The News Thread

[rms]

No idea, don't read it

 

[CiG]

I love it. Literally, one day after everyone acts like I'm making up "Chrisitan terrorism" there's a Chrisitian terrorism attack.

I love that nobody once said that but you're too shit to actually respond to what people said.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Sure it's possible that people claiming to be Christian engage in terrorism. It's not a Christian tenet. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. I'll help you out since you haven't read the Bible in decades: I spent the first 18 years of my life attending fundy churches 3+ times a week, and less than a decade ago I purchased a Strong's concordance and did a very indepth biblical study on anything remotely current (my findings were a significant impetus for dropping Christianity) . There's nothing within the NT to justify any sort of violence against non-believers, and even typical southern fundamentalist baptists don't preach anything even remotely smacking of violence against unbelievers, abortion doctors or otherwise.

I'm pretty sick of insulated yanks and Cali hippies making sweeping declarations about middle America and the South without so much as the remotest exposure to the rest of the world, much less those portions of America or the people thereof.

Again, I don't give a fuck about your interpretation of the Bible. You're just one non-Christian with an opinion on the most analyzed text in the world. This isn't a debate about theology, it's a debate about religious ideology, which is 100% contingent on interpretation. There is a large percentage of Christians in this country that are pro-war. The majority of our army is Christian Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a high percentage of American Christians see Christian doctrine as compatible with war. Again, if you want links to articles arguing these points using both Old and New Testament, I can give links. However, you're fighting a battle you can't win, as empirical evidence is totally loaded against you.

And quit it with the ad hominem attacks. There's nothing more embarrassing than someone who is simultaneously losing an argument and resorting to mud slinging.

There's no political objective. Derp.

Making abortion illegal; when that cannot be achieved, terrorizing the public, so that they do not actualize their legal right to abortion due to fear. Derp.

 

[arg]

so there are christian terrorists, big fucking deal. nobody is saying there are not. we still need to wipe out the muslim terrorists. what's your point? fucking islamist sympathizer.

 

[CiG]

While you gloat on the scant examples of Christian terrorism, Muslims all over the Middle East are slaughtering other Muslims in the name of a one true interpretation and practice of their faith.

 

[tagradh]

It's interesting that no one really made a fuss about the various groups and individuals from Ireland/NI being Christian when the opposite is often true of Palestinians attacking Israelis.

 

[Dak]

Again, I don't give a fuck about your interpretation of the Bible. You're just one non-Christian with an opinion on the most analyzed text in the world. This isn't a debate about theology, it's a debate about religious ideology, which is 100% contingent on interpretation. There is a large percentage of Christians in this country that are pro-war. The majority of our army is Christian Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a high percentage of American Christians see Christian doctrine as compatible with war. Again, if you want links to articles arguing these points using both Old and New Testament, I can give links. However, you're fighting a battle you can't win, as empirical evidence is totally loaded against you.

And quit it with the ad hominem attacks. There's nothing more embarrassing than someone who is simultaneously losing an argument and resorting to mud slinging.

You're a riot. You would think you're winning an argument when you continue building up a strawman to knock down. Do I need to put it in 3inch font? I didn't say Christianity was majority/should be pacifist. Yeah, your typical Republican Christian is very pro military, and leans towards military "solutions" to foreign policy problems. But it doesn't have anything to do with the religion of the opposing side.

terrorizing the public, so that they do not actualize their legal right to abortion due to fear. Derp.

Nothing is more embarrassing than this sort of straw grasping. I guess you needed more for your other point. That's not a political aim, and they aren't "terrorizing the public" to an even remotely similar degree compared to Islamic terrorism. Maybe you are confused because while abortion clinic bombers are engaging in "political terrorism" (distinguished from "criminal terrorism"), the attacks themselves do not have a political objective. Violent anti-abortionists have an anti abortion ideology, and attack clinics and abortion performing doctors to physically and directly stop abortions from occurring, not to achieve law changes and/or sway public perception of the issue. The Parisian shooters didn't have an anti soccer/concert ideology, the Boston bombers didn't have an anti-running-marathons ideology, the 9/11 hijackers didn't have anti skyscraper or plane ideologies. None of them were trying to stop the particular thing or general practice involved in or related to what they attacked. Sites are chosen for mass casualties and/or mass exposure to stoke broad public fear which would hopefully lead to changes in foreign and/or domestic policy which would be advantageous to Muslims.

It's interesting that no one really made a fuss about the various groups and individuals from Ireland/NI being Christian when the opposite is often true of Palestinians attacking Israelis.

Maybe because religion wasn't a related factor for the IRA vs Great Britain like it is for Palestinians vs Jews?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You're a riot. You would think you're winning an argument when you continue building up a strawman to knock down. Do I need to put it in 3inch font? I didn't say Christianity was majority/should be pacifist. Yeah, your typical Republican Christian is very pro military, and leans towards military "solutions" to foreign policy problems. But it doesn't have anything to do with the religion of the opposing side.

No it doesn't. It has everything to do with Christianity, which is often interpreted to be compatible with violence, war, and murder.

Nothing is more embarrassing

than this sort of straw grasping. I guess you needed more for your other point. That's not a political aim, and they aren't "terrorizing the public" to an even remotely similar degree compared to Islamic terrorism. Maybe you are confused because while abortion clinic bombers are engaging in "political terrorism" (distinguished from "criminal terrorism"), the attacks themselves do not have a political objective. Violent anti-abortionists have an anti abortion ideology, and attack clinics and abortion performing doctors to physically and directly stop abortions from occurring, not to achieve law changes and/or sway public perception of the issue. The Parisian shooters didn't have an anti soccer/concert ideology, the Boston bombers didn't have an anti-running-marathons ideology, the 9/11 hijackers didn't have anti skyscraper or plane ideologies. None of them were trying to stop the particular thing or general practice involved in or related to what they attacked. Sites are chosen for mass casualties and/or mass exposure to stoke broad public fear which would hopefully lead to changes in foreign and/or domestic policy which would be advantageous to Muslims.

Nothing is more embarrassing than someone making shit up when they can clearly see they are wrong. The attacks have a clear political objective: end abortion in the USA.

You're comparison to the Parisian bomber is one of a simpleton. It presumes that all terrorism needs to be conducted in the someway, a really stupid idea. It overlooks the fact the desire to change different policies will result in different sorts of actions. ISIS aims to change Western military policy. Western military policy kills many civilians in the Middle East. Furthermore, ISIS often doesn't have the resources or means to successful target Western military locations. Therefore, ISIS and similar groups attack our citizens in response.

On the other hand, anti-abortion terrorists have a very specific medical practice that they oppose. Therefore, they terrorize those who conduct that exact medical practice.

And since you still don't seem to understand what makes anti-abortionists a terrorist organization, here's an explantation from START, a research group sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.start.umd.edu/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=28

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I show you. As always, you've taken a position on something, and you never change your mind on anything, no matter how stupid it makes you look. And I especially don't expect you to change your mind in this case, since it contradicts your bigoted worldview.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Oh, and just for good measure, here's the mayor of Colorado Springs stating that the act "appears to be domestic terrorism". I'm sure as the investigation evolves, more politicians and law enforcement will confirm this point.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/planned-pa...-terrorism-colorado-springs/story?id=35471366

 

[Dak]

Nothing is more embarrassing than someone making shit up when they can clearly see they are wrong. The attacks have a clear political objective: end abortion in the USA.

Bombing abortion clinics in no way advances any antiabortion domestic policy changes. It won't help enact antiabortion laws, it won't help elect anti abortion politicians, it won't help sway people to the antiabortion position. It has no political objective. I'll say it a different way: There is no outcome from bombing abortion clinics which in any way will affect anything remotely involving the political sphere in America in a positive way for antiabortionists. Stopping abortions via removing the physical availability or personal will is not a political solution. To argue otherwise means arguing everything is political - which renders the distinction useless anyway.

No it doesn't. It has everything to do with Christianity, which is often interpreted to be compatible with violence, war, and murder.

And since you still don't seem to understand what makes anti-abortionists a terrorist organization, here's an explantation from START, a research group sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security.

Dude, you aren't even reading what I'm writing. Is there a site giving you autogenerated talking points? I know the DNC loves those. Let me try again:

abortion clinic bombers are engaging in "political terrorism" (distinguished from "criminal terrorism")

I didn't say Christianity was majority/should be pacifist. Yeah, your typical Republican Christian is very pro military, and leans towards military "solutions" to foreign policy problems. But it doesn't have anything to do with the religion of the opposing side.

bigoted worldview.

The irony level of a progressive calling anyone bigoted is quite high.

 

[Dak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...lot-idUSKBN0TI07T20151129#TcFXLH0oKbi9KjoB.97

Pilot and another Russian dead, navigator survived. Russia is enacting economic sanctions on Turkey. Hopefully that's the extent of it.

 

[rms]

Do irrational actions make something not a political objective? I wonder. Does the IS terrorism indirectly make their actions political? Violence with violence?

edit

Should be noted that an anti-abortion already condemned what that dude did, so in a way that makes it different than IS/Muslim terrorism.

None of us are saying this isn't domestic terrorism, even though terror I think is the wrong word. No one is going to be fearful of going to PP or whatever after this. This really won't have an effect on the public at large. Domestic scare tactic? Maybe.

 

[Dak]

http://qz.com/559432/robots-are-learning-to-say-no-to-human-orders-and-your-life-may-depend-on-it/

Imagine yourself working alongside a 6-foot version of the Tufts android in the future. You can see how it would be better for the robot to think and say “I’m sorry I can’t do that” if its orders seemed likely to break it or hurt a human (such as fleshy, vulnerable you).

 

[Dak]

Hail of Bullets kicked MVD out for personal differences. Wonder what those were....

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Bombing abortion clinics in no way advances any antiabortion domestic policy changes. It won't help enact antiabortion laws, it won't help elect anti abortion politicians, it won't help sway people to the antiabortion position. It has no political objective. I'll say it a different way: There is no outcome from bombing abortion clinics which in any way will affect anything remotely involving the political sphere in America in a positive way for antiabortionists. Stopping abortions via removing the physical availability or personal will is not a political solution. To argue otherwise means arguing everything is political - which renders the distinction useless anyway.

So a terrorist act needs to be successful to qualify as terrorism? I have to assume that you're just making crap up as you go along, because your ability to reason can't be this underdeveloped.

As for your other points, the first one you quoted is an out of context quote using "". Nice attempt to save face. And the other one, I acknowledged; however, it was also an empty statement that responded to nothing I was saying and contributed nothing to the argument.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Do irrational actions make something not a political objective? I wonder. Does the IS terrorism indirectly make their actions political? Violence with violence?

edit

Should be noted that an anti-abortion already condemned what that dude did, so in a way that makes it different than IS/Muslim terrorism.

That's a faulty analogy. Let's make it fairer. Mainstream Muslims condemn ISIS attacks. Mainstream Christians condemn this attack.

Go look at the Army of God website. They call these guys "American Heroes". No different than ISIS supporting the acts of other extremists. Extremists support other extremists regardless of the religion, while the majority will be repulsed by their actions.

None of us are saying this isn't domestic terrorism, even though terror I think is the wrong word. No one is going to be fearful of going to PP or whatever after this. This really won't have an effect on the public at large. Domestic scare tactic? Maybe.

And no one was afraid of going on a plane after 9-11?

 

[Dak]

So a terrorist act needs to be successful to qualify as terrorism? I have to assume that you're just making crap up as you go along, because your ability to reason can't be this underdeveloped.

As for your other points, the first one you quoted is an out of context quote using "". Nice attempt to save face. And the other one, I acknowledged; however, it was also an empty statement that responded to nothing I was saying and contributed nothing to the argument.

What? You're not even wrong at this point.

 

[rms]

That's a faulty analogy. Let's make it fairer. Mainstream Muslims condemn ISIS attacks. Mainstream Christians condemn this attack.

I don't understand the mainstream addition of either Religion here. Anti-abortionists are against this act of violence and Anti-West Muslims are, from what i've seen, in favor of IS-esque violence abroad. Why do you continually bring in mainstream Muslims and/or Christians into this discussion?

Go look at the Army of God website. They call these guys "American Heroes". No different than ISIS supporting the acts of other extremists. Extremists support other extremists regardless of the religion, while the majority will be repulsed by their actions.

I'm looking at the website (please don't come arrest me FBI), and I don't see this guy on there. What I think is even funnier is to the extreme interpretation that website uses to justify whatever violence it has achieved.

Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Birth Control is evil

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them,Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..

This one is pretty damning, OT? Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


I mean there's clearly a difference here, right?

And no one was afraid of going on a plane after 9-11?

I don't understand how you made this jump. When did I suggest 9/11 was a failed attempt at terrorism?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I don't understand the mainstream addition of either Religion here. Anti-abortionists are against this act of violence and Anti-West Muslims are, from what i've seen, in favor of IS-esque violence abroad. Why do you continually bring in mainstream Muslims and/or Christians into this discussion?

It's pretty straight-forward. Extremists will support other extremists. If your argument is "well ISIS supports terrorist attacks," then the Christian equivalent is not looking at your run-of-the-mill pro-life conservative.

I'm looking at the website (please don't come arrest me FBI), and I don't see this guy on there. What I think is even funnier is to the extreme interpretation that website uses to justify whatever violence it has achieved.

Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Birth Control is evil

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them,Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..

This one is pretty damning, OT? Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


I mean there's clearly a difference here, right?

A difference between what?

I don't understand how you made this jump. When did I suggest 9/11 was a failed attempt at terrorism?

My point is that it is absurd to say no one will be afraid to go to a Planned Parenthood after the attack. Of course people will, just like people were afraid to fly after 9-11.

 

[Matt]

There's a PP near my house, but I'm not worried, because all of the people here who carry will turn into James Bond and save the day if something happens.