If you’re going to keep twisting my words, I’m done with this discussion. Reread my post, and once you can find some intellectual honesty to distinguish between blowing up innocent people vs. military targets, maybe I’ll consider replying to you.[/quote]
Considering that everyone here is trying to discuss it in the context of blowing up innocents, you know exactly what I mean. So, I will translate your quoted paragraph above:
"[Run away when people keep countering my arguments! Run away!]
I still think lixy needs to go off in the woods alone with a suicide bomber vest and practice a bit.[/quote]
By the way, can we finally dispense with the politically correct assertion around here by some that Lixy isn’t actually on the side of Islamism?
The bad faith arguments have revealed not purely a Eurocentric left-wing critic, but a bona fide ideologue in favor of Islamist violence as directed to all enemies of the Islamist-Progressist platform.
I think Lixy may have unintentionally shown his cards, but he showed them nonetheless.
I still think lixy needs to go off in the woods alone with a suicide bomber vest and practice a bit.
By the way, can we finally dispense with the politically correct assertion around here by some that Lixy isn’t actually on the side of Islamism?
The bad faith arguments have revealed not purely a Eurocentric left-wing critic, but a bona fide ideologue in favor of Islamist violence as directed to all enemies of the Islamist-Progressist platform.
I think Lixy may have unintentionally shown his cards, but he showed them nonetheless.
[/quote]
I think the next person that pretends lixy is something other than a terrorist sympathizer should be banned.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Considering that everyone here is trying to discuss it in the context of blowing up innocents, you know exactly what I mean. [/quote]
Rubbish!
Here’s what RJ wrote: “[…]you are as big a coward as your brothers-in-bomb-vests.”
Then, when confronted by Orion on the irrationality of the statement, he added:
“What do you call a vest made of bombs? I was going to use car-bombs, but I decided against it. Had I known you would be in here critiquing, I would have gone with my first choice.”
You see, even RJ admitted the problem in labeling suicide bombers cowards.
Let me go farther and declare that, regardless of the target, a suicide bomber cannot possibly be considered a coward. Period.
In a country that was viciously attacked and violently invaded, the only people you might consider cowards are the ones sitting on their hands or the ones who fled their land. The people resisting are NOT cowards - in any sense of the word. A coward is a person so afraid of danger and pain that he/she ends up thinking with his/her legs (apologies to Ambrose Pierce). It’s somebody who’s easily intimidated. Suicide bombers (be they the Tamil Tigers, Hamas or the Iraqi resistance) are none of those things.
Suicide, in and by itself, can be considered an act of cowardice (think the guy who jumps out of a window following a stock market crash). On the other hand, for suicide bombers, suicide is just their method of resisting. If they had tanks and jet-fighters, they’d be blowing up the foreign troops with them. For them, death is not an end in itself; it’s the only way at their disposal to inflict heavy casualties to the aggressor.
I can’t have a discussion with someone who claims that I not approve of the tactics but even “admire” them. There is simply no way to have a constructive discussion because you start with the name calling from the get-go and thrive on strawmen.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Considering that everyone here is trying to discuss it in the context of blowing up innocents, you know exactly what I mean. [/quote]
Rubbish!
Here’s what RJ wrote: “[…]you are as big a coward as your brothers-in-bomb-vests.”
Then, when confronted by Orion on the irrationality of the statement, he added:
“What do you call a vest made of bombs? I was going to use car-bombs, but I decided against it. Had I known you would be in here critiquing, I would have gone with my first choice.”
You see, even RJ admitted the problem in labeling suicide bombers cowards.
Let me go farther and declare that, regardless of the target, a suicide bomber cannot possibly be considered a coward. Period.
In a country that was viciously attacked and violently invaded, the only people you might consider cowards are the ones sitting on their hands or the ones who fled their land. The people resisting are NOT cowards - in any sense of the word. A coward is a person so afraid of danger and pain that he/she ends up thinking with his/her legs (apologies to Ambrose Pierce). It’s somebody who’s easily intimidated. Suicide bombers (be they the Tamil Tigers, Hamas or the Iraqi resistance) are none of those things.
Suicide, in and by itself, can be considered an act of cowardice (think the guy who jumps out of a window following a stock market crash). On the other hand, for suicide bombers, suicide is just their method of resisting. If they had tanks and jet-fighters, they’d be blowing up the foreign troops with them. For them, death is not an end in itself; it’s the only way at their disposal to inflict heavy casualties to the aggressor.
I can’t have a discussion with someone who claims that I not approve of the tactics but even “admire” them. There is simply no way to have a constructive discussion because you start with the name calling from the get-go and thrive on strawmen.
Attacking and murdering civilians, so long as you commit suicide, is an act of courage. The target doesn’t matter, how many people you surprise attack who never get a chance to defend themselves is completely irrelevant - what matters is they end their lives while committing the heinous act.
So, if an American Marine goes ape-shit and runs into a crowd of Iraqi citizens, starts spraying innocents with bullets while refusing to stop shooting until someone takes him out with their own bullet…
…is…
(wait for it)
…courageous. He knows he will die - like most crazed gunmen do, he won’t stop murdering until someone takes him out - and kills indiscriminately until someone does.
He is brave. Quote it.
This is getting interesting. Lixy isn’t even pretending any more.
But notice how once discovered, Lixy is trying to re-establish credibility by claiming not to side with the Islamists - he knows if he goes too far, the forum will stop responding to him.
[quote]lixy wrote: “What do you call a vest made of bombs? I was going to use car-bombs, but I decided against it. Had I known you would be in here critiquing, I would have gone with my first choice.”
You see, even RJ admitted the problem in labeling suicide bombers cowards.
[/quote]
Orion was questioning the term “bomb vest” - as it is what bomb squads wear when diffusing explosives.
Your entire argument is bunk.
All suicide bombers are cowards - whether they have bombs strapped to their chest, or they are driving a car filled with explosives. Their targets are the same: innocent women and children.
I love it when moral relativists try to be relevant.
Try again. [/quote]
Didn’t Lifticus just get finished telling us in another thread that America was shown the Truth by godhead Ron Paul and would suffer because they rejected said Truth? I thought there was no Truth, only Perspectives?
Lifticus isn’t even a good relativist - every time he writes, he proves even he doesn’t believe his relativist manure.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Suicide bombing is the ultimate form of “avoiding confrontation” -
No, you idiot! Avoiding confrontation is sitting on your ass while foreign troops roam your land. Using one’s own body as a bomb delivery medium cannot be considered cowardice. When you don’t have stealth fighters, the “human bomb” is the next most efficient use of explosive devices. It ensures maximum damage, and demonstrates that they value their cause more than their own life.
their victims never see it coming,
As opposed to GBU-27s and Tomahawks?
they have no chance to defend themselves,
WTF? Defend themselves? It is the Americans who attacked the Iraqi, not the other way around.
and the suicide-bombers avoid ever having to confront their opponent.
You must be on dope to think building an explosive device, finding a way to carry it on your person and going after the world’s best equipped soldiers is avoiding confrontation.[/quote]
You are missing the whole point. What about the ones who are deliberatly targeting civilians. You bitch about it when a US soldier shoots a civilian, but praise a suicide attack on a bunch of shoppers? How can you possibly justify this?
edit- Sorry, did not read this till the end. He can’t.
I guess by your dodging the bet, you are as big a coward as your brothers-in-bomb-vests. You have yet to let me down. You keep validating my disgust at your existence.
People in bomb vests are cowards?
Bomber crews and artillery personnel are heroes?
They don’t have bombers or artillery in Europe’s arsenal?[/quote]
Of course we have. We do not have the American worship of the military though.