coming. Show me he had information pointing to some or all of the people involved. Show me despite this he didn't try his darnedest to stop it. Do that and I'll condemn him like I condemn Bush. (You can't do that however, because that wasn't the case for the bombing).

Not until you prove all of the above for Bush.

Don't bother. You can't.

And this is where you and I differ. Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing. They both missed a major terrorist attack. The difference between you and me is this: I hold Clinton and Bush to the same standard. I don't condemn either President, because they did pretty much the best they could with an imperfect system. Whereas you ask Bush Jr. to jump a thoroughly impossible hurdle.

I call double-standards on Drach.

 

[warpus]

whereas with Islamic radicals it is Islam that drives them to villainy.

I will dispute this.

It isn't Islam specifically that is driving them to this, it is a fundamentalist & extremist interpretation of Islam that is.

It's all a matter of interpretation - there are plenty of Muslims out there who base their lives in a level-headed interpretation of Islam.

 

[Japanrocks12]

We have, they just didn't use massive explosives because they didn't really, you know, exist yet. As soon as the equipment necessary to create an explosive as large as the ones they use in suicide bombs were widely available, suicide bombings began. Before that, the usual methods were kidnappings and beheadings or massive, organized raids.

I'm not seeing how this isn't analogous to the Christian situation, where papal doctrine of "stamp out heresy" led to inquisitions and persecution of religious minorities. Or how in retaliation to persecution by the Romans, Christian lawmakers sought to slaughter or convert Germanic pagans.

 

[Ecofarm]

Bush had numerous departments trying to give him information, he had been told something big was coming. He did nothing to make sure the departments would work together, nothing to gather the information and use, nothing to stop a potential terrorist attack (that ended up happening).

President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem, not just a law enforcement issue. They reinforced the authority of the National Security Council (NSC) to coordinate domestic as well as foreign counterterrorism efforts, through Richard Clarke and his interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). Spotlighting new concerns about unconventional attacks, these directives assigned tasks to lead agencies but did not differentiate types of terrorist threats. Thus, while Clarke might prod or push agencies to act, what actually happened was usually decided at the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, or the Justice Department.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

Clinton did no better.

Show me how Clinton had tons of information indicating that attack was coming. Show me he had information pointing to some or all of the people involved. Show me despite this he didn't try his darnedest to stop it. Do that and I'll condemn him like I condemn Bush. (You can't do that however, because that wasn't the case for the bombing).

What about Clinton having knowledge of an impending 9/11, which he did nothing with?

Spoiler :

Despite recent evidence that Bill Clinton knew by 1996 that al-Qaida terrorists who had tried to topple the World Trade Center in 1993 had plans to hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings on American soil, this evidence was ignored by the recent Congressional report on the causes of the September 11, 2001 aerial attack on the WTC.

On May 20, 2002, David Horowitz, the Editor-in-Chief of this website, wrote an article entitled “Why Bush Is Innocent and the Democrats Are Guilty”. The article discussed Operation Bojinka, which came to the attention of U.S. authorities in 1995 when Abdul Hakim Murad, a terrorist, was captured in the Philippines. As reported by Maria Ressa in her September 18, 2001 article “U.S. Warned In 1995 Of Plot To Hijack Planes, Attack Buildings” on CNN’s website:

The FBI was warned six years ago of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings, Philippine investigators told CNN.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={245984FA-D9DF-46E9-8EF3-7B5259A51C0D}

 

[drachasor]

Well, so you object to my use of a popular expression, whoopdeedoo.

Bush had numerous departments trying to give him information, he had been told something big was coming. He did nothing to make sure the departments would work together, nothing to gather the information and use, nothing to stop a potential terrorist attack (that ended up happening).

But which nobody knew about until after it happened.

What are you talking about? Bush had all this information BEFORE 9/11. He was told a big attack was coming BEFORE 9/11. He was told there were terrorist cells in the United States BEFORE 9/11 (many months before). He was told Al Qaeda wanted to attack within the United States (quite possibly involving planes) BEFORE 9/11. The Clinton Administration brief them on how they needed to get the FBI and CIA to work together (to make sure they worked together) BEFORE 9/11. The FBI knew there were suspicious characters (who had terrorist connections) getting flight lessons BEFORE 9/11. The CIA and FBI came to Bush and Co. separately multiple times BEFORE 9/11 and repeatedly warned them that something was afoot. Dick Clark tried to get them to pay attention and start doing something multiple times BEFORE 9/11.

There's a paper trail and evidence for all of this, so why are you pretending it isn't there? Heck, go look at the 9/11 Comission's report and the interviews they did with Rice and others and you'll see how they got great memos and briefs with titles like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within United States" and then ignored everyone and all recommendations on what to do. If you can't manage to look up this public information yourself, then I'll do it for you if you insist (I already did some of it in the 9/11 thread).

Not buying it, Drach. 20/20 hindsight doesn't cut any mustard with me. You can't expect the terror level to be bumped to Red every time a Muslim radical sneezes. The info Bush had available to him on September the 10th was not conclusive, and here in the States, we have this thing about "innocent until proven guilty". We don't (or, rather, shouldn't) run on half-baked guesswork.

Sure 20/20 hindsight can make you notice things that it wasn't realistic to pick up on the first time, but when what you notice is that the President ignored repeated warnings about a terrorist attack from multiple government organizations (indeed he did nothing) then you can certainly notice incompetence.

If by "not conclusive" you mean it didn't list all the terrorists by name and what they planned to do, then sure, it wasn't conclusive. If by "not conclusive" you mean the President had no indication a major attacking involving aircraft was coming and that he didn't have leads on the hijackers that he never followed and that he wasn't given plans to combat terrorism that he never followed, then you are dead wrong.

Not until you prove all of the above for Bush.

Don't bother. You can't.

It's pretty easy to show Bush had numerous sources of information about 9/11 and never did anything to follow through on the information. It's trivially easy to say that not doing something about a big terrorist attacking you are WARNED about is incompetent.

The fact that the Bush administration has demonstrated incompetence again and again and again makes the above far from surprising, though no less tragic.

And this is where you and I differ. Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing. They both missed a major terrorist attack. The difference between you and me is this: I hold Clinton and Bush to the same standard. I don't condemn either President, because they did pretty much the best they could with an imperfect system. Whereas you ask Bush Jr. to jump a thoroughly impossible hurdle.

I call double-standards on Drach.

You can't show any evidence at all the Clinton was getting warnings about the bombing of the Twin Towers. You can't show that Clinton didn't have very frequent meetings about terrorism before and after the Twin Towers attack (because he did). Bush didn't have such meetings and didn't seem to think anything needed to be done (despite being warned). The two situations are very different.

Additionally, the level of the attack under Clinton was much, much smaller and required a far smaller degree of coordination. That is inherently much harder to discover. If you somehow equate the two situations then you have your head in the sand.

-Drachasor

 

[drachasor]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

Clinton did no better.

I don't follow you. That shows that Clinton was very active in combating terrorism. Plans were brought up with him, and he chose a definitive course of action against terrorism each time. Admittedly it wasn't always what Dick Clarke wanted (who admits he was obsessed with Bin Laden), but they still pursued Bin Laden. Just because they didn't capture Bin Laden doesn't mean they didn't try hard. They worked and worked and worked against terrorism.

Now go find evidence that Bush took any actions against terrorism before 9/11 (you can't).

What about Clinton having knowledge of an impending 9/11, which he did nothing with?

You're kidding right? He knew SOMETHING was coming, but they didn't have all of the specifics. With such plots you often can't stop everything until near the end or you are missing required pieces that you have to uncover. His administration was working to find out all this information, but they didn't have the required intel during his Presidency. Bush had more information available to him, but he took no actions and ignored warnings that something was coming.

If you can't fathom the difference between working hard to gather sufficient intel to act (against 9/11, for he was already acting in numerous other ways against terrorism) and not doing anything, then you need to take some time out and think things through.

And I am not saying Clinton was perfect; he wasn't. There were probably some more things he could do. Lack of perfection doesn't mean he wasn't competent however; because he was still getting people to work together to combat terrorism. Bush's refusal to DO anything is incompetence though, because he completely disregarded multiple warnings he received.

-Drachasor

 

[Ecofarm]

The article, written by British investigative journalist David Rose, is categorical in its conclusions that Clinton policymakers' hard line hostility toward Khartoum blinded them to an opportunity that could have increased the prospects for preventing not only the attacks on September 11 but also the bombings of the American embassies in Africa in 1998.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200112070235.html

 

[Quiet Sound]

Edit: Ooh, here's a good one--why do you suppose Clinton missed the FIRST World Trade Center attack.....?

That is a very good question excepting that Clinton is the wrong person to ask about:

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be use, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers. ...

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I.. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up."

I'm unaware of any followup.

It makes you "not factually challenged." The Nazis in no way affiliated themselves with or endorsed Christianity except among the lowest tiers of power; i.e. those Nazis that knew little or nothing of the atrocities being committed behind closed doors. Hitler was a devout atheist, as were almost all of his close associates.

Enlisted Man's German Army belt buckle:
"God with us"




Hitler Youth Badge:




Other Nazi items with Christian symbolism


""Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."" - Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." Adolf Hitler, April 12, 1922

Other examples of Hitler professing Christianity

Whether or not Hitler truly believed the things he said he never, to the best of my knowledge, professed atheism and as there is no membership card for Christianity, no overseeing authority awarding membership in the Christian club, all we have is his word.

 

[Bast]

Great job by Germany. Keep up the good work!!

 

[warpus]

Great job by Germany. Keep up the good work!!

*warpus looks at the post right above yours and smirks*

 

[Peng Qi]

I'm not seeing how this isn't analogous to the Christian situation, where papal doctrine of "stamp out heresy" led to inquisitions and persecution of religious minorities. Or how in retaliation to persecution by the Romans, Christian lawmakers sought to slaughter or convert Germanic pagans.

Irrelevant. That happened hundreds of years ago; the faith has evolved.

That's a very onesided view- i would say it's completely false. Nearly every "Nazi" was raised in the christian tradition as this was and is the predominant religion here. Doesn't did much good, wouldn't you say?

Irrelevant. Are you saying that every single German was complacent; that they all knew of the atrocities but were simply so evil that they didn't care?

Whether or not Hitler truly believed the things he said he never, to the best of my knowledge, professed atheism and as there is no membership card for Christianity, no overseeing authority awarding membership in the Christian club, all we have is his word.

And here's evidence that you're wrong. All Hitler quotes:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse...."
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery...
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>."