Kuwait Grenade Attack
- Thread starter CampX
- Start date
- Status
publius
Member
Gee, why would people do that? I can't imagine.
I recall it as well. Even the FBI got into the act, releasing sketches and descriptions of a John Doe #2. And what was Terry Nichols doing calling Indonesia, anyway? I mean, I'm sure it's beautiful there. Maybe he's just a tourist.
No, I'm saying if it's not as big a threat as Hitler, it's not as big a threat as Hitler. It can still be a threat, and still be evil.
I agree, but it's also important that we not be blind to motives. If we've got a troublemaker, it's worth asking whether he's just pissed because his commanding officer is a jerk (hey, it happens), or is he experiencing a conflict between his religious views and his oath of service.
Poodleshooter
Member
If we were attacking the Vatican or Ireland, I'd probably be suspicious of Catholic soldiers. The whole comparison to the Japanese internments in WWII is a strawman. Ethnicity is unalterable, religion is a conscious choice that affects one's behavior.
Put him before the court martial, send him back to the states if he's innocent, and up against a post at dawn if he's guilty. The word I saw on Drudge indicated that he had confessed to the soldier who found him immediately after the attack.
Put him before the court martial, send him back to the states if he's innocent, and up against a post at dawn if he's guilty. The word I saw on Drudge indicated that he had confessed to the soldier who found him immediately after the attack.
But in that particular instance, it wasn't true.
And Hitler was just another raving beer hall lunatic once. It's called time. It seems to change perceptions of threats.
That conflict, if it were to be true, still only applies to this particular individual. I'm all for establishing the motives for individuals and their crimes, but not for "extrapolating" one man's motive for ALL members of a religious creed despite the absence of any criminal acts from the vast majority of the latter.
So when our soldiers were approaching Germany and Italy during WWII, did you question Catholic and Protestant (say, Lutheran) soldiers?
Furthermore, you forget that religion was, in the past, often a part of one's ethnic-cultural (not "racial") makeup that was very difficult to change. One often inherited one's religion in the past.
Thankfully, we've made much progress since then.
From a Fox News report earlier, it seems like this perp converted to Islam in the '80s then joined the Army some time after that ('98?).
He was highly resentful that he wasn't allowed to deploy into Iraq.
Shortly thereafter, he fragged the head shed tents.
Makes no sense -- unless it was his intent (assignment?) to commit a horrendous act of sabotage against the 101st. His own ad hoc Plan B must have been the fragging. Think about this: a CE is liable to pack a bunch of C4 (or whatever the modern formula is called). Maybe he was planning on sapping the fuel and ammo trucks leaving the Screaming Eagle a Lame Duck then a Cooked Goose deep in Iraq.
Kudos to the sergeant who listened to his gut and guys saying "we don't want to go into combat with this guy," and leaving him behind.
He was highly resentful that he wasn't allowed to deploy into Iraq.
Shortly thereafter, he fragged the head shed tents.
Makes no sense -- unless it was his intent (assignment?) to commit a horrendous act of sabotage against the 101st. His own ad hoc Plan B must have been the fragging. Think about this: a CE is liable to pack a bunch of C4 (or whatever the modern formula is called). Maybe he was planning on sapping the fuel and ammo trucks leaving the Screaming Eagle a Lame Duck then a Cooked Goose deep in Iraq.
Kudos to the sergeant who listened to his gut and guys saying "we don't want to go into combat with this guy," and leaving him behind.
publius
Member
Never heard of John Doe 2 or those calls to Indonesia, Badahur?
That's one view, but I'm not very afraid of time. I'm a fairly young, healthy guy, after all. I fear lunatics who have money, arms, and a following.
By those measures, the scariest lunatics on the planet, by far, are the Islamic fundamentalists.
Will the real Muslims please stand up?
That's one view, but I'm not very afraid of time. I'm a fairly young, healthy guy, after all. I fear lunatics who have money, arms, and a following.
By those measures, the scariest lunatics on the planet, by far, are the Islamic fundamentalists.
Will the real Muslims please stand up?
p35
Member
Blackhawk,
I don't know any more than you do about this guy, but I have found that when trying to explain bizzare behavior as either conspiracy or lunacy, it's safe to bet on lunacy.
I don't know any more than you do about this guy, but I have found that when trying to explain bizzare behavior as either conspiracy or lunacy, it's safe to bet on lunacy.
I have. But nothing more than that. I can speculate, but that's all it would be - speculation.
So do I. But then again, who knows that a yet greater threat may rise - a threat that appears relatively benign today. Immediate threats (whether deadly or no) always have a way of appearing more serious than one tempered by time.
They are certainly up there.
From that article: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." A logical fallacy unless the IRA (Irish Catholic), ETA (Basque) and the various Latin American Marxist guerillas (secular or radical leftist-liberationalist Catholic) and narco-terrorists are Muslims (which they are most certainly not).
The article is extremely rhetorical and is long on logical fallacies.
publius
Member
This looked to me like speculation that there was no involvement by a man called only John Doe 2, and speculation that the calls to Indonesia were unrelated:
Uh, that's not the whole sentence, so the period should be a ...
Here's the actual sentence:
Reads a little different when complete. The last Basque attack in America was when, exactly?
Uh, that's not the whole sentence, so the period should be a ...
Here's the actual sentence:
Reads a little different when complete. The last Basque attack in America was when, exactly?
publius
Member
That kind of slipped by me earlier, but now I'm just wondering, who is up at the top of your personal list?
Maybe the answer should be divided into two categories, one for your personal life, another for more generalized risk to life, property, security on a national or global scale. I would certainly understand if our friend P35 said the Aryans topped his list in his personal life, but I'd think he's a nut if they're at the top of the list in terms of risk posed to the nation and/or the world.
(Just to be perfectly clear, since it seems to be needed, I am NOT saying they're not evil and not a threat. Saying something is less of a threat than some other thing DOES imply that it's a threat.)
edited for typo. time for bed.
Actually it doesn not work that way. For an allegation to be true, it has to be demonstrated to be so. You don't prove the negative, at least in this country.
Example. I say you are guilty of murder. You say you are NOT guilty. I say you must prove that your actions had nothing to do with murder to be exonerated. You say that I, the accuser, have the burden of proof of the crime.
Who is right? In this country, you would be.
Another example. I say Martians inhabited North America. You say not. I say, you must prove that there is no connection between Mars and North America to disprove me. You say, I must prove my theory since I advanced it.
Who is right? You are, by all academic integrity standards.
Well, it depends on what region of the world I reside in and who I am ethnically, religiously and so forth.
For example, if I am one of the majority Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger terrorists sure would be a major threat to me. The latter has killed far more Sri Lankans than Osama bin Laden's men have in the US.
If I am a Ulster Protestant, the radical wing of the IRA, would be the worst terrorists as they have bombed my children.
If I am a rightist in Columbia, the left-wing alliance of communist/liberationist Catholic guerillas and narco-terrorists would be most threatening.
The fact is that there are dozens and hundreds of guerilla/terrorist groups around the world that have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in just the past few years. While the WTC attack was a singular and spectacular act of terrorism, OBL and his men are by far not the most destructive terrorist group to have existed ever in history.
That is not to say that the bunch is not a critical threat to the US. *I* personally find them pretty damn threatening as I live in the US and believe in the American way of life.
I know that the Iraq war and OBL are pretty big concerns for us today (for the obvious reasons), but to dismiss other terrorist threats as not being "major concern" shows a certain lack of appreciation and understanding about other victims of terrorism, not to mention a lack of historical understanding.
Besides, the author is being unnecessarily sensationalistic. He could have been more accurate if he had stated "many terrorists are (or claim to be) Muslim" instead of "all terrorists." I suspect, judging from the article, the motive for such a sensationalism was to paint Islam (if there is such a monolithic thing) as negatively as possible. In fact, if he'd used the more accurate verbiage, it would not have worked with the thesis of his article, which was that Islam breeds terrorism, period.
The Spanish authorities find ETA a pretty damn major concern. And don't forget that, though in the background for now, the IRA issue has been a major concern for quite a while. Where are the Muslim terrorists in that conflict?
jmbg29
member
The Major that was wounded in the attack has died. 
They need to begin a Court Martial right NOW!
They need to begin a Court Martial right NOW!
publius
Member
Fair enough. Part of the OJ is innocent because he was never proven guilty brigade.
Let's just say that I suspect that the man of middle eastern appearance called John Doe 2 did exist and was involved, and I suspect that the calls to Indonesia were related to the bombing.
Speaking of suspicions....
I suspect, judging from your partial quotation, the motive for such a partial quotation was to paint the article as negatively as possible. In fact, if you'd used the whole quotation, it would not have worked with the thesis of your statement, which was:
Of course, I can't prove that, so it isn't true. Speaking of things that aren't true, once again, it was not "all terrorists". It was "all terrorists of major world concern."
Like it or not, that is our justice system. It does not work all the time, but it certainly works better than any other system I know of (and I lived under quite a few different ones).
Are you suggesting that we should have a justice system under which the defendants bear the burden of proving their lack of guilt, contrary to the current system under which the accuser (the government) has the burden of proving the guilt?
Yes it still does. Even granting the entire quotation, which I subsequently did, I show that there are "major world concern" terrorists who are not Muslims. Of course, your definition of "major world concern" seems to be from our, American perspective only.
Again, to the Brits, the IRA is a pretty damn major concern. To the Spaniards, the ETA is the same. To the Japanese, Aum Shinrikyo is a pretty damn big (intercontinental) concern (and the Japanese, the world's second largest economy, largely don't really "get" all the "hooplah" about Islamic crazies). These, and also many Latin American narco-terrorist groups, are all pretty big "major world concern" terrorists that happen to be non-Muslim.
You can tweak with the definition of "major world concern" until it precisely fits what you want (radical Islamic terrorists only). But that's a circular definition game that does not really prove anything, is it?
Again, I repeat:
I don't downplay the radical Islamic terrorist threat. But the author of that article over-plays it to the exclusion of all other kinds of terrorists in order to imply that somehow Islam is more prone to producing "real" (or "major world concern") terrorists.
jmbg29
member
jmbg29
member
Yeah CampX, a frigging Islamic radical terrorist.
publius
Member
Not at all. The difference here is, we are citizens chatting. I am not the government threatening someone's life, liberty, or property.
You and I can agree here (I'm not saying you do, just we can) that OJ killed those two people. It's not proven, at least not in that court to that jury, but we can both believe it is true.
Similarly, you can believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone (OK, forget Fortier), and I can believe that they may have had accomplices. You can't prove the negative (that there were no accomplices), yet to you, that's truth. I can't prove the positive (that John Doe 2 exists, may be an Arab, may be a Muslim, and may be involved), yet to me, that's truth.
As far as the justice system is concerned, you are absolutely correct. No one else was found guilty of involvement. But as with the OJ case, just because there is no guilty verdict does not mean there is no guilt. I would have no quarrel with your statement if you had said it was not proven that there was a Muslim connection in that attack. You did not say that. You said it was not true that there was a Muslim connection. That might or might not be the case. It's speculation.
As far as "world concern," I did say it was subjective, but I wasn't talking about just the WTC, or just attacks in America. I hate to post this, as we've all seen quite enough of it, but have a look at the locations involved:
Some terrorists get around more than others, some have more funding than others.
If you'd replace Islam with Wahhabism (sp?), I'd accept and agree with the implication, which is why I posted the article. I don't agree with everything in it, just as I don't agree with everything in that new one I just posted (nationalizing industries makes them more accountable???), but it's food for thought.
How does that make it any different? In any form of logical, scientific, rational inquiry, one has to prove the claim. One does not ask the other to disprove the claim and then cry "I win" when the other side can't or won't.
Yes, except you don't base foreign policy or national security policy on "beliefs." You base them on cold facts and rational analysis based on those facts.
Not so. I do not "believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone." The facts and subsequent analyses lead me to think that the Islamic accomplice theory is unproven. So I do not accept it until it is proven. That does not mean I consider the "acted alone" theory to be God-given truth. I merely consider the "best known truth for the time being." If someone is going to make the claim that they did NOT act alone, then that somone has the burden of proof for challenging the previously established information/analyses.
Put another way, let's say two people actually bombed a building. We accept it as truth that the two (and possibly others) are responsible. Now, we want to say that four more were part of the conspiracy. Then we MUST PROVE that the four additional people WERE involved. We don't from the get-go say that "There are six (or eight or ten or 5,000) conspirators - if you don't believe me, you have to demonstrate to me why the four others who did not actually detonate the bomb were not part of the conspiracy." It just doesn't work that way. You work from the "minimum" to the "maximum" with what evidence you have - you don't set a "maximum" and force others to accept it or falsifiy it. It's an unreasonable burden, which is why the justice system is set up so that the government has the burden of proving guilt rather than defendants having to falsify the government's charge.
Okay. What does that mean? You framed the last answer to fit YOUR generalization. Let's try it this way:
As you can tell, they are all different people and groups with different ideological-sectarian leanings, specific to the regions or groups (opposing enemies) they are identified with.
I can generate a list with the answer "White Christian Male" and have questions like "Who bombed Oklahoma," "Who started WWII by invading Poland," "Who bombed the abortion clinics and murdered doctors," "Who maintained slavery in North America" and ad naseum. That does not mean that "white Christian males," collectively, are the reason why those things happened.
You are confusing correlations with causation, a simple fallacy.
publius
Member
Fair enough. I misunderstood when you said that it was "not true" that Islamic terrorists were involved in OKC. If what you meant was that it is "not proven," then we agree, it is not.
My point in posting the tired list of acts of terrorism, particularly the ones you have helpfully noted are acts of OBL followers, was that Al Queda appears to be (or at least have recently been) an organization with global reach, willing and able to reach out and strike in distant places. The whole "global concern" thing again.
No comments on Wahhabism? I'd be interested in hearing your views of that sect.
Well, if so, I find it odd that you framed the "correct" answer as "Muslim male betwen age so and so." That seems to indicate that you were trying to imply that being a young Muslim has something significant to do with terrorism.
Yes, Al-Qaida was a serious threat. It is probably still very serious, but probably severely degraded from what it was pre-9/11.
But that's an entirely different (much more precise and accurate) argument than "Most major terrorist groups are motivated by Islam."
What about it?
publius
Member
That was not my list, so I wasn't the one framing the answers.
I don't believe that, but I do believe that being a Wahhabi Muslim makes someone a likely terrorist, which is the answer to your last question. That's what about that sect.
I'm not the only one who thinks so....
I may be a redneck, but I agree with that. Do you?
I don't believe that, but I do believe that being a Wahhabi Muslim makes someone a likely terrorist, which is the answer to your last question. That's what about that sect.
I'm not the only one who thinks so....
I may be a redneck, but I agree with that. Do you?
Well, you presented the list as if some kind of an evidence, so you are, in effect, responsible for introducing it in the debate. That's what I meant by it by "framing the debate."
As for the Wahabi sect:
I do not think Wahabism is the "necessary and sufficient" condition for terrorism. Afterall, the House of bin al-Saud, brought to power by the Wahabi tribesmen, had been an ally for the Anglo-British alliance for a long time. Wahabi terrorists were not in vogue in the past (the worry used to be Shi'ite terrorists in the aftermath of the Iranian Shi'ite revolution).
However, Wahabism is a fundamentalist, purist creed. People who believe in such fundamentalism are much more likely to commit acts of violence out of "belief" (that their belief is "it") than say secular terrorists who might use "God" as merely an excuse, a cover.
So, Wahabism, being fundamentalist Islam, is something to be concerned about and observec carefully (as a movement). But that does not mean that someone who subscribe to Wahabism is going to automatically turn into a terrorist.
publius
Member
Was that a really long way of saying...
that you agree with this?
Kidding! I know a joking tone of voice doesn't carry well through wires! Seriously, thanks for your reply. I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp, and it has strayed far from the original topic. What say we drop it before the mods lock it?
that you agree with this?
Kidding! I know a joking tone of voice doesn't carry well through wires! Seriously, thanks for your reply. I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp, and it has strayed far from the original topic. What say we drop it before the mods lock it?
- Status
