Originally Posted by Troll Virus

Now me personally, I don't vote.
Can't be arsed and don't see the point, because no matter what the policies are promised to be, they're never fulfilled.
So does that make me potentially an innocent victim of terrorism?

Originally Posted by Garland

seriously, I'd rather pop a boil on a fat trannie's ass with my teeth than see this guy post another goddamned word.

Originally Posted by Garland

seriously, I'd rather pop a boil on a fat trannie's ass with my teeth than see this guy post another goddamned word.

Originally Posted by Toudiyama[NL]

Isn't this the Open forum, where you can post anything?

Back to topic, you really believe this? man they will always have an excuse for inocent victoms, when inocent muslims bystanders die, they will say they should be glad they died a marthyr(sp?) or that they weren't muslims

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Terrorists and those concerned with killing in the name of God will indeed always find a reason to justify what they do. Al-Qaeda alone has "adapted" its mission morethan a dozen times throughout its existence in order to capitalize on current fears and issues. At first, they just wanted to free Afghanistan and promote the Islamic government therein. Next, they were anti-Israel, and that became their reason for being. For a while after the Sauds revoked bin Laden's citizenship, al-Qaeda was fighting against the corruption in the Saudi family. Next it was the US.

Like most radicals, they are far less concerned with how much sense their justification makes than they are with carrying on the radical actions that define them. One needs look no further than the anti-war protests of the 1960's in America for evidence of this. There was a hard-core center of that movement, but there was a vast fringe that participated for completely personal reasons. They may have simply liked the "counter-culture" image. They wanted to live the free love and lots-of-drugs lifestyle that went along with the movement. Some just wanted to get out of the draft so they took a stand with a large group that offered them some level of insulation and protection. The point is that while the leaders of that movement may have had an agenda, it was fueled and carried out by people with largely selfish interests in many cases. Not all cases, but many.

Sociologically speaking, I think you'd probably discover that a great many radical muslim terrorists and supporters get and stay involved not because they necessarily agree with the core agenda, but because they desire the image that goes with it. They see it as a road to belonging, to self-respect, and to some sense of honor and respect from a group of people that they may see as "above" them in station and purpose. Like the "hobbyists" that get involved in kung fu because they like the image Bruce Lee or the Shaolin monks give it, or the BJJ hobbyists who just want a gi top filled with patches and the ability to say they do "Gracie Jiujitsu," many of the radicals we're dealing with join their respective movements based on misconceptions and romanticized images. And there's no reasoning with that. No amount of rational discussion will ever convince them, because they are making major life choices based on the emotional attachment they have to their romanticized ideals of what the "cause" actually stands for. They're dealing with feelings, not facts.

Otherwise, they'd see that even the guys at the top don't have a clear picture of what they're after, and that they're far more concerned with keeping tensions high and war in full swing than in finding any kind of peace whatever. After all, without an enemy to blame, they'd have to accept responsibility for their peoples' poverty and abysmal standard of living. But as long as there's a war and an enemy, the guys at the top can continue to gain wealth and power while the little guys at the bottom fight to live the image that's become so important to them.

Originally Posted by Troll Virus

I was watching TV (pun intended) the other day, and a Muslim Extremist was being asked, why, he felt justified in killing innocent civilians via terrorist activities.

His answer "They're not innocent. They voted for their government, so they are guilty by proxy"

Now me personally, I don't vote.
Can't be arsed and don't see the point, because no matter what the policies are promised to be, they're never fulfilled.
So does that make me potentially an innocent victim of terrorism?

Going on comments on the thread noted, I'd be guilty by inaction?

Originally Posted by gregimotis

My friend; Ritalin.

Originally Posted by The_Judo_Jibboo

Mike, i think the cultural issues at work are much deeper than basic peer pressure. I don't think anyone blows themselves up to be accepted, kinda counter-productive.
quite the contrary, i think most of those extremists possess a determination and conviction that the average westerner would find hard to fathom.

if anything, i imagine it's much like in our country where the leaders don't genuinely believe in what they preach, but adhere to a platform because they know they can easily trick a group of people who actually do hold those ideas dear into following them. you think totally corrupt, morally bankrupt politicians give two craps about whether or not it's right or wrong to do stem-cell research? of course not, but they adopt a position that other's can follow.

Originally Posted by Garland

Specific things I dislike about this post:
1) History- I remember when Troll came to the forum with a bunch of assbags in tow. Remember Andy and the faux-britts with the IP address from NY?
2) He's presented himself to be pretentious.
3) The TV pun set me off. Probably more than it should have, but it provided more evidence for number 2.
3) He doesn't vote. That's reason enough to piss me off, unless he's a convicted felon...there's no excuse.
4) Asked, not axed, not arsed. Arsed...assed?
5) yeah, I agree, no matter who you vote for, the government gets in...but that doesn't mean don't vote. Jesus. You gave G.W. a second term, nice going! That's arsed.
6) Logically, you wouldn't be guilty by proxy, so you might be an "innocent by proxy-because I didn't vote for the new regime" victim of terrorism. But that little quip kinda implies those real victims of terrorism are "guilty". Your question is a joke, and it detracts from real suffering. It's sorta like saying that if you had curly dark hair during the Holocaust, but aren't "guilty" of being a Jew, would you end up an "innocent" victim.

That's how fucked up your statement appeared to me.

7) You don't vote. You ARE guilty by inaction. What did Dante say?