The terrorists ARE among us

I thought you were refering to my delineations not my estimation of your argument.... "believe what you want...." The context is kind of vague because they are just about your closing words and there is no clear reference one way or the other.

None here are my oppressors (there are some aggravators) and certainly not you. At least you try to engage the argument to an extent that others don't or won't.

 

You are now seriously wasting my time.

Fine. Change "US Soil" to "Mainland USA" or "New York City". The point is exactly the same. Just because it doesn't fit your "well most terrorist acts are done this way.." doesn't mean something is or isn't a terrorist act. Therefore, it's irrelevent to determining if this was a terrorist act.

What are yout talking about? Many crimes have certain characteristics and reasons for them that are not absolute. Now they're all irrelevant just because you think so? Where do you come up with this stuff?


Well, if acts of terrorism can be hate crimes, then why can't these hate crimes by terrorist acts? That's not to say ALL hate crimes are, but why can't these be?

You just want to around and around. Hate crimes can be small components of terrorism because the smaller can always be part of the larger. You show me how terrorism is a component of a hate crime and then you can go ahead and claim that the United States is the most terrorist nation on Earth.

For the fourth time, targetting a certain group is not the same as killing a certain group. For that matter, subway bombings are not even targetting Londoners -- they are targetting the government. The Londoners are simply method to an end.

When the body bags come out, we only count the ones who got killed, not the ones who were targeted. So for the fifth time, it really does matter who is targeted and who is killed. Subway bombings in London are in fact targeting Londoners. That's common sense. They're certainly not targeting Chinese by bombing a subway in London.

Ummm, you do know that political targets can be people, right? When you try to blow up the leader of a certain party, that's a POLITICAL TARGET.

Is that a hate crime or a terrorist attack?


Really? Because I was always under the imression that anti-abortion bombers targetted abortion doctors.

You were under a bad impression I guess. Anti-abortion terrorists target women, families, hospitals, nurses, doctors, abortion activists, etc.

Who's talking about every attack on a muslim? We're talking about specific acts that occurred over the last several days. And yes, when they shoot up people and drive away, I'd say the intent was to kill. What did you think the intent was?

You are talking on the attacks of Muslims. Now you know that every attack was with the intent to kill? You must have great powers to know all that. I wonder how that would work in court. Your honor, it's obvious his intent was to kill him. Oh okay, guilty.

We still seem to have a serious problem between targetting people and hitting people. If there are two restaurants -- one full of Israeli Jews and other the full of Israeli Muslims, which one do you think the terrorist will target?

Why don't you try this one. If Israelis were predominantly Hindu instead of Jewish. Would terrorists be killing them because they were Hindu or because they were Israeli and simply happened to be Hindu? Ohh.... now we're getting to the bottom of it aren't we.

LOL.. You're the one who said these aren't terrorist acts because "usually" terrorist actions are nationalistic and later admitted thats not always the case. I have nothing to prove to you, given that you have yet to give any logically reason why these aren't terrorist actions.

No, this entire thread is based on the argument that violent acts towards Muslims are terrorism. I said usually terrorist attacks are nationalistic, quite obviously that means that it's not always the case. That's what the word USUALLY means. So I didn't admit anything later. It's your burden to prove that they ARE terrorist attacks. Nobody accepts that just because you said so. It's your burden of proof, not mine to disprove something you haven't proven. Just because there is a dead body in the street doesn't mean there was a murder, it's your burden to prove that.


Umm.. Terrorism has one ultimate purpose: to terrorize (ie, scare). Through that terror, the aim is to scare a certain portion of the populace into submission/leaving/giving up/etc (IRA, Israel, etc). What exactly do you consider terrorism to be?

I see that I must spell everything out so that you're not mystified. Terrorism is done to kill, destroy in a manner which causes terror. A hate crime in itself can be someone trying to scare someone by many means without violent action. Maybe you should read the definition.

 

American Embassies are considered US soil. So it was an act of terrorism against the US. But I'm tired of this subject so whatever! lol