[luke warm]

Quote

Russell Defreitas, a radicalized Muslim living in Brooklyn, has seethed with rage toward the U.S., West and Israel for more than a decade, according to authorities.

Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana, decided that the "bastards would have to pay," and he would blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, its fuel tanks and its pipeline in a spectacular attack designed to kill thousands and cripple America's economy.

"Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States," Defreitas said in the indictment. "To hit John F. Kennedy, wow. ... They love John F. Kennedy like he's the man ... If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It's like you can kill the man twice."

what a bummer that would have been, eh? but he should be careful saying things like,

Quote

Defreitas, 63, never got a chance to carry out his plan and would not get the "place in paradise" he said he desired...

if he isn't careful, peter will stop talking to him

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...egion-apnewyork

[hrothgar]

Damn religious freaks.

Hard to know who's worse...

The fundamentalist Christians who are off bombing abortion providers and bringing Molotov cocktails in case any tries to disrupt Falwell's funeral or the muslims trying plotting to blow up JFK or go on a shooting spree at Fort Dix.

A pox on both their houses...

[luke warm]

from a post of mine last year, i defined a terrorist as:

Quote

my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed

nobody offered a better one, and until they do i'll use mine... at first blush, a person who blows up an abortion clinic *or* an airport is a terrorist... but it does appear that you are using the pee wee herman defense of Defreitas ("i know you are but what am i?")... what others do or have done is not justification

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 3 2007, 04:04 AM, said:

nobody offered a better one, and until they do i'll use mine... at first blush, a person who blows up an abortion clinic *or* an airport is a terrorist... but it does appear that you are using the pee wee herman defense of Defreitas ("i know you are but what am i?")... what others do or have done is not justification

In what way am I defending Defreitas? In general, when someone says "A pox on both their houses" its not intended as a complement.

The main reason that I introduced the fact that the US has plenty of home grown terrorists is that I think that you're a bigot. You are continually making a series of selective posts attacking one specific religion (Islam) while ignoring equivalent behavior by your own co-religionists. Alternatively, to use a turn of phrase that you should be familiar with

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye

[Winstonm]

To me this looks like more of the same - overhyped" terrorist busted" crap that comes out every time Bush's poll numbers take another dive or support for war wanes -more about PR than terrorism.

Here what the "good guys" say:

Quote

"The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."

Read the article further and you uncover a bit of truth:

Quote

Despite their efforts, the men never obtained any explosives, authorities said.

"Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in today's environment," former U.S. State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton said, but added it was difficult to determine without knowing all the facts of the case.

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

"That doesn't mean wackos out there can't do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted," he said.

Since Defreitas retired from his job at the airport, security has significantly tightened and his knowledge of the operation was severely outdated.

A old retired idiot who doesn't know the new security and can't get his hands on any explosives in the first place is going to blow up a pipeline that will only have limited damamge and fires even if it works - yep....there's some serious terrorism for ya.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 2 2007, 08:40 PM, said:

To me this looks like more of the same - overhyped" terrorist busted" crap that comes out every time Bush's poll numbers take another dive or support for war wanes -more about PR than terrorism.

Here what the "good guys" say:

Quote

"The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."

Read the article further and you uncover a bit of truth:

Quote

Despite their efforts, the men never obtained any explosives, authorities said.

"Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in today's environment," former U.S. State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton said, but added it was difficult to determine without knowing all the facts of the case.

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

"That doesn't mean wackos out there can't do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted," he said.

Since Defreitas retired from his job at the airport, security has significantly tightened and his knowledge of the operation was severely outdated.

A old retired idiot who doesn't know the new security and can't get his hands on any explosives in the first place is going to blow up a pipeline that will only have limited damamge and fires even if it works - yep....there's some serious terrorism for ya.

Yep, agree

Even if you give a bunch of idiots boxcutters what the heck can they do?
Can we please just focus on bad guys who are smart and have a real workable plan.

[Winstonm]

Quote

In general, when someone says "A pox on both their houses" its not intended as a complement.

To me there is something stikingly immature and childlike about the opposing arguments.

Islamic: God is on our side.
Christian: God is on OUR side.
Islamic: No, God is Really on OUR side.
Christian: Well, God is really REALLY on OUR side.
Islamic: Oh, yeah. Well God is Really REALLY REALLY on our side.

Ad infinitum....

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jun 2 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

from a post of mine last year, i defined a terrorist as:

Quote

my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules...

nobody offered a better one, and until they do i'll use mine... at first blush, a person who blows up an abortion clinic *or* an airport is a terrorist... but it does appear that you are using the pee wee herman defense of Defreitas ("i know you are but what am i?")... what others do or have done is not justification

The problem I have with your definition is it seems extended to accomodate your own views about fundamental Islamists - "the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules...therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed"

You are saying the only way to defeat terrorism is a type of genocide - "would need to die out or be destroyed."


Here is the definition of terrosim from the American History Encyclopedia.

"

Quote

Terrorism is a political tactic that uses threat or violence, usually against civilians, to frighten a target group into conceding to certain political demands."

As this does not imply a neverending war and the need for a genocidal conclusion, I guess it is not "better" than the one you provided.

[cherdano]

luke warm, on Jun 2 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

from a post of mine last year, i defined a terrorist as:

Quote

my definition of a terrorist is simply a person who, while fighting an undeclared war, uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims... the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules... therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed

nobody offered a better one, and until they do i'll use mine... at first blush, a person who blows up an abortion clinic *or* an airport is a terrorist... but it does appear that you are using the pee wee herman defense of Defreitas ("i know you are but what am i?")... what others do or have done is not justification

I won't try to come up with a better one here but pretty obviously "the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules" is complete non-sense, there has been terrorism with many different kind of goals in history and many don't fit your definition: Terrorists you have no goal except to end a foreign occupation of their homecountry, terrorists who want a separate state for their region, US-sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua aiming at a regime change, etc. Of course a "life lived by his rules" is so vague that it has no place in a definition anyway, but I don't see how you can fit any of the above under your definition, which are all clearly terrorism to me.

Never-ending if also wrong, of course, the German RAF definitely has ended.
If you really want to make strong broad general statements about terrorism why don't you read up a bit on it?

[mike777]

Terrorists may or may not be satisfied with something less than wanting a seperate state.

I concede this is commonly accepted wisdom. I accept this may be correct.

Another goal may be to weaken but not overthrow the government. They expect to thrive in the weaken state and to thrive is their goal.

If the goal is to weaken but not get rid of the government, a different strategy may be in play.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jun 2 2007, 08:17 PM, said:

The main reason that I introduced the fact that the US has plenty of home grown terrorists is that I think that you're a bigot.  You are continually making a series of selective posts attacking one specific religion (Islam) while ignoring equivalent behavior by your own co-religionists.

maybe you missed the part where i agreed with you that a christian (or whatever) who blows up an abortion clinic can also be viewed as a terrorist... and for what it's worth, i'm not attacking any religion, ones religion isn't the defining characteristic... you call me a bigot, i call you a bigot, we all call one another names... what does that profit?... i do remember a series of posts a while ago

hrothgar, on Jul 16 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

The Jesus freaks ...

from you, to which i responded

luke warm, on Jul 16 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

this is (by my recollection) the 2nd time you've used that phrase... let me ask again, do you use it in reference to all christians? as an aside, one i, at least, find interesting, i've never seen you refer to 'allah freaks' or 'buddah freaks', and certainly never to 'godless freaks'

that would seem to point to your own brand of bigotry... and fwiw, i stand by my statement in that previous thread - you've only "bashed" christians (that i can find)... i can find many posts of mine where i've applied 'terrorist' equally across the board

winston said:

To me this looks like more of the same - overhyped" terrorist busted" crap that comes out every time Bush's poll numbers take another dive or support for war wanes -more about PR than terrorism. ~~~ A old retired idiot who doesn't know the new security and can't get his hands on any explosives in the first place is going to blow up a pipeline that will only have limited damamge and fires even if it works - yep....there's some serious terrorism for ya

what would you suggest, winston? had it been, to take richard's example, an old idiot planning to blow up an abortion clinic what should have been done? should both be sent home with stern admonitions?

Quote

The problem I have with your definition is it seems extended to accomodate your own views about fundamental Islamists - "the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules...therefore, terrorism (imo) is self-promulgating and never-ending... the ones who make up the movement, whatever it is, would need to die out or be destroyed"

You are saying the only way to defeat terrorism is a type of genocide - "would need to die out or be destroyed."

my definition doesn't accommodate my views about any particular religion, and i've said so in the past... also, you took that one passage out of context... and no, that isn't what i'm saying at all... if you read that as me suggesting genocide, you're reading it wrongly... i'm actually saying that terrorism will never end, because there will always be at least one person with unattainable goals who "...uses the most horrifying means possible to reach his desired end, without regard for the identity of his victims..." do you disagree?

cherdano said:

"the end will always be unattainable, since the terrorist will settle for no less than a life lived by his rules" is complete non-sense, there has been terrorism with many different kind of goals in history and many don't fit your definition:

name one

Quote

Terrorists you have no goal except to end a foreign occupation of their homecountry, terrorists who want a separate state for their region, US-sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua aiming at a regime change, etc

i don't understand how those examples are meant to show that my definition is in error... do you mean to say that your examples are or are not terrorists according to my definition?

Quote

Never-ending if also wrong, of course, the German RAF definitely has ended.

you'll have to tell me what is meant by the "german raf"... if it's meant to refer to wwII, then it doesn't fit my definition, does it? i don't understand why you use it in an attempt to invalidate my definition when it doesn't fit my definition

[cherdano]

luke warm, on Jun 2 2007, 10:09 PM, said:

Quote

Terrorists you have no goal except to end a foreign occupation of their homecountry, terrorists who want a separate state for their region, US-sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua aiming at a regime change, etc

i don't understand how those examples are meant to show that my definition is in error... do you mean to say that your examples are or are not terrorists according to my definition?

I think these are examples that are not terrorism according to your definition but they should be part of any sensible definition of terrorism.

Quote

Quote

Never-ending if also wrong, of course, the German RAF definitely has ended.

you'll have to tell me what is meant by the "german raf"... if it's meant to refer to wwII, then it doesn't fit my definition, does it? i don't understand why you use it in an attempt to invalidate my definition when it doesn't fit my definition

Everyone agrees that the German RAF (Bader-Meinhof group) was a terrorist group. I don't know whether it fits your definition, I think it does but your "definition" is so vague; anyway if it doesn't then your definition is wrong (unless you want to define a completely new term so that nobody can understand what you mean when you say "terrorist"). The group started in the early 70's, faded out in the eighties and officially declared an end to their fight in the early 90s (I believe, not sure when it was exactly).

[Winstonm]

Quote

what would you suggest, winston?

I would only ask for truthfulness in reporting rather than hype and propaganda. Don't make out that this idiotic plot that had outdated intelligence, no explosives, and a plan that could not work because the fires would be limited in range is somehow as grand of success as stopping the attack on Pearl Harbor - which is what the U.S. attorney indicated with his ludicrous statement.

One would think that after the curtain has fallen from Oz and the world has seen him as the pathetic old con man he truly is, after the amazement of legerdermain has been exposed as nothing more than tricks, mirrors, and gimmicks, and after the umpteenth time that Chicken Little has cried "the sky is falling", that shouting wolf would finally be discarded as a productive attempt to sway public sentiment.

But I guess once you have told the "big lie", you are stuck with it and have to try to keep up the fascade.

As far as never-ending terrorism, a quick search of Google yielded this list.

Quote

Inactive terrorist/insuregent groups
Chin Kuki Revolutionary Front (CKRF)
Hmar People's Convention (HPC)
Hmar Revolutionary Front (HRF)
Indigenous People's Revolutionary Alliance (IRPA)
Iripak Kanba Lup (IKL)
Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF)
Islamic National Front (INF)
Kangleipak Kanba Kanglup (KKK)
Kangleipak Liberation Organisation (KLO)
Kom Rem People's Convention (KRPC)
Kuki Defence Force (KDF)
Kuki Independent Army (KIA)
Kuki International Force (KIF)
Kuki Liberation Front (KLF)
Kuki National Organisation (KNO)
Kuki National Volunteers (KNV)
Kuki Revolutionary Front (KRF)
Kuki Security Force (KSF)
Manipur Liberation Tiger Army (MLTA)
North East Minority Front (NEMF)
People's Republican Army (PRA)
Revolutionary Joint Committee (RJC)
United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA)
United Islamic Revolutionary Army (UIRA)
Zomi Revolutionary Volunteers (ZRV)

So maybe terrorism is not neverending.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Yep, agree

Even if you give a bunch of idiots boxcutters what the heck can they do?
Can we please just focus on bad guys who are smart and have a real workable plan.

The sarcasm tact....how utterly clever when no defense is available.

You have "The Three Stooges and the JFK Bar-b-que", but the reporting tries to make it sound like "Lenin, Stalin, and Chairman Mao Bomb New York!"

Quote

NEW YORK - Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a “chilling” attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods.

LOLOLOLOL. You can't be serious. LOLOLOLOL. And we're supposed to believe this crap???? LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

[mike777]

Of course as usual you miss the most important point.

Even idiots can kill with idiot plans and idiot weapons.

Is this overblown, I have no idea, but so what, blame the media for doing no reporting.

That is a huge problem...smart guys with smart plans can kill, idiot guys with idiot plans can kill.

If you have a better plan, great, sign me up.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 3 2007, 07:09 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 16 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

The Jesus freaks ...

from you, to which i responded

luke warm, on Jul 16 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

this is (by my recollection) the 2nd time you've used that phrase... let me ask again, do you use it in reference to all christians? as an aside, one i, at least, find interesting, i've never seen you refer to 'allah freaks' or 'buddah freaks', and certainly never to 'godless freaks'

I readily admit, I have very strong opinions about religious fundamentalists. I think that they are dangerous. I think that they represent a significant threat to civil society. In past threads, I have been quite clear that I have (approximately) equal distain for

fundamentalist Muslims
fundamentalist Christians
fundamentalist Jews
fundamentalist Hindus

I've never heard of a fundamentalist Buddhist. (For all I know, this might be a logical contradiction). However, I am well aware of some reprehensible behavior on the part of Buddhist monasteries back before the Chinese invasion.

It should also be clear that I'm no fan of mass totalitarian ideologies. Indeed, a large number of my postings deal with differences between "top down" organizational hierarchies and bottom up based systems, with a clear preference for the latter. (Indeed, a lot of my criticism of religious fundamentalism comes from the fact that it is based on its organizational structures)

So, yes. I have my biases. And they are strong biases. In my defense, I will state that I feel that I am very open about this. I make no efforts to conceal my agenda.

It may very well appear that I am unduly harsh towards Christianity. In my defense, I will simply notes that the bulk of these postings are reactions to threads that you and Mike initiate. Both of you continually post a series of extremely one sided articles designed to stir up fear and animosity towards Muslims. It seems only appropriate to point out that behavior that you condemn in such a one sided manner is in fact, quite ecumenical and endemic to your faith as well. (All of the Abrahamic faiths strike me as profoundly screwed up)

Who knows, if you were to initiate a long series of threads about terrorist acts committed by the Army of God or other Christian based groups, I might start posting about the Earth Liberation Army or some of the secularists groups. Alternatively, if Mike were to post about Israel's targeted assassinations and continual air strikes / artillery barrages directed against Palestine, I might start being more vocal about Palestinian abuses of the peace process.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Of course as usual you miss the most important point.

And as usual you ignore the details and redistribute the spin.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I readily admit, I have very strong opinions about religious fundamentalists. I think that they are dangerous. I think that they represent a significant threat to civil society.

My position is that the fundamentalist ilk are predisposed psychologically to create villains. When you are taught and believe that you are unworthy unless you accept a certain faith, the only way to elevate self image is to create a group who are inferior - sinners, heathens, non-believers.
The goal then is not about trying to help elevate each individual to his best personal level, but about bringing everyone else down to the comfort level.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I readily admit, I have very strong opinions about religious fundamentalists. I think that they are dangerous. I think that they represent a significant threat to civil society.

Quote

My position is that the fundamentalist ilk are predisposed psychologically to create villains. When you are taught and believe that you are unworthy unless you accept a certain faith, the only way to elevate self image is to create a group who are inferior - sinners, heathens, non-believers.
The goal then is not about trying to help elevate each individual to his best personal level, but about bringing everyone else down to the comfort level.

While there may be some truth to these opinions, I don't find them useful (even though there is a part of me that agrees with them).

They do boil down to prejudice. Being human, we all have prejudices. There are basically two responses you can have to your own prejudices:
1. *I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist*
2. *I will try to do better*

I wish I could say I always took the second approach.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

They do boil down to prejudice. Being human, we all have prejudices. There are basically two responses you can have to your own prejudices:
1. *I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist*
2. *I will try to do better*

Of course, all information is filtered through self. When that information seems inconsistent, I would think a third category would apply:
3. *I am a doubter."

When you accept self-limitations, you have a fourth category:
4. *I undertand that I may be wrong.*