New Al Qaeda Web Ad Threatens 'Big Surprise'

[ruksak]

Look, Autolykos, If you're going to debate this than stop fragmenting my posts to make it easier to rewrite them out of context. This practice is deceitful and low brow.

Quote by: Autolykos However, I noticed that you seem to have deliberately ignored large parts of my previous response to you. I ask you to revisit those parts and try to answer them. Thanks in advance.

As I will continue to do until you learn how to copy and paste quotes together properly. For me to respond to your snappy one-liners in a way that you or I or anyone could follow, would require a very long quote train just to get to my retort. Notice when I responded to your post, I posted multiple sentences every time I retorted, and most of the quotes I posted of yours, were the done the same way. So that they may be easily followed and not taken out of context. You need a class in internet debate 101.

I stated that when we freed Kuwait, we were seen as infidels by many. Instead of addressing this, you manipulated my post to infer that I was stating the people of Kuwait saw us as infidels. Clearly this is not what I meant.

I didn't think so, but then I wasn't aware that you were apparently speaking in code.

No. The reference was not obvious to me. But then again, I do not speak in code.

I'm not speaking in code. You fail to comprehend out of convenience to make your argument stick. Nothing I have said requires a cryptologist to decipher.

You posted this exact quote of mine;

Quote by: ruksak Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world, ALWAYS!

Which makes my statement, while standing alone, easy to attack. AGAIN, quote things in context. If improperly done than my seemingly "clairvoyant" statement just looks loony. If you had the balls to quote me properly, than it wouldn't appear so funny. That quote was at the end of a PARAGRAPH that detailed the many many ways Islam teaches that Western culture is inherently evil. By our religion. By our capitalist ways. By our concern for world stability. I shouldn't have to repost what I already posted just to clarify something that you purposely quoted out of context.

Quote by: ruksak Sure this particular web threat is likely idle chatter, but history and common sense tell us that when we get hit again, it will likely be an escalated event.

Quote by: Autolykos Expand upon that, please. What parts of history and common sense do you think tell us such a thing?

WTC attack 1993 --------- WTC attack 2001.
Thats some of the "history" that I referred to. Now the common sense part. Islamic terrorists know that Americans are a resilient people, and that after an attack the ensuing investigation will have dire consequences for their infrastructure. Thusly common sense dictates that the next attack will have to have pizazz, zing, dramatic effect and nominal death tolls. In other words, make it count because afterward they are gonna find us and tear us down. This happened in '93. That blind bastard sheik is in prison and Al Qauda lost many "good" men for what was basically an exaggerated smoke bomb.

If you don't learn how to compose a post that is not deliberately deceptive in construct, I will not bother answering you. Its far to much of a pain in the ass to repost my own quotes before posting your retorts to my quotes, than trying to tie them together.

[Clarence]

It's far easier for you to reference the 1000 other threads about this topic here so we don't have to retype it all again. Surely you may have participated in some of them under a different name or perhaps you've come as a referral from someone who has?

already you've backed yourself into a logical corner. You can feel it but damn it! this time maybe we'll see the light. "reality you fools! " he says

Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world, ALWAYS!

I find it hard to read this different in any provided context but I'll take your word. This is just the reality of what Islam teaches. Is that what you're saying?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Clarence I find it hard to read this different in any provided context but I'll take your word. This is just the reality of what Islam teaches. Is that what you're saying?

As I stated in my above post. When you take a statement out of context its meaning is lost and easy to manipulate. Autolykos has been guilty of this infraction many times over now.

He quoted this from me;

Quote by: ruksak Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world, ALWAYS!

This is how that quote originally appeared, in its proper context.

Quote by: ruksak (this is) about a religion being preached to millions of people that teaches, if you aren't a Muslim, than you are the devil. We were seen as infidels for freeing the people of Kuwait. We are seen as infidels because we participate in relations with Israel. We are seen as infidels because we practice capitalism. We are seen as infidels because America is predominately Christian. Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world, ALWAYS!

One may not agree with all this, however it is dirty pool to take out his 'copy and paste' scalpel and dissect that one paragraph into into several partitions. Its a blatant example of removing the context to manipulate the readers of the post.
Even though I explained what I meant in that paragraph, I had to go back and explain it again, line for line, in response to his manipulative posting. Rookie!

Quote by: Clarence It's far easier for you to reference the 1000 other threads about this topic here so we don't have to retype it all again. Surely you may have participated in some of them under a different name or perhaps you've come as a referral from someone who has?

I'm new here. I am not a rehashed former/banned user. The mods would be able to verify this for me.

Now to answer your question;

Quote by: Clarence This is just the reality of what Islam teaches. Is that what you're saying?

That is the unfortunate reality as I see it. In short, there is no way for us (Americans) to not be inherently evil in the purview of Islam. Not unless we;
1)Denounce Christianity.
2)Espouse ourselves of our capitalist ways.
3)Protect our women from the freedom that enslaves them.
4)Concern ourselves not with the dangerous nuclear posturing of rogue nations and factions.
5)Denounce Israel as a nation.

These things will never happen. Therefor my statement that Islam will always view us as infidels stands correct.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Autolykos First off, I don't see how a threat would necessarily materialize if the US government "just sits back".

That's because you are handicapping yourself by thinking rationally. The simple minded always think in terms of the extremes, either we pre-emptively invade them, or else we sit back and do nothing. There are no other choices for them. And bush is following that line of thought exactly, he's invaded Iraq and at the same time he's done nothing to secure our ports and borders

Now, let's assume that another 9/11 would be bad politically for bush. He knows that, a) unsecured borders aren't a problem because terrorism from that area isn't a real threat (which means that the whole Homeland Security thing is bogus), b) unsecured borders are a problem, but continued access to cheap illegal immigrant labor is worth the risk, or, c) our original assumption is wrong and another attack wouldn't necessarily be bad politically for bush, or d) all of the above.

I know what my answer is, what's yours?

[xyzer]

Hmm! bishop?

speaking of wincing, instead of responding to the point i made, you give me this blather. inserting all sorts of irrelevant comments like "founding father", "israel", "iran", "the shah", "cindy sheehan".... do you want to debate or just sound off?

Perhaps we have a different version of the term debate?
I think it's to argue, to contest others opinions by presenting ones own?? I also think each of us tailor our arguments(blather) to our own opinions and embellish them with our own terms? If that personal method of presentation doesn't please those of a different opinion is it proper to insist that that method conform to what the opponent wants..argue only on someone elses terms? That thinking suggests an ad hominem approach to debate, which most conclude is illogical? Wouldn't you agree?

Get real! I'm not here to conform to your opinions nor will I. I'm here to present my own in my own fashion. Counter them with your own if you can, I enjoy the riposte!

[Autolykos]

Quote by: ruksak Look, Autolykos, If you're going to debate this than stop fragmenting my posts to make it easier to rewrite them out of context. This practice is deceitful and low brow.

I'm sorry you think so. I'm also sorry that you seem to define "rewrite them out of context" as "evaluating them on their logical merits alone, with no consideration for rhetorical (i.e. emotional) value".

So I think it's fair to say that I will continue to fragment your posts if that's what it takes to analyze them logically. If you don't like that, well, that's your problem, isn't it?

As I will continue to do until you learn how to copy and paste quotes together properly.

I already know how to do that, thanks. However, I see no reason for you to ignore what I think are legitimate questions.

For me to respond to your snappy one-liners in a way that you or I or anyone could follow, would require a very long quote train just to get to my retort.

Why would such a very long quote train be required? I'm not following.

Notice when I responded to your post, I posted multiple sentences every time I retorted, and most of the quotes I posted of yours, were the done the same way. So that they may be easily followed and not taken out of context.

If I take your statements out of (logical) context, please let me know and I will gladly stand corrected. However, in constructing logical arguments, each proposition must be able to stand on its own unless it clearly references other propositions. So I see nothing wrong with attacking specific propositions in your arguments. On the other hand, if by "taken out of context" you mean removing the rhetorical, emotional element, then you will see that I do that very thing all the time.

You need a class in internet debate 101.

I only know of one kind of debate -- logical debate.

I stated that when we freed Kuwait, we were seen as infidels by many. Instead of addressing this, you manipulated my post to infer that I was stating the people of Kuwait saw us as infidels. Clearly this is not what I meant.

Was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia (i.e. Operation Desert Shield) necessary to "free" Kuwait? My answer is no. Certainly also, the Kuwaitis themselves did not seem to think of us as infidels for "freeing" them. So explain to me how anyone saw us as infidels for the specific act of "freeing" Kuwait, as opposed to stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Muslim world.

For the record, I do not purposely manipulate or misrepresent people's posts. Every interpretation you receive from me is and will be genuine.

I'm not speaking in code. You fail to comprehend out of convenience to make your argument stick. Nothing I have said requires a cryptologist to decipher.

"Speaking in code", when it comes to debate, typically means using semantics wildly different from one's opponent without making those semantics clear. I personally consider it to be intellectually dishonest.

You posted this exact quote of mine; Quote by: ruksak Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world, ALWAYS! Which makes my statement, while standing alone, easy to attack.

It's easy to attack regardless, IMO.

AGAIN, quote things in context. If improperly done than [sic] my seemingly "clairvoyant" statement just looks loony. If you had the balls to quote me properly, than it wouldn't appear so funny. That quote was at the end of a PARAGRAPH that detailed the many many ways Islam teaches that Western culture is inherently evil. By our religion. By our capitalist ways. By our concern for world stability. I shouldn't have to repost what I already posted just to clarify something that you purposely quoted out of context.

So, in effect, the quote I isolated is intended as merely an emotion-arousing conclusion to a paragraph full of rhetorical statements. Which was, in fact, my point. No one can logically make a claim that "Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world". You seem to be admitting now that it was not even meant as a logical claim. If this is true, then perhaps I should not even try debating you on this, as you're concerned not with logic, but with rhetoric.

I saw you make several broad claims. I then challenged these claims. Rather than try to defend them, you attacked me for challenging them individually. Technically, this is known in debate as a red herring. Did you think I was going to simply accept those claims just because you made them?

I'm still waiting for you to defend your claims. So far you have proved unable and/or unwilling. Until that changes, I will conclude that the claims you made are untenable and should thus be disregarded.

WTC attack 1993 --------- WTC attack 2001. Thats some of the "history" that I referred to.

I don't think that's enough "history" to warrant any general inferences.

Now the common sense part. Islamic terrorists know that Americans are a resilient people, and that after an attack the ensuing investigation will have dire consequences for their [Islamic terrorists'?] infrastructure. Thusly common sense dictates that the next attack will have to have pizazz, zing, dramatic effect and nominal death tolls. In other words, make it count because afterward they are gonna find us and tear us down. This happened in '93. That blind bastard sheik is in prison and Al Qauda lost many "good" men for what was basically an exaggerated smoke bomb.

Forgive me if I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Let me try to understand. You seem to be saying that the next terrorist attack (if there is one) will be similar to the 1993 WTC attack -- in effect, an event with few, if any, casualties but a lot of dramatic effect. This would seem to be a reversal from the 2001 WTC attack. Why would Al-Qaeda do this? Why not continue the apparent trend and make the next attack even bigger than 9/11?

If you don't learn how to compose a post that is not deliberately deceptive in construct, I will not bother answering you. Its far to much of a pain in the ass to repost my own quotes before posting your retorts to my quotes, than trying to tie them together.

I'm sorry that you think I'm being deliberately deceptive. I can assure you that I am not. As for being "a pain in the ass" -- well, that's in the eye of the beholder.

- Rob

[billybobama]

Quote by: GHook93 In that case when a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency and doesn't capture OBL, you will make the same assumption?

GHook - Unlike you I do not have special ESP Powers. I cannot read peoples minds, you can even read dead peoples minds, I cannot see the future. But since you have all these special powers why don't you just answer your own questions?

[rmnunez]

The simple minded always think in terms of the extremes, either we pre-emptively invade them, or else we sit back and do nothing. There are no other choices for them.

I'd dispute characterizing US policy towards Muslims or the Middle East as only one of those 2.

As far as forecasting what the next Al Qaeda attack would be like, I'd expect they'd try something greater, more devastating and impressive. A "big surprise" probably means it will have a larger impact. If its a surprise then it will likely be from an unexpected source, so airliners are not likely to be part of the picture.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez I'd dispute characterizing US policy towards Muslims or the Middle East as only one of those 2.

I was referring to this statement:

"If the US government just sits back and waits for the threat to materialize, than there will be a high price to pay for, as you so eloquently stated, "minding our own business"."

It seems that some people believe that if we aren't actively attacking with military force, we must be sitting back doing nothing.

[rmnunez]

Though it would be unwise to just "sit back and do nothing" about increasing terrorism, there are limited options to deal with it other than with force.

Theoretically one could contemplate different approaches to terrorism; compromise, financial incentives, lobbying... But these would seem inimical to the theory by which they are confronted in the first place.

I suspect some advocating a non-military approach to terrorism see them as some sort of alternative political movement.

[billybobama]

Quote by: rmnunez Though it would be unwise to just "sit back and do nothing" about increasing terrorism, there are limited options to deal with it other than with force. Theoretically one could contemplate different approaches to terrorism; compromise, financial incentives, lobbying... But these would seem inimical to the theory by which they are confronted in the first place. I suspect some advocating a non-military approach to terrorism see them as some sort of alternative political movement.

I agree with you 100%. The Civilized World should use intellegence and swiftly, quietly and forcefully eleminate Terrorists. Of course this is just the opposite of what we are doing in Iraq.

[xyzer]

Agree rm and billybob. The problem really is in identifying these miscreants before they stike? They don't wear uniforms, dont claim allegience to any nation, and can pick and choose the times when they want to strike? Its akin to fighting with shadows.
It's a strange and uncomfortable problem which is complicated by the conciliatory press and public challenging most paractical means of defense as an infringement on the general publics right to privacy?
Its a war that isn't a war because it stetches beyond any specific battlefield? Who knows where and when the next engagement will occur?


In Iraq where the populace is largely armed, the terrorists place mines and booby traps in a public place and then return to peaceful pursuits...Or they send a zealot rigged with explosives into a public accomodation or police station to blow up as many innocents as possible?

Until the public is convinced that wartime measures(electronic surveillance) increased security through intelligence gathering, harsh punishments for those found to be sponsoring, countenancing or participating in terrorism, the problem will comntinue!

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer In Iraq where the populace is largely armed, the terrorists place mines and booby traps in a public place and then return to peaceful pursuits..

This is exactly why it's critical to win the hearts and minds of the local populace, something we haven't so far done very well. No one can place mines and booby traps in public places without at least some of the people being aware of them. Win the trust and respect of the people, and you'll be told where a lot of those traps are.

[Clarence]

sadly many of the good people have left or died from innocence

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee This is exactly why it's critical to win the hearts and minds of the local populace, something we haven't so far done very well. No one can place mines and booby traps in public places without at least some of the people being aware of them. Win the trust and respect of the people, and you'll be told where a lot of those traps are.

Difficult to "win back" what Bush has already squandered. I think we would have had those hearts and minds right after we removed Saddam, but the seemingly endless stream of violence and civil war has undoubtedly tainted any good will we could have had.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Autolykos Forgive me if I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Let me try to understand. You seem to be saying that the next terrorist attack (if there is one) will be similar to the 1993 WTC attack -- in effect, an event with few, if any, casualties but a lot of dramatic effect. This would seem to be a reversal from the 2001 WTC attack. Why would Al-Qaeda do this? Why not continue the apparent trend and make the next attack even bigger than 9/11?

Jesus Christ. You did it again! Why do you keep quoting me than applying the exact opposite of what I was obviously saying?
You've done this throughout this entire thread. You either have serious issues with reading comprehension, our your being deliberately deceitful.
You quoted this from me;

Quote by: ruksak Now the common sense part. Islamic terrorists know that Americans are a resilient people, and that after an attack the ensuing investigation will have dire consequences for their [Islamic terrorists'?] infrastructure. Thusly common sense dictates that the next attack will have to have pizazz, zing, dramatic effect and nominal death tolls. In other words, make it count because afterward they are gonna find us and tear us down. This happened in '93. That blind bastard sheik is in prison and Al Qauda lost many "good" men for what was basically an exaggerated smoke bomb.

..and then you said I was wrong. You said "Why not continue the apparent trend and make the next attack even bigger than 9/11?". WHY? Why can't you debate straight, no tricks.

Quote by: Autolykos I'm still waiting for you to defend your claims. So far you have proved unable and/or unwilling. Until that changes, I will conclude that the claims you made are untenable and should thus be disregarded.

You keep saying this, but its not true. You said this when I stated that many Muslims in the middle east saw our involvement in Kuwait '93, as intrusive and aggressive against all Muslims. Than I proved you wrong by citing examples and proof. You ignored this and didn't have the balls to step up and admit you were wrong.

Quote by: Autolykos If I take your statements out of (logical) context, please let me know and I will gladly stand corrected. However, in constructing logical arguments, each proposition must be able to stand on its own unless it clearly references other propositions. So I see nothing wrong with attacking specific propositions in your arguments. On the other hand, if by "taken out of context" you mean removing the rhetorical, emotional element, then you will see that I do that very thing all the time.

Wrong! You're removing the explanation of quoted statements so that they reappear out of context. When I stated "Islam will always see us as infidels", you copy'n'pasted only that sentence and left out the multi-sentence section of the paragraph that was required to keep the statement in context. Your strategy is obvious, remove the context and attack.

I want to debate the matter at hand, but I cannot and will not as long as you continue to be deceptive and carve my postings up. On top of that you cannot even comprehend the obvious.

You quoted me saying this;

Quote by: ruksak Thusly common sense dictates that the next attack will have to have pizazz, zing, dramatic effect and nominal death tolls.

.and than sad this in retort;

Quote by: autolykos You seem to be saying that the next terrorist attack (if there is one) will be similar to the 1993 WTC attack -- in effect, an event with few, if any, casualties but a lot of dramatic effect. This would seem to be a reversal from the 2001 WTC attack. Why would Al-Qaeda do this? Why not continue the apparent trend and make the next attack even bigger than 9/11?

You disagreed with me by agreeing with me? WTF dude? You said I was wrong by agreeing that I was right while saying I was wrong?
WTF? I obviously, in plain print, said the next attack would be worse than 9/11. My exact words were "Oh my god WTF horrible" in comparrison to 9/11. Nevertheless here I am, all these posts later still explaining to you something that you should have comprehended the first time.
Explain yourself, sir!

[rmnunez]

I wonder whether a terrorist attack with biological or chemical weapons in a densely populated area would be discarded because, despite high casualties and widespread harm, the visuals aren't so good, there's no point of impact, little visible destruction.

An explosive detonation would seem essential and I'd expect landmarks would make the best targets.

[Clarence]

You wish

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez I wonder whether a terrorist attack with biological or chemical weapons in a densely populated area would be discarded because, despite high casualties and widespread harm, the visuals aren't so good, there's no point of impact, little visible destruction. An explosive detonation would seem essential and I'd expect landmarks would make the best targets.

You make less and less sense with every post.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zeebadee You make less and less sense with every post.

You can not exclude a possible option expressed within rmnunez's post.
Look at the events that are unfolding in Pakistan, right now, as an example.