Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Belgian Woman Suicide Bomber

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Belgian Woman Suicide Bomber
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:00 am Post subject:

dulouz wrote:

Quote:

Love to hear why you think the significance has nothing to do with bigotry, despite the fact that the headline mentions her skin color and the topic is very active on white supremacist php boards - ah, gosh, why is it you'd prefer not to address these salient aspects? Can't imagine why...

I checked this on Stormfront. She isn't being talked about.

Ah. Go there a lot, do you?

bigverne

Quote:

people join movements because they want to be part of something and because such movements have a certain 'romantic' allure of overthrowing a corrupt and decadent (as they see it) system

bv wants to imply, hopes we believe, that there is nothing about western culture that might be seen as "corrupt and decadent." Oddly, though, most of us who are willing took at it squarely can admit that these words do apply.

He's getting close to the right answer, but he will not allow himself to see it for what it is.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:40 am Post subject:

Quote:

bv wants to imply, hopes we believe, that there is nothing about western culture that might be seen as "corrupt and decadent."

Actually, I do agree that Western culture has become rather corrupt and decadent. Most of the blame for that can be laid at the doors of liberals such as yourself.

However, unlike you, I am willing to oppose those forces that would like to overthrow Western civilization (no matter how flawed)whereas you, in the name of 'tolerance' and 'understanding', are quite happy to appease such enemies of the West.

Do you support the overthrow of the West Bob? Do you know what would happen to your liberal self if Islamists ever did come to power? How do you think your support for secularism or gay rights would go down? Don't tell me, gays still face discrimination in the West, so who are we to criticise muslim countries! I'll do your moral equivalence for you, just to save time.

Of course, you don't have to worry about that, although your descendants may well have to, and they will have 'Uncle Bob' and his multicultural understanding to thank for that.

Quote:

He's getting close to the right answer, but he will not allow himself to see it for what it is.

Quit the patronising and give us your opinion why don't you. Or are you worried that your views will be held up to ridicule again?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:52 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

You do realize that there are so-called Christian terrorists OUTSIDE of the West right?

Hardly any, and they pale into total insignificance when compared to the terrorist disciples of Mohammed. So, really, there is no comparison.

Huh? Check how many people that those groups alone have killed and tell me that's insignificant.

Again I state my point which was that there is no shortage of murderous fanatics on both sides. The questionable claim that there are more Muslim terrorists (unproven) has nothing to do with that.

"Hardly any"? Some of these groups have thousands of members.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:18 am Post subject:

Quote:

And there are numberous White supremency groups, milita groups and neo-nazis.

How many terrorist incidents have such groups been responsible for in the last decade? Now, compare it to such incidents attributed to Islamic terrorists. When you do make such a comparison, your equivalence looks ridiculous.

Quote:

Wikipedia has seven such groups listed under "Christian terrorism"

Seven you say! There are many, many more Islamic terrorists groups and they are far more active and responsible for far more atrocities.

So, it is true to say that there are fanatics on 'both sides', just as all religions have their share of fanatics. However, one side has far more fanatics than the other, and one religion stands head and shoulders above all others in the number of fanatics and terrorists attracted to its cause.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:41 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

And there are numberous White supremency groups, milita groups and neo-nazis.

(a)How many terrorist incidents have such groups been responsible for in the last decade? Now, compare it to such incidents attributed to Islamic terrorists. When you do make such a comparison, your equivalence looks ridiculous.

Quote:

Wikipedia has seven such groups listed under "Christian terrorism"

(b)Seven you say! There are many, many more Islamic terrorists groups and they are far more active and responsible for far more atrocities.

(c)So, it is true to say that there are fanatics on 'both sides', just as all religions have their share of fanatics. However, one side has far more fanatics than the other, and one religion stands head and shoulders above all others in the number of fanatics and terrorists attracted to its cause.

(letters mine)

(a) Why just the "last decade"?

(b) That's just the number one site listed. There are plenty more

(c) So you agree that there are fanatics on both sides. That was my argument from the start. Not PC garbage after all, nor just a few such groups. Glad to see you starting to bat for the winning team.

I never argued that Islam has less terrorists or commits less acts. That does not excuse the other side for its excesses. The point I was attempting to make is that it is rather hypocritical (not to mention dead wrong) to ONLY blame one side or culture as the root of terror.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

And there are numberous White supremency groups, milita groups and neo-nazis.

How many terrorist incidents have such groups been responsible for in the last decade?

bigverne, aren't you embarassed at the amount of energy you spend defending the most loathsome types of people on the planet? This is not the first time you have done such, and I wager I'll see you apologize for murderous racist bigots again before long.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject:

O.K Bob, I apologise. Christian extremism is just as much a threat to world peace and human rights as Islamic Terrorism. Christian terrorist groups are just as numerous and have been responsible for just as many terrorist massacres as muslim ones. Al-Qaeda and abortion extremists are two sides of the same coin. How many times do I have to repeat these matras before I believe them? What was the lucky number for you?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

O.K Bob, I apologise. (1)Christian extremism is just as much a threat to world peace and human rights as Islamic Terrorism. (2) Christian terrorist groups are just as numerous and have been responsible for just as many terrorist massacres as muslim ones. (3) Al-Qaeda and abortion extremists are two sides of the same coin.

How many times do I have to repeat these matras before I believe them? What was the lucky number for you?

(1) Who has made this claim?

(2) Again, who has made this claim?

(3) Yet again, who has made this claim?

If you are going to argue, how about arguing what WAS actually said, then what you WISH was said? Just a thought.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

O.K Bob, I apologise. Christian extremism is just as much a threat to world peace and human rights as Islamic Terrorism. Christian terrorist groups are just as numerous and have been responsible for just as many terrorist massacres as muslim ones. Al-Qaeda and abortion extremists are two sides of the same coin.

Oh, I get it. You're being ironic, or sarcastic or something. Cool, hope that works out for you ...

bv, no one mentioned abortion extremists except you.

In fact, however, the greatest amount of terror being practiced at the moment upon civilian populations seems to be coming from the US Army and intelligence operatives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the main impetus behind these atrocities do in fact come from Christian extremists who are presently in control of the American governmental appatus. It is quite unnecessary to speak about fringe radical groups (such as those that motivated Tim McVeigh) in the context of terror acts when the precise same actions are being arranged and perpetrated by the established govt and its contractors.

Suicide bombers seem incomprehenslible, but it's not uncommon for military commanders to send young men and women out in the field with the full knowledge that some or all of them might very likely not come back. I don't excuse or condone terror, but we need to be realistic and recognize that what we do under the guise of military intervention is just as heinous and in many cases worse.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:54 am Post subject:

Quote:

In fact, however, the greatest amount of terror being practiced at the moment upon civilian populations seems to be coming from the US Army and intelligence operatives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the main impetus behind these atrocities do in fact come from Christian extremists who are presently in control of the American governmental appatus.

Jeez, Bobster, if you're trying to egg on Bigverne to indulge in his anti-moral-relativism rants you've given him a wonderful opening.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:50 am Post subject:

Quote:

the main impetus behind these atrocities do in fact come from Christian extremists who are presently in control of the American governmental appatus.

Hang on. I thought the war was about oil, or contracts for Halliburton?

Do you actually have any evidence, apart from Bush's use of the word 'crusade' that the rationale for starting the war was to spread Christianity, or attack Islam? Just because the war was started by a government with a strong Christian backing, does not mean that it can be deemed 'Christian terrorism', in the same manner as 'Islamic terrorism'. In fact, I would question both your use of 'Christian' and 'Terrorist' to describe the action of the US army. The only people who are deliberately attacking civilians are Zarkawi's bunch of Jihadis, who are very explicit in their Islamic justification for such action.

Quote:

bv, no one mentioned abortion extremists except you.

You have, in previous threads, where you have attempted to draw ludicrous parallels between Christian and Islamic extremism. Glad to see you've dropped that silly argument, although you are still clutching at straws.

sundubuman

Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:17 am Post subject:

folks like Bobster are addicted to moral equivalancy, for without their hits of intellectual sedation, they'd be forced to grow up, look at the world without blinders, and squinting.....make a reasoned judgment. Things are so much more warm and fuzzy cuddled up in a fictional universe.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

the main impetus behind these atrocities do in fact come from Christian extremists who are presently in control of the American governmental appatus.

Hang on. I thought the war was about oil, or contracts for Halliburton?

Did you really think that? More sarcasm, irony? Or perhaps you are trying to attribute views to adversaries which were never spoken or conveyed ... wouldn't be far off from SOP, for a guy who likes to prune and clip off relevent sentenced from posted articles that would show the opposite of what he wishes were true - and, yeah, you're that guy.

Quote:

Do you actually have any evidence, apart from Bush's use of the word 'crusade' that the rationale for starting the war was to spread Christianity, or attack Islam?

I don't need evidence for that because I never said it. Again, you are a very dishonest.

I have said that the primary energy for the war in Iraq comes from an American govt highly-steeped in millenialist prophesy-driven ideology that has at its core a view of Christianity that is divorced from the mainstream of American relilgious thought. It is a matter of public record by now that religious extremists exist at the top layers of the American govt.

Quote:

In fact, I would question both your use of 'Christian' and 'Terrorist' to describe the action of the US army.

Again, I never said this. Despite what you may wish to believe by looking at my avatar, I have never spoken ill of the American military, and what criticisms I have made of individuals within it are confined to those individuals. Again, you are dishonest.

Quote:

The only people who are deliberately attacking civilians are Zarkawi's bunch of Jihadis, who are very explicit in their Islamic justification for such action.

I'm going to astound you by pointing out what everyone knows : insurgents do not wear uniforms and are not attached to any recognized govt, so therefore they are civilians. This is precisely what happens an occupying army must quell a population that does not want to be occupied.

Even leaving that aside, The Battle fo Fallujah was all about targeting civilians. Falluja is a city, and civilians live in cities.

Quote:

bv, no one mentioned abortion extremists except you.

The points I made in those discussions was sensible and cogent enough in that particular context, and you weaken yourself by pulling such comments out of thin air to bring them here and try to discredit notions that are far removed from those contexts ... not surprising, though, as your views are pretty weak from the get-go, based as they are on xenophobia and an underlying unease that your own culture is not strong enough to withstand interactrion and communication with other cultures that have value systems that are at odds with what you feel is true.

I think the values embodied by the West are not only fine, but superior to those found elsewhere. I don't think we need to worry that large numbers of people will choose another set of them - and one of the basic and most superior aspects of Western culture is the ability to change to meet new needs, and this is not only what will keep us safe, but also what will allow us to prevail ...

Of course, this capacity for change is just what many conservatives distrust about our own Western culture as well.

Kuros

Quote:

Jeez, Bobster, if you're trying to egg on Bigverne to indulge in his anti-moral-relativism rants you've given him a wonderful opening.

I don't agree with moral relativism. But there is blame enough for all, and unless we look clearly and reasonably at the blood on our own hands we cannot, ever, have any call to point to the enemy and call him a monster.

That just seems very obvious.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

I think the values embodied by the West are not only fine, but superior to those found elsewhere. I don't think we need to worry that large numbers of people will choose another set of them

No, we don't need to worry that large numbers of people will choose another set of them. What we need to worry about is large numbers of people, who already subscribe to quite different cultural values, effectively colonising the West and changing it beyond recognition.

Moreover, what you presumably consider to be the hallmarks of the West, tolerance and multiculturalism, are in fact the very things that are likely, at least in Europe, to lead to its destruction.

What will London�or Paris, or Amsterdam�be like in the mid-Thirties? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable thirty-five-hour weeks, retirement at sixty, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography/

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe