Stray thoughts on 9-11

Aug 22, 2011
758
0
#1
- It's a damn shame that osama got popped by what seems like a trigger-happy black ops guy. The exact details of what happened probably won't be released for decades, but it would have been great if that slimebag could have been brought back to be hung on a gallows at the world trade center.

- 9-11 shows what has repeatedly happened to the US - lack of preparation in peace time allows us to get clobbered at the beginning of the war.

- I really dislike the WTC memorials - two holes in the ground where the buildings used to stand:

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/Jen Chung/2006_05_reflabsence.jpg

They seem to commemorate defeat - they illustrate what the islamofascists got away with. It's as if at shanksville pennsylvania, they had a memorial that showed a crashing plane, or if at the lincoln memorial, lincoln's head was slumped as if he had just been shot. They should have done something that commemorated the ultimately triumphant american spirit.

- The worst attack on the american mainland since the war of 1812 continues to be treated by the lib media as a Pee See category, with them using such innocuous phrases as "the events of 9-11" instead of "the islamofascist war crime". Hollywood still refuses to treat the IFs as an unambiguous enemy. The islamofascists are referred to by libs as "terrorists" - like calling the world war two nazis "blitzkriegists".
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#2
"the events of 9-11" instead of "the islamofascist war crime". Hollywood still refuses to treat the IFs as an unambiguous enemy. The islamofascists are referred to by libs as "terrorists" - like calling the world war two nazis "blitzkriegists".
That's ridiculous. Just stop it, you're making a fool of yourself. Not only is there no "cover up" (for lack of a better word) of the tragic events and evil acts of that day in regards to "events of 9-11" and "terrorists", but your phrases are flatout wrong. Besides, Islam isn't defined by these people's actions, so the Islam part makes no sense (why not make it anthrofacist since they are humans?). And they are not facists, so that doesn't work either.

I lived in NY at the time of the attacks- me and most everyone in my community used these words to describe the event and the perpetrators. Trust me we had NO sympathy for those evildoers who took the lives of many in our town and near it. We also didn't and do not find anything wrong with the words terrorists and events of 9-11. Stop making fire where there is none.
 
Aug 22, 2011
758
0
#3
That's ridiculous. Just stop it, you're making a fool of yourself. Not only is there no "cover up" (for lack of a better word) of the tragic events and evil acts of that day in regards to "events of 9-11" and "terrorists", but your phrases are flatout wrong.
I alleged no cover-up - I have no idea where you got THAT brainfart, and I didn't ascribe their actions to islam but rather islamofascism - your reading comprehension problem surfaces yet again.

I lived in NY at the time of the attacks- me and most everyone in my community used these words to describe the event and the perpetrators.
See? You "sanitize" a mass murdering war crime by calling it an "event", and use the word "perpetrators" as if "the event" were something akin to someone holding up the local 7-11. You and your "community" robotically picked up the lib media descriptions designed to affect how people think about the attack.


Trust me we had NO sympathy for those evildoers who took the lives of many in our town and near it. We also didn't and do not find anything wrong with the words terrorists and events of 9-11.
Skip the "we" till I see proof that someone elected you spokesman. My objections are clear, and not rebutted by you. It's assinine to identify a specific group warring on the US by identifying it by it's >>>METHODS<<<<, instead of saying what the group is and what their ideology is. In WWII, we got attacked by the Empire of Japan, a fascist state. We didn't say we got attacked by "Pearl Harbor bombists". :p On 9-11, we were attacked by Al Qaeda, an islamofascist organization. Both "events of 9/11" and "terrorists" are stupid euphemisms used by a leftwing which has been arabsymps for at least two decades, and uses preposterously oblique language in a jaw-dropping attempt to "soften" even the most horrendous of mass killings.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#4
Islamofacist is derived from Islam and fascism- both which make no sense. My comprehension isn't the problem here- it is your's that doesn't understand the formation of words apparently. And I am not alone- there have been plenty of historians who have taken a stance against that term.

You also clearly don't know what the word "event" means. It has no positive connotation (nor negative). The Halocaust can be called a series of events as well (and has been, including by victims of the Halocaust just as 9/11 has been called an event/series of events by victims of 9/11).

You have no respect for the English language clearly. You just want to spout your nonsense to fuel others with your racist and ignorant views.
 
Aug 22, 2011
758
0
#5
Islamofacist is derived from Islam and fascism- both which make no sense. My comprehension isn't the problem here- it is your's that doesn't understand the formation of words apparently. And I am not alone- there have been plenty of historians who have taken a stance against that term.
The word is precisely descriptive of the slime it identifies, and OF COURSE the leftwing academy objects. :p

You also clearly don't know what the word "event" means. It has no positive connotation (nor negative).
As usual, you just plain don't get it. They are using a highly genericized term which permits them to avoid precise terms which highlight facts that they wish weren't true. Blink twice if you get it yet.

It's as if the nazi Holocaust against the jews were referred to as "the 1940s jewish occurrence".
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#6
The word is precisely descriptive of the slime it identifies, and OF COURSE the leftwing academy objects. :p
Again with the conspiracy ramblings?

As usual, you just plain don't get it. They are using a highly genericized term which permits them to avoid precise terms which highlight facts that they wish weren't true. Blink twice if you get it yet.

It's as if the nazi Holocaust against the jews were referred to as "the 1940s jewish occurrence".
Actually you plain don't get it. Al queda is actually pretty anti-statist. Their goals are also purely political. They are not representatives of Islam either. And this isn't a conspiracy to cover up the horror that happened. Ironically, everyone on that Republican 2012 stage right now has referred to these people are terrorists too- I suppose you think they are all RINOs and part of the conspiracy in your head?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#8
You think these terms are used because the "leftwing" doesn't want to use your unjust and untrue terms. That is a conspiracy. You really need to expand your vocabulary :p
 
Aug 22, 2011
758
0
#9
You think these terms are used because the "leftwing" doesn't want to use your unjust and untrue terms. That is a conspiracy. You really need to expand your vocabulary
You need to quit imagining things I haven't said. No "conspiracy" is needed by the leftwing or lib media - they all think alike. So when one of them thinks up a good evasive phrase (like "the events") for that which they'd like to evade, the others pick it up and use it.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#10
You need to quit imagining things I haven't said. No "conspiracy" is needed by the leftwing or lib media - they all think alike. So when one of them thinks up a good evasive phrase (like "the events") for that which they'd like to evade, the others pick it up and use it.
So did 9/11 not happen and did al Qaeda not terrorize anyone?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#14
You need to quit imagining things I haven't said. No "conspiracy" is needed by the leftwing or lib media - they all think alike. So when one of them thinks up a good evasive phrase (like "the events") for that which they'd like to evade, the others pick it up and use it.
The fact that you think they collude like that suggests you think it is a conspiracy, although I am not sure you understand the definition of "conspiracy" (or "events" or "terrorists" for that matter).

Either way, why do you think "Islamofacists" has a more negative connotation than "terrorists"? Breaking apart the words, terrorists clearly suggests that they are people who terrorize. All Islamofacists would suggest is they are Islamic facists. It is a religion and type of government (which don't accurately describe them, but that aside, it doesn't have as negative a connotation).
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#15
The fact that you think they collude like that suggests you think it is a conspiracy, although I am not sure you understand the definition of "conspiracy" (or "events" or "terrorists" for that matter).

Either way, why do you think "Islamofacists" has a more negative connotation than "terrorists"? Breaking apart the words, terrorists clearly suggests that they are people who terrorize. All Islamofacists would suggest is they are Islamic facists. It is a religion and type of government (which don't accurately describe them, but that aside, it doesn't have as negative a connotation).
It doesn't have a negative connotation at all really, fascism only gets the bad rap it does because people mix it up with Nazism and Islam is basically Christianity (the Qur'an references Jesus more often then the Bible :p) with a slightly different crucifixion story and an extra prophet.
 
Aug 22, 2011
758
0
#16
The fact that you think they collude like that suggests you think it is a conspiracy, although I am not sure you understand the definition of "conspiracy" (or "events" or "terrorists" for that matter).
You are fixated on this conspiracy thing, even though I've never said it, and have denied it about four times. Conclusion: you're nuts. :p
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#17
You are fixated on this conspiracy thing, even though I've never said it, and have denied it about four times. Conclusion: you're nuts. :p
Do you or do you not think that all liberals use the term "terrorists" because it has a less negative connotation (in your eyes, in reality it doesn't) than "islamofacists"?

I'm bracing for you to say no just to prove me wrong. Ah the idiocy of partisan politics.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#18
Do you or do you not think that all liberals use the term "terrorists" because it has a less negative connotation (in your eyes, in reality it doesn't) than "islamofacists"?

I'm bracing for you to say no just to prove me wrong. Ah the idiocy of partisan politics.
Ah, why did yo have to warn him! I need a good laugh.
 
Aug 22, 2011
758
0
#19
Do you or do you not think that all liberals use the term "terrorists" because it has a less negative connotation (in your eyes, in reality it doesn't) than "islamofacists"?

I'm bracing for you to say no just to prove me wrong. Ah the idiocy of partisan politics.
How long is this crap thread going to continue? Can weightier matters be discussed?

The answer is NO. Once again (listening now Sparky?) terrorism is merely a method - it says nothing about the fundamental nature or goals of a movement, nor even its other methods. Here's a question for YOU: would you think that WWII nazis would reasonably be called "blitzkriegists"? That's identifying them by one of theri methods, rather than by something that denotes their fundamental nature, fascists.

When you call someone "terrorist", it denotes nothing more about them than that they blow up airliners, buildings, and marketplaces full of women and children.

When you call someone "islamofascist" it denotes

- that they blow up airliners, buildings, and marketplaces full of women and children

- that they aspire to and have created theocratic dictatorships

- that they have a harsh penal code, that eg prescribes stoning to death for adulterous women, and asserts that BEING raped is a felony for the victim.

- that other religions should be banned, and that their artifacts should be destroyed.

- that democracy should be replaced by a world-wide caliphate


etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#20
How long is this crap thread going to continue? Can weightier matters be discussed?
You made this thread to complain about this, not me.

When you call someone "terrorist", it denotes nothing more about them than that they blow up airliners, buildings, and marketplaces full of women and children.
Actually no. It just means someone who uses terror as a coercive force.

When you call someone "islamofascist" it denotes

- that they blow up airliners, buildings, and marketplaces full of women and children

- that they aspire to and have created theocratic dictatorships

- that they have a harsh penal code, that eg prescribes stoning to death for adulterous women, and asserts that BEING raped is a felony for the victim.

- that other religions should be banned, and that their artifacts should be destroyed.

- that democracy should be replaced by a world-wide caliphate
Actually no. It implies Muslim facists.

Ironically, you clearly don't understand the policy goals of groups like al queda (which is why you improperly label them as islamofacists). They do not want to create theocratic dictatorships that is not their primary goal. In fact, they have had rifts with such dictatorships which have supported the United States. Their primary policy goal in this situation is simply to get the US out of certain areas- specifically the land near Mecca.
 

Similar Discussions