Has it come home to our soil again??

it really is just a matter of time till the nutjobs get through out defenses and kill Americans on American soil again, no matter how many times we are right and stop them, they just have to get it right once to cause mayhem again.

Of course it will all be Bushes fault.

This is the first I've heard this. Nohing about this on any news in my area at all! I wonder why not?!

Why would the national press want to report the fact that our anti-terrorist forces actually prevented an attack? Can't go painting the current administration in any sort of positive light now can they?

It's only a matter of time before we suffer another attack on our soil.

It has not "come home".  It never left.

No Americans involved. Not only were they from Europe, but they had their usual Middle East contingent, too, Yemen, if I recall. Too stupid to even know how to get their hands on the weapons to do it. Too stupid to find instruction for making what they needed themselves. Walked around in woods of New England asking strangers where they could buy automatic weapons.

Far from an attack. The kids at columbine were, evidently, far more dangerous.



It was on three separate channels about 9am this morning. Fox News has been running it every 15 minutes today. That's really the only reason stuff like this gets on JU. Otherwise, you guys never even see it.

The fact is, attacks, threats, etc., happen all the time. Here is a site that maps them. Be sure and set it for the last 12 months so you get some perspective. Not all of them get on there, either. Ecoterrorists are planting bombs, kidnapping people, threatening property and the public safety all the time. You guys never seem to care much about that.

A couple of months ago the ALF was caught trying to plant bombs at Oxford. A better question than MasonM's would be why we never hear about anything that isn't Islam-related. We don't have a blind spot for islamo-fascists, but I'm betting the next Tim McVeigh could do about what he likes at this point.

Another good resource.

Please note, I did not state (nor care) WHO was trying to do it, only that the attempts have not stopped with 9-11. Just the successful ones have not been carried out since then.

Again, my point was that depends heavily on the fact you guys only hang the "terrorism" tag on things related to Islam 99% of the time. Violence aimed at causing political change and terror isn't so rare in America as you claim, as evidenced by the link above.

Show me how my statement does. Please since you know what I am thinking, it should not be a problem for you.

I watched the news today and didn't see it reported at all.



They're all terrorists so what's the difference? terrorism is terrorism.



Where in this thread did anyone do this? Seems you have some sort of chip on your shoulder and are arguing something that isn't here.

That's my question. Find me a terrorist attack in the last couple of years reported on JU that wasn't Islamic, or at least falsely reported as Islamic.



The fact that these threads only appear when the terrorists are perceived to be Islamic. Can you really say that had the guy at Virginia Tech's name been Mohammed that there wouldn't have been a Shadowar article?

The predictability is sickening. The fact is, the title of the blog betrays the fact that Islamic terrorism is the focus, since "again" seems to overlook everything else...

Karnac the Magnificent! Divining thoughts far and wide! No secret left hidden when Karnac is in town! Let him read your thoughts, so you dont have to. Even the ones you dont have!

What is sickening is your jihad on this site about anything that you can twist to your prejudicial viewpoint. Facts be damned! If it lives and breathes, it must be a heretic! Thus spake bakerstreet. So let it be written, so let it be done.

OMG! I am Doomed! DOOMED! I said Jihad!

I don't have a jihad against the site, just pig-headed, plagiarist hatemongers. You're not doomed because you said jihad, you're doomed because you and your little cadre don't have a brain between you. If the site wants trash like you guys on it, great, but until I'm blacklisted I can say whatever I want pointing out what kind of trash you are.

P.S. Shadowar's stolen article is still there as well, I see. He was able to come up with a whole paragraph this time without being told. Kudos. His shame is still hanging there, though, if anyone doubts he's a thief.

So what if the focus of this article is Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is in fact a world-wide problem. It's hardly the only terrorism problem in the world, but it certainly is in fact a problem. Should people not write about it just because you feel that it's being unduly focused upon?

When someone writes an article stating that all terrorism in the world is directly linked to Islam, or that all Muslims are terrorists, I'll agree with your point completely. Until then, Islamic terrorism is just as legitimate a topic as the home grown variety.

And when the usual suspects write about/respond to something other than Islamic terrorism, I might believe their concern is really terrorism. Until then, I'll respond to the "OMG!! HERE THEY COME AGAIN!!!" blogs with the gags they deserve. "The Terrorists" really doesn't describe what we're talking about here, does it? Aren't we talking about particular flavors?

The "War on Terror" for some people is just a big email chain to validate their racial and religious biases. Note, again, Shadowar fails to really get into the meat of what we should do about it. I'd be interested to know what kind of "sacrifices" are called for, if he's willing to say them out loud. Heaven forbid anyone feel "free enough to plot" in America.

I'd be curious to know what the "pacifists" might have done to prevent these particular guys from doing what little they did. I just don't have respect for people who I believe would pee their pants with glee if they got the opportunity to validate their racial and religious biases on the backs of real victims. The usual suspects here never miss an opportunity... so long as the word "Islam" is involved.

That is right, SHADOWAR's. Not mine, not Terps, Not Mason's. Yet you have decided that we are of one mind. Mind numbed robots marching to one drummer, that only you can see.

Why dont you open your eyes. I wrote a blog not on this subject at all, yet you tried to turn it into one. You are on a mission. But not of enlightenment, rather of enslavement. Sorry if I dont agree with you like some mind numbed robot. I am doomed not because I may not agree with Shadowar on everything, but because I dont agree with you on everything.

Please excuse me while I kiss your papal ring.

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