KaskadskyjKozak

Requiescat in pace.

makes sense - my ww2 vet grandpa was the most racist man regarding the damn dirty japs that i've ever met encouraging to see the follow on generations could chill the fuck out, no? hating us and doing something about it are two very different animals.

Regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or the fire bombings of cities using conventional munitions) - how is it that Japanese don't hate us today, don't bomb us or have strong anti-American sentiment. It seems they never really did - not to say Japanese forgot the bombings or forgive them, but I think there is a profound difference between most countries and peoples and what we deal with in the Middle East.

Yep, and this is why I'm concerned about Syrian refuges. They've suffered and it's not like we had nothing to do with that suffering or losses they've experienced. Just because you then help someone doesn't mean there is not a lingering resentment (which could fester over time or skip a generation). Just look at the Tsarnaev family history. Immigrants always end up in a limbo between becoming American and keeping their sense of culture and home, and when home was a place with such destruction and suffering, that tie can be painful. At the very least these folks have will have psychological problems from their experience - like soldiers with PTSD - and that can erupt in the future.

Yes, it is looking that way. And I'm interested in knowing how they came about all the weapons they apparently have stockpiled - legally or illegally? Background check of any kind or no?

I agree that most (if not all) terrorists are deranged, but I think the term terrorist should simply be used for a certain class of organized actions by organizations with a political agenda. I don't think it's nitpicking - we really should be careful in the terms we throw around. Does it matter or should it matter? Yes. Terrorists are parts of organizations and those can be monitored, infiltered, and shut down or at least thwarted. Lone wolf deranged fuckers... well that's a bit tougher. But if we could somehow identify, track and stop those who are about to become unhinged, that would be a good thing.

And? Could just be a deranged person. There's not enough info/details yet.

LOL Whatevs, Winnie the Pooh.

Ku Klux does a little self reflection... Ku Klux.. clever NOT

agreed. i don't believe government can or should tell people what to think or not think, only what to do or not to do. killing a man b/c you wanted the money in his pocket or the girl in his bedroom or b/c you despised his race or his religious views is all the same and should result in the worst punishment man can hand down. if you could kill a man twice or keep him alive an extra 100 years so as to keep him in a cage even longer than a natural life-span i might be more interested in the hate crime concept. of course i don't think accidentally running somebody over and killing them or panicking and killing somebody w/o thought is that same as cold-bloodedly killing someone in a calculating fashion. 1st degree murder is an important concept, and it should include both those who kill in the process of committing another crime (like robbery or rape) as well as those who kill to push forward some sort of political ideology. cool. btw, I don't think "terrorist acts" need to warrant different punishments - murder is murder. I just think the term should have a particular definition. blurring the distinction between different terms for dubious motivations (ignorance, political agenda, whatever) is bullshit. and I certainly get that one man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter. But the shit going on in SoCal smacks neither of terrorist nor freedom fighter.

motive matters. words matter. terrorism applies to certain kinds of acts by organizations with certain goals. by your logic there is no need for a definition of a "hate crime" - we should abolish those right? and there is no difference between vehicular manslaughter and cold-blooded 1st degree murder? Agreed and I'm sure we will find out more soon enough. It is SoCal... not exactly a new location for mass killing. San Ysidro, anyone?

bullshit and, btw, grow up you feeble minded internet tough guy.

It's definition is actually quite controversial. I prefer going with a narrower definition such as this one (cited on Wikipedia): By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is : ineluctably political in aims and motives violent – or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[20] [20] Bruce Hoffman, Inside terrorism, 2 ed., Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 41.

Could be. Or could be domestic terrorism. It does actually matter though - rather than just stupidly through out the "terrorist" label just because. And Chode-licker is not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer

all valid points. The current situation seems more and more like a world war than anything else and that's a frightening prospect. I don't think these are particularly unusual, however. The 20th century is replete with examples of atrocities of this nature and the scale in this current conflict doesn't even compare. Historically similar atrocities have occurred - performed by both Christians and Muslims - in various conflicts since Mohammad's birth. Back to the world war theme and prospect. Things do look quite bleak on this front. How can there be any resolution with so many differing sets of goals. And once again the Turks are opposing any type of Kurdish independence. It's become a recurring theme. Good old Woodrow was right about at least one thing.

does it have to do with the shores of Tripoli?

Nothing compared to your intra-rectal vision. It's quite impressive.

Veritas.

"meh, you just got bombed, I was paraded through the streets of Rome and strangled. You pussies, stop whining and harden the fuck up" ??

The Gauls didn't want the Romans, not the French. Well, Gaul was not Gaul anymore. And you skipped the Franks... Romans didn't want any of them pesky Barbarians around on their terra firma. Oh wait is that sounding too "expert" on "a variety of subjects"? lol You are fundamentally sound in your protestations though. Fucking agnry hairless monkeys, repetitive historical recycling and all that.

Enough snow to skin up most of the road?

And some are "experts" at a very narrow and base range of topics.

Very secular. The French Revolution changed a lot there, and WWI finished the job. As for an Islamic French state - if that occurs, there will be a period of utter hell there before they have a revolution and so on to throw off that burdensome yoke. I'd rather that the world skips that phase altogether. Nominally... or actually so. I'd bet on the latter if things keep going as they are. Is wine allowed to Muslims? Or fine cognac, armagnac, calvados...Forget that wonderful pork charcuterie. What else will be outlawed and banned.

if you're an atheist, can you really call anything evil w/o a touch of irony? all we got is double-plus un-good Amen (irony intended). This post and another of yours exemplify what I like you.

it's been 20 years since i took my history of islam class but i seem to recall the caliphate concept disappeared within a century or so of muhammad's death - it's periodic re-invention since then was generally the product of zealots like those of isis-fame that said, the history of the first caliphate i recollect was actually extremely moderate in terms of imposing its beliefs on non-arabs - "people of the book" aka christians and jews were protected, and anyone in conquered lands could practice their chosen faith, albeit being required to pay a higher tax The Caliphate lasted until the 20th century, dude. Anyways, hope you had a good Dead Bird Day!