I've already addressed this, at least from my own perspective as I can't speak for anyone else.

Do you understand what is required to prevent these things? Take a moment to think about just how much liberty we would have to give up to obtain the degree of security you are asking for.



Hardly. The liars, hate-mongers, fear-mongers, war-mongers brought us to where we are now. If pacifism is what motivates terrorists then why aren't they focusing the bulk of their attacks on countries that are more pacifistic?

Jordan, not Yemen, sorry.

Shadowar: Please, if you can, tell us how to "get ready". Tell us what kind of "sacrifices" we have to make. How can you connect the pacifists' attitude to this particular instance?

You wrote this before you even knew the details of the situation, yet you KNEW what caused it. Like the last time when you just KNEW it was terrorism when that teenager went nuts and killed people in that mall. Why? Because he was Muslim. Why did you think you knew all about this one? Because they are Muslim.

Soooo... where's the real meat to this, Shadowar? Where's the bang at the end where you tell us what we have to do to prevent it? You castigate people for not being willing to sacrifice enough. You pretend like it is someone else's fault that terrorists commit these attacks.

HEY! Why not call the pacifists "little eichmanns"? After all "the pacifists" have done this to us, not the terrorists. Ward Churchill basically said the same thing about the victims of 9/11, and you ilk hates him. All I can figure is that by using the word "pacifists" you erase some of the fagginess of the stance and can blame other people for terrorist's acts in the clear.

You blog like those con men that pretend to communicate with dead people. You play on fears and biases and speak in generalizations, and leave it to the audience jump to whatever conclusions. Dr Guy is mad at me for jumping to conclusions. Why not just come out and tell us what the pacifists could have done to prevent this?

P.S. Thanks whip. Shadowar called me a whiner on a blog that sits there to this day. Admins said they were going to remove his plagiarized article, then didn't. Dunno why they value him so highly, but they'll need to blacklist me from the site to prevent me from answering this crap when I see it.

An example of the hypocrisy. Supposedly we should be ashamed of the "media" for questioning if the Virginia Tech shootings could have been hampered by locking down the campus. Picking over blame is supposedly just not the done thing to do after something scary happens.

Then, when someone says that "pacifists" are to blame for terrorist plots... the same people offer hell yeahs. So, the rule seems to be that the only time you are allowed to shift the blame away from the criminal is when it serves your political purposes...

Do you actually read any articles or comments? Or do you just decide based upon the title if you are going to be for against them? The above statement indicates the latter. As do most of your comments here.

Or perhaps you are "ghost writing" everyone elses comments?

The description of the suspects as ""Islamic militants'' was causing renewed worry among New Jersey's Muslim community. Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained by authorities in the months following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but none were connected to that plot.

""If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law,'' said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. ""But when the government says 'Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous.

""Don't equate actions with religion,'' he said.


we are not supposed to call islamic militants, islamic militants so what are we supposed to call them christian militants, hindu militants,

come on islamic militants are islamic militants

just like the kkk are christian militants

When have you ever heard the KKK called "Christian militants" in the press, daniel? Should we call the Virginia Tech shooter an "atheist militant"?

Dr Guy: Yes, I read every single word: (Link).



Yet, here, we have finger pointing, blame flaming, and cries of outrage that "someone" or "something" was not done to prevent this from happening. All before we even knew the men's names or they had even stepped into a court room. Where is the shame for those who blame "pacifists" for terrorist plots before we even have the facts?

Me, I don't give a rat's ass, I'll blame anyone I think is to blame. I think it is just kind of sad how you guys use these moral constructs to protect select people from condemnation and yet reserve the right to blame the people you consider political enemies. When people blame terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq you pop a gasket, but you'd never hesitate to blame this kind of thing on "pacifists".

Ok, your quote feature is working. Now quote the date it was written. Second assignment (if you can think critically or try a second quote), show me where the above applies to anything I have written?



Now show me HOW the above statement of yours is not the pot calling the kettle black in the statement you quoted from me about what the MEDIA was doing?

Like I have said, you like to pigeon hole people based upon YOUR statements, not theirs, even when you are blantantly guilty of doing the exact thing you supposedly are "sad" about.

they probable are not called christian militants becouse their targets are also christian

i don't know about anyone else but when the sunni and shia are attacking each other i haven't heard the term islamic militants


but i could be wrong

and i do recall hearing someone someplace, after some christians attacked somebody that wasn't christian, called christian militants

Firebombing churches is basically a trademark of "christian" militants in America.

why do i need to know much about the klan when i do know that the members of the klan believe themselves to be christians and believe that god made white man better than blacks, jews and others


i don't believe any of this crap

i believe that the only difference between white, blacks, or any of the other races is strictly skin color

FYI, that isn't PC, either. Remember diversity means something. According to the powers that be there are no NEGATIVE differences, but we're all special little flowers racially.

each individual does



as for skin color becouse of where you live

lets see caucasions live in europe but came from the coucas mountains in russia

that makes them either asian or middle eastern

according to the evolution theory they are white so they can absorb more sun light becouse of where they live

but the chinese and the north american indians live at the same latitude

and the eskomios diffently live a lot closer to the north pole

and the africans living in south africa also live at the same latitude just south of the equater


so again the only real difference between me asians africans indians is skin color and culture

Until we understand the reason behind terrorism we can never obtain any degree of security against it. as i said many times, it is like a fatal traffic accidents at a faultily-designed intersection. unless you redesign it, there will always be fatal accidents no matter how many traffic cops you put there.



this is very true. and we should try to understand their motives and why is it that way in order to minimize their danger and possibly eliminate it.

From what i know about Muslims and Arabs, they dont have a fundamental problem with us other than political issues. it is not a cultural problem, it is a policy problem.

If we can address that, we will eliminate the main reason they consider us an enemy and learn why they use terrosim as their mode of operation.