EU changes Hamas designation ...

[Drummond]

This is the sort of story that has me spitting blood ..... just seen ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30511569


A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.

The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found (http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-12/cp140178en.pdf).

The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.

It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.

Hamas dominates Gaza and fought a 50-day war with Israel in the summer. Under its charter (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp), the movement is committed to Israel's destruction.

Responding to the ruling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Hamas was a "murderous terrorist" group which should be put back on the list immediately.

Israel, the United States and several other nations have designated Hamas a terrorist organisation due to its long record of attacks and its refusal to renounce violence.

Hamas, which was founded in 1987, won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and reinforced its power in Gaza the following year after ousting its Fatah rivals.

Its supporters see it as a legitimate resistance movement against Israel, with whom it has fought for years.

In December 2001, the Council of the European Union - representing the governments of member states - adopted a "common position" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001E0931&from=EN) and a regulation to combat terrorism.

It established a list of designated entities and people whose funds would be frozen. Hamas' military wing, the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades, was named on the initial list, and its political wing was added two years later.

Hamas contested the decision and on Wednesday the EU's General Court found it had been "based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities but on factual imputations derived from the press and the internet".

Words fail me. But hopefully, they don't fail .. YOU .. ?

[fj1200]

Hamas sucks.

[Drummond]

Hamas sucks.

Your eloquence on this subject is impressive. I can tell that you put a lot of thought behind it, FJ --

Beyond indicating an inference that there are definite limits to your support for terrorists (.. which is very welcome news, by the way !) ... do you have any other pearls of inciteful wisdom to impress us with ?

[fj1200]

Your eloquence on this subject is impressive. I can tell that you put a lot of thought behind it, FJ --

Beyond indicating an inference that there are definite limits to your support for terrorists (.. which is very welcome news, by the way !) ... do you have any other pearls of inciteful wisdom to impress us with ?

Yes I do. I don't support terrorists, I only point out unfortunate truth.

[Drummond]

Yes I do. I don't support terrorists, I only point out unfortunate truth.

Sounds good, FJ !

Ok, then. Let's test that.

In previous threads, and in total contravention to a ton of evidence showing the exact opposite, you have maintained that terrorists are human.

I invite you to back up your rather encouraging additions here (thus far) and to cease your support of terrorists. Kindly admit that the ton of evidence I refer to has meaning for you, that you now accept that they do NOT qualify as human.

[fj1200]

Sounds good, FJ !

Ok, then. Let's test that.

In previous threads, and in total contravention to a ton of evidence showing the exact opposite, you have maintained that terrorists are human.

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

:gavel: Sustained


I invite you to back up your rather encouraging additions here (thus far) and to cease your support of terrorists. Kindly admit that the ton of evidence I refer to has meaning for you, that you now accept that they do NOT qualify as human.

Terrorists are human; they suck, but they're human.

[Drummond]

Objection: Facts not in evidence.

No post of yours, thus far, has astonished me more. Good grief !! Talk about being in denial !!!!

If you're 'not' a Leftie, your impersonation of one is stunningly perfect !!!

-- ARE YOU NUTS ???

SURELY you're aware of the thread on this very forum, currently carrying FIFTY FOUR PAGES' WORTH of such evidence ... 801 posts ????!?

Time to educate you, if 'not' .........

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37131-Most-recent-muslim-terrorist-attacks

Thumb through its contents. It'll probably take you most of an afternoon to manage it, I'm guessing ...

You have a choice, considering your thoroughly astounding 'COP OUT' position. One, concede that the 'ton' of evidence is readily available to you -- therefore, YOU'RE WRONG.

Or, two, try disproving all it says !!


Terrorists are human; they suck, but they're human.

Just claiming it, doesn't make it true. The truth of them says the opposite.

Perhaps, 801 posts later, even YOU will be moved to think again ???

Or does your Leftie agenda prevent you from straying from its diktats ?

[fj1200]

... YOU'RE WRONG.

...Just claiming it, doesn't make it true.

My goodness you are one stupid idiot. That thread proves what I've been saying for quite some time; they suck. And you are a hypocritical idiot at that. You should try being less of a moron and make actual arguments rather than repeat your mindless blather.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No post of yours, thus far, has astonished me more. Good grief !! Talk about being in denial !!!!

If you're 'not' a Leftie, your impersonation of one is stunningly perfect !!!

-- ARE YOU NUTS ???

SURELY you're aware of the thread on this very forum, currently carrying FIFTY FOUR PAGES' WORTH of such evidence ... 801 posts ????!?

Time to educate you, if 'not' .........

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37131-Most-recent-muslim-terrorist-attacks

Thumb through its contents. It'll probably take you most of an afternoon to manage it, I'm guessing ...

You have a choice, considering your thoroughly astounding 'COP OUT' position. One, concede that the 'ton' of evidence is readily available to you -- therefore, YOU'RE WRONG.

Or, two, try disproving all it says !!



Just claiming it, doesn't make it true. The truth of them says the opposite.

Perhaps, 801 posts later, even YOU will be moved to think again ???

Or does your Leftie agenda prevent you from straying from its diktats ?

Astonishing level of denial on fj's part. Not only the attacks listed on that thread but the link source , shows over 22,000 muslim terrorist attacks and lists the number of deaths per attack.
Either he goes with Jafar that the link site is just a hate filed compilation of lies or he goes with ignoring it for other reasons but
neither one points to integrity, search for truth, and/or great knowledge on the subject!--Tyr

[fj1200]

Astonishing level of denial on fj's part. Not only the attacks listed on that thread but the link source , shows over 22,000 muslim terrorist attacks and lists the number of deaths per attack.
Either he goes with Jafar that the link site is just a hate filed compilation of lies or he goes with ignoring it for other reasons but
neither one points to integrity, search for truth, and/or great knowledge on the subject!--Tyr

Denial huh?


Terrorists are human; they suck, but they're human.

The site you always quote? It is hate filled but it is also propaganda based on your own definition. And the only reason it might be "ignored" is because it offers nothing new.

[Drummond]

My goodness you are one stupid idiot. That thread proves what I've been saying for quite some time; they suck. And you are a hypocritical idiot at that. You should try being less of a moron and make actual arguments rather than repeat your mindless blather.

The very many acts of savagery accounted for in that thread prove, beyond room for doubt, that terrorists committing it all cannot possibly be human. Reconcile the descriptions given of wholesale slaughter, sheer butchery, ALL of it totally NEEDLESS, with any speck of humanity which has any right to be recognised as such !!

You would fail in any such attempt. You know it. I know it. Anyone halfway familiar with those bloodlust-driven acts knows it !

To deny such evidence is such an extreme act, it is very possibly classifiable as an act of insanity.

Your course of action - if the product of a reputable mindset - is to finally concede the truth. They ARE NOT HUMAN.

[Drummond]

Denial huh?



The site you always quote? It is hate filled but it is also propaganda based on your own definition. And the only reason it might be "ignored" is because it offers nothing new.

Do facts have to be 'new' before you're willing to accept them ?

[Besides, all of this is ongoing. New atrocities are added to, daily !]

A challenge: try disproving any of what the thread says. Are any of its accounts untrue ?

If you can't show this ... your only reasonable option is to accept what you read, and what it proves. Which means that to fail to is an act of unsupportable escapism .... LEFTIE in itself, since no Leftie will stand for unwelcome truth getting in the way of preference.

[tailfins]

This is the sort of story that has me spitting blood ..... just seen ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30511569



Words fail me. But hopefully, they don't fail .. YOU .. ?

What would it take to organize a boycott against the EU? I see spitting and complaing, but where's the action?

[Drummond]

What would it take to organize a boycott against the EU? I see spitting and complaing, but where's the action?

Well .... you're at least free to consider options !! That's more than is true of us here in the UK.

The UK is so tied into the EU apparatus, that much of our laws originate from there these days. OK, there's a very considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo, and one of the main issues in next year's election will be whether the public will be voting for a Party (the Conservatives) willing to give them a Referendum on future membership of it.

Labour (our Socialists) ... firmly pro-EU.

LiDems -- nearly as strongly pro-EU.

Conservatives .. broadly pro-EU, though they want to renegotiate our political relationship with Europe ... giving us more autonomy. Though they promise a Referendum (only after success in winning the election) on membership, they'd prefer us to remain in it -- IF renegotiation is permitted.

UKIP ... its very reason for being is to OPPOSE membership. They've been winning stunning electoral victories recently. If they hold the balance of power in the next Government, they're bound to pressure their partners into a more draconian anti-EU position as the price of Governmental cooperation.

As for non-EU boycotts from outside, I'm not really qualified to comment. Though I'm supportive of anything at all likely to have a useful effect !!

[fj1200]

... is to finally concede the truth. They ARE NOT HUMAN.

Your mindless repetition doesn't make something truth. FACT is truth and FACT is that they are human; disgusting though they are.


Do facts have to be 'new' before you're willing to accept them ?

[Besides, all of this is ongoing. New atrocities are added to, daily !]

A challenge: try disproving any of what the thread says. Are any of its accounts untrue ?

If you can't show this ... your only reasonable option is to accept what you read, and what it proves. Which means that to fail to is an act of unsupportable escapism .... LEFTIE in itself, since no Leftie will stand for unwelcome truth getting in the way of preference.

Hey idiot, what have I claimed was untrue? I only state that it is propaganda based on the definition provided by one of your knucklehead pals.


So true, one can leave out important facts and completely change how the reader will look at the information.

I'm sorry to have to point out to you, again, that you ask stupid questions and make stupid conclusions based upon them.

[Drummond]

Your mindless repetition doesn't make something truth. FACT is truth and FACT is that they are human; disgusting though they are.

... Then, PROVE they are human !!

Stop doing the Leftie thing of asserting something as true so many times, that you hope it'll be taken as truth when it's really NOT. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.


Hey idiot, what have I claimed was untrue? I only state that it is propaganda based on the definition provided by one of your knucklehead pals.

If you admit that what's been posted is true, then my case is justified. What's reported cannot reflect actions any human being would do. So, no propaganda is involved - just truth.

Who but a Leftie would deny unavoidable truths, even when presented with them ??


I'm sorry to have to point out to you, again, that you ask stupid questions and make stupid conclusions based upon them.

If you're sorry, then why do it ?

PROVE us WRONG in what we assert, or, don't waste our time.

[jimnyc]

This is the sort of story that has me spitting blood ..... just seen ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30511569



Words fail me. But hopefully, they don't fail .. YOU .. ?

WTF? I can only shake my head at the short memories some folks have, and what they're willing to overlook. This is an organization that was sneaking through tunnels and murdering folks just a few months ago, and shooting rockets from within schools and hospitals. Not long ago they dragged a body through the streets tied to a motorcycle. Such a group should NEVER be recognized, other than in the sheets as a terrorist organization.

Which terror group is next? And how much terror is low enough to allow someone recognition? Only one attack would be ok? No less than 10? What could they possibly have done to get removed? Did their actions all along somehow disappear and the lives they took somehow come back to life?

[fj1200]

... Then, PROVE they are human !!

Stop doing the Leftie thing of asserting something as true so many times, that you hope it'll be taken as truth when it's really NOT. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

Do you mean like you blathering your subhuman garbage all over the site in every thread that it can be crammed into so often that it would be pointless to shame you each time? Yeah, you're too easy you hypocritical moron. Nevertheless the TRUTH is in what they are not what they do; unfortunately.


If you admit that what's been posted is true, then my case is justified. What's reported cannot reflect actions any human being would do. So, no propaganda is involved - just truth.

Who but a Leftie would deny unavoidable truths, even when presented with them ??

Keep telling yourself that you ignorant fool. Lefties, and big government hacks such as yourself, need propaganda to help themselves with their empty arguments and I've already shown that you and your knuckleheads rely on propaganda.


If you're sorry, then why do it ?

PROVE us WRONG in what we assert, or, don't waste our time.

TRUTH is TRUTH and it must be explained repeatedly you idiot. Don't ask stupid questions then it's possible they will get answered.

[fj1200]

WTF?

It looked like some sort of legalistic ruling but it was hard to tell, the article didn't appear to be very well written. They may not have heard of paragraphs over there.

[aboutime]

... Then, PROVE they are human !!

Stop doing the Leftie thing of asserting something as true so many times, that you hope it'll be taken as truth when it's really NOT. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.



If you admit that what's been posted is true, then my case is justified. What's reported cannot reflect actions any human being would do. So, no propaganda is involved - just truth.

Who but a Leftie would deny unavoidable truths, even when presented with them ??



If you're sorry, then why do it ?

PROVE us WRONG in what we assert, or, don't waste our time.



Sir Drummond. Just had a great idea. Let's stop all of this crap from fj, and turn it around. Let's get fj to prove he/she/it is a mentally stable, candidate of the human race who might be surprised to learn. Nobody died, and left him/her/it IN CHARGE of anything but his/her/it's stupidity.

[Drummond]

WTF? I can only shake my head at the short memories some folks have, and what they're willing to overlook. This is an organization that was sneaking through tunnels and murdering folks just a few months ago, and shooting rockets from within schools and hospitals. Not long ago they dragged a body through the streets tied to a motorcycle. Such a group should NEVER be recognized, other than in the sheets as a terrorist organization.

Which terror group is next? And how much terror is low enough to allow someone recognition? Only one attack would be ok? No less than 10? What could they possibly have done to get removed? Did their actions all along somehow disappear and the lives they took somehow come back to life?

I know, Jim. It's incredible.

I don't know about your side of the Pond. But, over here, certainly in the UK, our media was awash with pictures and reports of how much Gaza was suffering at the hands of Israeli bombardments. The BBC put out harrowing accounts of it all, hour after hour, for weeks. Certainly there were many on the Left who considered what the ISRAELIS did to be way over the top. The sort of thinking that Gabby might identify with .. considering her own stated views on Israel.

I think this is more of an anti-Israeli backlash than anything else ... with truths about what Hamas is, and what it does, drowned out by media propagandising.

At least, I can't account for this any other way. Leftie myopia is a terrible thing.

[Drummond]

Do you mean like you blathering your subhuman garbage all over the site in every thread that it can be crammed into so often that it would be pointless to shame you each time? Yeah, you're too easy you hypocritical moron. Nevertheless the TRUTH is in what they are not what they do; unfortunately.

The truth is in what they are, not what they do ?? You consider the two to be completely separate ??

So, an axe murderer is, in truth, a 'lovely human being' .. ? Osama bin Laden, figurehead for Al Qaeda and a planner of terrorist atrocities, was 'a great guy' .. ?

FJ ... what insanity is this ????

A human being, IF one, is too human, too empathetic, to go around bombing people to bits ! Human behaviour is behaviour which reflects a capacity for humanity (the clue is in the word), not its very opposite !!!


Keep telling yourself that you ignorant fool. Lefties, and big government hacks such as yourself, need propaganda to help themselves with their empty arguments and I've already shown that you and your knuckleheads rely on propaganda.

When it comes down to it, all you're really doing is trying to find a way of copping out of an argument which you know you cannot win. Again, this much regurgitated pap about my being 'a big Government hack', which you're obviously stating AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, in the hope of convincing people of it through mantra-like repetitions. It's classic Leftie propagandising .. if you can't prove your case, so you keep on repeating it in the hope that it'll eventually be self-convincing.

Totally ridiculous.


TRUTH is TRUTH and it must be explained repeatedly you idiot. Don't ask stupid questions then it's possible they will get answered.

... A case in point ?

H'mm. Whatever next ? Questions are best answered if they AREN'T asked ????

This is nuts !!

FJ, you're going to insane lengths to avoid answering what you know you CANNOT answer.

You just can't admit when you're wrong (.. and not for the first time ..). You have NO way of defending your wholly unsupportable viewpoint, you and I both know it, yet you can't just SAY THAT.

Terrorists are not human. Their lack of humanity accounts for what they do. FACT.

Now -- PROVE ME WRONG !

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Just had a great idea. Let's stop all of this crap from fj, and turn it around. Let's get fj to prove he/she/it is a mentally stable, candidate of the human race who might be surprised to learn. Nobody died, and left him/her/it IN CHARGE of anything but his/her/it's stupidity.

:clap::clap::clap:An excellent approach, particularly considering the answer I just found myself posting !!!

In FJ, we have someone who states something, cannot begin to back it up, then launches into tirades / misrepresentations / whatever trickery it'll take to divert from the quicksand-like 'foundations' of any argument he cares to pursue.

Sticking to an argument lacking the smallest foundation, and going ape if anyone challenges it, just defies all reason.

So, OK.

FJ, what about it ? Care to prove your mental stability to us all ? And/or any capacity you may have to absorb ANY reality defying your treasured beliefs ?

Hint: rewriting someone else's posts will NOT help to make you seem convincing (though, granted, I've seen a lot less of that recently .. very well done !) !!

[fj1200]

The truth is in what they are, not what they do ?? You consider the two to be completely separate ??

So, an axe murderer is, in truth, a 'lovely human being' .. ? Osama bin Laden, figurehead for Al Qaeda and a planner of terrorist atrocities, was 'a great guy' .. ?

FJ ...what insanity is this ????

A human being, IF one, is too human, too empathetic, to go around bombing people to bits ! Human behaviour is behaviour which reflects a capacity for humanity (the clue is in the word), not its very opposite !!!

What kind of a moron are you? Question withdrawn. I know what kind of moron you are. Axe murderers and OBL are disgusting individuals but they are human. Who said that they were "a lovely human being"? That's the type of ignorantly stupid questions you ask which are dripping in fallacy. You are mind numbingly stupid in how you construct arguments... if that's what you can call what you do.


... my being 'a big Government hack', ...

Totally ridiculous.

You are totally ridiculous. I didn't make up those quotes of you defending big government, that was you all on your own.


... A case in point ?

H'mm. Whatever next ? Questions are best answered if they AREN'T asked ????

This is nuts !!

FJ, you're going to insane lengths to avoid answering what you know you CANNOT answer.

You just can't admit when you're wrong (.. and not for the first time ..). You have NO way of defending your wholly unsupportable viewpoint, you and I both know it, yet you can't just SAY THAT.

Terrorists are not human. Their lack of humanity accounts for what they do. FACT.

Now -- PROVE ME WRONG !

Stupid questions are better not asked but you insist on asking them anyway. I've proven you wrong over and over again it's just that you are too stupid to recognize it and too caught up in your imagination and your failures to back out now. But I've got quite the list of you not admitting that you are wrong. You brought up abortion and I had to correct you and you've run away from that thread like the little child that you are. Admit you're wrong for once you idiot.

[fj1200]

In FJ, we have someone who states something, cannot begin to back it up, then launches into tirades / misrepresentations / whatever trickery it'll take to divert from the quicksand-like 'foundations' of any argument he cares to pursue.

Oh brother. You needing to seek refuge in that banana is quite comical. He can't argue his way out of a paper bag. I'm not even sure he can find a paper bag. But I'll keep owning you in every debate until you torture and put to death your ridiculous imagination. A man as stupid as you is hard to find but apparently even you has found a man as stupid as he in which to seek refuge. Boy you dumb.

[fj1200]

Now -- PROVE ME WRONG !

I've already PROVEN YOU WRONG !

Well... that was easy.

[Drummond]

Axe murderers and OBL are disgusting individuals but they are human.

Er'm ... but, in FjWorld, that just doesn't scan. It cannot. Your previous wording said ...


Nevertheless the TRUTH is in what they are not what they do

.. which says that what they are, and what they do, can be wholly separated out.

Yet, you NOW say ...


Axe murderers and OBL are disgusting individuals

So, which is it ???

If you see no link between what people ARE - and what they DO - then, how did you come up with your 'disgusting' description ?? Based on what, exactly ?


Who said that they were "a lovely human being"?

Following what somehow passes for your, ahem, 'logic', the possibility would need to at least be theoretically entertained, on the basis I've stated above. UNLESS ... you NOW wish to infer a definite, indivisible, link previously refuted, between what they DO, and what they ARE. Yes .. ?

If so, you're losing ground to me. I state that their total lack of humanity is proven by their subhuman acts. This is surely obvious ? Or .. do you again want to entertain, without any logic to support you, that a discontinuity between character and committed acts is possible and reasonable ??

If you do, then by your reckoning, OBL might 'indeed' have been a 'great guy'. According to YOUR nutty rot, show me he wasn't !!

[Drummond]

I've already PROVEN YOU WRONG !

Well... that was easy.

No.

It was UNTRUE.

Try again.

[Drummond]

Oh brother. You needing to seek refuge in that banana is quite comical. He can't argue his way out of a paper bag. I'm not even sure he can find a paper bag. But I'll keep owning you in every debate until you torture and put to death your ridiculous imagination. A man as stupid as you is hard to find but apparently even you has found a man as stupid as he in which to seek refuge. Boy you dumb.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

It's the way you tell 'em, FJ.

I think Aboutime is really on to something where you're concerned. As I've just demonstrated, you and logic are sometimes completely divorced from each other. When you lose, you think that just bellowing your refutations, instead of backing them up, will somehow solve all your problems.

There is no sense in that. But you do it anyway.

So, since you and sensible thinking seem to go in diverging directions on a whim of yours (.. or is it sheer desperation ?) .. and you crazily think THAT WILL SUFFICE ... then, Aboutime's approach to you is easily the most reasonable one to adopt.

I invite you to convince us all of your mental bona fides, FJ. Take your time (I believe you will need to ..) - it may perhaps take much effort on your part ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[aboutime]

How many failed Lobotomies can fj experience before his vacant mind turns on itself?

[Drummond]

How many failed Lobotomies can fj experience before his vacant mind turns on itself?

I wonder .. :laugh::laugh:

Would this be a good subject for an online poll ?

[aboutime]

I wonder .. :laugh::laugh:

Would this be a good subject for an online poll ?


Nice idea. Maybe if we label it as a question, like?

"Why do you support Hamas changing it's name to hide their hatred?" Might explain fj's fixation on BANANA'S.

[Drummond]

Nice idea. Maybe if we label it as a question, like?

"Why do you support Hamas changing it's name to hide their hatred?" Might explain fj's fixation on BANANA'S.

Aboutime .. FJ's fixation is something I suspect none of us are qualified to properly judge. I'm not at all sure I want to.

Still, FJ can perhaps indulge us all by coming up with some total nuttiness which has it that, since there isn't a link between what Hamas individuals ARE and what they DO, Hamas terrorists may in fact regard Israelis with the utmost in good fellowship ?

Launching rockets at Israeli citizens may be just their idea of a bit of good neighbourliness, eh, FJ ? Because .. they're, er'm, such 'fine human beings' ... ???

Feeling at all European, FJ ? Your 'logic' and their 'logic' seem to be dovetailing ...

[fj1200]

Er'm ... but, in FjWorld, that just doesn't scan. It cannot. Your previous wording said ...

.. which says that what they are, and what they do, can be wholly separated out.

Yet, you NOW say ...

So, which is it ???

If you see no link between what people ARE - and what they DO - then, how did you come up with your 'disgusting' description ?? Based on what, exactly ?

Are you really this stupid and so incompetent in how you have discussions? What they are is human, what they do is disgusting. Two simple facts you idiot.


Following what somehow passes for your, ahem, 'logic', the possibility would need to at least be theoretically entertained, on the basis I've stated above. UNLESS ... you NOW wish to infer a definite, indivisible, link previously refuted, between what they DO, and what they ARE. Yes .. ?

If so, you're losing ground to me. I state that their total lack of humanity is proven by their subhuman acts. This is surely obvious ? Or .. do you again want to entertain, without any logic to support you, that a discontinuity between character and committed acts is possible and reasonable ??

If you do, then by your reckoning, OBL might 'indeed' have been a 'great guy'. According to YOUR nutty rot, show me he wasn't !!

Boy you dumb. If the bold is the best you can come up with then there is no need to go any further. You have a coward's logic.


No.

It was UNTRUE.

Try again.

By your stupid logic merely stating something in bold and a larger font is a winning argument. You suck at this.


It's the way you tell 'em, FJ.

... you think that just bellowing your refutations...

The way I tell 'em is TRUTH you moron. 'at' is incapable of independent thought and can only work to fluff your ego which is surely needed based on the thrashings I repeatedly give you and your "arguments." And "bellowing"? :laugh: You being the king of bold and larger font surely shows you to be a hypocritical idiot.

[fj1200]

... FJ ? Because .. they're, er'm, such 'fine human beings' ... ???

Wow, you are as dumb as a frigging rock. You can't win based on logic and an actual argument so you need to go running to the nearest banana to get your ego perked up. Do you want me to prove you wrong??? again? Here goes:

1. Terrorists are human (disgusting though they are): DNA proves it to be true.
2. You don't even fully accept your own definition.


A definition you've provided previously:

failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings
A question you've avoided before: At what point are the mentally handicapped subhuman?

3. You don't even apply your own definition equally.


You are unwilling to state that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were subhuman based on their terrorist atrocities.

4. You don't even have a definition for terrorist.


You've been unwilling to define terrorist and have only pointed out what a terrorist act looks like.

Conclusion: If you are not willing to state at every level what it takes to meet your subhuman threshold then you are intellectually dishonest. Answer those questions and make those statements then you will at least be consistent. Still wrong, but at least consistent.

[fj1200]

Astonishing level of denial on fj's part.

Question: Are you going to actually address arguments or are you going to take the passive-aggressive angle in avoiding discussion?

[Kathianne]

Sounds good, FJ !

Ok, then. Let's test that.

In previous threads, and in total contravention to a ton of evidence showing the exact opposite, you have maintained that terrorists are human.

I invite you to back up your rather encouraging additions here (thus far) and to cease your support of terrorists. Kindly admit that the ton of evidence I refer to has meaning for you, that you now accept that they do NOT qualify as human.

I agree that the terrorists are human and an enemy that needs to be destroyed.

[fj1200]

I agree that the terrorists are human and an enemy that needs to be destroyed.

A simple statement with no mental gymnastics required.

[Drummond]

Are you really this stupid and so incompetent in how you have discussions? What they are is human, what they do is disgusting. Two simple facts you idiot.

My logic, my comments, stand as they are. They stand up to examination, where yours do not. I note from your reply that you're now offering nothing at all of any substance. But then, truth be told, I knew that already ...

... and I also see that you've gone back to that old trick of just repeating something, over and over again, hoping that the repetition will seem to 'make it true'. Again, nothing of any substance is supplied in support of your assertion. What a surprise.


Boy you dumb. If the bold is the best you can come up with then there is no need to go any further. You have a coward's logic.


By your stupid logic merely stating something in bold and a larger font is a winning argument. You suck at this.

More cop-out, empty comments. And as for your 'bold and larger font' comment, that's rich, coming from you !! Need I remind you of post#26 on this thread ????

You're now at the point in our, ahem, 'debates', where you've nothing of any worth to offer ... because I've comprehensively bested you. Now, you're just responding with abuse .. and in this case, with at least one accusation which is far more true of YOU, than it is ME.

You can never admit when you're wrong.

[Drummond]

I agree that the terrorists are human and an enemy that needs to be destroyed.

I certainly agree with the second part of your statement. Unreservedly.

As for the first part, Kathianne ... and, bearing in mind FJ's utter inability to make his case stick ... perhaps you'd like to have a crack at it ? Can you prove that terrorists are actually human ??

I invite you - or, anyone - to give the task of offering that proof your very best efforts. Don't be put off by FJ's dismal failure, IF in fact you think you can do any better.

[tailfins]

Well .... you're at least free to consider options !! That's more than is true of us here in the UK.

The UK is so tied into the EU apparatus, that much of our laws originate from there these days. OK, there's a very considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo, and one of the main issues in next year's election will be whether the public will be voting for a Party (the Conservatives) willing to give them a Referendum on future membership of it.

Labour (our Socialists) ... firmly pro-EU.

LiDems -- nearly as strongly pro-EU.

Conservatives .. broadly pro-EU, though they want to renegotiate our political relationship with Europe ... giving us more autonomy. Though they promise a Referendum (only after success in winning the election) on membership, they'd prefer us to remain in it -- IF renegotiation is permitted.

UKIP ... its very reason for being is to OPPOSE membership. They've been winning stunning electoral victories recently. If they hold the balance of power in the next Government, they're bound to pressure their partners into a more draconian anti-EU position as the price of Governmental cooperation.

As for non-EU boycotts from outside, I'm not really qualified to comment. Though I'm supportive of anything at all likely to have a useful effect !!


So what you're saying is that you need to be on the phone raising money, recruiting candidates and helping out UKIP's organization. I'm anxiously awaiting for you to report back with your personal experience. Are they nice people? How well-received were your efforts when cold calling prospects for new UKIP supporters? Let us know your firsthand experiences with your local UKIP. I would also be curious about the results if you were to take a day attempting to recruit for the UKIP in Scotland. In can be entertaining for a day or so to do recruiting where your organization is most hated.

[Drummond]

So what you're saying is that you need to be on the phone raising money, recruiting candidates and helping out UKIP's organization.

You presume a lot. I don't NEED to. If I CHOOSE to, that's something else.

And it's not that simple in any case. Far from it, in fact. There have been high profile defections to UKIP from the Conservative Party recently ... because there are some in the Conservative Party who want it to take a far tougher line on Europe than Cameron is prepared to take. In the months ahead, we may see further internal fracturing of support for Cameron's present style of leadership on these issues.

Another problem is this: no one Party, currently, has enough MP's in Parliament to allow one Party on its own to govern ... we've had a Coalition since 2010. The likelihood is still that another Coalition will emerge next year. But, consisting of WHICH Parties ?

UKIP may well manage to gain enough MP's to go into partnership with another 'main' Party (UKIP only have TWO MP's, currently !) ... but, WHICH ? Will it be the Conservatives ?

If the only workable partnership turns out to be Labour .... then all bets are off. Labour's position is totally different from UKIP's. I fail to see how the two could coexist as one governing body. Which could just mean that a vote for UKIP will end up helping nobody.

It's a tough one. The only workable combination is Conservative and UKIP, and the Conservatives need MORE support to know this outcome is likely. Support needs to drop away from the LibDems, and to them.

Alternatively, the Conservatives could win outright. That could mean keeping UKIP support low !!


I'm anxiously awaiting for you to report back with your personal experience. Are they nice people?

I'd say so, though they also attract candidates whose publicised views are seen to be objectionably eccentric (I daresay I could find some links). They're emerging as a growing force in UK politics, and suffering 'growing pains'. I think this chiefly explains it.


How well-received were your efforts when cold calling prospects for new UKIP supporters? Let us know your firsthand experiences with your local UKIP.

You presume a lot. Where do you get your information from? Care to share ?


I would also be curious about the results if you were to take a day attempting to recruit for the UKIP in Scotland. In can be entertaining for a day or so to do recruiting where your organization is most hated.

If you say so.

At least, you seem to have a handle on the Scottish situation. The country is more strongly 'Leftie' than England ... though Labour loses 'natural' support to the Scottish Nationalists, or 'SNP'. UKIP has its work cut out for it to gain support comparable there to England.

[Kathianne]

I certainly agree with the second part of your statement. Unreservedly.

As for the first part, Kathianne ... and, bearing in mind FJ's utter inability to make his case stick ... perhaps you'd like to have a crack at it ? Can you prove that terrorists are actually human ??

I invite you - or, anyone - to give the task of offering that proof your very best efforts. Don't be put off by FJ's dismal failure, IF in fact you think you can do any better.

Sorry, can't feed your delusion of non-human regarding terrorists. That they behave in sub-human manner? Yeah, I could go there.

[Drummond]

Sorry, can't feed your delusion of non-human regarding terrorists. That they behave in sub-human manner? Yeah, I could go there.

I take your comment to mean that you have no way to prove that terrorists are human, even though you seem to believe that they are.

I sympathise, Kathianne. FJ has found himself to be in just the same jam as you on this matter.

I say this, just as I have before .... IF terrorists were human, their humanity would stop them from committing SUBhuman acts. I mean ... how could it FAIL to .. ?? And yet, not only do terrorists commit them, but they exult in it afterwards !!

No human failsafe-phenomenon kicks in beforehand. No human regret is felt afterwards. Not even the smallest trace of it. Humanity ? WHERE IS IT, IN A TERRORIST ?

No Kathianne, you have to be wrong. Terrorists are not human beings. Therefore they cannot deserve any measure of human consideration whatever.

[tailfins]

You presume a lot. I don't NEED to. If I CHOOSE to, that's something else.

And it's not that simple in any case. Far from it, in fact. There have been high profile defections to UKIP from the Conservative Party recently ... because there are some in the Conservative Party who want it to take a far tougher line on Europe than Cameron is prepared to take. In the months ahead, we may see further internal fracturing of support for Cameron's present style of leadership on these issues.

Another problem is this: no one Party, currently, has enough MP's in Parliament to allow one Party on its own to govern ... we've had a Coalition since 2010. The likelihood is still that another Coalition will emerge next year. But, consisting of WHICH Parties ?

UKIP may well manage to gain enough MP's to go into partnership with another 'main' Party (UKIP only have TWO MP's, currently !) ... but, WHICH ? Will it be the Conservatives ?

If the only workable partnership turns out to be Labour .... then all bets are off. Labour's position is totally different from UKIP's. I fail to see how the two could coexist as one governing body. Which could just mean that a vote for UKIP will end up helping nobody.

It's a tough one. The only workable combination is Conservative and UKIP, and the Conservatives need MORE support to know this outcome is likely. Support needs to drop away from the LibDems, and to them.

Alternatively, the Conservatives could win outright. That could mean keeping UKIP support low !!



I'd say so, though they also attract candidates whose publicised views are seen to be objectionably eccentric (I daresay I could find some links). They're emerging as a growing force in UK politics, and suffering 'growing pains'. I think this chiefly explains it.



You presume a lot. Where do you get your information from? Care to share ?



If you say so.

At least, you seem to have a handle on the Scottish situation. The country is more strongly 'Leftie' than England ... though Labour loses 'natural' support to the Scottish Nationalists, or 'SNP'. UKIP has its work cut out for it to gain support comparable there to England.


My point is this: People who work to accomplish things are better grounded in reality. Being a conservative activist myself, I can tell you that those who talk the toughest are the least available when you call on them to help. Those people actually help the Left because they waste my time. What do you do when a local activist knocks on your door and asks for help? Carefully notice that I'm not disagreeing with your ideology. That's why I don't beat FJ over the head. He may very well be the guy that answers the phone when someone asks him to come along for a pro-life demonstration or a TEA Party rally. It's all about actions, not words. The words are just entertainment.

[Drummond]

A simple statement with no mental gymnastics required.

True enough. But is it right, or wrong ?

'The moon is made of cheese'

This is a simple statement, with no mental gymnastic required. But nonetheless, IT'S WRONG.

What remains at issue is proof or otherwise of a claim strongly, yet baselessly, made time and again.

You have failed at it. I lack reason to think anyone else will fare any better than you. But ... we shall see.

Unlike you, FJ, I welcome fair debate.

[Drummond]

My point is this: People who work to accomplish things are better grounded in reality.

Good point, though it also doesn't have to follow. What if you become so wrapped up in your 'mission' that you blind yourself to other things in the process ?


Being a conservative activist myself, I can tell you that those who talk the toughest are the least available when you call on them to help. Those people actually help the Left because they waste my time.

Your point has merit, even if it's also a tad sweeping. And more: you forget that such people have a vote, and the power this brings. That is disregarded at your cause's peril. It has to be a part of the overall equation.


What do you do when a local activist knocks on your door and asks for help?

I'll let you know, if it ever happens ! You know something? I'm definitely no youngster ! But never, once, has this ever happened to me.

Here, at least, things follow a set pattern. A candidate (or his/her representative) knocks on your door and tries to sell their brand of politics to you. No 'help' is ever asked for. It always comes down to 'I want your vote. This is why I think I deserve it. Vote for me, or, don't.'


Carefully notice that I'm not disagreeing with your ideology. That's why I don't beat FJ over the head. He may very well be the guy that answers the phone when someone asks him to come along for a pro-life demonstration or a TEA Party rally.

I suppose it's not totally impossible ... in theory. I do think you're kidding yourself, though.


It's all about actions, not words. The words are just entertainment.

Not sure I can altogether agree. It's about PERSUASIVENESS. This is why I see the words as being more than entertainment.

And the Left would agree with me. That's why they go in for mantra-like repeated pronouncements. Such as, 'I say terrorists are human. They therefore are'. And that's the extent of the meaningful 'content' available ! But, they say it time after time, as though reciting something possessing all the certainty of a law of nature.

Consider Obama's own election mantra ... 'hope and change'. Did it ever have discernible substance ? BUT HE WON ELECTIONS FROM IT ---

[tailfins]

Good point, though it also doesn't have to follow. What if you become so wrapped up in your 'mission' that you blind yourself to other things in the process ?



Your point has merit, even if it's also a tad sweeping. And more: you forget that such people have a vote, and the power this brings. That is disregarded at your cause's peril. It has to be a part of the overall equation.



I'll let you know, if it ever happens ! You know something? I'm definitely no youngster ! But never, once, has this ever happened to me.

Here, at least, things follow a set pattern. A candidate (or his/her representative) knocks on your door and tries to sell their brand of politics to you. No 'help' is ever asked for. It always comes down to 'I want your vote. This is why I think I deserve it. Vote for me, or, don't.'



I suppose it's not totally impossible ... in theory. I do think you're kidding yourself, though.



Not sure I can altogether agree. It's about PERSUASIVENESS. This is why I see the words as being more than entertainment.

And the Left would agree with me. That's why they go in for mantra-like repeated pronouncements.

Consider Obama's own election mantra ... 'hope and change'. Did it ever have discernible substance ? BUT HE WON ELECTIONS FROM IT ---

You're obviously energized about weakening Islam. Other than asking the local Baptist church for some gospel pamphlets and doing some evangelizing what can really be done by an individual? I see all kinds of talk about weakening Islam but no one tells us about anything they are doing to make it happen. I get the sense they are just fooling themselves.

[Drummond]

You're obviously energized about weakening Islam. Other that asking the local Baptist church for some gospel pamphlets and doing some evangelizing what can really be done by an individual? I see all kinds of talk about weakening Islam but no one tells us about anything they are doing to make it happen. I get the sense they are just fooling themselves.

I'm actually at a loss to usefully answer you.

I wouldn't limit myself to 'weakening' Islam. I want to see its power broken. I want people alerted to what it is, what it threatens, and so what is in store if not successfully countered.

Central to the effort, surely, is to recognise truths about it, and its practitioners. Clinging on to fanciful and comforting delusions about them just because it's 'PC' or 'preferred', does nothing other than to aid the enemy.

But, here's the thing. In my own society, and largely arranged by the Left when in power, to usefully tackle them can only lead to action taken against you, most typically from the excuse offered that it comes from 'racism'. Go too far, and you could only buy yourself a jail term.

Our London Mayor cannot hope to ever be elected to power, if he doesn't get approval from London's Muslim contingent. Thus, Boris Johnson, like other leading Conservatives, repeats the old Blair mantra of 'Islam is a religion of peace' at every appropriate chance.

Try ever reading a British account of a terrorist atrocity ever reported, without seeing it somewhere including the qualifier, 'EXTREMIST'. You'll not succeed. No terrorist can ever be definitely reported as representing mainstream Islam. That would incur the application of an 'Incitement to foment hatred' classification, which is actionable in law.

But that's over here, in the UK, AFTER our Lefties have done their damage. Is it different in America ? Do you enjoy greater freedoms ? If so ... your position, and what could be made of it, may be vastly different.

I maintain such a hope.

[aboutime]

You're obviously energized about weakening Islam. Other than asking the local Baptist church for some gospel pamphlets and doing some evangelizing what can really be done by an individual? I see all kinds of talk about weakening Islam but no one tells us about anything they are doing to make it happen. I get the sense they are just fooling themselves.


Since you seem to suggest you are an authority while always patronizing others here. Why don't you tell us why you have any problems with anyone trying to weaken Islam? Could it be you support their BEHEADING techniques that are so Final?

[fj1200]

No Kathianne, you have to be wrong.

Own up you idiot. Call her a leftie.

[fj1200]

True enough. But is it right, or wrong ?

'The moon is made of cheese'

This is a simple statement, with no mental gymnastic required. But nonetheless, IT'S WRONG.

What remains at issue is proof or otherwise of a claim strongly, yet baselessly, made time and again.

You have failed at it. I lack reason to think anyone else will fare any better than you. But ... we shall see.

Unlike you, FJ, I welcome fair debate.

:laugh: You're a fool. Here is my post you're running away from. It requires mental gymnastics to think the moon is made of cheese in the first place. Idiot, you suck at this.


Wow, you are as dumb as a frigging rock. You can't win based on logic and an actual argument so you need to go running to the nearest banana to get your ego perked up. Do you want me to prove you wrong??? again? Here goes:

1. Terrorists are human (disgusting though they are): DNA proves it to be true.
2. You don't even fully accept your own definition.
A definition you've provided previously:

A question you've avoided before: At what point are the mentally handicapped subhuman?

3. You don't even apply your own definition equally.
You are unwilling to state that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were subhuman based on their terrorist atrocities.

4. You don't even have a definition for terrorist.
You've been unwilling to define terrorist and have only pointed out what a terrorist act looks like.

Conclusion: If you are not willing to state at every level what it takes to meet your subhuman threshold then you are intellectually dishonest. Answer those questions and make those statements then you will at least be consistent. Still wrong, but at least consistent.

This and countless threads you run away from when you have nothing left.

[Drummond]

Own up you idiot. Call her a leftie.

Kathianne does not have a track record of adopting Leftie positions. You, however, do.

I hope you're on Jimmy Carter's Christmas card list -- you two seem to be soul-mates ..

[fj1200]

Kathianne does not have a track record of adopting Leftie positions. You, however, do.

I hope you're on Jimmy Carter's Christmas card list -- you two seem to be soul-mates ..

Me, Jimmy, and Maggie; On the same ideological page in rejecting your failed subhuman argument. Besides, psst, Kathianne has claimed to be close to a Libertarian. :eek: I own you moron.

[Drummond]

You're a fool. Here is my post you're running away from.



This and countless threads you run away from when you have nothing left.

And as you well know, these are regurgitated arguments of yours, which I've replied to in the past !!

For example: try taking biochemical-based samples (1) of a sausage, and (2) a pulped sausage. The samples would read as identical. The sources of them, however, would NOT be. So why would a DNA sample of a terrorist tell you anything about its being 'human' .. ??

You know this type of argument - I've made it before. But you still persist, as though I hadn't.

TRY ARGUING HONESTLY.

[fj1200]

And as you well know, these are regurgitated arguments of yours, which I've replied to in the past !!

For example: try taking biochemical-based samples (1) of a sausage, and (2) a pulped sausage. The samples would read as identical. The sources of them, however, would NOT be. So why would a DNA sample of a terrorist tell you anything about its being 'human' .. ??

You know this type of argument - I've made it before. But you still persist, as though I hadn't.

TRY ARGUING HONESTLY.

Thank you for showing everyone the truth of what I've already posted.


You're a fool. Here is my post you're running away from.

They show everyone the failure of your argument that you can't even stand behind.

[tailfins]

Since you seem to suggest you are an authority while always patronizing others here. Why don't you tell us why you have any problems with anyone trying to weaken Islam? Could it be you support their BEHEADING techniques that are so Final?

Because they are not succeeding. Do you understand now? :duh5: Like Rush Limbaugh says, Liberals judge people by intentions, Conservatives judge people by RESULTS. What results have you accomplished this year to weaken Islam? I don't see you TRYING to weaken Islam. Trying implies making an effort. Idle complainers are useless.

[aboutime]

Because they are not succeeding. Do you understand now? :duh5: Like Rush Limbaugh says, Liberals judge people by intentions, Conservatives judge people by RESULTS. What results have you accomplished this year to weaken Islam? I don't see you TRYING to weaken Islam. Trying implies making an effort. Idle complainers are useless.


I agree! So, take your own advice and SHUT UP!

[tailfins]

I agree! So, take your own advice and SHUT UP!

In other words: You've accomplished NOTHING.




But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUncflxsYMo

[Drummond]

Me, Jimmy, and Maggie; On the same ideological page in rejecting your failed subhuman argument. Besides, psst, Kathianne has claimed to be close to a Libertarian. :eek: I own you moron.

Margaret Thatcher's opinions dated back to way before 9/11. Yes, she'd faced the IRA. But Al Qaeda operated from a new order of barbarity. Nothing of what we now know of Al Qaeda (and ISIS, and others) has ever been addressed by Margaret's recorded thoughts and attitudes.

As for Jimmy Carter .. in wanting to assist terrorists with their so-called 'human rights', he WAS addressing Al Q terrorists !

You call my 'subhuman' argument a 'failed' one. You show us NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of any 'failure' of it, beyond your claim that it IS a failure. But then .. that's the Leftie way. Just keep claiming something to be true, until enough people begin to believe it !!

As for Kathianne, I will leave it up to her to speak for herself. I suggest you do the same.

[Drummond]

Because they are not succeeding. Do you understand now? :duh5: Like Rush Limbaugh says, Liberals judge people by intentions, Conservatives judge people by RESULTS. What results have you accomplished this year to weaken Islam? I don't see you TRYING to weaken Islam. Trying implies making an effort. Idle complainers are useless.

Tailfins: this is surely uncalled for.

I could surely make the case that just the act of posting on forums such as this one can be evidence of achievement. How do you know that visitors don't read what's here, and find themselves influenced by the various arguments they read ? How do you know that we have FAILED to achieve .. ?

You assume much, it seems to me.

[aboutime]

In other words: You've accomplished NOTHING.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUncflxsYMo


Thank you. Your endless need to always get the last word. Helps to prove what I have been saying. Despite your childish attempts to Impress YOURSELF.

[tailfins]

Tailfins: this is surely uncalled for.

I could surely make the case that just the act of posting on forums such as this one can be evidence of achievement. How do you know that visitors don't read what's here, and find themselves influenced by the various arguments they read ? How do you know that we have FAILED to achieve .. ?

You assume much, it seems to me.

Societies refuse to look in the mirror and blame themselves. Electing left wing governments brings about abandoning their principles leaves a vacuum. Islam just happened to fill that vacuum. Had it not been Islam, it would have been something else. Working to promote the principles and inalienable rights is the solution. If you wonder why I'm so cranky about these things, try organizing a political task and see how many don't honor their commitments.

[Drummond]

FJ, you have posted this stuff. As follows:-


1. Terrorists are human (disgusting though they are): DNA proves it to be true.
2. You don't even fully accept your own definition.

A definition you've provided previously:

failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings


A question you've avoided before: At what point are the mentally handicapped subhuman?

3. You don't even apply your own definition equally.

You are unwilling to state that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were subhuman based on their terrorist atrocities.

4. You don't even have a definition for terrorist.

You've been unwilling to define terrorist and have only pointed out what a terrorist act looks like

OK, let's go through it.

First point, on DNA .. I'm sure you'll deny it, but I've answered you. More, I've answered with an argument that defeats your own. DNA says nothing which proves a human to BE human, because DNA is nothing more than biological material suggesting a potentiality. It falls far short of the 'proof' you claim it signifies.

So, your argument is refuted.

Second point. You are skewing things for your own benefit, picking up on the 'handicap' part of the text. BUT, the definition wasn't limited to that. The wording ACTUALLY was ...


failing to attain the level (as of morality or ...)
A choice was offered. You ignored the choice, preferring to concentrate on just ONE PART of the definition, that part you thought it served your interests to pursue.

But the wording suggests that alternative choice in order to satisfy the definition. AS OF MORALITY, OR.

Well ... staying true to the terms of the definition, I say that subhuman terrorists ARE such because they lack the morality to avoid their subhuman actions. This stays true to the definition. Therefore, my case is made: THE DEFINITION PROPERLY APPLIES - TERRORISTS ARE DEFINABLY SUBHUMAN.

You go on to try to expand 'terrorism' to the Nazis and Japanese. But, did what they did, qualify as terrorism ? Weren't they Nation States, as opposed to terrorist cells ? Didn't they wage WAR, not TERRORISM ?

As for the acts which were perpetrated on behalf of the despots running those Nation States ... to what extent were they done by individuals just to follow orders .. because their respective countries demanded they do what they did ? Did they have any volition of their own ?

Terrorists DO have that volition. They aren't showing 'patriotism' in what they do. They are not waging WAR ... just TERRORISM.

You say I am unwilling to define 'terrorism' (.. even though your quoted wording came from a definition which I looked, up, several months ago !!)

But never mind. You want my definition ? Here it is, then.

TERRORIST: MURDEROUS, CONSCIENCELESS, SAVAGE SCUM, HAVING TOTAL CONTEMPT FOR HUMAN LIFE, THUS IS DEVOID OF ALL HUMANITY - A SUBHUMAN CRIMINAL BIPEDAL ENTITY, DESERVING OF EXTERMINATION.

OK, FJ, you've been answered.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My point is this: People who work to accomplish things are better grounded in reality. Being a conservative activist myself, I can tell you that those who talk the toughest are the least available when you call on them to help. Those people actually help the Left because they waste my time. What do you do when a local activist knocks on your door and asks for help? Carefully notice that I'm not disagreeing with your ideology. That's why I don't beat FJ over the head. He may very well be the guy that answers the phone when someone asks him to come along for a pro-life demonstration or a TEA Party rally. It's all about actions, not words. The words are just entertainment.
Perhaps you overlook a glaring reality .. All one can do here is talk. However if that talk wakes people up to a danger they ignored, were unaware of or were deluded about then its a great positive.
One can not fight an unknown enemy. All that reject my words mean nothing to me, they are just fooling themselves or else the part of the opposition.
Why would I give a damn what they think? I'd be a fool to try to win over any of the committed enemy when there are tens of millions people unaware of the true threat that need awakening first!
Accomplishing the awakening to the true threat (Islam in its entirety) is a very big thing that you apparently think trivial..
Rather narrow and very shortsighted on your part IMHO..-Tyr

[Drummond]

Societies refuse to look in the mirror and blame themselves. Electing left wing governments brings about abandoning their principles leaves a vacuum. Islam just happened to fill that vacuum. Had it not been Islam, it would have been something else. Working to promote the principles and inalienable rights is the solution. If you wonder why I'm so cranky about these things, try organizing a political task and see how many don't honor their commitments.

H'm. OK, I can see that argument. Although ... I don't see that it takes anything away from my own. None of us has any real way of gauging how comments posted here are being received by others, whether or not we are successfully making progress with others by stating what we do.

Your solution, though, as you state it, presupposes that the freedom pre-exists to act on it. This may well be true of America, and I hope it is. Not so for the UK, though, since - as I've explained - 'inalienable rights' aren't so 'inalienable' over here. We don't have your Constitution. What we do have is a set of laws which criminalise protest-actions which go beyond a certain point .. as I've already explained.

This is a part of the danger of electing Left-wing Governments. When in power, they frame and push through such laws. They further work to bring about a level of social engineering where peoples' sense of what's socially acceptable is decreed for them, dripfed into their 'moral compass', over time. Part of the filled vacuum you refer to is a preparation, by the Left, to condition people to think, believe and accept, all that the Left desires.

Today, the 'Islam is a religion of peace' mantra is repeated by Lefties AND Conservatives alike, here in the UK. David Cameron has said it, more than once. He may or may not believe it: I don't know either way. What I am certain of, though, is that if he said anything else, he'd automatically be committing political suicide.

This is the level of successful social engineering that the Left has achieved here. The only true, certain way to avoid this happening in the US is to KEEP THE LEFT OUT OF POWER.

[Drummond]

Perhaps you overlook a glaring reality .. All one can do here is talk. However if that talk wakes people up to a danger they ignored, were unaware of or were deluded about then its a great positive.
One can not fight an unknown enemy. All that reject my words mean nothing to me, they are just fooling themselves or else the part of the opposition.
Why would I give a damn what they think? I'd be a fool to try to win over any of the committed enemy when there are tens of millions people unaware of the true threat that need awakening first!
Accomplishing the awakening to the true threat (Islam in its entirety) is a very big thing that you apparently think trivial..
Rather narrow and very shortsighted on your part IMHO..-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

This covers some of what I've tried to say. Forums like this one can have an educating and influential effect. In doing such a thing, the effect, just as you say, is 'a great positive'. The likelihood of this happening cannot reasonably be dismissed out of hand, and shouldn't be.

[aboutime]

Something all of us should be aware of is.....Look at the number of members on this forum. Then, the number of actual members who have taken the time to visit this thread, alone.

Truth is. In a nation with a population of more than 311 MILLION people.

Who among us are actually convinced the rest of those 310 Plus Million Americans Even know WE ARE HERE?

So, asking questions that literally...NOBODY ALIVE will ever be able to answer here. Is...(FILL IN THE BLANK):laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Something all of us should be aware of is.....Look at the number of members on this forum. Then, the number of actual members who have taken the time to visit this thread, alone.

Truth is. In a nation with a population of more than 311 MILLION people.

Who among us are actually convinced the rest of those 310 Plus Million Americans Even know WE ARE HERE?

So, asking questions that literally...NOBODY ALIVE will ever be able to answer here. Is...(FILL IN THE BLANK):laugh:

Despair of the futility of action is a dreaded disease.. For how can one know the effects their words on even the few that read them? Or the compounding effect once a truth has been spread to others that had not a clue..
Each man must do his part and when the whole of the effort of is tallied --often a miracle is seen..
Not my job to question how many see, accept or act upon my words. The telling of the truth is enough for me.
If I only awaken a dozen people in a dozen year of words its enough.
Truth must be served diligently my friend..
The results will take care of themselves if readers accept, understand and then search on their own.
If not , too bad, life is full of people that happily swam with crocodiles never to be seen again... -Tyr

[tailfins]

Something all of us should be aware of is.....Look at the number of members on this forum. Then, the number of actual members who have taken the time to visit this thread, alone.

Truth is. In a nation with a population of more than 311 MILLION people.

Who among us are actually convinced the rest of those 310 Plus Million Americans Even know WE ARE HERE?

So, asking questions that literally...NOBODY ALIVE will ever be able to answer here. Is...(FILL IN THE BLANK):laugh:

One infuriating thing about you is that you can get away with things that I can't because you're retired but choose not to be bothered. For example, you could EASILY organize a Koran burning, but choose not to. If you put your thinking cap on you could likely come up with other projects. Talk is cheap.

[LongTermGuy]

I agree that the terrorists are human and an enemy that needs to be destroyed.





`They might Look human....But they dont act like humans....with morals...they dont respect humanity......muslim terrorists act more like Insects.....and have no humanity them....


EXTREME CAUTION ADVISED: The videos linked and embedded at the end of the story are extremely graphic, showing brutal executions.


http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/muslims-conduct-human-sacrifice-on-video/

[Drummond]

`They might Look human....But they dont act like humans....with morals...they dont respect humanity......muslim terrorists act more like Insects.....and have no humanity them....


EXTREME CAUTION ADVISED: The videos linked and embedded at the end of the story are extremely graphic, showing brutal executions.


http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/muslims-conduct-human-sacrifice-on-video/

-- EXACTLY ! Very well said.

FJ defies what's staring him in the face. And for no other good reason, so far as I can see, than to satisfy a preference. A preference long known to be associated with LEFT WING thinking.

[Drummond]

One infuriating thing about you is that you can get away with things that I can't because you're retired but choose not to be bothered. For example, you could EASILY organize a Koran burning, but choose not to. If you put your thinking cap on you could likely come up with other projects. Talk is cheap.

... but, here's a thought.

OK - Koran burning has its own value. That said, though, burning a Koran is a single act, 'spinnable' via the media any way they choose.

Compare that with the act of posting, HERE. Views are represented (unless 'redrafted' by troll action .. remind you of anyone ?) .... AS THE ORIGINATOR OF THEM INTENDS THEM TO BE.

So, which has greater value ? A DP post, containing the thoughts, opinions, both drafted and tested out from debate, AS INTENDED -- which any peruser of them can assess according to true worth -- OR, a single act which can leave opposition free to demonise and distort as preferred, not carrying the right of reply ??

Don't sell this forum short !!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... but, here's a thought.

OK - Koran burning has its own value. That said, though, burning a Koran is a single act, 'spinnable' via the media any way they choose.

Compare that with the act of posting, HERE. Views are represented (unless 'redrafted' by troll action .. remind you of anyone ?) .... AS THE ORIGINATOR OF THEM INTENDS THEM TO BE.

So, which has greater value ? A DP post, containing the thoughts, opinions, both drafted and tested out from debate, AS INTENDED -- which any peruser of them can assess according to true worth -- OR, a single act which can leave opposition free to demonise and distort as preferred, not carrying the right of reply ??

Don't sell this forum short !!

I agree . Tailfins criticizes-- words of criticism and words of truth on Islam-- but then he presents nothing of substance in method or in action to oppose this great evil! First and foremost he seems to think people can fight an enemy they haven't a clue is an actual deadly enemy!!
Then he often tells how he would prefer the best muslim in job related endeavors if the guy was better than other non-muslims.
That's like saying, I choose a child molester in my job if he was the best technician available to me. As if never applying moral principles is the way to go. That philosophy represents pure non-religious thinking at its best. Whereas he may have to keep his mouth shut to keep his job but he doesn't have to blare out how in favor of the vermin he is nor defend the pieces of shit..
To me he is an appeaser of the worst kind! Professing opposition but offering none, rather spewing out defense of those he often claims to oppose, which often reminds me of another guy here. -Tyr

[tailfins]

I agree . Tailfins criticizes-- words of criticism and words of truth on Islam-- but then he presents nothing of substance in method or in action to oppose this great evil! First and foremost he seems to think people can fight an enemy they haven't a clue is an actual deadly enemy!!
Then he often tells how he would prefer the best muslim in job related endeavors if the guy was better than other non-muslims.
That's like saying, I choose a child molester in my job if he was the best technician available to me. As if never applying moral principles is the way to go. That philosophy represents pure non-religious thinking at its best. Whereas he may have to keep his mouth shut to keep his job but he doesn't have to blare out how in favor of the vermin he is nor defend the pieces of shit..
To me he is an appeaser of the worst kind! Professing opposition but offering none, rather spewing out defense of those he often claims to oppose, which often reminds me of another guy here. -Tyr

It's called reality, dude. You've been drinking if you think I'm in favor of Islam. The lengths you'll go to defend your laziness is amazing. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Everybody needs a hobby. If your hobby to weaken Islam, is it too much to ask for pride and craftsmanship? Show us some accomplishments!

[Drummond]

It's called reality, dude. You've been drinking if you think I'm in favor of Islam. The lengths you'll go to defend your laziness is amazing. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Everybody needs a hobby. If your hobby to weaken Islam, is it too much to ask for pride and craftsmanship? Show us some accomplishments!

Have you not been aware of the extent of Tyr's presence on this forum, and what he's contributed ?

My previous point surely stands. You have no reason to assume that what appears on this forum makes NO impression on others ... yet, for your current argument to be as valid as you'd like it to appear, this is clearly your assumption.

That you cannot gauge the success of that process is neither here nor there. You cannot say, with authority, that significant influence doesn't flow from what is added to this forum.

Put it this way. If you're convinced that posting here makes no difference to anyone's views, can you prove it ?

[tailfins]

Have you not been aware of the extent of Tyr's presence on this forum, and what he's contributed ?

My previous point surely stands. You have no reason to assume that what appears on this forum makes NO impression on others ... yet, for your current argument to be as valid as you'd like it to appear, this is clearly your assumption.

That you cannot gauge the success of that process is neither here nor there. You cannot say, with authority, that significant influence doesn't flow from what is added to this forum.

Put it this way. If you're convinced that posting here makes no difference to anyone's views, can you prove it ?

You have presented the logical fallacy of proving a negative.

[Drummond]

You have presented the logical fallacy of proving a negative.

Meaning that you accept, or reject, my argument ?

I still think that unless you can prove that posting here will not have a discernible effect on peoples' opinions, you have to defer to the possibility, even the likelihood, of the opposite being true. In which case, it's reasonable to assume that posts added to this forum WILL do a significant amount of good, and make a highly positive contribution.

[aboutime]

One infuriating thing about you is that you can get away with things that I can't because you're retired but choose not to be bothered. For example, you could EASILY organize a Koran burning, but choose not to. If you put your thinking cap on you could likely come up with other projects. Talk is cheap.


Right you are about talk being cheap. So, save your pennies, and quit while you are ahead.

[tailfins]

Right you are about talk being cheap. So, save your pennies, and quit while you are ahead.

Since you gave me head, I have a head to spare.

[aboutime]

Since you gave me head, I have a head to spare.


Thanks again tailfins. Watch Jim put this one in the cage now. Only after you SPIT mine out.

[tailfins]

Thanks again tailfins. Watch Jim put this one in the cage now. Only after you SPIT mine out.

Don't start nothin' there won't be nothin'. Go take your walk on the wild side, Jackie.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEYyQIIGQcc

[Drummond]

Since you gave me head, I have a head to spare.

This is another of your uncalled-for exchanges with Aboutime.

You're highly judgmental about his (and others') contributions here. As I see it, you've no valid cause for it. You say you stand for certain principles, and you think a lot of the value of what people do in the furtherance of them.

I have two answers to that. One .. you, when it comes to it, JUST DON'T KNOW what others do to represent their beliefs. You judge purely on what you THINK you learn, from here. But .. DP does not shine an intrusive spotlight on members' private lives. Even if it did, you would not be privy to its findings .. !

So, you judge from a LACK of knowledge.

Two .. the argument I've made does apply. Just posting views here, having them debated, tested, in front of anyone and everyone who visits this site .. you have no way of gauging the extent of persuasiveness it carries, and to how many people. You cannot say that posting here is other than an extremely useful exercise, having a definite impact !!

So, instead of launching attacks on members such as Aboutime .. how about CELEBRATING their willingness to participate, and appreciating its potential for a good result ???

[tailfins]

This is another of your uncalled-for exchanges with Aboutime.

You're highly judgmental about his (and others') contributions here. As I see it, you've no valid cause for it. You say you stand for certain principles, and you think a lot of the value of what people do in the furtherance of them.

I have two answers to that. One .. you, when it comes to it, JUST DON'T KNOW what others do to represent their beliefs. You judge purely on what you THINK you learn, from here. But .. DP does not shine an intrusive spotlight on members' private lives. Even if it did, you would not be privy to its findings .. !

So, you judge from a LACK of knowledge.

Two .. the argument I've made does apply. Just posting views here, having them debated, tested, in front of anyone and everyone who visits this site .. you have no way of gauging the extent of persuasiveness it carries, and to how many people. You cannot say that posting here is other than an extremely useful exercise, having a definite impact !!

So, instead of launching attacks on members such as Aboutime .. how about CELEBRATING their willingness to participate, and appreciating its potential for a good result ???


It's really simple: Participation in a forum is entertainment, no more no less. Abou likes to start shit, so I will finish it. You may notice that I haven't unloaded on you. That's because you at least have enough wherewithal to provide new information to the forum, not just repeating the same moronic drumbeat. Besides, it's unnecessary to let these exchanges bother you. By his actions, it's obvious that Abou likes to mud wrestle.

Actually if Abou had been in the "squeal like a pig" segment of Deliverance, he would have moaned in despair when the other guy stopped because he would have wanted more.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

I agree . Tailfins criticizes-- words of criticism and words of truth on Islam-- but then he presents nothing of substance in method or in action to oppose this great evil! First and foremost he seems to think people can fight an enemy they haven't a clue is an actual deadly enemy!!
Then he often tells how he would prefer the best muslim in job related endeavors if the guy was better than other non-muslims.
That's like saying, I choose a child molester in my job if he was the best technician available to me. As if never applying moral principles is the way to go. That philosophy represents pure non-religious thinking at its best. Whereas he may have to keep his mouth shut to keep his job but he doesn't have to blare out how in favor of the vermin he is nor defend the pieces of shit..
To me he is an appeaser of the worst kind! Professing opposition but offering none, rather spewing out defense of those he often claims to oppose, which often reminds me of another guy here. -Tyr



It's called reality, dude. You've been drinking if you think I'm in favor of Islam. The lengths you'll go to defend your laziness is amazing. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Everybody needs a hobby. If your hobby to weaken Islam, is it too much to ask for pride and craftsmanship? Show us some accomplishments!

Are you even aware that posting words is all one can do here?
What I do or do not do in my life away from here is my business and I have no desire or need to blast it all over this forum because you level stupid accusations at me.
And you belittle the purpose and standard of this forum with your comments specifying its lack of anything substantial in educating its readers !
If for entertainment purposes only as you subscribe then I'd say its your posts that are not of importance since you feel such negativity and need to criticize others for their words given here!
As you've previously mentioned--to insure your job security you must kiss muslim ass, well then enjoy the damn taste but know this--
I kiss nobody's ass and never will.
I think that its our freedom to speak so freely that rubs you the wrong way. I do believe you are jealous and resentful that you have to kiss muslim/gay ass and are therefore highly critical of we that are not so obliged!
Serve your God-your job-- Hoss. Don't cry because you enslave yourself and have to eat shit sandwiches to hold onto that security ..
Perhaps consider settling for less success to garner more integrity!!!!!!
As your complaints are silly, baseless and futile ..-Tyr

[tailfins]

Are you even aware that posting words is all one can do here?
What I do or do not do in my life away from here is my business and I have no desire or need to blast it all over this forum because you level stupid accusations at me.
And you belittle the purpose and standard of this forum with your comments specifying its lack of anything substantial in educating its readers !
If for entertainment purposes only as you subscribe then I'd say its your posts that are not of importance since you feel such negativity and need to criticize others for their words given here!
As you've previously mentioned--to insure your job security you must kiss muslim ass, well then enjoy the damn taste but know this--
I kiss nobody's ass and never will.
I think that its our freedom to speak so freely that rubs you the wrong way. I do believe you are jealous and resentful that you have to kiss muslim/gay ass and are therefore highly critical of we that are not so obliged!
Serve your God-your job-- Hoss. Don't cry because you enslave yourself and have to eat shit sandwiches to hold onto that security ..
Perhaps consider settling for less success to garner more integrity!!!!!!
As your complaints are silly, baseless and futile ..-Tyr

You say the EXACT same thing a Klu Klux Klansman said to me at a flea market table. You see, I have the gumption to study and research a topic. I even heard out what he had to say. They blame Affirmative Action for their minimum wage lifestyle, while the truth is that they choose to be ignorant of how the business world works. I presume you listen to Rush Limbaugh, right? If you pay attention he points out how important it is not to do anything to LEGITIMATELY be accused of racism or bigotry. Sean Hannity and even Mark Levin do the same thing. Levin certainly doesn't support the terrorists. He makes a distinction between Islamofascists and just regular Muslims.

[stevecanuck]

This is one of the logos for Hamas. The Arabic across the top reads, "You did not kill them, but Allah killed them". Do you feel the love yet?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You say the EXACT same thing a Klu Klux Klansman said to me at a flea market table. You see, I have the gumption to study and research a topic. I even heard out what he had to say. They blame Affirmative Action for their minimum wage lifestyle, while the truth is that they choose to be ignorant of how the business world works. I presume you listen to Rush Limbaugh, right? If you pay attention he points out how important it is not to do anything to LEGITIMATELY be accused of racism or bigotry. Sean Hannity and even Mark Levin do the same thing. Levin certainly doesn't support the terrorists. He makes a distinction between Islamofascists and just regular Muslims.

And you say the EXACT same thing a damn appeaser says.. You see, I have the gumption to call it like it is with no damn sugar coating. A cold day in hell when you have the knowledge of Islam that I do and even colder day in hell when you would speak as truthfully about Islam as I do!
You destroyed any of your true credibility on this subject when you mentioned the restraint you are under to --go along, get along with muslims because of your job.
That revealed the fact you'll not speak the whole truth and will readily(foolishly) chide those that do!
I absolutely reject any of your ffing appeasement and will suggest you not try that cowardly, lame-ass shit on me HOSS.
Not my problem that you sell out any integrity you may have ever had on the subject of Islam and its true evil for YOUR job security!--Tyr

[fj1200]

Margaret Thatcher's opinions dated back to way before 9/11. Yes, she'd faced the IRA. But Al Qaeda operated from a new order of barbarity. Nothing of what we now know of Al Qaeda (and ISIS, and others) has ever been addressed by Margaret's recorded thoughts and attitudes.

As for Jimmy Carter .. in wanting to assist terrorists with their so-called 'human rights', he WAS addressing Al Q terrorists !

You call my 'subhuman' argument a 'failed' one. You show us NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of any 'failure' of it, beyond your claim that it IS a failure. But then .. that's the Leftie way. Just keep claiming something to be true, until enough people begin to believe it !!

As for Kathianne, I will leave it up to her to speak for herself. I suggest you do the same.

:laugh: Yup, no evidence of your ignorance shall be allowed. :laugh:

Nevertheless you think the Iron Lady is a bit rusty and her principles are waffly. Not very Thatcherish of you. ;)

[Drummond]

:laugh: Yup, no evidence of your ignorance shall be allowed. :laugh:

Nevertheless you think the Iron Lady is a bit rusty and her principles are waffly. Not very Thatcherish of you. ;)

Pure evasion. Insults instead of honest, straightforward debate.

How very 'FJ' of you, FJ ....

As for the Iron Lady, again, I dealt with the truth of the matter. Her thoughts on terrorism all predate 9/11 and today's realities.

[fj1200]

-- EXACTLY ! Very well said.

FJ defies what's staring him in the face. And for no other good reason, so far as I can see, than to satisfy a preference. A preference long known to be associated with LEFT WING thinking.

:facepalm99: Idiot thinking and you are never far apart.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: Idiot thinking and you are never far apart.

Agreed ! The kind of idiot thinking which has it that you MAY debate honestly, candidly. The kind of thinking which considers it at all likely that you won't hide behind insults rather than ADMIT YOURE WRONG.

So, point taken.

[fj1200]

FJ, you have posted this stuff. As follows:-

OK, let's go through it.

First point, on DNA .. I'm sure you'll deny it, but I've answered you. More, I've answered with an argument that defeats your own. DNA says nothing which proves a human to BE human, because DNA is nothing more than biological material suggesting a potentiality. It falls far short of the 'proof' you claim it signifies.

So, your argument is refuted.

Actually, you refuted nothing. A human being is an individual, even disgusting human beings with disgusting views. There is a surefire method of determining that a human being is in fact a human being.


Second point. You are skewing things for your own benefit, picking up on the 'handicap' part of the text. BUT, the definition wasn't limited to that. The wording ACTUALLY was ...

A choice was offered. You ignored the choice, preferring to concentrate on just ONE PART of the definition, that part you thought it served your interests to pursue.

But the wording suggests that alternative choice in order to satisfy the definition. AS OF MORALITY, OR.

Well ... staying true to the terms of the definition, I say that subhuman terrorists ARE such because they lack the morality to avoid their subhuman actions. This stays true to the definition. Therefore, my case is made: THE DEFINITION PROPERLY APPLIES - TERRORISTS ARE DEFINABLY SUBHUMAN.

No. Not if you don't apply your definition equally. And skewing? It seems like you are about to cop out on your own definition. You can't proffer a definition and then proceed to choose to use only part of it. If terrorists are subhuman because they don't meet a subjective measure of "morality" then the mentally handicapped are subhuman if they don't meet a subjective measure of "intelligence." In fact it would be even easier for you to claim the mentally handicapped are subhuman because an objective measure is easier to derive. An answer from you will be forthcoming?


You go on to try to expand 'terrorism' to the Nazis and Japanese. But, did what they did, qualify as terrorism ? Weren't they Nation States, as opposed to terrorist cells ? Didn't they wage WAR, not TERRORISM ?

As for the acts which were perpetrated on behalf of the despots running those Nation States ... to what extent were they done by individuals just to follow orders .. because their respective countries demanded they do what they did ? Did they have any volition of their own ?

Terrorists DO have that volition. They aren't showing 'patriotism' in what they do. They are not waging WAR ... just TERRORISM.

I'm expanding terrorism? Hardly. I can and have offered examples of terror perpetrated by "murderous, conscienceless, savage scum, having total contempt for human life, thus being devoid of all humanity - subhuman, criminal, bipedal entities, deserving of extermination" that went far beyond waging war and following orders (I can provide more examples if necessary). Even your own view suggests that Muslim terrorists are following orders of Imams and even some governments and are not really acting of their own volition. I believe you've suggested the Gitmo 5 were terrorists but I've not seen any evidence that they perpetrated any direct acts of terrorism. Hitler certainly is on par with some tin pot Taliban dictators. The Nazis and Imperial Japanese went far beyond just waging war; they terrorized.

No, I'm not expanding terrorism. I'm suggesting that you are unwilling to call all terrorists for what they are... Why? I can only guess.


You say I am unwilling to define 'terrorism' (.. even though your quoted wording came from a definition which I looked, up, several months ago !!)

But never mind. You want my definition ? Here it is, then.

TERRORIST: MURDEROUS, CONSCIENCELESS, SAVAGE SCUM, HAVING TOTAL CONTEMPT FOR HUMAN LIFE, THUS IS DEVOID OF ALL HUMANITY - A SUBHUMAN CRIMINAL BIPEDAL ENTITY, DESERVING OF EXTERMINATION.

OK, FJ, you've been answered.

:confused: I don't recall you defining terrorism, you looked up a definition for subhuman. Nevertheless, you didn't answer very well. You can't use a definition to prove subhuman with subhuman in the definition. :dunno:

But overall you've only exposed more intellectual dishonesty in your response. You are unwilling to apply your definitions equally without regard to other factors.

[fj1200]

Pure evasion. Insults instead of honest, straightforward debate.

How very 'FJ' of you, FJ ....

As for the Iron Lady, again, I dealt with the truth of the matter. Her thoughts on terrorism all predate 9/11 and today's realities.

You apparently know nothing of straightforward debate and only understand being called an idiot. Being 'FJ' means smoking you in straightforward debate. I can easily debate without calling you an idiot but you can't debate without blurting "aack, leftie" when backed into a corner.


Agreed ! The kind of idiot thinking which has it that you MAY debate honestly, candidly. The kind of thinking which considers it at all likely that you won't hide behind insults rather than ADMIT YOURE WRONG.

So, point taken.

I admit that I'm wrong when it occurs, you can't do likewise.

[tailfins]

You apparently know nothing of straightforward debate and only understand being called an idiot. Being 'FJ' means smoking you in straightforward debate. I can easily debate without calling you an idiot but you can't debate without blurting "aack, leftie" when backed into a corner.



I admit that I'm wrong when it occurs, you can't do likewise.

FJ, I'm going to cut you a break and ask what do you do for the conservative cause. People call you a liberal when you knock around different ideas. What I'm asking is: Do you attend TEA Party rallies? How about holding up a supporting sign at a pro-life demonstration or a defense of marriage event? What making get-out-the-vote phone calls for conservative candidates for public office? What about putting up yard signs for conservative candidates? Do you do any of those things? And yes, a message board is useful for all those things for us to compare notes about what works and what doesn't.

Personally, I enjoy being a stinker. I was once asked to dress up like a box of cereal with the caption "Wheat checks: They bounce" and follow around Congressman Alan Wheat with an exercise trampoline, jumping up and down whenever he spoke, reminding people that he bounces checks.

Also for example if somebody like Al Sharpton wants to help me hold signs that warn drivers about police roadblocks, I'll just say "Thank you". I accept help where ever I can get it. When I was picketing to free Justina Pelletier, some of the other protesters were hard core socialists. They didn't like that such harsh treatment was giving activist government a bad name.

[Drummond]

Actually, you refuted nothing. A human being is an individual, even disgusting human beings with disgusting views. There is a surefire method of determining that a human being is in fact a human being.

Certain human beings may have disgusting views. But, their humanity would nonetheless PREVENT them from acting in a SUBhuman way, in the furtherance of them.

As for individuality ... what if a terrorist IS capable of individuality ? Are you saying that no animal on this planet possesses any capability of an awareness of individuality ? Seriously ??

So, I'm afraid your 'surefire method' is nothing of the kind.


No. Not if you don't apply your definition equally. And skewing?

Actually, as it happens, I am ADDRESSING an example of your skewing !

To quote the definition:


: less than human: as
a:failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings
I've pointed it out before, and I'm now having to do it a second time. The definition said, 'AS OF MORALITY OR INTELLIGENCE'. It's very clearly stipulated: morality, OR intelligence. ONE OR THE OTHER.

Your attempt at skewing is to insist that despite the 'OR', actually BOTH must apply. But the definition DOES NOT SAY THAT. (You are defying what it DOES say !!)

Therefore, to refute the applicability of the 'subhuman' definition as applied to terrorists, you must demonstrate that they have human intelligence, AND human MORALITY.

FJ .... squirm (or gratuitously insult) your way out of that one !!


It seems like you are about to cop out on your own definition.

Nope. YOU are trying to !!!


You can't proffer a definition and then proceed to choose to use only part of it.

Absurd. According to the definition, its wording, its terms ... I CAN and SHOULD !!


If terrorists are subhuman because they don't meet a subjective measure of "morality" then the mentally handicapped are subhuman if they don't meet a subjective measure of "intelligence."

How subjective do you want to be ? Some Islamists consider Osama bin Laden a hero. Are they right ? OR, are there cases - as in terrorist atrocities !! - where subjectivity is inappropriate, where, to HUMAN BEINGS, certain absolutes apply ? Is human decency purely subjective ? Is human empathy purely subjective ?

[Tell me, FJ. Are the Christian Ten Commandments purely a 'subjective' concoction -- according to you ??]

Perhaps, then, the judgement of what is or is not a moral standard can be said to be, definitively, MEANINGLESS ?

I don't think that the originator of the definition intended it to be a meaningless exercise !!!


I'm expanding terrorism? Hardly.

You have a short memory when it suits you ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48058-EU-changes-Hamas-


3. You don't even apply your own definition equally.
You are unwilling to state that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were subhuman based on their terrorist atrocities.


THERE IS YOUR ATTEMPT TO DO SO !!


No, I'm not expanding terrorism.

Disproved. Refuted.


I'm suggesting that you are unwilling to call all terrorists for what they are... Why? I can only guess.

UTTER RUBBISH ! I am the one who HAS done so. Your problem is your refusal to !

[Drummond]

I admit that I'm wrong when it occurs, you can't do likewise.

Is this a joke ... ?!!?

OK, then. Post some examples !!!

My experience of you is that you'll go to ridiculous extremes to AVOID admitting when you're wrong, up to and including drafting posts full of insults as a means of sidestepping doing so.

[fj1200]

FJ, I'm going to cut you a break and ask what do you do for the conservative cause.

I fully concede, and have posted, that you do far more than I and most/all? posters here. :)


Is this a joke ... ?!!?

OK, then. Post some examples !!!

My experience of you is that you'll go to ridiculous extremes to AVOID admitting when you're wrong, up to and including drafting posts full of insults as a means of sidestepping doing so.

No joke. You're free to search. Of course you've never admitted being wrong on the many occasions I've proven you to be so. :)

As a take-off on tails avatar... I can be the nicest poster here but I don't suffer proven fools and idiots. :)

[fj1200]

Oh great, another of your multi-parse hatchet jobs where you do nothing more than rehash previously disproven garbage.


Certain human beings may have disgusting views. But, their humanity would nonetheless PREVENT them from acting in a SUBhuman way, in the furtherance of them.

As for individuality ... what if a terrorist IS capable of individuality ? Are you saying that no animal on this planet possesses any capability of an awareness of individuality ? Seriously ??

So, I'm afraid your 'surefire method' is nothing of the kind.

Unfortunately DNA is pretty much sure-fire as much as it pains you.


Actually, as it happens, I am ADDRESSING an example of your skewing !

To quote the definition:

I've pointed it out before, and I'm now having to do it a second time. The definition said, 'AS OF MORALITY OR INTELLIGENCE'. It's very clearly stipulated: morality, OR intelligence. ONE OR THE OTHER.

Your attempt at skewing is to insist that despite the 'OR', actually BOTH must apply. But the definition DOES NOT SAY THAT. (You are defying what it DOES say !!)

Therefore, to refute the applicability of the 'subhuman' definition as applied to terrorists, you must demonstrate that they have human intelligence, AND human MORALITY.

FJ .... squirm (or gratuitously insult) your way out of that one !!

I'm squirming but you're hanging your hat on "or." :rolleyes: I've never suggested that BOTH must apply, just that you need to apply your own definition in an intellectually consistent manner. Own up to your definition and admit you're wrong.


Nope. YOU are trying to !!!

Great comeback. Did the banana help you with that?


Absurd. According to the definition, its wording, its terms ... I CAN and SHOULD !!

No. See above. Further, above the reference to the banana. :)


How subjective do you want to be ? Some Islamists consider Osama bin Laden a hero. Are they right ? OR, are there cases - as in terrorist atrocities !! - where subjectivity is inappropriate, where, to HUMAN BEINGS, certain absolutes apply ? Is human decency purely subjective ? Is human empathy purely subjective ?

[Tell me, FJ. Are the Christian Ten Commandments purely a 'subjective' concoction -- according to you ??]

Perhaps, then, the judgement of what is or is not a moral standard can be said to be, definitively, MEANINGLESS ?

I don't think that the originator of the definition intended it to be a meaningless exercise !!!

There is not much subjectivity to the Ten Commandments but alas we all fall short. Many things, even disgusting ones, are subjective even if we don't want them to be. Originator of the definition? :laugh: See untermensch.


You have a short memory when it suits you ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48058-EU-changes-Hamas-

THERE IS YOUR ATTEMPT TO DO SO !!

:laugh: No, I'm just looking for intellectual credibility from you. Crazy, I know.


Disproved. Refuted.

:laugh:


UTTER RUBBISH ! I am the one who HAS done so. Your problem is your refusal to !

I don't have a problem. You have an intellectual honesty problem. Do you want me to see things your way? First you need to have a coherent argument that doesn't rely on your imagination and apply your definitions equally. So, admit you're wrong or take the first step and admit that the Nazis and Imperialist Japanese were subhuman. I have no problem grading them on the same scale, you do however.

[Drummond]

No joke. You're free to search.

COP OUT.

.. so, you've no examples to offer. Yes. Exactly. That is my point.

You NEVER concede that you're wrong .. FACT. If you wish to refute that, then prove me wrong.

But of course, you can't do any such thing.


Of course you've never admitted being wrong on the many occasions I've proven you to be so. :)

You've never managed to do any such thing, as well you know.


As a take-off on tails avatar... I can be the nicest poster here but I don't suffer proven fools and idiots. :)

That's quite a basis for self-disapproval, there, FJ ! :laugh:

[fj1200]

COP OUT.

:blah:

As I've said before, your failure is not my fault. Me showing you to be wrong multiple times before, which you can't admit, though is your fault. :)

You suck at this.

[aboutime]

COP OUT.

.. so, you've no examples to offer. Yes. Exactly. That is my point.

You NEVER concede that you're wrong .. FACT. If you wish to refute that, then prove me wrong.

But of course, you can't do any such thing.



You've never managed to do any such thing, as well you know.



That's quite a basis for self-disapproval, there, FJ ! :laugh:



Sir Drummond. You really should consider ignoring victims of Failed Lobotomies like fj. He will never admit to being as stupid as he actually is for anyone. Not even himself.:laugh:

[Drummond]

Oh great, another of your multi-parse hatchet jobs where you do nothing more than rehash previously disproven garbage.

It's interesting. When Lefties keep repeating their propaganda, they do it to try and make it believable.

But when I, a Conservative, ever repeat evident truths ... truths you utterly fail to counter ! ... then, suddenly, it's alleged to be 'disproven garbage'.

FJ, do you assert that the Left has a monopoly on the truth ?


Unfortunately DNA is pretty much sure-fire as much as it pains you.

It's nothing of the kind .. and there are all sorts of ways of illustrating that.

If DNA makeup optimises a person's potentialities to the point that the person may be capable of very high intelligence .. then an injury happens to reduce that person to an irreversibly vegetative state ... does 'force of DNA' somehow reverse the condition ??

In the case of a terrorist, said terrorist may have been converted to a subhuman state as a result of force-fed propaganda, brainwashiing, that sort of thing. What started out as human becomes subhuman through external influences, no less real and avoidable as the 'injury' example above.

Or - and I think this by far the most likely and prevalent, since otherwise, the 'conversion' or 'radicalisation' is hard to comprehend .. the humanity in that terrorist individual MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

DNA does NOTHING to guarantee the end product. It only allows for, and addresses, potential.


I'm squirming

I knew you would be ...


but you're hanging your hat on "or." :rolleyes: I've never suggested that BOTH must apply, just that you need to apply your own definition in an intellectually consistent manner. Own up to your definition and admit you're wrong.

There's nothing consistent in your current position.

It isn't a question of my 'hanging my hat' on 'or'. It's just a fact that the definition is worded in a way which makes it clear that one, OR the other, applies.

Now, you can try and entertain me with ludicrous claims that terrorists are 'moral' beings. I say that their actions wouldn't be possible if 'human morality' exerted any governing influence on what terrorists do !


Great comeback. Did the banana help you with that?

I suspect that your banana' fixation says more about you, than me ...

... and besides, the principle involved can apply to any number of alternative examples. Start with a biologically intact object, then reduce it to an incoherent mass .. then take samples from each. The biochemical analysis of each would be identical, YET, one would be a coherent item, definable via simple and verifiable observation .. and the other would be something reduced to be radically different.

Thus .. a human being, and a terrorist, may both have human DNA. But only one can be described as an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING.

Is this, now, FINALLY clear to you ?????


There is not much subjectivity to the Ten Commandments but alas we all fall short.

... terrorists in particular. In fact, no terrorist could ever conform to them. They lack the humanity, after all ....


Many things, even disgusting ones, are subjective even if we don't want them to be.

But to observe that terrorists are provably subhuman, is an act of undeniable objectivity. If you question that, then prove their HUMANITY from the acts they commit.


Originator of the definition? :laugh: See untermensch.

Inventing a concept, then seeing real PROOF of it in terrorists, are two entirely different things.


:laugh: No, I'm just looking for intellectual credibility from you. Crazy, I know.

Given your evident incapacity to comprehend it when it stares you in the face .. I must agree. Your attempts, considering your total refusal to concede you can ever be wrong on anything, are ... crazy. Indeed !!:laugh::laugh::rolleyes:


So, admit you're wrong or take the first step and admit that the Nazis and Imperialist Japanese were subhuman. I have no problem grading them on the same scale, you do however.

Is this you, AGAIN expanding the 'subhuman' definition to include the Nazis and their Axis buddies, the Japanese ? And will you again try to disassociate yourself from having done so ?

And YOU lecture ME on 'intellectual credibility' .. ??

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. You really should consider ignoring victims of Failed Lobotomies like fj. He will never admit to being as stupid as he actually is for anyone. Not even himself.:laugh:

How very true, Aboutime.

FJ has yet to even prove his sanity to us.

He is certainly very welcome to try. My sense of humour should allow me to be sufficiently entertained by such efforts .... :laugh:

[fj1200]

But when I, a Conservative...

:laugh: This deserved its own post. Do you remember your words?


And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

Margaret applied 'Big Government' decisions to fixing that, via legislation.

What it needs is Big Government decision-making

Because I sure do. :laugh:

[fj1200]

How very true, Aboutime.

FJ has yet to even prove his sanity to us.

He is certainly very welcome to try. My sense of humour should allow me to be sufficiently entertained by such efforts .... :laugh:

That's it, keep bucking up the banana. :laugh: You need the support of the likes of him, he's not smart enough to see right through you.

[fj1200]

It's interesting. When Lefties keep repeating their propaganda, they do it to try and make it believable.

But when I, a Conservative, ever repeat evident truths ... truths you utterly fail to counter ! ... then, suddenly, it's alleged to be 'disproven garbage'.

FJ, do you assert that the Left has a monopoly on the truth ?

All I have done is logically take apart your argument and demonstrate how you are unable to apply your own methods. There is no monopoly on truth, I only have a monopoly on showing you to be disingenuous.


It's nothing of the kind .. and there are all sorts of ways of illustrating that.

If DNA makeup optimises a person's potentialities to the point that the person may be capable of very high intelligence .. then an injury happens to reduce that person to an irreversibly vegetative state ... does 'force of DNA' somehow reverse the condition ??

In the case of a terrorist, said terrorist may have been converted to a subhuman state as a result of force-fed propaganda, brainwashiing, that sort of thing. What started out as human becomes subhuman through external influences, no less real and avoidable as the 'injury' example above.

Or - and I think this by far the most likely and prevalent, since otherwise, the 'conversion' or 'radicalisation' is hard to comprehend .. the humanity in that terrorist individual MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

DNA does NOTHING to guarantee the end product. It only allows for, and addresses, potential.

Sorry, no. Potential is not in the definition of human. When will you be letting me know the intelligence level of when the mentally handicapped can be considered human?


I knew you would be ...

There's nothing consistent in your current position.

It isn't a question of my 'hanging my hat' on 'or'. It's just a fact that the definition is worded in a way which makes it clear that one, OR the other, applies.

Now, you can try and entertain me with ludicrous claims that terrorists are 'moral' beings. I say that their actions wouldn't be possible if 'human morality' exerted any governing influence on what terrorists do !

You're squirming. You're definition mentions 'intelligence' so clearly there is a level; what is that level?


I suspect that your banana' fixation says more about you, than me ...

... and besides, the principle involved can apply to any number of alternative examples. Start with a biologically intact object, then reduce it to an incoherent mass .. then take samples from each. The biochemical analysis of each would be identical, YET, one would be a coherent item, definable via simple and verifiable observation .. and the other would be something reduced to be radically different.

Thus .. a human being, and a terrorist, may both have human DNA. But only one can be described as an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING.

Is this, now, FINALLY clear to you ?????

You are the one who relies on those with the intellectual capacity of a banana in support of your disgusting position. Now I see why you're reluctant in answer the question. Nevertheless both are human.


... terrorists in particular. In fact, no terrorist could ever conform to them. They lack the humanity, after all ....

:blah: You say nothing new...


But to observe that terrorists are provably subhuman, is an act of undeniable objectivity. If you question that, then prove their HUMANITY from the acts they commit.

:blah: Your same old prattle.


Inventing a concept, then seeing real PROOF of it in terrorists, are two entirely different things.

I'm pretty sure the Nazis saw proof. You should embrace your ideological forebears.


Given your evident incapacity to comprehend it when it stares you in the face .. I must agree. Your attempts, considering your total refusal to concede you can ever be wrong on anything, are ... crazy. Indeed !!:laugh::laugh::rolleyes:

:blah: You won't understand what I tell you anyway and will run away like a squirming fool...


Is this you, AGAIN expanding the 'subhuman' definition to include the Nazis and their Axis buddies, the Japanese ? And will you again try to disassociate yourself from having done so ?

And YOU lecture ME on 'intellectual credibility' .. ??

I'm the only one here who is willing to use your definition equally. Please try, and fail, where I tried to disassociate myself.

You suck at this because you are not intellectually honest.

[Drummond]

Ah, another of your attacks. You know, when I take a mental step back and view your stuff dispassionately, it really needs to be said .... it's downright funny !!


All I have done is logically take apart your argument and demonstrate how you are unable to apply your own methods. There is no monopoly on truth, I only have a monopoly on showing you to be disingenuous.

Vague ... said for effect. A worthless comment in terms of substance.


Sorry, no. Potential is not in the definition of human.

EXACTLY !!!

DNA governs the scope it carries for potentiality. And as I've said, DNA is not, repeat, NOT, proof that the entity carrying it is human !

So, thank you. Despite yourself, you're seeing the weakness of what YOU insist is 'proof'... when it is NOT.


When will you be letting me know the intelligence level of when the mentally handicapped can be considered human?

And when will YOU let me know that you understand the meaning and significance of the word, 'OR' ... ??


You're squirming. You're definition mentions 'intelligence' so clearly there is a level; what is that level?

No squirming involved. Evasiveness on your part, however, along with an apparent utter inability to cope with the word 'OR', seems to be governing your, ahem, thinking.


You are the one who relies on those with the intellectual capacity of a banana in support of your disgusting position.

Tut tut.

Is this what passes, in FjWorld, for 'rational discussion' ??

... A sad case ....


Now I see why you're reluctant in answer the question. Nevertheless both are human.

Rot.



:blah: You say nothing new...

:blah: Your same old prattle.

More rot. Actually, quite funny rot .... your idea of 'rational discussion' ?


I'm pretty sure the Nazis saw proof.

I think you need to explain that one ! Did they, as you say, see 'proof' ??

Are you now indicating anti-Semitic thoughts ? CARE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF ?


You should embrace your ideological forebears ..

:blah: You won't understand what I tell you anyway and will run away like a squirming fool...

Correct in part. I do not understand this rot of yours. Defend your 'ideological forebears' comment. If you can.


I'm the only one here who is willing to use your definition equally.

Even though the definition is not designed to be used in that way ?

Are you still struggling to understand the word 'OR' ..... ??


You suck at this because you are not intellectually honest.

.. HAH !! Rich, coming from you .... see just above !!

[tailfins]

That's it, keep bucking up the banana. :laugh: You need the support of the likes of him, he's not smart enough to see right through you.

He happens to vote the same way I do, but all in all, he's either useless or even a liability to the conservative cause. He's even worse than Michael Savage. I do happen to think you're too hard on Drummond, though.

[Drummond]

He happens to vote the same way I do, but all in all, he's either useless or even a liability to the conservative cause. He's even worse than Michael Savage. I do happen to think you're too hard on Drummond, though.

Comment appreciated - thank you.

Nonetheless, you need to understand FJ's position. FJ is not what he professes to be ... and he's thoroughly aware of the need to try and discredit anyone seeing through him. As if that wasn't enough, FJ argues very weak positions. When I 'best' him .. which happens all too often .. he needs to camouflage that whenever he can.

Unfortunately, since he possesses a Left-wing mindset, the methodology he needs to employ consistently fails to be a reputable one. So ... we see what we do.

FJ - short of making some long-overdue admissions about himself - actually HAS to behave as he does. Tailfins, do you see that in order to maintain his unsupportable postings, he has little option but to continue on as he does ?

[tailfins]

Comment appreciated - thank you.

Nonetheless, you need to understand FJ's position. FJ is not what he professes to be ... and he's thoroughly aware of the need to try and discredit anyone seeing through him. As if that wasn't enough, FJ argues very weak positions. When I 'best' him .. which happens all too often .. he needs to camouflage that whenever he can.

Unfortunately, since he possesses a Left-wing mindset, the methodology he needs to employ consistently fails to be a reputable one. So ... we see what we do.

FJ - short of making some long-overdue admissions about himself - actually HAS to behave as he does. Tailfins, do you see that in order to maintain his unsupportable postings, he has little option but to continue on as he does ?

The main reason I hesitate to label him a leftist is that he lacks the vocabulary and doesn't generally link to left wing sources.

[fj1200]

He happens to vote the same way I do, but all in all, he's either useless or even a liability to the conservative cause. He's even worse than Michael Savage. I do happen to think you're too hard on Drummond, though.

Agreed on 'at,' he doesn't represent conservatives views very well. drummond? I wish I didn't have to be "hard" on him but he just professes stupid around every corner. Case in point:


... FJ is not what he professes to be ...

Stupid can't help but come out. I mean, he thinks Austrian School economists are lefties for goodness sake.


The main reason I hesitate to label him a leftist is that he lacks the vocabulary and doesn't generally link to left wing sources.

And I don't espouse leftist views or give countenance to leftist prattle or... well you get the idea. :)

EDIT:

I can also spot a big government hack a mile away. ;)

[fj1200]

This post of yours contains a whole lot of crap. Just a few bits of you pulling out trash.


I think you need to explain that one ! Did they, as you say, see 'proof' ??

Are you now indicating anti-Semitic thoughts ? CARE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF ?

Are you really this stupid to think I've said anything anti-Semitic? I'm not sure the answer to that but I was merely pointing out your similarities to Nazi thinking.


Correct in part. I do not understand this rot of yours. Defend your 'ideological forebears' comment. If you can.

You're the one with Nazi thinking here. :dunno:


Even though the definition is not designed to be used in that way ?

Are you still struggling to understand the word 'OR' ..... ??

:laugh: It's not designed to be used equally. OMG you suck at this.


.. HAH !! Rich, coming from you .... see just above !!

I own you debate toy. You just CAN'T STAND when someone might have a different opinion. :laugh: Nevertheless you've managed to do what you do best. Take a simple post taking apart your logic and turning into the above prattle. You've completely obfuscated away from what takes your argument apart. Own up buddy and admit you're wrong. You won't, you suck at this. Here again is what the original argument is not what you've turned it into.


Wow, you are as dumb as a frigging rock. You can't win based on logic and an actual argument so you need to go running to the nearest banana to get your ego perked up. Do you want me to prove you wrong??? again? Here goes:

1. Terrorists are human (disgusting though they are): DNA proves it to be true.
2. You don't even fully accept your own definition.

A definition you've provided previously:

A question you've avoided before: At what point are the mentally handicapped subhuman?

3. You don't even apply your own definition equally.

You are unwilling to state that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were subhuman based on their terrorist atrocities.

4. You don't even have a definition for terrorist.

You've been unwilling to define terrorist and have only pointed out what a terrorist act looks like.

Conclusion: If you are not willing to state at every level what it takes to meet your subhuman threshold then you are intellectually dishonest. Answer those questions and make those statements then you will at least be consistent. Still wrong, but at least consistent.

My points are still valid and accurate. Except you did provide a pretty poor definition for terrorist, I'll give you that much self serving though it was.

[aboutime]

This post of yours contains a whole lot of crap. Just a few bits of you pulling out trash.



Are you really this stupid to think I've said anything anti-Semitic? I'm not sure the answer to that but I was merely pointing out your similarities to Nazi thinking.



You're the one with Nazi thinking here. :dunno:



:laugh: It's not designed to be used equally. OMG you suck at this.



I own you debate toy. You just CAN'T STAND when someone might have a different opinion. :laugh: Nevertheless you've managed to do what you do best. Take a simple post taking apart your logic and turning into the above prattle. You've completely obfuscated away from what takes your argument apart. Own up buddy and admit you're wrong. You won't, you suck at this. Here again is what the original argument is not what you've turned it into.



My points are still valid and accurate. Except you did provide a pretty poor definition for terrorist, I'll give you that much self serving though it was.



fj. You hit the nail on the head, and you are correct. Everything you have brought here with your self-proclaimed selfishness of being superior IS nothing but CRAP.
You are the master of CRAP, and the more you post. The more CRAP DP has to laugh at.