Terrorist group: "France is our enemy No 1"

[Jamie]

What am i mixing up?

everything

Since everything has to be spelled out for you, I was commending France's domestic efforts against terrorism, not accusing them of profiling

Yes exactly you said in the US their actions would be viewed as profiling, assuming you meant by liberals, I pointed out the fact that the nature of these arrests could in no possible way be classed as profiling as the French authorities had evidence that the suspects were members of a terrorist cell. I never meant to say you were accusing them of profiling what I meant to clear up, that despite what you and other posters think noone else is going to accuse them of profiling. You seem to have some ridiculous idea that anyone with liberal views is in some way sympathetic of terrorism and that the minute a terrorist is arrested we will cry foul. As long as there is evidence to support it, I have no problems, as a matter of fact, I support the arrest of terrorists, and simply did not want people like you misrepresenting my point of view by lumping everyone with similar moral standards as mine into one by saying every liberal is going to say this is an example of profiling.? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? See we can all use obnoxious smilies to make other people look like liars.

[POPmetal]

What am i mixing up?

everything

Since everything has to be spelled out for you, I was commending France's domestic efforts against terrorism, not accusing them of profiling

Yes exactly you said in the US their actions would be viewed as profiling, assuming you meant by liberals, I pointed out the fact that the nature of these arrests could in no possible way be classed as profiling as the French authorities had evidence that the suspects were members of a terrorist cell. I never meant to say you were accusing them of profiling what I meant to clear up, that despite what you and other posters think noone else is going to accuse them of profiling. You seem to have some ridiculous idea that anyone with liberal views is in some way sympathetic of terrorism and that the minute a terrorist is arrested we will cry foul. As long as there is evidence to support it, I have no problems, as a matter of fact, I support the arrest of terrorists, and simply did not want people like you misrepresenting my point of view by lumping everyone with similar moral standards as mine into one by saying every liberal is going to say this is an example of profiling.? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? See we can all use obnoxious smilies to make other people look like liars.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Using smilies can't make anyone look like a liar. It's your actions and/or ignorance that make you look like a liar. I never said anything about liberals. Your 'assumption' is wrong. In the US, civil libertarians would consider the offensive harassment policy profiling. Not all liberals are civil libertarians and many conservatives are, so this has nothing to do with liberals.  You are simply paranoid, I'm not out to get liberals. I'm also not against civil libertarians. I agree with them more often than not, but in some cases, like the war on terror,  I think they go overboard.

[SLCPUNK]

I agree with them more often than not, but in some cases, like the war on terror,  I think they go overboard.

By what? Asking our prez to get the real terrorists? 

[Jamie]

What am i mixing up?

everything

Since everything has to be spelled out for you, I was commending France's domestic efforts against terrorism, not accusing them of profiling

Yes exactly you said in the US their actions would be viewed as profiling, assuming you meant by liberals, I pointed out the fact that the nature of these arrests could in no possible way be classed as profiling as the French authorities had evidence that the suspects were members of a terrorist cell. I never meant to say you were accusing them of profiling what I meant to clear up, that despite what you and other posters think noone else is going to accuse them of profiling. You seem to have some ridiculous idea that anyone with liberal views is in some way sympathetic of terrorism and that the minute a terrorist is arrested we will cry foul. As long as there is evidence to support it, I have no problems, as a matter of fact, I support the arrest of terrorists, and simply did not want people like you misrepresenting my point of view by lumping everyone with similar moral standards as mine into one by saying every liberal is going to say this is an example of profiling.? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? See we can all use obnoxious smilies to make other people look like liars.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Using smilies can't make anyone look like a liar. It's your actions and/or ignorance that make you look like a liar. I never said anything about liberals. Your 'assumption' is wrong. In the US, civil libertarians would consider the offensive harassment policy profiling. Not all liberals are civil libertarians and many conservatives are, so this has nothing to do with liberals.? You are simply paranoid, I'm not out to get liberals. I'm also not against civil libertarians. I agree with them more often than not, but in some cases, like the war on terror,? I think they go overboard.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

[POPmetal]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

I'm gonna pretend I didn't just waste 30 seconds of my life to read this. This board can really use an "ignore" feature.

[POPmetal]

Here's something that actually IS directed at liberals, since Jamie is so intent on turning this thread into liberal v. conservative discussion:


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1588184,00.html
Self-delusion kills

Liberals will blame anybody else for atrocities rather than accuse murderous Islamic terrorists
Nick Cohen
Sunday October 9, 2005

Observer
There are plenty of signs that Paris could be next. French intelligence agents found a message on an Arabic website from the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, a demented Algerian outfit which is close to al-Qaeda. France was 'our first enemy', the terrorists said. The 'only way to discipline France is jihad, martyrdom and Islam'.

At the end of last month, French police arrested nine alleged Islamists in a suburb of Paris and claimed they were planning to bomb the Metro. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Interior minister, said the risk of an attack was currently 'at a very high level'. Marc Hecker, from the French Institute for International Relations, said it was 'a real error' to believe that France would be left in peace because President Chirac opposed the Iraq War.

Indeed it is. But as it's impossible to blame Iraq, what or who will get the blame if the rucksacks start exploding at the Gare du Nord? Will the liberal world look Islamism in the face and see a cult of slaughter and self-slaughter powered by messianic faith, the Jewish conspiracy theory of European fascism, imperialist dreams of world domination and a loathing of democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance and the emancipation of women? I live in hope, but the record suggests everyone but the perpetrators will be held responsible.

If the French can't be blamed for their part in the downfall of Chirac's old friend, Saddam Hussein, then maybe their support for the Algerian government will be used to explain the killings. No? How about the ban of headscarves in French schools? My money is on the headscarves but, frankly, the favoured 'root cause' could be the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy on poor world farmers or the provocation given by bikini-wearing holidaymakers at Club Med resorts in North Africa or the behaviour of French paratroopers during the Algerian War of Independence in the 1950s.

If you think I'm exaggerating, consider the attempts to show that the bombs in Bali were the fault of liberal democracies. Before a single fact on the motives of the killers was available, the Independent on Sunday declared: 'There can be little doubt that the bombs in Bali are linked to issues surrounding the war. It is no coincidence that Australia, whose citizens are likely to be the majority of the victims, is fully committed in Iraq.'

Actually, there could be a great deal of doubt, not least because the majority of the dead were Indonesian Hindus, who I assume the Islamists were happy to designate as pagans before murdering them.

Pamela Nowicka of Tourism Concern, which campaigns for eco-friendly holidays, had doubts of her own. She decided that what mattered was that the dead tourists were tourists rather than Australians. 'Many in the global south regard tourism as a new form of colonialism and cultural imperialism,' she wrote in the Guardian. 'While that may be hard for the suntanned holidaymaker to take on board, for the millions of ordinary people servicing their needs - the waiting staff, room cleaners, receptionists, shop workers, guides, massage ladies and taxi drivers - the linkage is clearer.'

Except that the bombers weren't disgruntled room cleaners and taxi drivers. They were members of a totalitarian movement which is against every principle Ms Nowicka professes to support. The first economic consequence of their killings will be to put cleaners and taxi drivers out of work.

I could go on - Mark Curtis, a historian from the Noam Chomsky school, wrote a piece which blamed the bombs on British support for General Suharto's coup a mere 40 years ago - but what needs saying is that no mainstream commentator mentioned that we have the grievance of Indonesian Islamists on the record. It has nothing to do with the foreign policy of the first Wilson administration or stingy tipping in Bali's restaurants. After the 2002 explosions in Bali killed 200, Osama bin Laden declared: 'Australia is the one that we have warned before not to participate in Afghanistan, not to mention its continued awful chapter in East Timor. They ignored our warning and they woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali.'

My guess is that people don't want to look at al-Qaeda's condemnations of Australia's role in saving (largely Catholic) East Timor from destruction by the militias of (largely Muslim) Indonesia. It's too frightening to contemplate; it takes you into the darkness to confront Islamism's impossible and therefore unappeasable demand for a caliphate and reminds you of its imperial urge to dominate Muslims and subjugate all others.

Avoidance of what al-Qaeda stands for began in 9/11 and has become endemic since. My favourite piece of victim blaming was after the Madrid bombings. For a few hours, there was a rumour that they were the work of ETA and Eddie Mair, the presenter of Radio 4's PM news show, duly had a go at a representative of the Spanish government, alleging that Madrid's refusal to talk to Basque nationalists was the root cause of the atrocity.

By the next day, it was clear that Islamists, not Basques, had attacked Madrid. Without pausing for breath, Mair duly wanted to know if the presence of Spanish troops in Iraq was the root cause of the atrocity. The identity of the bombers was irrelevant. The Spanish had to be the cause of their own suffering.

Perhaps it is too easy to mock. When confronted with an ideology which mandates indiscriminate killing on an industrial scale, it is natural to seek rational explanations of the irrational; to pretend that Islamism is merely a reasonable, if bloody, response to legitimate concerns which could be remedied if we elected wiser leaders.

Yet the masochism - 'Kill us, we deserve it!' - the subliminal dislike of democracy and the willingness to turn al-Qaeda into the armed wing of every fashionable campaign from sustainable tourism to the anti-war movement will in the end disgrace the liberals by making them ridiculous.

Charles Clarke should learn that clarity doesn't begin at Home

The Home Office is attempting the revolutionary tactic of treating the British public as adults. This may be foolish. The only adult thing about millions of British voters is that they are over 18.

None the less, it was cheering to see Charles Clarke publish vast amounts of supporting evidence last week to explain why he wanted to hold suspects without charge for three months. For years now, the government has felt no need to justify its assaults on civil liberties. It has simply dismissed its critics as 'BMW-driving, civil-liberties lawyers' and other decadent dilettantes. The act of writing out a justification destroys self-delusion by forcing you to be clear. I'm not sure if it will help sell other Home Office policies.

How would an honest description of its ban on the incitement to religious hatred read? 'We are so worried about religious extremists that we want to give them the chance to send their critics to prison.' A bit windy, perhaps. Let's try: 'We'll fight religious bigotry by protecting religious bigotry.' Nearer the mark, I think, and more succinct.

On identity cards, intellectual clarity would demand that Mr Clarke begins: 'We're so worried by crime, terrorism and illegal immigration that we want to impose a new law-and-order tax on the public. Our estimate is it will raise ?6 billion. Others say ?18bn. Let's split the difference and call it ?12bn.

'OK. Now we won't spend it on capturing criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants. That would be mad. Rather than wasting money on new police officers, we will force people who aren't criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants to carry an expensive piece of plastic.'

Does it work for you? Me neither. I don't think the new openness will last. As a true friend of the Home Office, I advise it to go back to its traditional policy of always complain, never explain.

Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

[Jamie]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

I'm gonna pretend I didn't just waste 30 seconds of my life to read this. This board can really use an "ignore" feature.

Yeah, I bet you'd love an ignore feature, then you'll never have to know when people are calling you out, proving you wrong, or making you look like a fool. If you want to ignore everything I say and just launch a blatant personal attack, such as above, that's fine by me, it's only making you look like an idiot.

[POPmetal]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

I'm gonna pretend I didn't just waste 30 seconds of my life to read this. This board can really use an "ignore" feature.

Yeah, I bet you'd love an ignore feature, then you'll never have to know when people are calling you out, proving you wrong, or making you look like a fool. If you want to ignore everything I say and just launch a blatant personal attack, such as above, that's fine by me, it's only making you look like an idiot.

Not really, because I'll only ignore the clowns with empty accusations, meaning just you. What have you proven me wrong about?

[SLCPUNK]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

Right, this a game they will play.

They'll use everything in the book to define something (i.e., treason, liberal etc) and then when you point it out, they claim they never said the "actual word". But they might as well have said it, as it is obviously implied.

Besides you were right anyway, and that is why he clung onto the whole "you put words in my mouth" fiasco. To change the subject and get you arguing about THAT instead of the original point you made.

They feel that all they have to do is muddy the argument to win it. If you are put on the defense over something trivial (Usually always about use of word or words) then your well made point is now buried under 2 pages of posts.

[POPmetal]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you and others mentioned profiling, simple as. As for my assumption being wrong, it most certainly seemed to be directed at liberals on the board because liberals and conservatives had been the only ones so far to post in this thread. Why would you voice your opinion towards a civil libertarian viewpoint if noone so far had expressed such viewpoints in this thread? I apologise for assuming that the mention of profiling was directed at me and other liberals, had me fooled, but even so, I still think you had no justification to direct such and insinuation towards anyone, of any political standing, that's as much putting words in people's mouths as you claim I am doing.

Right, this a game they will play.

They'll use everything in the book to define something (i.e., treason, liberal etc) and then when you point it out, they claim they never said the "actual word". But they might as well have said it, as it is obviously implied.

Besides you were right anyway, and that is why he clung onto the whole "you put words in my mouth" fiasco. To change the subject and get you arguing about THAT instead of the original point you made.

If somebody distorts what I say to attack me, of course I will point that out? Only the types who lie and distort what others say will have a problem with that. So I'm not surprised that you of all people are coming to Jamie's defense.

They feel that all they have to do is muddy the argument to win it. If you are put on the defense over something trivial (Usually always about use of word or words) then your well made point is now buried under 2 pages of posts.

Muddying the waters sure didn't work for you in your conspiracy theory arguments. And I doubt it will work for people who twist what I say to attack me.

[SLCPUNK]

Jamie, four-hunnert n' turty-tree

Popmetal....zip.

[POPmetal]

Jamie, four-hunnert n' turty-tree

Popmetal....zip.

LOL!

What's that supposed to be the score of?

The number of baseless attacks launched at me that allegedly make me look like a "fool"?

Well, at least I'm glad I didn't make any against myself 

[Jamie]

If somebody distorts what I say to attack me, of course I will point that out? Only the types who lie and distort what others say will have a problem with that. So I'm not surprised that you of all people are coming to Jamie's defense.

I didn't use what you said to attack you, I took an accusation you made, with regards to profiling and pointed out that nobody, even those you claim, could possibly believe the subject being disscussed was a case of profiling, despite your assumptions, you were the one that started the personal attacks, not me.

What am i mixing up?

everything

Since everything has to be spelled out for you, I was commending France's domestic efforts against terrorism, not accusing them of profiling

[POPmetal]

I didn't use what you said to attack you, I took an accusation you made, with regards to profiling and pointed out that nobody, even those you claim, could possibly believe the subject being disscussed was a case of profiling, despite your assumptions, you were the one that started the personal attacks, not me.

The problem with that is I never said that the subject being discussed was a case of profiling. I already explained to you that I was referring to France's "offensive harassment" policy. How many times are we gonna go in circles here?

And don't try to avoid the question, where was it you have proven me wrong?

[Jamie]

And don't try to avoid the question, where was it you have proven me wrong?

Well, times you specifically have been proven wrong on this board, I can't recall, I don't keep records or anything. Just search through a few pages of threads in the Jungle and you'll find many, many threads where others like you have been proven wrong and have restorted to name calling, racism etc. to make it look as though they're right.

[POPmetal]

And don't try to avoid the question, where was it you have proven me wrong?

Well, times you specifically have been proven wrong on this board, I can't recall, I don't keep records or anything. Just search through a few pages of threads in the Jungle and you'll find many, many threads where others like you have been proven wrong and have restorted to name calling, racism etc. to make it look as though they're right.

You can't say where you have proven me wrong, because it never happened, so you bring in the entire posting history of 'others like me' , and you start throwing the 'racist' labels. That's just so pathetic.

But you wanna bring in other threads? Fine by me.
How about this one here:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22779.msg399475#msg399475

You said the Tibetans were "wiped out by people claiming to be 'working for God'" This is one of the most ignorant statements ever made on this board. It looks like you're on a vendetta against me now because I was the one who called you out on it. That's the only way I can explain why you've pounced at me in this thread, like you have, for no apparent reason. I was actually praising France. Well, you only succeeded at making yourself look worse.

[Jamie]

And don't try to avoid the question, where was it you have proven me wrong?

Well, times you specifically have been proven wrong on this board, I can't recall, I don't keep records or anything. Just search through a few pages of threads in the Jungle and you'll find many, many threads where others like you have been proven wrong and have restorted to name calling, racism etc. to make it look as though they're right.

You can't say where you have proven me wrong, because it never happened, so you bring in the entire posting history of 'others like me' , and you start throwing the 'racist' labels. That's just so pathetic.

But you wanna bring in other threads? Fine by me.
How about this one here:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22779.msg399475#msg399475

You said the Tibetans were "wiped out by people claiming to be 'working for God'" This is one of the most ignorant statements ever made on this board. It looks like you're on a vendetta against me now because I was the one who called you out on it. That's the only way I can explain why you've pounced at me in this thread, like you have, for no apparent reason. I was actually praising France. Well, you only succeeded at making yourself look worse.

To be honest, I didn't even remember that thread until you just brought it up, and I'll say it right now, as I did in that thread that I made a mistake when I didn't specify that I felt the process I outlined in that thread worked in two different ways. You pointed out my mistake and I accepted so, I didn't turn it into a big bitching match, I was mistaken and I accepted it. Now with that thread as evidence when I realise I have made a mistake I accept, here, I still feel I am in the right, it is pure arrogance on your part to think I hold some kind of grudge with you over a mistake I made.