White terrorist attacks Mosque in FL

[lerxstcat]

There is no distinction on the business end of the bomb.

Not that either of them are ok, but there is a huge difference between burning some guy's market down in the middle of the night when it is empty and blowing the market up during the busiest time of the day when it is full of innocent people.

That's cold comfort to the victims.

It should be a HUGE comfort to know that a number of your customers and friends were not killed in the loss of your business' building. If that really doesn't matter to the business owner then my sympathy for that business owner is nil.

PEOPLE are more important than THINGS.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

That's cold comfort to the victims.

It should be a HUGE comfort to know that a number of your customers and friends were not killed in the loss of your business' building. If that really doesn't matter to the business owner then my sympathy for that business owner is nil.

PEOPLE are more important than THINGS.

Would you have been OK with Al Quaeda if those hijackers had commandeered empty planes and flew them into the twin towers after everyone had gone home?

[SkyDog112046]

That's cold comfort to the victims.

It should be a HUGE comfort to know that a number of your customers and friends were not killed in the loss of your business' building. If that really doesn't matter to the business owner then my sympathy for that business owner is nil.

PEOPLE are more important than THINGS.

Would you have been OK with Al Quaeda if those hijackers had commandeered empty planes and flew them into the twin towers after everyone had gone home?

It wouldn't have made it ok, but it would have been a hell of a lot better than killing 3000 innocent people. Insurance can replace the loss of property and then the insurance companies can always go after the people responsible for the damage but there is no way to make up for the loss of life caused by terrorism. But then again it really comes down to what terrorism is all about, and that is the killing of innocent people as a scare tactic. Terrorism depends on the deaths of innocents, which is why it is far worse than anything that a group like the mafia would ever do.

[lerxstcat]

That's cold comfort to the victims.

It should be a HUGE comfort to know that a number of your customers and friends were not killed in the loss of your business' building. If that really doesn't matter to the business owner then my sympathy for that business owner is nil.

PEOPLE are more important than THINGS.

Would you have been OK with Al Quaeda if those hijackers had commandeered empty planes and flew them into the twin towers after everyone had gone home?

No, but that's a ridiculous comparison because it never would have happened. People were working 24/7 in those towers and hijackers could never have commandeered empty planes, so your effort fails.

In any event, there would have been people in the Twin towers at ANY time of day or night, and so firefighters would have gone in trying to evacuate them. So there's no way it could happen as you describe.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Would you have been OK with Al Quaeda if those hijackers had commandeered empty planes and flew them into the twin towers after everyone had gone home?

No, but that's a ridiculous comparison because it never would have happened. People were working 24/7 in those towers and hijackers could never have commandeered empty planes, so your effort fails.

In any event, there would have been people in the Twin towers at ANY time of day or night, and so firefighters would have gone in trying to evacuate them. So there's no way it could happen as you describe.

You cannot be this stupid. There is no way in hell you could be too dense to comprehend exactly what I asked.

Terrorism is terrorism, whether it's a Sicilian from La Cosa Nostra or a Saudi from Al Quaeda. It shouldn't require people to die to make it a problem.

[lerxstcat]

Would you have been OK with Al Quaeda if those hijackers had commandeered empty planes and flew them into the twin towers after everyone had gone home?

No, but that's a ridiculous comparison because it never would have happened. People were working 24/7 in those towers and hijackers could never have commandeered empty planes, so your effort fails.

In any event, there would have been people in the Twin towers at ANY time of day or night, and so firefighters would have gone in trying to evacuate them. So there's no way it could happen as you describe.

You cannot be this stupid. There is no way in hell you could be too dense to comprehend exactly what I asked.

Terrorism is terrorism, whether it's a Sicilian from La Cosa Nostra or a Saudi from Al Quaeda. It shouldn't require people to die to make it a problem.

I found it hard to believe you even posited such a stupid comparison, that is true. For you to try to say that the loss of 3000+ lives is immaterial is more than just stupid though, it's reprehensible.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I found it hard to believe you even posited such a stupid comparison, that is true. For you to try to say that the loss of 3000+ lives is immaterial is more than just stupid though, it's reprehensible.

I never said the loss of life was immaterial. I said terrorism should not be tolerated in any form nor trivialized on the basis of targets. Random acts of violence to coerce and intimidate others into acceding to one's goals is unacceptable, no matter how many (or few) die. That's simple enough, isn't it? Don't be a fuckhead like roxxtard or NeverMomma.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

I found it hard to believe you even posited such a stupid comparison, that is true. For you to try to say that the loss of 3000+ lives is immaterial is more than just stupid though, it's reprehensible.

I never said the loss of life was immaterial. I said terrorism should not be tolerated in any form nor trivialized on the basis of targets. Random acts of violence to coerce and intimidate others into acceding to one's goals is unacceptable, no matter how many (or few) die. That's simple enough, isn't it? Don't be a fuckhead like roxxtard or NeverMomma.

He's not being a fuckhead. Your (re)definition of terrorism is too broad. Saying that Sicilians carrying out mafia violence is terrorism cannot be justified in any sense of the history of the word. Nor can "terrorism" be committed by countries like the United States, Israel, or even Iran. Terrorism is committed by individuals or factions motivated by a political or religious ideology. If someone from the Gambino crime family car bombs a member of a rival family, he isn't a terrorist. Or when Arab countries say that Israel is a "terrorist state", that's a concerted effort to broaden the definition in order to weaken or equivocate its meaning. In other words to make real terrorists not look so bad.

And whether you like Vinnie Kulick or shagg or not, when they say that the majority of terrorist attacks, as we know them, have been committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, they are correct. They know it. And you know it too. So does the majority of Western Civilization. Splitting hairs about it serves no purpose.

[thejuggernaut]

I found it hard to believe you even posited such a stupid comparison, that is true. For you to try to say that the loss of 3000+ lives is immaterial is more than just stupid though, it's reprehensible.

I never said the loss of life was immaterial. I said terrorism should not be tolerated in any form nor trivialized on the basis of targets. Random acts of violence to coerce and intimidate others into acceding to one's goals is unacceptable, no matter how many (or few) die. That's simple enough, isn't it? Don't be a fuckhead like roxxtard or NeverMomma.

He's not being a fuckhead. Your (re)definition of terrorism is too broad. Saying that Sicilians carrying out mafia violence is terrorism cannot be justified in any sense of the history of the word. Nor can "terrorism" be committed by countries like the United States, Israel, or even Iran. Terrorism is committed by individuals or factions motivated by a political or religious ideology. If someone from the Gambino crime family car bombs a member of a rival family, he isn't a terrorist. Or when Arab countries say that Israel is a "terrorist state", that's a concerted effort to broaden the definition in order to weaken or equivocate its meaning. In other words to make real terrorists not look so bad.

And whether you like Vinnie Kulick or shagg or not, when they say that the majority of terrorist attacks, as we know them, have been committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, they are correct. They know it. And you know it too. So does the majority of Western Civilization. Splitting hairs about it serves no purpose.

In the interest of taking it WAY out there, yet still under the broad umbrella of the statement "Random acts of violence to coerce and intimidate others into acceding to one's goals is unacceptable, no matter how many (or few) die. That's simple enough, isn't it?", the following must be considered terrorists:

Schoolyard bullies
Kids who fight back against schoolyard bullies
Parents who spank their kids
Parents who have a device that makes a loud snapping noise that scares kids
Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez and other pitchers of that ilk
Football players
Hockey players
Mike Tyson

Hey, wait. Tyson converted to Islam in jail and.....

Meh.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

It’s a shame it wasn’t a Synagogue, every one of those buildings need blown up.

Not that your complete stupidity doesn't take care of it anyway, but do you realize your anti-semitism invalidates every opinion you have on this board?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

He's not being a fuckhead. Your (re)definition of terrorism is too broad. Saying that Sicilians carrying out mafia violence is terrorism cannot be justified in any sense of the history of the word. Nor can "terrorism" be committed by countries like the United States, Israel, or even Iran. Terrorism is committed by individuals or factions motivated by a political or religious ideology. If someone from the Gambino crime family car bombs a member of a rival family, he isn't a terrorist. Or when Arab countries say that Israel is a "terrorist state", that's a concerted effort to broaden the definition in order to weaken or equivocate its meaning. In other words to make real terrorists not look so bad.

And whether you like Vinnie Kulick or shagg or not, when they say that the majority of terrorist attacks, as we know them, have been committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, they are correct. They know it. And you know it too. So does the majority of Western Civilization. Splitting hairs about it serves no purpose.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun

— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective

Apparently, it's only terrorism when perpetrated by Allah lovin' sandniggers.

In the interest of taking it WAY out there, yet still under the broad umbrella of the statement "Random acts of violence to coerce and intimidate others into acceding to one's goals is unacceptable, no matter how many (or few) die. That's simple enough, isn't it?", the following must be considered terrorists:

Schoolyard bullies
Kids who fight back against schoolyard bullies
Parents who spank their kids
Parents who have a device that makes a loud snapping noise that scares kids
Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez and other pitchers of that ilk
Football players
Hockey players
Mike Tyson

Hey, wait. Tyson converted to Islam in jail and.....

Meh.

Reductio ad absurdum

[VinnieKulick]

Hey, did you hear about those two guys who were arrested trying to get to the Middle East to get terror training? Anybody want to guess if they were Irish?

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Hey, did you hear about those two guys who were arrested trying to get to the Middle East to get terror training? Anybody want to guess if they were Irish?

Yeah, it was Seamus al O'Hassan and his little brother Liam.