Chilly

AD: Can I copy and paste that post in the thread I'm arguing with OC in?

I admit, I lol'd. The issue is with different interpretations. You seem to be arguing that what the terrorists believe comes from the Koran. What about the other people who practice the religion, who read the same thing, but come away with multiple different belief structures? One person chooses to interpret and use the religion for positive, while the other looks at the same book with the exact same tenants and chooses to interpret it and use it as a justification for terrorism. How can this be, if they are both using the very ideas contained within the religion? You seem to be arguing that it is easier to read a violent interpretation of the religion with Islam than with Christianity. Let's assume for a moment that this is indeed true. The vast majority of Muslims don't read it that way, which begs the question: what are the factors for someone reading it that way versus someone not reading it that way? Are they cultural differences, political differences, economic differences, etc? And, more importantly, aren't these the true factors that we are fighting in the GWOT, not the religion itself? Don't just take my word for it though, an August 2003 congressional report entitled "Terrorists and Suicide Attacks" put the percentage of religiously motivated terrorist attacks at around 3%. Pape's research in that book you so quickly dismissed also agrees with that number. You can't defend against terror attacks? Have global governments been lying when they have said that they have diffused multiple terrorist attacks? The defensive strategies also include realistic response plans to an attack, to limit the psychological impact of such an attack. It would have been nice if our media had done something about that after 9/11. The idea is to significantly reduce the incentive to use terrorist tactics, which are cheap, effective, and have a decent success rate. I said more important, not that it was all that was needed, although you do bring up an important distinction here: is it the global war on terrorism, or the global war on terrorists? Some more reading on the topic that I am drawing my arguments about how to handle terrorism from: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/suicidebombers.ppt (particularly the last slide, the proposed model for dealing with suicide terrorism) Mishandling Suicide Terrorism http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937083 Um, what? The book has nothing to do with that you are talking about. It is a study of 188 suicide attacks and looks at the reasons behind the use of certain types of terrorism, examines the argument that it is religious motivations which cause it to happen, and finds patterns of political reasons behind the use of suicide attacks.

Well, there is a legitimate use for the word reach, when one team takes a player that no other team would have taken near that pick, since you could have gotten him for later. I agree though with your analysis of the way the draftniks use it.

Astro, has anyone run stats on how accurate this was last year?

Lets hack the Diebold machines and make Ron Paul prez.

This is why I figured it was pointless to respond. I was the one that posted "Which is a result of the religion itself, or are there other factors involved?" right after the post that sent you into attack BlueFire mode (the one about the way you use religion). I also posted this: "Short term you aren't going to change anyone who is already a terrorist away from being one. But, for the long term, are you fighting a religion (as many people seem to believe we should be), or are you fighting something else?" How bout because I've never even watched the damned movie, and given how wide ranging (and sometimes contradictory) people's characterizations of him are, I don't know what to believe... I find it rather amusing that you tend to call me smug, given comments like these littered throughout your posts. You just laid the groundwork for my essay on why offensive strategies against terrorism are so hard to actually pull off, and why defensive strategies are so important. More of a general comment about the way a GWOT should be fought, rather than any specific one. Wasn't meant to apply to either of those two wars. I'd also bet money that you would claim that I favor immediate and complete removal of troops. I suggest reading this book on the matter and deciding for yourself. It is a pretty convincing argument to me. Because it has nothing to do with the price of rice in China. You are claiming that I believe something and then telling me to defend it when I don't believe it in the first place. Yup, that is what I was asking, though I completely screwed up the wording in my rush to get this post done and a couple other things done before I left work.

Damn, she's hot as all hell!

I didn't think it was worth the effort quite honestly because of how mischaracterized my post was, but if you insist, I'll start out with the previous post. The reason to bring up Christianity (and that one batch of Jewish terrorism) was not to defend or attack anyone. It was to establish that there is a pattern of religions being used for good things (which you certainly see in all 3 major religions), and being used for violence (which you also see in all 3 major religions). I established this pattern is to raise the possibility that religion is simply being used as a tool by terrorists for other goals, and that the actual root causes of terrorism are not religion itself (which seems to be what the filmmakers are trying to argue). The studying I have done on the subject lends much more credence to the root causes of terrorism being influenced by political factors, rather than by religious factors. This might have some chance of being true if I actually knew what Michael Moore's beliefs were on something other than health care. The only movie I've watched by him was Sicko, mainly because I was curious about all the hype surrounding his movies and his name. What I *do* believe is that having strong defense mechanisms and quick, targeted attacks (along with information warfare) works better for defeating terrorism longterm than occupying countries (one of the causes of terrorism in the first place). I honestly don't have any idea where the heck you got this from, nor how to respond to it, given that it seems to be extrapolating one small instance into some type of philosophy that you are assuming guides my life. The issue here is about the long term effects such a response would have. Is it the potential negative PR in the information war to let some people receive personal vindication?

Heh. When I was in school (hah, I can say that now), I took two economics classes, but still know jack sh-- about the way the American economy really works. Pointless classes, those were. Any reading recommendations from the economically inclined?

Thanks.

Is there an "official" list of requirements to have a recession?

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343671,00.html

Amazing. I don't think you got one thing right about me or what I posted in this entire rant.

Replaced with link to the same story on Salon.com

I'm somewhat surprised this story hasn't been posted here yet. From http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/04/02/D...ance/index.html

Petey Pablo says NORTH CAROLINAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

For those that didn't understand the Butters reference, this is

Where the hell in any of my posts do you get the impression I don't think that terrorists are a threat?

What does that have to do with anything that I posted? This is the part that I fail to see. What does that have to do with whether we are fighting a religion or not? (And Fitna, a cheap film solely made to play on Emotion, wouldn't change anything about the statement you made) Eh, the leaders of those Christian groups are (which would be the equivalent to Christian leadership like the Muslim heads are to their people). Joseph Kony is about on the same level of spiritual leadership as OBL.

I don't get where this response came from.

Is your bed in the shower?

A terrorist leader claims killing of non-muslims is legitimate. How is this news, exactly?

Shhh, there is a method to my madness.

I remembered that I thought the nfl.com analysis of him was the most correct from watching him play 4 years at UT, and this is what it says: Needs to figure out how to beat the jam with other moves, but can overpower a smaller defender Likes to overpower defenders after the catch, but does have nifty moves to elude (just doesn't use them often)...Strong runner, especially when he catches the ball in front of the defender. while he has a good reach he spends too much time trying to overpower press coverage defenders rather than trying to slip past and avoid is more apt to break arm tackles rather than elude the defender in the open