Seems even the harmless hippie attracting branch of islam known as sufism is not immune to the murderous terrorists.
So much for this having anything to do with the west< Americans< so on so forth. The infidel is ANYONE that dose not bow before the terrorist fanatics.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8692191

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/199lssqw.asp

The left and their msm allies will spend who knows how long hashing over every teeny factoid about the supposed five servicemen in Guantanamo who "mishandled" the Koran, even to the extent of dribbling {or accidentally spraying or not ) urine on it,in the lame attempt to draw some perverted moral equivalency between it and and murdering ten million human beings in the Gulag (when it beyond not even close to equivalent of murdering one human being) Meanwhile, in the real world of life and death and the struggle for a decent life, a single human being has indeed been murdered in a vastly more important case.
The assassination of journalist Samir Kassir .
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=15639

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Definition

1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.
3. the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency.
4. an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgency

word applies fine.

What word would you prefer we use? terrorists? This applies also. And the media frequently calls them this also: For example, in a recent story about al zarqawi refered to him as "terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Now, they could have called him "Sheik" which is his official title, i believe, but instead he gets the destinguishing honor of being refered to as "terrorist leader"

...

You will find no one on this board who will refer to the incident described in your post as anything other than an atrocity.

You, however, seem to think that this is an excuse to treat inhumanely anyone we find who we *think* might be a terrorist. In my opinion, This creates more problems than it solves. This is a political conflict, and as such, we cannot afford to lose the moral high ground. If you round up and hostily "interrogate" 100 people to catch a terrorist, how many more terrorists have you created? Amnesty International was out of line, obviously, this doesn't rise anywhere near the level of a Gulag, but this problem is more widespread than any one incedent.

So, Should we censor the media, have our cake, and eat it too? Well, Who will the arabs believe, the arabs who returned to their country to tell stories of being beaten into submission, and those who disappeared and never returned, or a U.S. media who reports nothing bad at all about americans? An increase in the credibility of the U.S. media in arab countries is probably a good thing, even if it comes at a cost, as otherwise they'll just watch al-jazeera and the latest jewish conspiracy theory. What is more important is the cost we'd have to pay at home for not knowing the truth.

Remember why we went to war ( the latest spin, that is ) we went to war to rid Iraq of the evils of saddam's brutal regime, and as such we should try not to mimic him even in a small way.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

Sorry but they don't. The same can be used for a rebellious child or just about anything by your selective definitions. CONTEXT is everything friend.It is organized. Why do you thing the "leaders" are being sought so hard?
Not belligerent? ?????? yes, i guess all those mujaheddin are just spoil little kids that had a hard upbringing.
You even mention one of the leaders yourself so how you can say its fits is baffling when your own definition counters the fact that it is NOt an insurgency.

It is organized. Why do you thing the "leaders" are being sought so hard?

ROFLMAO. You are flat out lying now. e have had them in the past.
Speaking for the world now are we?? LOL.

No where did I even suggest justified was the abuse at any prison. YOU however just DID justify the moral equivalency of deliberate cold blooded murder and calculated deliberate attacks on not just those with differing religious views but on women , children and anyone that disagrees with the terrorists and who may be in they way.
See, that was the point of the post. That's why the term MORAL EQUIVALENCE was used.

Explain how putting panties on someones head or not giving a hoot in heck about some book others think is holly is the same as the deliberate, calculated targeting to murder of innocent children, women and anyone that dis agrees with you???!!

Terrorist is applicable. Insurgent is not since the sufis are not now{and if you would have read the link you would know} and never were any threat to these terrorists. see, thats was the point. they threaten no government and no one but you claim this is an insergencey????

You selectively use a word where it may apply if you prefer a certain definition and ignore it every where it dose not.


This is typical of the lost argument. Make it up as you go. Show where I said anything about censoring anyone??I am sorry you don't like facts and feel the need to make it up as you go but ....reality bites,don't it.

The arabs??? So their opinion is the only one that matters is it> seems the news week story makes clear that some arabs believe what they want and don't care about reality. JUST like some others ....hmmmmmm.

Try getting informed. The idea of being tortured is basic al qaeda propaganda. its one of the main point in their training manual.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1655-7932r.htm
An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regime that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
The American Civil Liberties Union last week posted on its Web site 2002 FBI documents regarding accusations from suspected al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the detention center. The organization had won a court decision that forced the administration to release scores of e-mails between agents who had interviewed captives.


most of the allegations of abuse almost always come from former detainees released to their home countries that are now lying about their detention.


Since Newsweek had to retract their lie, the msm has been in overdrive to try and confirm something close somewhere to justify the lie. Heck, look long and hard enough and you can find just about anything you want ....period.The ACLU has released some FBI documents that show detainees at Gitmo complained of Koran abuse, being thrown on the floor, so on so forth.
These documents also state virtually every source for these stories of Koran abuse are detainees ... a detainee who might also be an Islamic terrorist. Prisoners lie.DIDN'T you know that?? They make it up.THEY are all innocent.

Just more uncorroborated stories But you seem to think these two items{ deliberate cold blooded calculated murder and prisoner abuse[some of which is not abuse, some was]} are morally the same.Says a lot about you...doesn't it.

We are engaged in a war for the survival of the republic against bloodthirsty Muslim jihadists that want to kill us and all that do not agree with them.
You worry about the arbas{well, in this case select arabs }?. Remember .. the confiscate and destroy Bibles in Saudi Arabia. Probably not.

Sorry but I'm not going to worry as much as you about allegations from Islamic goons or about a supposed holly book being abused by those that readily do so themselves.

Do you think the media be so worked up if a Bible were being desecrated? Would there be any rioting? Doubt it would raise the stink this has.

But these are side points to the real point anyway.


WRONG. The reasons are public record long before Bush was in office and the reasons bush gave were even before the war started.

Before addressing this issue, it is important to remember that the Democrats who are now in full-throat-ed opposition to this war and to the President leading it actually supported the war and authorized it in the first place. The "Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq" was a resolution passed by both the House and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities.

A congressional resolution to authorize the use of force was something that Bill Clinton never even sought when he went to war in Kosovo. This was a constitutional oversight that didn't bother Democrats at the time or since, which shows how partisan and indefensible is this aspect of their critique of the war in Iraq. [b[The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq that President Bush did seek and obtain in October 2002 has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. I invite you to go on the web and read the clauses. Out of all 23 clauses, I found only two that even mention stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. What the clauses do stress - twelve of them, by my count - are U.N. resolutions that Saddam ignored or defied.[/b]
These resolutions were passed by the majority of the nations who comprise the United Nations Security Council because Saddam Hussein invaded two countries - Iran and then Kuwait, and used chemical weapons on his own people. In passing, let me note that America's participation in the Iran/Iraq war has also been tremendously distorted by the political left in its effort to undermine American security and cause us to lose the war on terror. So let it be said that yes, we provided intelligence and some weapons to Iraq (most of their weapons came from the Soviet Union). That was to prevent Iran from winning the war, not because we were friends of Saddam Hussein or approved what he was doing, as leftists like Michael Moore and Norman Mailer and others have insinuated.

Let's look at the nature of this war. In the first place, it is a war whose aims and purposes make it very hard to understand how anybody who believes in human rights, who believes in women's rights, who believes in equality and freedom, could be against it. In four years, George Bush has liberated nearly 50 million people in two Islamic countries. He has stopped the filling of mass graves and closed down the torture chambers. He has encouraged the Iraqis and the people of Afghanistan to begin a political process that will give all of them, and particularly women, rights they have not enjoyed in 5,000 years. How can you not support this war?

In the second place, the rationale for this war was not about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction ALONE- a fact that half the nation under the impact of Democratic misleadership seems to have missed. This misunderstanding about the rationale for the war was the product of calculated political intended to unseat a president, but with grave fallout for the credibility and security of the nation itself. This distortion is the basis for most of the attacks on the war in Iraq.The fact wmd were put up so much is because these are what the resolutions in the u.n. covered. So if one seeks U.N. approval{ if they were not bought off already by saddam anyway} then one dose not put up items that have no hope of u.n. backing because they have NO u.n. recognition via resolution in the first place.

The spin is coming from those spouting your lines and can be seen by looking at the actual reasons as just that. spin and deceit.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

M'kay. Your entire argument is semantics and connotation. So, why not? lets argue it.

You apparently not only do not know what insurgency means, you also do not know what "Belligerency" means.

1. The state of being at war or being engaged in a warlike conflict.
2. Belligerence.
3. the state of being at war or in conflict; specifically : the status whereby a recognized military force is granted the protection of the international laws of war

Same dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belligerency

Oh, lets keep going, please.


I never said that you said it was justified. I said you seem to be using it as an excuse.

Excuse:

1. To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=excuse


...

I dislike arguing semantics, but you forced it upon us.

And I challenge you to find anyone on this board who approves of the slaughter of Sufi Muslims.

You seem to dislike the connotation of "Insurgent." However, just because someone is an insurgent doesn't mean they can't be also a terrorist. Historically, most insurgents are also terrorists. You apparently do not believe "Insurgent" presents negative enough connotation to represent these people. Maybe you should stick to fox news so you can be comforted by "The Homicide Bomber Killed people" lines.

It is not a journalists job to provide connotation to events, and its not something that should be encouraged, either. This article reports the facts, which speak for themselves, that the insurgents are bloodthirsty terrorists. I do not understand how you could think that this article is anti-american.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

Let me be very clear: I hold the United States of America to a higher degree of moral standards than countries we are thinking about invading.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

Exactly. Now try looking at what you said before and don't try hiding behind the semantics argument. specifically all we need is def number 3 of your original post.What protection. they are not a recognized arm force, are not covered by geneva war treaties so on soforth.


I never said that you said it was justified. I said you seem to be using it as an excuse.

Excuse:

1. To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=excuse
[/quote] Same thing. Now who is playing semantics. No where did I hint , imply or suggest any such thing. In fact, the original made clear the topic was the Sufi's , NOT what you are hijacking the thread over. Not only can you not debate the real issue, you still must make it up as you go and then try semantics to cover for it.


One entry found for belligerent.


Main Entry: bel·lig·er·ent
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: modification of Latin belligerant-, belligerans, present participle of belligerare to wage war, from belliger waging war, from bellum + gerere to wage
1 : waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war
2 : inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness
- belligerent noun
- bel·lig·er·ent·ly adverb

these terrorist are not protected by any convention that has been put forth by YOU. You deliberately put up a broad and vague definition so as to apparently have an out. No convention of war covers them as YOu seem to insist.

The point {you again either mis or deliberately ignore is that the Sufi's don't line up with your view and neither dose the reporter. You feel the need to justify some view by inserting prison abuse into the picture here and ignore everything else. So 1 more time. Care to try to debate the ACTUAL points here or just continue the cat and mouse evasion routine???

...
[quote]
I dislike arguing semantics, but you forced it upon us.

And I challenge you to find anyone on this board who approves of the slaughter of Sufi Muslims. [/quote Nut you sure love using it when it fits your agenda. And you did not say Sufi's. You said;
You will find no one on this board who will refer to the incident described in your post as anything other than an atrocity.

The incident, not the Sufi's was your focus. A bit of back sliding again i see?

they can be the same but a terrorist cant be an insurgent. And insurgent can be a terrorist in THE CONTEXT of this conflict. Insurgents are supposed to be about the people. these terrorists are anything but that.Its you who want to give them equal status and at the expanse of the innocent.

Thats because you apparently believe all views are equal so a terrorist is an insurgent is a criminal is a neighbor is just another point of view.


I mean, if you can pull out of hand some idea that you admit I never said but somehow justify by simply readding a print message we can conclude all kinds of things.Cant we.

Explain how if I did not say what you say I implied, just how did I imply such over this message medium. This will exposse a great deal about you so answer carefully.

Its clear in the original just how your view is a twisted perversion. You cant even follow the 2 major points involved. You feel the need to focus on another issue all together.Wen confronted you again isolate to just 1 aspect and ignore the definition you gave dose not fit the context. You ignore the point of Sufi's not being the government, you ignore the terrorist deliberate attack on innocent individuals, children and non government entities, you ignore the reporter killed for his refusal to bow to their views, ect. ect. ect.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

trtranslated [since we can deduce by ininnuendo]
I believe the other uncivilized nations are sub human barbarians simply acting out their natural inferiore genetic desires that are not their fault. Its built in for them to be lelesser than us Western educated demi-gods so why expect anything more from the sub human class.

p.s. If you dont like it then dont do it yourself.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Sedy, you open with a story of a massacre in iraq, and immidiately change the subject to a rant about "The left and their MSM allies" talking about Guantanamo Cuba.... You expect the thread to go quietly?

Regardless, I have nothing else to say. Everything i feel needs to be said is in my previous posts. I do not feel the need to refute your pathetic attacks on such, so that i can suffer another 2 pages full of hastily written rants.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

No , what I did was open wit 2 examples of how the so called insurgents are anything but. @ good example of how they are terrorist murder es aND NOTHING MORE. iT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE ARABS[ SELECT ONES ANYWAY} THINK,NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER ANY RELIGON IS BEING DESI CRATED, NOTHING TO DO WITH A CULTURE BEING INVADED , OVERRUN AND DESTROYED, NOTHING TO DO WIT ANY SO CALLED OCCUPATION, SO ON SO FORTH.

IT WAS you THAT CHOSE TO IGNORE THESE ACTUAL POINTS, TWIST THE THREAD AND FOCUS ON A COMPLETELY made up issue.As you admit ed. An issue you say I never actually said.


If you simply attempt to follow the actual thread instead of hijacking it for your own agenda then you will be better off .

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...MO-AMNESTY.xml

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD