KaskadskyjKozak

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!

Yep, and go back a few centuries to the Ottamans and the Caliphate of old. Good times.

And right now it smells likes 1914. Fuck.

how many? too many. see the subject line

This is the problem. Within the US, about all you can do realistically is put significant restrictions on immigration from areas where radical islamists are common- something you are already seeing happening. Of course that doesn't protect against home-grown whackos as was evident in Paris a week ago. No easy answers, you can't exactly bomb an ideology. Our experience over the last few decades in the Middle East is more akin to Whack a Mole. I view calls for us to whack more intelligently with a hefty dose of skepticism. And now Turkey and Russia are on a path of escalation that could lead to WWIII. All over what? Fucking Syria, Assad, and ISIS.

fixed that for ya

bump. any beta?

did a roundtrip drive up to seattle for a conference through the darkness and pouring rain, seeing jesus the whole damn way yeah, dat shit was crazy.

nice redefinition of persecution Ivan. how so? to be sure i went for a word w/ proper alliteration - perhaps you feel persecution always infers the persecuted is innocent? swap in prosecution if you prefer the connotations of persecution implies it's unjust and done by someone in power against an underdog. It also implies martyrdom more often than not. beyond that... well, actually I don't care anymore - use whatever term you want. didn't you guys do anything fun or productive this weekend?

fixed that for ya...

nice redefinition of persecution Ivan.

It's cute how assholekisser follows me around, tugging at my leg, trying to get some attention.

plus c'est la même from the practitioners of the religion of peace...