Conquer Club

You don't get it. Terroism is a tactic used by a people trying to remove a foreign army from their territory. A study by a professor at the University of Chicago has shown this. He says in an interview:

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

See http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017/

Study up dipsh*t -- bet you have trouble in school too.

mpjh wrote:You don't get it. Terroism is a tactic used by a people trying to remove a foreign army from their territory. A study by a professor at the University of Chicago has shown this. He says in an interview:

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

See http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017/

Study up dipsh*t -- bet you have trouble in school too.

Thats a very interesting post. So should the Israelis bow down and just get up and leave?

EDIT: 1980 isn't far enough back. This shit started long before that...although it might not be relevant. What their motivation was back then might not be as important as their motivation today.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Backglass wrote:I heard some staggering statistics today regarding Iraq. The number is estimated to hit One Trillion dollars soon. People can't fathom just how much money that really is, so an author has put together a book of real-world stats to bring it home.

In a similar vein, I find it staggering that several of the posters on here seem to just dismiss that figure spent on killing imaginary terrorists as fine, but have physically cried their eyes out over the (small by comparison) bailout designed to save their entire economy.

YES! While I don't agree with the bold part, still, THANK-YOU! Someone that's not me had to say it...

Well, first we have to see whether they have saved the economy, or whether there is another shoe to fall.

bedub1 wrote:Thats a very interesting post. So should the Israelis bow down and just get up and leave?

Wow, do you think they would. That would be wonderful, we could give them half of Germany. After all it was that Teutonic group that caused the holocaust. think the Germans would like that, well who cares, we could blow them up if they don't agree.

bedub1 wrote:Thats a very interesting post. So should the Israelis bow down and just get up and leave?

My vote would be that they just start treating Palistinians like human beings....

bedub1 wrote:EDIT: 1980 isn't far enough back. This shit started long before that...although it might not be relevant. What their motivation was back then might not be as important as their motivation today.

Today their government's goal is power. Same as most governments.


This story refuses to die!
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=79174

Berg set to appeal the Supreme Court
http://www.rense.com/general83/bergg.htm

Juan_Bottom wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Thats a very interesting post. So should the Israelis bow down and just get up and leave?

My vote would be that they just start treating Palistinians like human beings....

Blasphemy!

If Obama's plan is raising taxes for 250 and up why did he just say 200 then & then Biden said 150! Hahaha, I love these idiots. They just keep changing the level of who they want to tax. They are lucky the media is backing them.

"I'M NOT TRYING TO PUNISH YOU JOE THE PLUMBER WE JUST REALIZE ITS GOOD FOR EVERYONE (BUT YOU WHO WORKED FOR IT) TO SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" (B.O)

COME ON GUYS IT'S TIME TO BE PATRIOTIC AND PAY HIGHER TAXES LIKE BIDEN SAYS!

Even though I don't really care for Mccain I think I will change my mind and vote for him anyway just because the alternative is such an extreme wellfare state. I don't really want a gang of Socialists running my country and speading my middleclass earning to 40% of the country who pays no taxes.

PopeBenXVI wrote:Even though I don't really care for Mccain I think I will change my mind and vote for him anyway just because the alternative is such an extreme wellfare state. I don't really want a gang of Socialists running my country and speading my middleclass earning to 40% of the country who pays no taxes

Would you just flat out explain what you consider a socialist government for me please? Putting together a definition based on what you've said puts us in a Socialist country right now.

Your right, we are already partly socialist which is sad to say but B.O. is going to complete it for us.

Dependence on the government. Higher taxes for mandatory services that give you no choice. It is put to us in such a nice manner as being "fair"

The more money government takes from you the less freedom you have, don't you understand that? You are still paying for everything you pay for now only then they would decide what and how you pay for it and you never see the money to decide for yourself. And if you don't like the service....TOUGH, you can't get anything else and if you can you are still going to be forced to pay into their system and then you can pay more for your own care aside from that. Just like social security, don't like that you will never see it in 20 years, TOUGH, you are still going to pay into it and if you want to retire you have to find more money to invest yourself.

Hey, why not just work and give 100% to them and they can decide everything else for us. I am sure they will be fair after all, every other Socialist/Communist society has worked out so well for freedom of speech, private property, healthcare, and human dignity.

Their is a good 10 minute online audio from Reagan in 1961 warning about socialized medicine. He saw it coming back then and warned people what was wrong with it and how the gov would use it to control people.


YOU ARE ALL GOING TO VOTE YOURSELVES INTO SLAVERY.

blah blah -- you need to get laid

PopeBenXVI wrote:
YOU ARE ALL GOING TO VOTE YOURSELVES INTO SLAVERY.

hahaaahashaahahahahahahahaaaha

On Iraq, it might be relevant to note that over 80% of the Iraqi population wants us out and the democratically elected Iraqi government wants us to leave.

PopeBenXVI wrote:Dependence on the government. Higher taxes for mandatory services that give you no choice. It is put to us in such a nice manner as being "fair"

We have this now, to the extreme. Food stamps for example, in my state, require you to sign papers that say that the government can enter your home without a warrent.

PopeBenXVI wrote:You are still paying for everything you pay for now only then they would decide what and how you pay for it and you never see the money to decide for yourself. And if you don't like the service....TOUGH, you can't get anything else and if you can you are still going to be forced to pay into their system and then you can pay more for your own care aside from that.

I don't know specifically what you are talking about here? I mean, Obama's _______ plan?

PopeBenXVI wrote:Just like social security, don't like that you will never see it in 20 years, TOUGH, you are still going to pay into it and if you want to retire you have to find more money to invest yourself.

You can actually take your name off of the social security plan, though you will not be refunded for what you have already put in. I plan on taking my name off.

PopeBenXVI wrote:Hey, why not just work and give 100% to them and they can decide everything else for us. I am sure they will be fair after all, every other Socialist/Communist society has worked out so well for freedom of speech, private property, healthcare, and human dignity.

Again, all things that have been finished off these last 12 years.

PopeBenXVI wrote:Their is a good 10 minute online audio from Reagan in 1961 warning about socialized medicine. He saw it coming back then and warned people what was wrong with it and how the gov would use it to control people.

Actually cheif, I 110% disagree with that. Did you know that there is a tape of Nixon talking about how privatised medicine was better "for business." By business, he ment politics. Reagan was in the pocket of big pharma, I think that is fairly self-evident. Private medicine does not work, because corporations are required by law to make the highest profits that they can. They are greedy. Ever wonder why (formerly, thank-you China)80% of the world's medicines are made in the US, yet they are most expensive in the US? ANd it's illegal to acquire them from any other country?
Other western countries do not use medicine to control their people. Politicians are just trying to use your fears to control you.

You do know that Hitler and the Nazi party were elected into power right? I suppose you think something like that could never happen here huh?

Just because you hate Mccain or the war or whatever it is that you don't like, you don't make any sense if you are defending Socialist principles.

Their is also no law I know of that "requires" by law to force companies to make the highest profits possible, they only have to report it if they make profits so they can be taxed. Maybe you can cite that law? As For Nixon, Well I wont go there my friend.

PopeBenXVI wrote:You do know that Hitler and the Nazi party were elected into power right? I suppose you think something like that could never happen here huh?

J.

It did in 2000 and 2004.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, Obama will get elected and then proclaim himself dictator and order the extermination of white people and try to take over the world.

Yes, and I have a bridge for you, real cheap. It currently connect Manhattan and Brooklyn.

PopeBenXVI wrote:You do know that Hitler and the Nazi party were elected into power right? I suppose you think something like that could never happen here huh?

lol, wut? What are you talking about? Obama is a Nazi now???

PopeBenXVI wrote:Just because you hate Mccain or the war or whatever it is that you don't like, you don't make any sense if you are defending Socialist principles.

What? I still don't know what socialist "what" you're talking about!

PopeBenXVI wrote:Their is also no law I know of that "requires" by law to force companies to make the highest profits possible, they only have to report it if they make profits so they can be taxed. Maybe you can cite that law? As For Nixon, Well I wont go there my friend.

I could fill a series of books, one for each letter of the alphebet, with the stuff that you don't know. I would call it "The Encyclopedia Francattica" or something like that...

You would ask me to cite sources when you yourself provide none?
I'm having trouble remembering the specific law actually, I can't seem to recall the original corporate charter either... It was shortly after they became recognized as "artifical persons." The law says that if a corporation can make a profit for it's shareholders, then it must. With the exclusion of course of selling out.
I do know that you have to have your corporate president sign off on the law when they file their articles of incorporation. But It's right on the tip of my tongue. Maybe someone like Oaktown or Player can remember the law.... I haven't delt with any corporations for like 2 years.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama.
Vote for McCain, take a ride on a train.
Who ever wins, we all lose.

PopeBenXVI wrote: COME ON GUYS IT'S TIME TO BE PATRIOTIC AND PAY HIGHER TAXES LIKE BIDEN SAYS!

Even though I don't really care for Mccain I think I will change my mind and vote for him anyway just because the alternative is such an extreme wellfare state. I don't really want a gang of Socialists running my country and speading my middleclass earning to 40% of the country who pays no taxes.

OK, this man may be spouting drivel, but:

Why do the small-government crowd still think they are being patriotic?
Why is small government so patriotic? It's only the federal government that makes the US a country at all. less govt = less country = less opportunities for patriotism (god forbid).

flabio wrote:A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama.

Care to explain why? Al Qaida has already said they want McCain.

WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

Just a question but does anybody know what Palin shouting her mouth off about now? It's something about how Obama supposedly has another connection to a "terrorist" but I couldn't get the link to work so I couldn't see it.

In other news, I just saw a prediction map that would have Obama winning the electoral college with over 350. Opinions?

Palin, who is Palin?