# Profile of a Killer



## The Last Legionary (Jul 23, 2011)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eivik-right-wing-extremist-hated-Muslims.html



> *The man responsible for the massacre in Norway* was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.





> It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who *hated Muslims*.





> According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is *a member of 'Nordisk' which has 22,000 members* and focuses on political terrorism.





> Officers also found a series of *raving internet posts* by the 32-year-old, who has been charged with two counts of terrorism after gunning down children on the island of Utoya and detonating a bomb in Oslo yesterday.





> On his Facebook profile, Breivik describes himself as *a Christian and a conservative.*





> According the website Atlantic.com, Breivik *expressed extremist Islamophobic views on forums* and criticised immigration policies.





> He argued on a Swedish news website that t*he media were not critical enough about Islam* and claimed that Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom in the Netherlands was the only 'true' party of conservatives.





> He argued that *socialism* was breaking down traditions, culture, national identity and other societal structures and that this in turn made society weak and confused.





> Police said later that the suspect had *right-wing and anti-Muslim views*, but the motive for the attacks was unclear.



Thank God no one on MartialTalk fits this profile. I'd be worried about my safety.


----------



## Buka (Jul 23, 2011)

How can a man kill children? Answer - he can't. That person is a monster. He should be treated as one.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 23, 2011)

Buka said:


> How can a man kill children? Answer - he can't. That person is a monster. He should be treated as one.



Oh I agree.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 23, 2011)

he didnt attack muslims, he attacked a group of young socialists


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2011)

Buka said:


> How can a man kill children? Answer - he can't. That person is a monster. He should be treated as one.



The problem is that he's not alone in his views and if what's reported is true that he's a neo Nazi, I'm afraid there are more monsters out there begat by the original Nazi monsters. Many Nazi watchers have been fearing this for a long time and we also fear that more is to come.


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> he didnt attack muslims, he attacked a group of young socialists



Hating or fearing one group of people does not mean you can't hate another just as bad...
And 'socialist' here vs socialist there is just not the same.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2011)

The Norwegian Labour Party.
http://arbeiderpartiet.no/Kontakt/Information-in-English


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 23, 2011)

I saw the headlines in today's paper and then read the internet CNN report and my heart broke. Children. For some reason it would've hurt less had he attacked a group of adults, it still would've hurt but not as badly. But children for God's sake. Innocent ones that have only begun to live their lives. 
Monster is correct and hopefully Norwegian justice will give him what he deserves. 

Neo-nazi. I made a post a little while ago about them and their attempts to keep their lore alive via symbols and numbers. They're out there and probably rank up there with radical extreme muslims as the most dangerous people on the planet. We got them here in America and HAD them here for a long time. How long before one of them attempts the same horrific feat? How long before their own little cells are activated across the country and across Europe as well. 
This guy, isn't the end of the story or the end of the horror.

One of my thoughts was, that the anti-gun activists are going to be frothing at the mouth about it and using this horror as an "example". But pro-guns folk should use this as an example as well that people need to be armed. How many lives would've been saved had one or two adults on that island been armed and shot back at the guy? 

Ah, my heart... excuse me while I go weep for the children and survivors.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> I saw the headlines in today's paper and then read the internet CNN report and my heart broke. Children. For some reason it would've hurt less had he attacked a group of adults, it still would've hurt but not as badly. But children for God's sake. Innocent ones that have only begun to live their lives.
> Monster is correct and hopefully Norwegian justice will give him what he deserves.
> 
> Neo-nazi. I made a post a little while ago about them and their attempts to keep their lore alive via symbols and numbers. They're out there and probably rank up there with radical extreme muslims as the most dangerous people on the planet. We got them here in America and HAD them here for a long time. How long before one of them attempts the same horrific feat? How long before their own little cells are activated across the country and across Europe as well.
> ...




I think if the anti and pro gun people are arguing it will be in America, it's not really such an issue in Europe. There is interest of course but the argument isn't as bitter as it seems to be among Americans.

In Europe we have been aware of the neo Nazis for a long time, we have a couple of groups here who are watched closely by the intelligence services, the groups do have links to others in Europe as well as America. It's part of the horror in Norway that the last time so many were killed like this was during the war by the first Nazis.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> he didnt attack muslims, he attacked a group of young socialists



Must be disappointing. He didn't attack muslims, and he ain't one either. Nothing to talk about then eh? Was holding out hope he'd be muslim eh? So we can see more 'animals' posts?  Must chafe when someone does something like this, and the egg dries and gets itchy. There's a mirror here.

Oh, and he attacked kids. Children.  Regardless of his allegience, thats still scum. Shame he'll get 21 years at best.  I'm partial to air dancing for this kind of douche.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 24, 2011)

I suppose it does help to know so that his group will be watched even closely. So the question is how long before the next one pops up? How to anticipate the next attack. This guy must've been totally out of the blue. As everyday looking guy this was... sigh. 

Yeah here in the states the anti/pro gun debate will likely heat up if it hasn't already. How it will go will be anyone's guess.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Yeah here in the states the anti/pro gun debate will likely heat up if it hasn't already. How it will go will be anyone's guess.


Gun laws in Norway are more restrictive than they are here, one would think that would indicate gun laws don't prevent crimes like this.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 24, 2011)

if you spent HALF as much time thinking as you do putting words in people's mouths, you would be a genius just with this post.

stick to what people actually say, not what you imagine they might say

your accuracy is poor.





The Last Legionary said:


> Must be disappointing. He didn't attack muslims, and he ain't one either. Nothing to talk about then eh? Was holding out hope he'd be muslim eh? So we can see more 'animals' posts?  Must chafe when someone does something like this, and the egg dries and gets itchy. There's a mirror here.
> 
> Oh, and he attacked kids. Children.  Regardless of his allegience, thats still scum. Shame he'll get 21 years at best.  I'm partial to air dancing for this kind of douche.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 24, 2011)

i was wondering what he used, i mean, 80+ kills? thats a LOT of ammo


yes, kids, yes, monster, blah blah blah


the forensics though horrible, are interesting, 

maybe it is a european thing, but i have never heard of summer camps for young socialists....


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if you spent HALF as much time thinking as you do putting words in people's mouths, you would be a genius just with this post.
> 
> stick to what people actually say, not what you imagine they might say
> 
> your accuracy is poor.



I'm sorry, I just pictured you fwaping at the thought of being able to go on yet another 5-10 word rant about how evil moslums are, how their religion requires them to do it and so forth. Typing with 1 hand has to be tiring. You said Christians don't do this, yet here is a Christian who did exactly what you said they don't.  I'm positive if I go back and dig around I could find the exact quote but you're not that important and I have to spread cheer to several other forums before I crawl back in my truck and headon out again.

Oh and the camps thing, there are a lot of camps. In the US it's usually bible camp, and young republican camp and boy scout camp. Oh and fat camp. I met some great kenpo masters there. :mst: For now, I shall leave you with this:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 24, 2011)

when a muslim does something liek this? it isnt even news because it is COMMON. WHen a christian does it it is a big deal because it is so rare.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 24, 2011)

You sure do get excited when someone desribes you so well. That first post highlights most of your posting here.
Read this, you might learn something. I doubt it, I doubt you can, you've been slapped in the face with facts, truths and relity so often you neck has to hurt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

But you keep on running around about that muslum sky falling thing. I'll keep laughing at you and your kind.
Say, you missed posting and gloating about that Pakistani kid who got hung. You're slippin Fister.
Now go away, you bore me.



> The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion.  The proof?  Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort.  Unfortunately for them, that&#8217;s not quite true.  More like six percent.  Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews).  Let them dare say it&#8230;they couldn&#8217;t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
> The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too &#8220;politically correct&#8221; to criticize Islam and Muslims.  Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent.  Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country?  (For the record: I don&#8217;t believe in such profiling, because I am&#8211;unlike the right wing nutters&#8211;a believer in American ideals.)



Man that mirror you're lookin in's taking a beating.  So calm the **** down, stop being a paranoid *** wipe and come back to the real world. These guys is talkin at you homeslice!
:roflmao:


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 24, 2011)

> Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
> 
> According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%).  These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.  These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.



Who does a wise man believe? Actual FBI and government data, or media hype and bigoted vomet?



> The anti-Muslim loons of the world are in a major bind right now. Their intolerant anti-Muslim attitude and constant fear-mongering is responsible for the horrible terrorist attack that occurred in Norway.


http://www.loonwatch.com/category/loon-religion/loon-at-large/

Fear created this tragedy. Even an ******* like me can see this much.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 25, 2011)

Your posting are empty and contain nothing to add to the discourse, welcome to the iggy list.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 25, 2011)

Yay, the ignorant racist bigot put me on ignore because he didn't like the truth.
1 down, 6 billion more to go! Wheeee!
:ak47::shock:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 25, 2011)

*ENOUGH ALREADY!

Sheesh.*


----------



## billc (Jul 25, 2011)

Violence by muslims stats:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

From the aricle:

(3,098 killed 
by Muslims in America in 67 terror attacks)​------------------------------------------------------

Hate crimes in america against americans of the jewish faith:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=38500

from the article:


WASHINGTON &#8211; Who hates whom in America?
If the latest FBI hate-crime statistics are any indication, of the 1,314  verified offenses motivated by religious bias, 68.5 percent were anti-Jewish.
Only 11.1 percent were anti-Islamic, despite claims of rampant anti-Muslim  bigotry in the U.S. by groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations. 
Across the board, hate crimes in the U.S. dropped last year by 6 percent,  according to the 2005 FBI report release last week, although violence against  people based on their race accounted more than half of the reported incidents.
Police nationwide reported 7,163 hate crime incidents in 2005, targeting  victims based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and  disabilities. That was down from 2004, when the FBI reported 7,649 incidents._(Story continues below)

The data was collected from police agencies across the country, representing  city, county, state, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies.

Read more: American Jews top hate-crime targets http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=38500#ixzz1T6AhO1Ku_


Read more: American Jews top hate-crime targets http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=38500#ixzz1T6AJK5W7
--------------------------------------

2009 some stats:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/hate_112210/hate_112210

From the article:

Of the 1,575 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, 71.9 percent were victims because of an offender&#8217;s anti-Jewish bias.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 25, 2011)

thereligionofpeace.com is a hate site run by islamophobes. Only another islamophobe would find them a proper source.



http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05
Reading through this, you find the islamohobes are simply wrong. 

But we're off topic here. I'm very familiar with that road, haha!

In my topic start, I pointed out the traits of a looney. A dangerous individual, one likely to pick up arms and start blowing things up and killing little kids.
We then had someone wander in and wonder about the Norway gunmans gear and load.
Does he fit the profile for a deranged islamophobic killer?


member of a forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.
extreme right wing views who hated Muslims.
a member of 'Nordisk' which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism.
raving internet posts.
a Christian and a conservative.
expressed extremist Islamophobic views on forums and criticised immigration policies.
argued that the media were not critical enough about Islam
He argued that socialism was breaking down traditions, culture, national identity and other societal structures and that this in turn made society weak and confused.
had right-wing and anti-Muslim views.

There is the check list. How many of these fit I wonder? 
1 not that I know
2 yup
3 not that I know
4 yup
5 yes and yes again
6 yes and i don't know
7 yes
8 I think he did
9 yes again.
So, 8 out of 10 matches to a Christian looney who blew up a building and murdered 100 people in cold blood.
I'd hate to match that profile.

If you don't like the reflection in the mirror mate, change your face. Don't get parsnickity with the messenger for pointing out you're a a high risk case for being considered a raving looney. Of course, he'll claim 'personal insult' as disagreement is always an insult and personal affront with these types. It's not an insult when it's true. His argument. I'm just repeating it. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go. There are some nice suited men at my door wanting to talk about Jesus and I haven't had breakfast yet. I wonder if they have any children? :roflmao:


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 25, 2011)

Oh before I go.



> *How To Profile A Terrorist.*
> [FONT=arial !important]BY *ADAM SERWER* | POSTED 09/23/2010 AT 03:10 PM
> [/FONT]http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=09&year=2010&base_name=how_to_profile_a_terrorist
> You can't. Or at least, it's very hard to, according to the *Congressional Research Service's report on homegrown terrorism*:
> ...


​
As the author put it


> *UPDATE:* I'm amused by some of the comments on this thread to the effect of, "the common thread is that these terrorists are all Muslim." Congratulations: You've just narrowed it down to 1.5 billion people.


That just says "phobe". 1.5 billion isn't a sample, it's not a profile, it's a pool. The pool isn't all bad, no pool is, well, except for that one I had that accident in but we wont talk of it any more. No, I insist. That was years ago and it's been disinfected.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 25, 2011)

Although Bob's asked for civility here, I'm going to take a different route, since some people aren't getting it:

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this discussion civil, and on-topic.  

If you have a problem with someone, you're always free to use the "ignore" feature built into the vBulletin forum software.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2011)

http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

Have fun!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 25, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
> 
> Have fun!


3.166666   You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 3.166666   You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.



3.8 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American. 

Hell I could've told you THAT...  

fun test though. some tricky questions...


----------



## crushing (Jul 25, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
> 
> Have fun!



2.2666666666666666
You are a liberal airhead.


----------



## Carol (Jul 25, 2011)

2.933333333333333

You are a liberal airhead.   :lfao:

Dang science questions.


----------



## granfire (Jul 25, 2011)

4

Disciplined but tolerant, a true American 

:lfao:
(in your face, billi!!)


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 25, 2011)

4.16


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2011)

The creator of the F (fascist) Scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno


----------



## Steve (Jul 25, 2011)

I'm a 3. You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

I also agree with every single thing Last Legionary wrote, and more, I am glad it was said. I believe it needs to be said. Some of the things said here by mostly one person are dangerously extremist... so extremist right-wing at times that I would not be surprised if it's on a watch list somewhere.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm a 3. You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
> 
> I also agree with every single thing Last Legionary wrote, and more, I am glad it was said. I believe it needs to be said. Some of the things said here by mostly one person are dangerously extremist... so extremist right-wing at times that I would not be surprised if it's on a watch list somewhere.



I believe Steve is correct, Last Legionary could have written it more politely to make it 'nicer' to read but it is the truth. The extreme right wing views are worrying, if these were expresed in my workplace for example there would be serious questions asked.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 25, 2011)

the extreem left wing views expressed here are just as worrying, and they have the added pain in the *** of being pure fantasy, just like steve's and LL's posts, and yours too.

YOU have been advocating silencing a certain poster around here, THATS worrying.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2011)

Who's extreme left wing views? there are no left wing views here. And who's been advocating silencing anyone, I've just said I'm sick of reading some posts and will make it a point to answer back, refute and generally make sure another side of the argument is put.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 25, 2011)

This site is full of cops.  There are at least 4 FBI agents on here. 2 Air Marshals. More military than I can count. 1 CIA agent that I am aware of. 1 Secret Service agent, that I am aware of.  At least 1 sitting US Senator or his staff has visited as well.

The US government, it's agents, it's offices and its enforcers are well acquainted with MartialTalk.com and its contents.  I can read the server logs, and do, and can do IP lookups, trace routes and chuckle at the amount of .gov addresses in there. 

I'm not worried.  Not at all.
You all shouldn't be either.  We're not a nutter site, we may lean a bit one way or the other, but no one here is screaming revolution, uprising or assassination. 
The nutter sites, are well scouted out by the PTB and they are well aware of what is going on.

As to this thread, it's being discussed by the staff.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 25, 2011)

You guys who said muslims are dangerous and the religion tells them to kill read about mark stroman and the MUSLIM who fought for his life because he said his religion says he should forgive him.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 25, 2011)

yeah, cuz what is true of ONE is true of ALL........


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2011)

We have Muslims in our armed forces and yes they fought in Iraq and are in Afghanistan. There are Muslims all round the world who have no thoughts of harming anyone, there are different sects of Muslims, the Sufi for example who have no thoughts of harming anyone. We don't judge Christians by one group why should we do the same with Muslims? We dont judge Americans by what one group does, or should we? Do we judge Americans as all being members of the KKK or it's polar opposite the 'Black Power' movement? Do we judge American Christians as all being the same as those in that little town I saw on televison where they all handle rattlesnakes in church? No we know better than that, so why are all Muslims judged as being the same?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

no one does that, not that i know of. i certainly dont


----------



## clfsean (Jul 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 3.166666   You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.



3.466666666666667 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 26, 2011)

This thread began as a take on Breivik.  I think that has come and gone.

Why do any of us - of any opinion - seek to change the views of others that do not share our view?  Are we so arrogant to think that ours is the only right way?  

Islam and Christianity are both founded on ideals which when operated upon and interpreted IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN underpin our peaceful and tolerant societies.  We do not practice our martial arts to kill, as they were originally designed.  We understand and work from their foundational contexts with no fundamental adherence to those. When biblical and qur'an ideals are misunderstood and thus misinterpreted for the ends of any sect then we have this ridiculous fundamentalism, the effects of which are too painfully plain, and supporters who adhere to nothing except the caprices of their own bigotry.

These ill-advised, uneducated and decontextualised interpretations of holy texts are rife in every religion.  None can claim any moral high ground over the other.

Unfortunately the kind of blanket statements that these forum discussions continually unearth form the foundations to all kinds of Anders Breivik style naive and contorted misapprehensions of how the world really is.

Whatever


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2011)

With or without religions human nature is such that some people will always seek to make others think as they wish them to. the Norwegian killer has the supreme arrogance that many fanatics have, of believing they and only they are correct in their thinking and actions. According to them, it's their purpose to point out to the rest of us the error of our ways. People like this can be of any religion, any political persuasion and sometimes of none at all but they share the common trait of believing that they are the only ones who are correct. When they start believing that actions speak loudr than words the deaths in Nowray are what result. 

It's wrong to believe that all adherents of these people's beliefs are the same however, luckily human nature also provides us with people who can think for themselves, who are able to live in peace and to follow a different interpretation of religions, political viewpoints etc.

TF you can't say no one brands all Muslims the same after posting _"yeah, cuz what is true of ONE is true of ALL........", _you're contradicting yourself.

It's a cliche to say there's good and bad in all but it doesn't stop it being true.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 26, 2011)

2.6333333333333333
You are a liberal airhead.

I guess critical thinking makes you an airhead. :idunno:

Oh, regarding the thread. I agree with steve and Tez that the content of LL's posts concerning Islamophobia is accurate, although I'd have preferred he kept out the ad hominems against TF. 

Islam is a religion; while not an expert on either by any stretch of the imagination, I've heard nothing to suggest that Islam is any more or less violent than Christianity. Either can be hijacked by radical whackos to justify genocide. Notably, both have been; Muslim radicals are just the terrorists who've been prominent in the (American) public eye for the last decade. That doesn't mean that they're the only serious terrorist threat; there are neo-Nazi terrorists, environmental terrorists, the IRA, and a host of others I know I can't think of. 

I consider the view that Islamic terrorists are the worst, most common, and/or most threatening terrorists to be a viewpoint deliberately narrowed to the concerns of the day. One has to ignore a lot of information to believe that Islamic terrorists represent the majority of Muslims. Bill Mattocks has made frequent posts showing that their view of Islam is a ridiculously minority view among Muslims. Additionally, someone in this thread earlier (my apologies for forgetting who) indicated that Islamic terrorist attacks comprise a small percentage of total terrorist attacks _when viewed in the long-term. _It's only by viewing the very _short-term_ history that one can maintain the idea that Islamic terrorists are the most common type.

This discussion does very much tie in to the OP about the Norway bomber, and it's a discussion I think the Study community needs to have. To that end, though, PLEASE keep the ad hominem attacks out of it! Personally, I think this thread has some value and it would be a shame to see it locked.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2011)

Thread Closed.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2011)

After a request, I'm going to reopen the thread.  Just a quick note:  This thread has already generated a few reported posts.  Lets try to avoid anymore please, and drop the personal shots.  Stay on topic.  Different opinions are common.  Just because someone disagrees with someone, doesnt mean you have to insult them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2011)

The threat of terrorism isn't coming from the Muslims as such, it's coming from Al Queda and it's offshoots. When we look at the violence in Northern Ireland we don't say the terrorists are Christian we specify IRA, Provos, the Red Hand gang etc. It causes less confusion if we name the actual group, less chance of tarring everyone with the same brush. Terrorists often have an agenda other than just the cause they say they support, the terrorists cells in Northern Ireland for example from both sides of the divide deal in drugs and protection and have been known to co-operate to enable their businesses to prosper. Al Queda isn't just about Islam they have other issues as well, namely what all terrorist groups want...power and all that goes with it. In the UK we've dealt with a number of terrorist groups over the years in countries as diverse as Cyprus, Malaya, Oman and Kenya and it's rarely about just 'the cause', in nearly all cases though the 'peace' has been found by negociation not violence.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 26, 2011)

ok. I started this because one of the problems with this site right now is you can't seem to throw a stick around here lately without some wackaloon riding full tilt through a discussion screaming "the muslums are coming". No, I'm not just talking about Fister there, but he is as others have noted the most visible. I don't come to this Martial Arts site to read paranoid extremist dribbling. No, I can't just "not read it". It contaminates everything. I get which part I'm in, but some of the topics interest me, even if I don't often chime in. I also happen to like the site. I support it. I don't want to pop over some time and see a government "sorry we took the box" notice.
Because some extremist hypocrites couldn't keep their paranoia and over reactions and all that jazz in check.  I cuold cite samples. I'm sure it would be seen not as eye opening, but as harassment. Whatever. This isn't all about Fister though.  This is a gut-check for everyone, me too.  I put up some "warning signs".  You can change them up a bit, swap faiths or switch to races or nationalities or whatever floats your cupcake.  Run yourself through them and count them up. See how 'dangerous' you are.

Extreme anything is dangerous. Kaith's posted statistics, facts, reports, and I've lost count. From reliable mainline sources. Others post stuff from wackaloon sites pushing agenda's. This is like the teaching creation stuff. The gun debates. The Blaming Bush debates.  Remember those? It's all Bush's fault, even though it was the 100 Senators and 500+ Representatives who wrote the laws, passed the bills and all that crap? It's all Obama's fault, even though it was the 100 Senators and 500+ Representatives who wrote the laws, passed the bills et.

Terrorism is simple.  Scared angry people lash out against innocents, because they think it will change the world. They are right, it does. Usually not the way they think.
Bigotry is simple too.  Fear of the different. A delusion of superiority. A Texas Redneck or NY Yankee ain't no better than an Arabian Camel Jockey or Mexican Wetback.
Just different.  Except me. I'm perfect. My mom told me so just before she dropped me on my head.

I don't usually write a lot. Not my style really. I prefer to lurk and read. But things are going ugly the last few, and it would be nice to get back to "friendly" more.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2011)

The Cypriot terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOKA_B

I think many are either too young or don't know about his, my other half was sent to Cyrprus just after the Turkish invasion, he went when I was three months pregnant with our son and came home when the baby was three months old so I have reason to remember! Also because it was very dangerous at the time with a couple of British soldiers being killed.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 26, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The threat of terrorism isn't coming from the Muslims as such, it's coming from Al Queda and it's offshoots. When we look at the violence in Northern Ireland we don't say the terrorists are Christian we specify IRA, Provos, the Red Hand gang etc. It causes less confusion if we name the actual group, less chance of tarring everyone with the same brush. Terrorists often have an agenda other than just the cause they say they support, the terrorists cells in Northern Ireland for example from both sides of the divide deal in drugs and protection and have been known to co-operate to enable their businesses to prosper. Al Queda isn't just about Islam they have other issues as well, namely what all terrorist groups want...power and all that goes with it. In the UK we've dealt with a number of terrorist groups over the years in countries as diverse as Cyprus, Malaya, Oman and Kenya and it's rarely about just 'the cause', in nearly all cases though the 'peace' has been found by negociation not violence.



But you have first hand knowledge of these things. Most forumites don't. Thankfully I might add. Becuase while the threat of terrorism is a big deal, actual terror attacks are few and far between.  You hit on another important thing. It's not all about the stated goal. "The Cause" is often a cover story for "make lots of money, get powerful, live life well".


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2011)

The Last Legionary said:


> But you have first hand knowledge of these things. Most forumites don't. Thankfully I might add. Becuase while the threat of terrorism is a big deal, actual terror attacks are few and far between. You hit on another important thing. It's not all about the stated goal. "The Cause" is often a cover story for "make lots of money, get powerful, live life well".



"Forumites"? I like that. I'm afraid the UK has had it's share of people who disagree with it, in many cases with good reason though not all have taken to violence.

History is littered with people and groups who think they have the answer for all mankind and proceed to impose their thoughts on evryone they could, no one religion or political thought has the monopoly on this, in most cases religions have been used as justification for the deeds of these people. The statement' you have offended the gods' has often been reason to get rid of people who oppose you, 'enemy of the state' is another such phrase used to dispose of 'troublemakers'.
In the UK we've had bombs going off with an almost regular monotony, not always the Provos sometimes it's other 'beliefs' such as this, distubingly similiar to the Norwegian killer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

And these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Angry_Brigade


List of attacks in London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London


Attacks in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom


It doesn't sound good for the tourist industry but I can assure you that it's a safe and welcoming place to come to for a good holiday! Remember the saying 'Don't panic and carry on!'


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

I never panic. I know where my towel is.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> TF you can't say no one brands all Muslims the same after posting _"yeah, cuz what is true of ONE is true of ALL........", _you're contradicting yourself.




uh, no i am not

I have said, many, MANY times that there is no "all"

I have said many many times, in regards to muslim people, that the dangerous ones are not all, not most, a small percentage, but still many.

you can lie and claim i said a million other things, but THAT is what I actually said

i dont care what you THINK i said, i dont care what you THINK i meant, i said what i said. And it isnt what you are claiming.


----------



## poollshark (Jul 26, 2011)

3.6

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

I already knew this :ultracool


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2011)

Here is a video clip of Bill O'reilly taking on the "profile of a killer," offered by the media, he does it quite well.  He also addresses  the "radical muslim terrorist vs. christian terrorist" aspect of the coverage.

http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/07...ard-regarding-norwegian-mass-murderer-brevik/


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 26, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i dont care what you THINK i said, i dont care what you THINK i meant, i said what i said. And it isnt what you are claiming.



Quick little exercise for you.  Go to your profile, click "view all posts", scan through the relevant topics, and see how frequently you type "the muslims".  Not Al-Queda, not the Taliban, not "islamic terrorists", not even "Palestinians", but "the muslims".  Then reconsider why Tez and so many other forumites (I really love that word) think you have a problem with "the muslims".


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2011)

What a lot of the people who post here overlook is the state based nature of radical muslim terrorism.  The Arab spring may very well see radical muslim extremists with a great deal of control in countries that were content to oppress their own people, Egypt, Libya, Syria, but under the influence of the muslim brotherhood, may in the years ahead become an exporter of violence like Iran and Iraq were or at least become bases of operation like afghanistan was.  Radical muslim extremism is dangerous because of its state sponsorship, its desire through its state sponsorship to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, and the way they are not percieved as the level of threat they deserve.  All muslims are not terrorists but "main stream" muslims aren't the ones we are worried about.  If they controlled the governments in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria there wouldn't be the danger.  They don't control those countries and the former dictatorships are falling apart but won't be replaced by "moderate" muslims.  

In the video I posted on "The Soviet Story," it shows a small newspaper clip of a little known political party in Germany, you know, the Nazis.  A lot of intellectuals and political figures in he west talked about them the way they are talking about the muslim brotherhood today.  We may very well be in the modern version of 1920's europe with the "Arab spring."   The only thing holding back the extremists before was the strong man dictators who wanted to oppress the people.  The radical muslim extremists aren't content to do the same thing.  They want these countries so they can eventually spread their faith.  The other thing that will slow down the radical muslim terrorist types is the fact that the countries they take control of through the "arab spring," are in such bad straights.

The desire to dismiss the threat now, may very well be the same mistake made with the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia back then.


----------



## granfire (Jul 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> What a lot of the people who post here overlook is the state based nature of radical muslim terrorism.  The Arab spring may very well see radical muslim extremists with a great deal of control in countries that were content to oppress their own people, Egypt, Libya, Syria, but under the influence of the muslim brotherhood, may in the years ahead become an exporter of violence like Iran and Iraq were or at least become bases of operation like afghanistan was.  Radical muslim extremism is dangerous because of its state sponsorship, its desire through its state sponsorship to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, and the way they are not percieved as the level of threat they deserve.  All muslims are not terrorists but "main stream" muslims aren't the ones we are worried about.  If they controlled the governments in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria there wouldn't be the danger.  They don't control those countries and the former dictatorships are falling apart but won't be replaced by "moderate" muslims.
> 
> In the video I posted on "The Soviet Story," it shows a small newspaper clip of a little known political party in Germany, you know, the Nazis.  A lot of intellectuals and political figures in he west talked about them the way they are talking about the muslim brotherhood today.  We may very well be in the modern version of 1920's europe with the "Arab spring."   The only thing holding back the extremists before was the strong man dictators who wanted to oppress the people.  The radical muslim extremists aren't content to do the same thing.  They want these countries so they can eventually spread their faith.  The other thing that will slow down the radical muslim terrorist types is the fact that the countries they take control of through the "arab spring," are in such bad straights.
> 
> The desire to dismiss the threat now, may very well be the same mistake made with the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia back then.




Well, the 'little known party' was a direct result of the demands and contracts and obligations following WWI.
(and no, Hitler was not elected, because such was the mechanics of power in the Weimar republic: The President is elected (It was v Hindenburg, WWI veteran, staunch _monarchist_) who then had ole Adolf as his 'running mate' the Chancelor to be appointed (If you will Hindenburg, well in his 80s at the time was the Trojan horse for the Nazis.)
Following that debacle the constitution was reworked following 1945.

So, to get back to your brotherhood....
They may or may not end up in power. They certainly have the advantage of already being a formed group with all the necessary infrastructures and the 'who is who'
However, many of the countries you listed have a huge population that is very young. And many of them have grown restless with the same old people in power. people far removed from reality. 
Also, the lot of the countries you named, I think oil is always the common denominator. When the Indonesians topple the president, it's a footnote, though most people there are Muslim, too. 

Also, another detour through history, the mess of the middle east started when the land was carved up willy nilly into countries without any regard to the ethnicity of the people there.
I know you don't want to hear it, but the people in Iran have little in common with the people just across the border in Iraq, and much less yet with the people in Tunesia or Algeria....except they roll under the catch all of 'Muslim' 
But of course, there is the devil in the detail: Not all are created equal. Not all behave the same way or share the same values (maybe not all of them were being kept on chains by the west for so long for their natural riches)

There is a real danger in those countries, that is true.
However islamophobics don't do it justice or come even close to the point: The social structures of those countries is unstable. That always happens when there are a lot of people with no money and nothing to do. 
That's what happened in Germany in the late 1920s when a lot of the middle class people found themselves hit hard by the depression and the ongoing cost of the war (reparation payments were initially open ended, a modified version put an end to them in 19_86_) spending their days in line for welfare.
heck, if things continue the way they are now in the US you can expect something along this line here, too.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 26, 2011)

One thing I've noticed that adds to at least my consturnation about the whole thing. Is I have no real idea about muslim culture. So I'm thniking this.
And the more learned of you can enlighten me if you wish.
They have basically 2 main cultures Suni and Sheite but within those are several sub factions as well (Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Queda) . Add to that add in cultural things from their varried countries. Looks like a hard to understand mess to me. Hmm seems like the west has some things similar at least religeously (Catholic, Prod, Evangelical, Lutheran, Agnostic) and at least in the US Regional and such (Yankee, Rebel, Indian, you get the drift).
So it would seem that Some standard deffinitions would help. 
Heck I got no answers just a whole bunch of questions.

Might be easiest untill it all gets figured out to STAY OFF EACHOTHERS LAWN.

 , etc)))), etc.)etc


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 26, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> Might be easiest untill it all gets figured out to STAY OFF EACHOTHERS LAWN.
> 
> , etc)))), etc.)etc



That only goes so far when the different factions disagree over whose lawn it is.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 26, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> That only goes so far when the different factions disagree over whose lawn it is.



True but isn't possesion 9/10ths of the law?


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 26, 2011)

bill

confused by these assertions: I think you are, perhaps, just confused about the inclusion of Iran in that grouping, although I'm wondering how that confusion could occur, given attention to recent Iranian events and history. Perhaps an oversight or conflation.



billcihak said:


> Radical muslim extremism is dangerous because of its state sponsorship, its desire through its state sponsorship to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, and the way they are not percieved as the level of threat they deserve.  All muslims are not terrorists but "main stream" muslims aren't the ones we are worried about.  If they controlled the governments in *Iran,* (snipped) there wouldn't be the danger.  *They don't control *those countries and the former dictatorships are falling apart but won't be replaced by "moderate" muslims."
> 
> Iran is *currently* controlled by radical Shia Muslims (as I understand your assertions). The US supported dictator (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah until 1979) was driven out, exhiled himself and died. Certainly, that dictatorship was not "replaced by "moderate" muslims."  People may differ on the severity of the threat posed by the _*current*_ Iranian leadership, both religious/governmental but there can be no confusion regarding the suppresive measures taken within Iran currently.


 The only thing holding back the extremists before was the strong man dictators who wanted to oppress the people. [/QUOTE]

Quite successfully, for a time by the Shah, with enormous American (and other) financial and military support tragic consequences. Joint American and British efforts placed him in that position and contributed, regretfully, to the destruction of a valuable 'democratic'  strand in an admirable population. When his reign finally was ended, it was a religious led popular up-rising that accomplished it - but bill - that was in 1979/80, 30 years ago. How is it that you include Iran in your observation quoted? I'm confused, but not argumentative?


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 26, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> One thing I've noticed that adds to at least my consturnation about the whole thing. Is I have no real idea about muslim culture. So I'm thniking this.
> And the more learned of you can enlighten me if you wish.
> They have basically 2 main cultures Suni and Sheite but within those are several sub factions as well (Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Queda) . Add to that add in cultural things from their varried countries. Looks like a hard to understand mess to me. Hmm seems like the west has some things similar at least religeously (Catholic, Prod, Evangelical, Lutheran, Agnostic) and at least in the US Regional and such (Yankee, Rebel, Indian, you get the drift).
> So it would seem that Some standard deffinitions would help.
> ...



Well, according to one resident expert who I won't name but everyone can guess, the culture is simple: Kill Non Believers. Keep women down. 

Here, let our expert tell you:
[h=3]History of Islamic Hostility and an Analysis of Current Threat Potential[/h]





> islam preaches violence.





> the BOOK preaches violence wether they act on it or not


 and 





> the book commands violent death to the infidel.


 #13
There is this nugget or wisdom


> christians are not blowing **** up
> pretty much closes that argument down.


 #20


> TODAY i dont have to worry about christians blowing me up, i DO have to worry about muslims blowing my **** up.


#22


> but honor killings are cutural, not religious........despite them all being done by muslims.....


 #28
And so forth. 


> I have a problem with thier religion which is caustic and rotten from top to bottom
> founded by a pedophile, a warlord who proclaimed himself a prophet and killed anyone that disagreed
> he preached violence, rape torture and muder
> forced conversions
> ...


 #97

There you go. Everything you need to know. You can also refer to the thread where a number of posters post facts, figures and historical background.

See also 				[h=3]Who "crusaded" first, islam or christianity[/h]


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 26, 2011)

bill et al,

sorry, poorly edited by me. The following was part of my reply, sorry for any mis-understanding.

(reply to billC)
 Iran is *currently* controlled by radical Shia Muslims (as I  understand your assertions). The US supported dictator (Mohammad Reza  Pahlavi, Shah until 1979) was driven out, exhiled himself and died.  Certainly, that dictatorship was not "replaced by "moderate" muslims."   People may differ on the severity of the threat posed by the _*current*_  Iranian leadership, both religious/governmental but there can be no  confusion regarding the suppresive measures taken within Iran currently.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Jul 26, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
> 
> Have fun!



 3.6 You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Histerical!


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 26, 2011)

The Last Legionary said:


> the culture is simple: Kill Non Believers. Keep women down.


Thanks I like simple (1's and 0's)
So it is real simple. Stay off my lawn. And don't ask for my money.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2011)

iran is currently one of the chief exporters of terrorism, and funds and supplies soldiers, training and equiptment to the terrorists and other foriegn fighters killing our soldiers.  The radical muslim government in Iran, unlike the Shaw, finances the rocket attacks on Israel, exports terrorists to foreign countries and is trying to achieve nuclear statehood with an eye to threatening our forces in the middle east and Israel.  That wasn't happening when the shaw was in control.   A dictator, the shaw, was replaced not by moderate muslims, but by muslim extremists bent on spreading the hate.  The problems we have had in Iraq are a large part due to Iran.  Now imagine Egypt, Libya (which was exporting terrorism until reagan bombed the country, and then gave up its bad behavior after Bush invaded Iraq and Sadaam was hung) Syria, just not content to murder their own  and Israelis, but to exponentially increase terrorist activities because radical muslim groups have control of the government.  

Even the secular muslim country of Turkey is becoming slowly radicalized.  I am all for moderate, democrat governments overthrowing dictators and establishing governments that are good for the people.  I just don't see that happening when the radical muslim group, the muslim brotherhood, is put forth as the moderate force in these overthrows.  I wonder if you looked at funding for the muslim brother hood if Iran's name would be found in the money trail.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> Thanks I like simple (1's and 0's)
> So it is real simple. Stay off my lawn. And don't ask for my money.


I think that was sarcasm.  Though I like the "Stay off my lawn. And don't ask for my money."
Now if I could just convince Sam to do that.  You know Sam right?  He's my Uncle, lately down on his luck and begging everyone for cash. Keeps getting caught with his hands in someones pants at the airport.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2011)

Here is a BBC article on Iran's support of world wide terrorism...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

from the article:

he report charges that Iran's involvement in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, 
Afghanistan and in the Palestinian territories threatens efforts to promote 
peace, economic stability in the Gulf and democracy. 
The report singles out the Quds force, an elite branch of Iran's 
Revolutionary Guard as the channel through which Iran supports terrorist 
activities and groups abroad. 

The report also takes to task Syria, an Iranian ally in the region. 

Of equal concern, our correspondent notes, is the advance of al-Qaeda in 
Pakistan and Afghanistan where terrorist attacks are sharply on the rise while 
the rest of the world, including Iraq, has seen terrorist attacks decrease.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

I think if you're going to profile killers, you need to pick a few and start there.

We're obviously focusing on a particular type of killer here, the type that will do wholesale mass slaughter.

Here's a few case's, designated 'terrorist' actions. This omits a lot, Columbine for example.

In recent years, terrorists have performed acts of mass murder to intimidate a society and draw attention to their causes. Examples of major terrorist incidents involving mass murder of more than 100 individuals include:


June 23, 1985: Air India Flight 182 bombing over the Atlantic Ocean - 329 killed
December 21, 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Scotland - 270 killed
March 12, 1993: Bombay bombings - 257 killed
April 19, 1995: Oklahoma City bombing in the United States - 168 killed
August 7, 1998: U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - 224 killed
September 11, 2001: September 11 attacks in the United States - 2,998 killed
October 12, 2002: Bali bombing in Indonesia - 202 killed
March 2, 2004: Ashura massacre in Iraq - 170 killed
March 11, 2004: Madrid train bombings in Spain - 191 killed
September 4, 2004: Beslan school hostage crisis in Russia - 344 killed
February 28, 2005: Al Hillah bombing in Iraq - 127 killed
July 11, 2006: Mumbai train bombings in India - 207 killed
March 27, 2007: Tal Afar bombings and massacre in Iraq - 152 killed
August 14, 2007: Yazidi communities bombings in Iraq - 796 killed
November 26&#8211;28, 2008: 2008 Mumbai attacks in India - 185 killed
July 22, 2011: 2011 Norway attacks - 76 killed

You may also want to look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I think that was sarcasm. Though I like the "Stay off my lawn. And don't ask for my money."
> Now if I could just convince Sam to do that. You know Sam right? He's my Uncle, lately down on his luck and begging everyone for cash. Keeps getting caught with his hands in someones pants at the airport.



Oh yeah I forgot unless your my wife keep your hands outta my pants  (I was talking about that drug addicted uncle a few of us "Forumites" have)
Crap now it's getting complicated again.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

cuz they cant read very well.

i make note of makign sure i say "radicals" when talking about the PEOPLE

the religion says what it says, the good, non dangerous muslims are just not acting on the books instructions

i have said again and again, and i will say ONE LAST TIME SO PAY ATTENTION

i think the religion is well and truely screwed up

the people are by and large ok, depends on how seriously they take thier religion

do i need to be more clear? or do you wnt to pretend you know better than me what i say some more?

I am about tired of the no reading comprehension having see what they want to see people here.



RandomPhantom700 said:


> Quick little exercise for you.  Go to your profile, click "view all posts", scan through the relevant topics, and see how frequently you type "the muslims".  Not Al-Queda, not the Taliban, not "islamic terrorists", not even "Palestinians", but "the muslims".  Then reconsider why Tez and so many other forumites (I really love that word) think you have a problem with "the muslims".


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

can i play?



Bob Hubbard said:


> In recent years, terrorists have performed acts of mass murder to intimidate a society and draw attention to their causes. Examples of major terrorist incidents involving mass murder of more than 100 individuals include:
> 
> June 23, 1985: Air India Flight 182 bombing over the Atlantic Ocean - 329 killed
> December 21, 1988: Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Scotland - 270 killed
> ...





ok, how many of the attacks on that list were comitted by muslims versus christians?

and remember, this week in norway doesnt count since there is NO evidence whatsoever that this guy was religious AT ALL...same for Tim McVey, They dont count since they were not motivated by religion.



i'll wait

PS, while you try to warp the facts to TRY and make christianity and islam equally dangerous, dont blame me if i laugh


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

lets see:

Siks: 1
anti muslim white guy: 1
Islamic terrorists: 12-13
Anti government white guy: 1

yeah, tell me what groups are no threat again?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

You left out 2- Organized Crime

Your data on Oklahoma City and Norway are...incomplete.

As to the rest, no, I'm not going to argue with you on this again. Said all I need to in other threads.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2011)

Oklahoma City?  Do tell.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Oklahoma City?  Do tell.


All I said was his data is incomplete.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

Norway-anti muslim white guy, no religious involvment at all

Ok City- anti government white guy, no religious motivation at all

disagree?

as to the rest? you may not like it, but all of them were done by muslims, sure, not all, not most, but SOME muslims cared enough to do these horrible crimes


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Norway-anti muslim white guy, no religious involvment at all



Uhh....



> "This is a Norwegian person, born and grow up in Norway. He's 32 years old. He's not known by the police before so we have not arrested him before or anything like that," Acting* Police Chief Roger Andresen* said of Breivik.
> "On his website, as you've probably seen, *he describes himself as Christian and going to the right*," he added


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 26, 2011)

Theres a large difference between BEING of a religious denomination and ACTING (_ahem _Jihad _ahem_) based on religious beliefs or on what your religious leader is telling you to do. There does seem to be a media drive to paint Christian all over this guy with little evidence that his Religion was a factor in his behavior.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

exactly

there is ZERO evidence he was religious at all, or that his religion played a part in his actions



Archangel M said:


> Theres a large difference between BEING of a religious denomination and ACTING (_ahem _Jihad _ahem_) based on religious beliefs or on what your religious leader is telling you to do. There does seem to be a media drive to paint Christian all over this guy with little evidence that his Religion was a factor in his behavior.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Norway-anti muslim white guy, no religious involvment at all
> 
> Ok City- anti government white guy, no religious motivation at all
> 
> ...



disagree? Yes.

But this  isn't any fun.

Starting with a conclusion : Muslims are violent 
and a corollary : Muslims are responsible for most terrorist attacks and mass killings
It is easy to work backwards to prove.

You just massage the data until you get what you want.
You limit time frames, geographic regions, casualty counts.
You track religions and nationalities.
You ignore factors that damage your pre-determined conclusion.
Until you get what you want.

That is poor research, poor science.

In the -sample- that I posted, which I pulled off a wikipedia page, which was given as a sample, the majority of the attacks were done by those who list themselves as Muslim.

Were the -reasons- for the attacks however religious based, or political?
That requires a deeper examination of the data.

Stopping at the "7/10 were done by muslims, so muslims are bad" level of conclusion is poor science.
Simplistic.
Stupid.
But again, :slapfight::hb:
Naw.  You keep ignoring inconvenient data, the -majority- of us will do the deeper digging.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> disagree? Yes.
> 
> But this  isn't any fun.
> 
> Starting with a conclusion : Muslims are violent



change it to some and i would agree, I would not agree that all, or even most are.



Bob Hubbard said:


> and a corollary : Muslims are responsible for most terrorist attacks and mass killings



dont have to prove it, the facts bear it out, more attacks by radical muslims than any other group-type
 YOUR post proved this



Bob Hubbard said:


> Were the -reasons- for the attacks however religious based, or political?



in the case of islam,t here is no difference since the religion COMMANDS the spread of the religion, by force, untill it rules the entire world, and it also states a type of government (shariah compliant religion controlled) are to be put in place


christianity doesnt do any of that




Bob Hubbard said:


> Stopping at the "7/10 were done by muslims, so muslims are bad" level of conclusion is poor science.
> Simplistic.



no one is saying that Bob, I AM saying that radical islam is a threat, you agreed with that BTW


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011
The majority, by which I mean more than 50%, of these have -2- common factors.
1- They are being done by people of the Islamic faith.
2- They are happening in nations where the heavy majority (>75%) are members of the Islamic faiths.

What does that tell you?

Remember, most of the people dying in violence in Africa are black, and most of those doing the killing there are black.
The -simplistic- answer would be that blacks are violent killer animals.

Keep that in mind when considering my question above.

Who is killing whom?
What are the reasons cited for the killings?
What are the social and economic conditions at play?
What international circumstances contribute?

Those are the questions those who would understand ask.

But, you can just call me an apologist, or whatever.

In 2001, Israel saw a large number of suicide bombers.
10 years later, few.
What changed?

1990 saw large amounts of violence in South America.
20 years later, Almost nothing showing up from there.
Why?

If the current trend is a high level of violence traced back to Islamic extremists, what will the level be in 10 years?
All reliable reports indicate a decline in extremist activities.
What led to the past increase, what's contributed to the decrease, and what can be done to continue the downward trend?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> change it to some and i would agree, I would not agree that all, or even most are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My post proved the sample proves it. The sample is questionable as the source is editable and may be biased.




> in the case of islam,t here is no difference since the religion COMMANDS the spread of the religion, by force, untill it rules the entire world, and it also states a type of government (shariah compliant religion controlled) are to be put in place



Which branch? Not all are equal.




> christianity doesnt do any of that


Debatable.  In the past, it did. 
Some branches, still do.




> no one is saying that Bob, I AM saying that radical islam is a threat, you agreed with that BTW


Over 90% of Muslims are not radicals. They aren't the problem.
Focus on the problems is all I've been saying.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 26, 2011)

in the past, men had tails, now we dont

in this case, the past is irellevant to the situation we find ourselves in TODAY

nowhere in the bible does it say to kill the unbeliever and rule the world with christian based religious run governments.

the koran DOES

hey, if the sample is wrong, I didnt post it. Dont blame me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> in the past, men had tails, now we dont


Not according to the Cobb County Georgia school board.



> in this case, the past is irellevant to the situation we find ourselves in TODAY


Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it.



> nowhere in the bible does it say to kill the unbeliever and rule the world with christian based religious run governments.
> 
> the koran DOES




Nope. Nowhere in the Christian Bible does it say anything about killing unbelievers, etc.

Except here:


> *Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests*
> _Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  _(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
> 
> *Death to Followers of Other Religions *
> ...



I believe you are mistaken in your understanding of Christianity.



> hey, if the sample is wrong, I didnt post it. Dont blame me.


Not blaming you. Explaining basic scientific research principles such as knowing your sample, and so forth.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 26, 2011)

We don't "follow" the Old Testament Bob. It's one of the founding books true, but Christians are supposed to adhere to the New Testament. I cannot EVER recall hearing those OT passages read in a Catholic Mass, let alone been taught that they should adhered to or been instructed to follow them by a Priest. There are entire Nations of other religions that do and are.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 26, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> We don't "follow" the Old Testament Bob. It's one of the founding books true, but Christians are supposed to adhere to the New Testament. I cannot EVER recall hearing those OT passages read in a Catholic Mass, let alone been taught that they should adhered to or been instructed to follow them by a Priest. There are entire Nations of other religions that do and are.



Then Arch, as TF said, you're just a "bad" Christian as it's in the book. If the OT doesn't apply, why is it still in the book? TF made a claim, I just countered it.  The deeper dig is a tangent better explored in a thread I just dropped.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 27, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> One thing I've noticed that adds to at least my consturnation about the whole thing. Is I have no real idea about muslim culture. So I'm thniking this.
> And the more learned of you can enlighten me if you wish.
> They have basically 2 main cultures Suni and Sheite but within those are several sub factions as well (Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Queda) . Add to that add in cultural things from their varried countries. Looks like a hard to understand mess to me. Hmm seems like the west has some things similar at least religeously (Catholic, Prod, Evangelical, Lutheran, Agnostic) and at least in the US Regional and such (Yankee, Rebel, Indian, you get the drift).
> So it would seem that Some standard deffinitions would help.
> ...




The Taliban, Al Queda aren't 'sub factions' of Islam, they are terrorist groups. They are to Islam what the IRA and the UVF are to Christianity. The sub division in Islam are Sufism, Sunni and Shi'a. Here's an information piece by the BBC on Islam.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 27, 2011)

and wahabbi, they are the REALLY dangerous ones


----------



## granfire (Jul 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and wahabbi, they are the REALLY dangerous ones



and yet, they are not the ones blowing **** up....

They are still a religious group....not a terrorist one....


----------



## billc (Jul 27, 2011)

Well, people are starting to read through the killers manifesto and the "conservative christian," monker is starting to become less so...

http://bigjournalism.com/edulis/201...letely-destroys-christian-conservative-label/

From the article:

But Breivik&#8217;s actual words completely contradict the &#8220;Conservative Christian&#8221; caricature. Below, you can see how, to save the environment, he wants the world to rid itself of oil consumption. You can see how he wants a one-child policy, government control of private industries, the breakup of Rupert Murdoch&#8217;s media empire, the military support of Russia to prevent a possible U.S. invasion of Europe, and the removal of all U.S. military bases from European soil. Yes, the tea party platform through and through, folks!First of all, many thanks to the anonymous blogger *Sooper Mexican*, who has *unearthed* this information from the giant screed and organized it in an easily understandable, concise manner. For those who would quibble that this is an untrustworthy source, his post consists of _direct quotes _from the manifesto with commentary&#8211; I repeat, _direct quotes_. I repeat them here with the blogger&#8217;s emphases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm...one child policy...government control of industries...supports russia...hmmm...that doesn't exactly scream "right winger" to me.  It does seem to lean toward european socialist tendencies...

The actual passages from the manifesto are in the article...and he specifically states, government control of industries...what does that sound like...
---------------------------------------------------------

And the article closes with this:

There we have it. He clearly frames his opposition to &#8220;Marxism&#8221; in terms of &#8220;cultural Marxism&#8221;&#8211; that is, the equal validity of all ethnic and cultural groups&#8217; values and practices&#8211; certainly _not _economic Marxism, which he eagerly espouses. In the same way, his use of &#8220;Christian&#8221; is in a purely cultural, not a religious sense. One&#8217;s relationship to Jesus, _the Christ_, is not a factor in his version of Christianity.
And here we are, mindlessly linked to this man&#8217;s violence, when A) it&#8217;s clear that his actions are the work of an outlier to any mainstream political ideology, thus only bottom-feeding hopeless partisans would dare politicize them, and B) his ideology is nothing close to the conservative, capitalist, Christian beliefs common to the tea party and most right-wing bloggers. Of course, we are dealing with a patently corrupt media, so we must push twice as hard as normal to get this information out and stamp out the MSM&#8217;s false narrative about Oslo. Download the PDF of Breivik&#8217;s manifesto *here*, find the quotes yourself (and anything else you can), and spread them through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, flyers on library bulletin boards&#8211; whatever it takes to let your community know the truth about this sick politicization of murder.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 27, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The Taliban, Al Queda aren't 'sub factions' of Islam, they are terrorist groups. They are to Islam what the IRA and the UVF are to Christianity. The sub division in Islam are Sufism, Sunni and Shi'a. Here's an information piece by the BBC on Islam.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/



I'm just not eloquent.

But Catholic, Prodistant falls under Christianity, So aren't they both factions of the main title? and wouldn't the IRA or UVF be factions of the factions? Therefore sub factions on some level?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 27, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> I'm just not eloquent.
> 
> But Catholic, Prodistant falls under Christianity, So aren't they both factions of the main title? and wouldn't the IRA or UVF be factions of the factions? Therefore sub factions on some level?



Depends on your perspective.  To me, an atheist, yeah, they're both subsects of the same belief structure.  To a casual member of either, they have important differences.  To a devout member of either, they're as fundamentally opposed as night and day.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> lets see:
> 
> Siks: 1
> anti muslim white guy: 1
> ...



.
[yt]pVrGIEH7JbE[/yt]


----------



## elder999 (Jul 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Here is a video clip of Bill O'reilly taking on the "profile of a killer," offered by the media, he does it quite well. He also addresses the "radical muslim terrorist vs. christian terrorist" aspect of the coverage.



ANd here ya go. Same old song, but more intelligible, with a cool video to boot:

[yt]Ym9msqE6oYM[/yt]


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 27, 2011)

Seriously, is there a "wtf?" button to click on people's posts?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 27, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Seriously, is there a "wtf?" button to click on people's posts?



Mason Jennings a little too Zen for ya, huh? :lfao:

The frogs in the video are African bullfrogs, also called pixie frogs, though I don't find anything particularly elfin about them. Some guy picked Jennings' "_The Mountain_" as the soundtrack for his frogs' feeding, and it seemed oddly apropos-the frogs, not the song, which is completely apropos, and about how hate can take over your heart, or an idea-like *fear*- can take over your mind.



> *"The Mountain"
> 
> *I was waken late the other night
> There was a bird trapped in my heart
> ...



Seems to me that some of us could stand to open up our minds and hearts, before that hate and fear takes them over completely........just sayin' :asian:

("Martial_ artists_?" Really? :lfao


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 28, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> I'm just not eloquent.
> 
> But Catholic, Prodistant falls under Christianity, So aren't they both factions of the main title? and wouldn't the IRA or UVF be factions of the factions? Therefore sub factions on some level?



The IRA and the UVF are terrorist organisations not religious groups, I seriously doubt they are church goers somehow. Both groups have political aspirations as well as aiming to wipe each other off the face of the earth.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 28, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> I'm just not eloquent.
> 
> But Catholic, Prodistant falls under Christianity, So aren't they both factions of the main title? and wouldn't the IRA or UVF be factions of the factions? Therefore sub factions on some level?



IRA and UVF are terrorists that use religion as a convinient excuse.

Sunnis and Shi'ite are branches of Islam. Al'Queda, Hamas, etc are terrorist organizations using Islam as a convinient excuse.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 28, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> IRA and UVF are terrorists that use religion as a convinient excuse.
> 
> Sunnis and Shi'ite are branches of Islam. Al'Queda, Hamas, etc are terrorist organizations using Islam as a convinient excuse.



Exactement mon ami!


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 28, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> IRA and UVF are terrorists that use religion as a convinient excuse.
> 
> Sunnis and Shi'ite are branches of Islam. Al'Queda, Hamas, etc are terrorist organizations using Islam as a convinient excuse.


My point is.
We gotta quit this what side of the isle we're on thing and just knuckle down and do the work. If their an insane piece of garbage.. hunt, them hear, them and hang them. Doesn't matter if they're a terrorist, a quasi religious or flat religious nut their still a nut.

Great now I pissed off the squirrel lobby :uhyeah:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 28, 2011)

motivation is an issue tho.

if pastafarians keep blowing up noodle houses, it would behoove the police to start keeping an eye on the pastafarians.

wouldnt it?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 28, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> motivation is an issue tho.
> 
> if pastafarians keep blowing up noodle houses, it would behoove the police to start keeping an eye on the pastafarians.
> 
> wouldnt it?


Depends. I mean Scientology's pretty wacked, and they get to have their own navy and secret police with tax exemptions.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 28, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> motivation is an issue tho.
> 
> if pastafarians keep blowing up noodle houses, it would behoove the police to start keeping an eye on the pastafarians.
> 
> wouldnt it?



But the 'Islamic' terrorism is political. None of what is happening in the ME is religious. it's all about power and territory. They would estblish a theocracy simply because it's currently more expedient than a communist dictatorship.


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2011)

Mumbai vs. Oslo:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/mumbai_vs_oslo.html

From the article:

Just days before a barbarian (alone and belonging to no one, no group, just the twisted sickness of a legend in his own broken mind) murdered over seventy people in Norway, the city of Mumbai was attacked in a brutal jihad by Muslim extremists,_ again_.  Hear about that?_  Not so much. _


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 28, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> But the 'Islamic' terrorism is political. None of what is happening in the ME is religious.




that is 100% incorrect

it IS religious because it is commanded in the koran for them to take over the political sustems of countries and replace it with religious rule

the problem IS the religion


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 28, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> that is 100% incorrect
> 
> it IS religious because it is commanded in the koran for them to take over the political sustems of countries and replace it with religious rule
> 
> the problem IS the religion



They want the Jews out. They want the land. Period. Full Stop. Has everything to do with power and territory.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 28, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> They want the Jews out. They want the land. Period. Full Stop. Has everything to do with power and territory.


Then that gives me a question. Are/were the Shaw's in Iran religious or political leaders?
What about all the Imam's advising Ahmajinedad?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 28, 2011)

you havnt been paying attention. it isnt about the jews, it is EVERYONE that isnt them, in every nation they dont already control.




CanuckMA said:


> They want the Jews out. They want the land. Period. Full Stop. Has everything to do with power and territory.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 28, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> Then that gives me a question. Are/were the Shaw's in Iran religious or political leaders?
> What about all the Imam's advising Ahmajinedad?



A little background detail on the Shah's:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/mohammad_rezashah.php

And a little proof that people should be careful what they wish for:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/ayatollah_khomeini.php


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2011)

Here is a new article on Iranian weapons killing american soldiers...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/record-number-of-u-s-troops-killed-by-iranian-weapons-20110728

from the article:

U.S. military commanders in Iraq say Iranian-made weaponry is killing American troops there at an unprecedented pace, posing new dangers to the remaining forces and highlighting Tehran&#8217;s intensifying push to gain influence over post-U.S. Iraq.
June was the deadliest month in more than two years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. In May, the U.S. death toll was two. In April, it was 11. Senior U.S. commanders say the three primary Iranian-backed militias, Kataib Hezbollah, the Promise Day Brigade, and Asaib al Haq, and their rockets were behind 12 of the deaths in June. 
A detailed U.S. military breakdown of June&#8217;s casualties illustrates the growing threat posed by Iranian munitions.

Covert Iranian shipments of munitions into Iraq are not a new phenomenon, but Buchanan said the amount of weaponry being used against U.S. forces throughout the country has reached unprecedented levels. U.S. ground patrols have in the past suffered one or two EFPs in a single attack, but Buchanan said some recent incidents have involved as many as 14 of the powerful bombs. American bases, meanwhile, are being struck by dozens of rockets at a time. In mid-July, a single U.S. outpost was hit by 40 rockets, though none caused casualties, Buchanan said.
&#8220;The number of EFPs being used in a given attack, the number of rockets being launched in a single volley&#8212;all of that is much higher than in the past,&#8221; Buchanan said.


U.S. officials say the EFPs, rockets, and IRAMs all come from neighboring Iran. Tehran denies providing the weaponry to Shia militias operating in Iraq.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> U.S. officials say the EFPs, rockets, and IRAMs all come from neighboring Iran. Tehran denies providing the weaponry to Shia militias operating in Iraq.



And you'll never see anything official about it, but you do know that we've been sending soldiers into Iran since 2006........


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 29, 2011)

And despite beeing a ruthless dictator, Saddam kept Iran in check and the region relatively stable. All the invasion did was de-stabilize the region, extract a high cost, both in terms of human lives and $$$, and help Iran solidify it's power base.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 29, 2011)

I'm surprised that the Iranian government denies shipping arms.  After all, the international arms trade is a game for everyone, regardless of morality.  Altho' it usually deemed more proper (aka profitable) to sell arms to both sides.

In the Falklands war, to cite an example close to home, we were facing warships from, er, well, erm, you see ... OKAY!  They were ex-Royal Navy .  Additionally, French and American supplied war-planes fired French and American supplied munitions at us.

Arms supplying really isn't a game that any nation in the world can pontificate on ... not and keep a straight face at any rate.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 29, 2011)

"When *religion* and *politics ride in the same cart*, the whirlwind is sure to follow" --Frank Herbert


----------



## crushing (Jul 29, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And you'll never see anything official about it, but you do know that we've been sending soldiers into Iran since 2006........



They are just tourist hikers that get lost and accidentally cross borders.


----------



## billc (Jul 29, 2011)

That is one of the advantages of being next to the country that is causing you problems.  It is much easier to put your people into their country and easier to help the people of that country get rid of their bad government.


----------



## billc (Jul 29, 2011)

another article on Iranian terrorist activity:

http://bigpeace.com/ipt/2011/07/29/treasury-department-iran-has-pact-with-al-qaida/

from the article:

The designations included Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, a senior al-Qaida facilitator and handler working directly with Irans government; Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, al-Qaidas overall commander of Pakistans tribal area; Umid Muhammadi, a key facilitator of al-Qaida in Iraq; Salim Hasan Khalifa Rashid al-Kuwari, a Qatar-based fundraiser of al-Qaidas Iranian activities; Abdallah Ghanim Mafuz Muslim al-Khawar, another Qatar-based extremist fundraising for al-Qaida and facilitating the movement of individuals to Afghanistan; and, Ali Hasan Ali al-Ajmi, a Kuwait-based associate of Khalil who has provided financial support to al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Notably, the list did not include information about senior al-Qaida leader Saif al-Adel, who is rumored to operate out of Iran orPakistan.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

On the Arab spring:

http://bigpeace.com/dfriedman/2011/08/03/islamists-to-obama-how-can-we-ever-thank-you/

From the article:

*Egyptians Turn Against Liberal Protesters
*
By Yaroslav Trofimov
CAIROMobs of ordinary Egyptians joined with soldiers to drive pro-democracy protesters from their encampment in Tahrir Square here Monday, showing how far the uprisings early heroes have fallen in the eyes of the public.
Six months after young, liberal activists helped lead the popular movement that ousted President Hosni Mubarak, the hard core of these protesters was forcibly dispersed by the troops. Some Egyptians lined the street to applaud the army. Others ganged up on the activists as they retreated from the square that has come to symbolize the Arab Spring.
Squeezed between an assertive military and the countrys resurgent Islamist movement, many Internet-savvy, pro-democracy activists are finding it increasingly hard to remain relevant in a post-revolutionary Egypt that is struggling to overcome an economic crisis and restore law and order.


----------

