This is truly the most disturbing thing I have ever heard

[jlindy]

Bad side: it will be absolutely unavoidable that at least roughly 10% of the population will be drunken menses that will cause drunken accidents and drunken molestations and drunken assaults.

All right, now you have it completely wrong. I do agree with you that drinking and driving is a big problem, but do you honestly think that excessive drinking will make a person want to molest someone or even assault and individual? You can feed Jack Daniels into my bloodstream until I am dead, and I would never have the desire to do those things. That need lies inherent with the individual and no drug causes that. Alcohol may reduce one's inhibitions, but it absolutely does not create a desire to do something not already appealing or contemplated by an individual.

 

[steveny]

Well, if all of us NSX owners happened to live in a town where the majority of our fellow NSX owners supported the killing spree, and if our NSX club supported schools throughout the world spreading the word that all non-NSX owners were something less than lower life forms, and if a terrorist event killing over 3,000 people on U.S. soil was accomplished virtually exclusively by NSX-owners…THEN I GUESS I'D HAVE TO SAY, WELL, MAYBE WE ARE A BUNCH OF MURDEROUS THUGS! One other thing IS for sure, though…I wouldn't exactly be surprised if a sane person thought that way.

The problem is the killing spree is being acted out in a NSX that has SOS, Dali, and Anytime racing parts installed on it for free. After the killing spree is over each prime member is allowing the NSX to be hidden in his/her garage for a day or two.

 

[xsn]

Good side of drinking: It's an overwhelming pleasure (and so are drugs)

Throughout your entire argument you are confusing drinking with getting drunk. You also confuse getting drunk with being a violent alcoholic.

 

[xsn]

What's the grand solution? I don't know.

I'll take a stab at it. We should:

1. Stop being so arrogant with regard to the global community.
2. Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries whenever it suits our needs. This almost always comes back to bite us anyway but we never seem to learn.
3. Stop blindly supporting Israel.

If we did those three things starting 20 years ago I think 9/11 and many other tragic events would probably never have happened, and the US would be seen as much less of a bully. If we do them starting now maybe we can avoid something worse than 9/11 in the future.

 

[huckster]

i think when some people say 'that would never happen here' they are both ignorant of our history and misguided.

atrocities have been committed against americans by americans in our past. Consider the civil war. More recently KKK activities. Why didnt more americans stand up for what was happening? Because even in a democracy like ours, certain groups such as the kkk were able to intimidate, extort, threaten and terrorify good americans into remaining silent and uninvolved.

to blame iraquis for not rising up and eradicating those terrorists in their midst is naive, narrowminded, and ignorant. Theyve labored under years of threats by neighbors and government that were more than willing to kill and torture them, their families, their children and their relatives.

Our inability to recognize or imagine what it has been like for Iraquis living in Iraq is part of the problem. Years of living under this sort of government and abuse does not create many good citizens willing to rise up and take care of the terrorists in their midst. You and I may like to think we'd do differently in the same situation, but we come from an entirely different experience.

 

[Spencer]

The problem is the killing spree is being acted out in a NSX that has SOS, Dali, and Anytime racing parts installed on it for free. After the killing spree is over each prime member is allowing the NSX to be hidden in his/her garage for a day or two.

Good one. And further...after the killing spree, all of the NSX owners proudly proclaim, "Who, us? No way! Why our NSX philosophy dictates that we are tought to love all other cars...that even people driving '75 Plymouth Valiants are to be protected in a time of automotive conflict! In fact, the code of NSX ownership specifically states that we cannot drive into a Valiant at an intersection. It's not ethical!"

And that, my friends, is EXACTLY how it has rolled out. It's no wonder Michael "Docu-Fiction" Moore is trying to connect imaginary dots between the Bush family, the Kingdom's ruling family and UBL's family.

 

[nkb]

The first definition isn't negative. The pre-judgment arrived at is potentially totally accurate.

It is also potentially totally wrong. That's the problem with prejudging, because it is based on forming an opinion "prior to actual knowledge or experience". If you believe that forming an opinion without having knowledge is not a negative thing, then I guess you make uninformed judgements all the time.

You seem to have pre-judged the word as negative based on your specific exposure to its uses. In the case of your preconceived notion about the word it is inaccurate. You could cut the irony in this thread with a knife.

You crack me up. Not only do you refuse to accept the definition for the word "prejudice" (which came straight from Merriam Webster), but you use it incorrectly in a sentence, and think that proves a point.
I did not prejudge the word (how do you prejudge a word anyway?). I knew what it meant, used it accordingly, and then even gave you the definition that proved that I used it correctly. Therefore, I did not have a "preconceived notion about the word", but actually used a word with prior knowledge of its definition. No prejudging whatsoever was involved.

The only thing you can cut with a knife is your BS. In fact, I believe a shovel would be a more appropriate tool.

 

[Accomplice]

i think when some people say 'that would never happen here' they are both ignorant of our history and misguided.

You can say it would never happen here if you're referring to modern times. We live in the here and now and some folks posting in this thread have drawn parallels between the current state of the Klan and its level of support in the US and the support of radical Islam elsewhere. We’ve been able to grow towards civilization over time and that comparison does not hold water.

One major problem with the world of Islam is the degree to which religion influences the people. Clerics have way too much power and influence. They may not be well educated or even sane yet people refer to them for guidance. If we didn’t know any better, our televangelists would be dictating policy and the perspective of our populace at large. It’s imperative that Muslims come to understand that God himself wants them to give it a rest. Take a decade off and get back with him.

 

[Accomplice]

It is also potentially totally wrong. That's the problem with prejudging, because it is based on forming an opinion "prior to actual knowledge or experience". If you believe that forming an opinion without having knowledge is not a negative thing, then I guess you make uninformed judgements all the time.
You crack me up. Not only do you refuse to accept the definition for the word "prejudice" (which came straight from Merriam Webster), but you use it incorrectly in a sentence, and think that proves a point.
I did not prejudge the word (how do you prejudge a word anyway?). I knew what it meant, used it accordingly, and then even gave you the definition that proved that I used it correctly. Therefore, I did not have a "preconceived notion about the word", but actually used a word with prior knowledge of its definition. No prejudging whatsoever was involved.

The only thing you can cut with a knife is your BS. In fact, I believe a shovel would be a more appropriate tool.

You posted the definition yourself without realizing that it supported my view more so than yours. I think that says enough about how far behind you are in this exchange. You haven't prevailed in a making a single point stick in this entire thread and yet you keep coming back for more pummeling. Quit while you're behind.

 

[nkb]

Wow. This is getting weird. You actually didn't realize that I also could be employing sarcasm in the post you quoted? The irony abounds.

I asked you if you wanted me to look up sarcasm, why didn't you take me up on the offer? OK, here it is:

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

So, please explain how you were possibly using sarcasm in your post.

I was using sarcasm to imply that you are not as intelligent as you think you are. You agreed with me. There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
1. You actually agreed with my statement (ignoring the aforementioned sarcasm), and feel that you are more intelligent than I. Sorry, no sarcasm present.
2. You were jokingly agreeing with me, meaning you acknowledge the sarcasm in my quote, but therefore are also acknowledging that you are NOT smarter than I. So, you may have been joking, you may have been facetious, but you were not sarcastic.

 

[Accomplice]

I asked you if you wanted me to look up sarcasm, why didn't you take me up on the offer? OK, here it is:

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

So, please explain how you were possibly using sarcasm in your post.

I was using sarcasm to imply that you are not as intelligent as you think you are. You agreed with me. There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
1. You actually agreed with my statement (ignoring the aforementioned sarcasm), and feel that you are more intelligent than I. Sorry, no sarcasm present.
2. You were jokingly agreeing with me, meaning you acknowledge the sarcasm in my quote, but therefore are also acknowledging that you are NOT smarter than I. So, you may have been joking, you may have been facetious, but you were not sarcastic.

You are an enigma wrapped in a riddle.

 

[Accomplice]

So, please explain how you were possibly using sarcasm in your post.

I was using sarcasm to imply that you are not as intelligent as you think you are. You agreed with me. There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
1. You actually agreed with my statement (ignoring the aforementioned sarcasm), and feel that you are more intelligent than I. Sorry, no sarcasm present.

Your statement was that you didn't have the immense cranial capacity that I have. I understood that you meant it to be sarcastic. When I quoted your statement and said I agreed with the statement, (that you do not have the same capacity) it was clear to all (except you) that I was also being sarcastic. I now understand why you have to refer to a dictionary constantly. Please know that though I'm harsh at times, I'm enjoying this exchange. Also, though I may point it out and needle you about it, please don't think that I hold your limited mental capacity against you. I can tell that you mean well and that you believe what you are saying.

 

[nkb]

You posted the definition yourself without realizing that it supported my view more so than yours. I think that says enough about how far behind you are in this exchange. You haven't prevailed in a making a single point stick in this entire thread and yet you keep coming back for more pummeling. Quit while you're behind.

Earlier you reminded me of Dr. Evil with your grand schemes to subjugate the Muslims. Now you're reminding me more and more of the black knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
Your ability to reason is amazing (oh, sorry, more of that sarcasm that you have difficulty with). If you say something is a certain way, and keep repeating it, it must make it so.

Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right, and I have not been able to make a single point stick against your intelligently formulated statements. Let's recap your thoughts:

1. Putting Saddam Hussein back in charge is the only way to control Iraq.
2. 50% - 90% of all Muslims support the terrorists.
3. Nuking Mecca (or secretly hiding sources of deadly radiation among the population) is still a viable way to get the terrorists to stop. Kill a few million innocent people, turning every other friendly country against us will make everyone see the light.
4. Committing genocide is an acceptable way to avert genocide.
5. Executing Muslims, then burying them with pig guts is a viable way of controlling Muslim terrorists. Even though this myth has been debunked, it still remains a viable option.
6. Muslims have a "well-known" aversion to swine, which goes beyond just not eating pork. Almost everyone knows that.
7. Reports of Saudis celebrating after terrorist attacks can safely be applied to the majority of Saudis, even if people living in Saudi refute this assumption.
8. What terrorists say about religious teachings can be taken as the truth for all followers of said religion. The majority of Muslims believe that Allah wants them to kill people in his name, and they will go to heaven where an endless supply of virgins awaits them.
9. Prejudice is no longer a negative word. Making judgements without prior knowledge or experience is a perfectly acceptable way to form opinions, because sometimes they might be accurate.
10. Dictionaries list definitions of words in a "Top-Ten" format.
11. As long as the KKK keeps its hate crimes within the 50 states, we're cool with what they do in the name of the white race. As long as they stick to attacking blacks, hispanics, jews, etc (as long as they're not foreigners), they do not make Americans as a whole look bad.

If, as you say, none of my points stuck, then you still stand by the 11 points above, which were made by you, correct?

Fixed a gramatical error.

 

[Accomplice]

Wow. I just glanced over that list and some of those are not even close to what I've said (like 11). I'll get back with you tonight on a point by point basis.

 

[nkb]

Your statement was that you didn't have the immense cranial capacity that I have. I understood that you meant it to be sarcastic. When I quoted your statement and said I agreed with the statement, (that you do not have the same capacity) it was clear to all (except you) that I was also being sarcastic. I now understand why you have to refer to a dictionary constantly. Please know that though I'm harsh at times, I'm enjoying this exchange. Also, though I may point it out and needle you about it, please don't think that I hold your limited mental capacity against you. I can tell that you mean well and that you believe what you are saying.

You still don't get the concept of sarcasm. You can't agree with the statement and also be sarcastic at the same time. Where is the sarcasm in that?

I refer to the dictionary as an impartial source to prove that your understanding of some definitions is off. It's a much better tactic than to just say it is so, and leave it at that.

And, by the way, I love the way you speak for everyone.

 

[Bryant95]

OK I finally found it. I've been looking for it for ever so here it is

You must read and please notice the dates of each publication!!

by the way, the 'AL-SHeikh" dude there is the religious leader here in Saudi Arabia so he repreasents KSA. ( NOTE: KSA not Islam, Islam is still represented by a book)


http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

.....I even asked my friends about this FOX channel you were refereeing to and guess what they said. It's a biased propaganda Channel, the same as our humble and stupid Al-Jazzera channel over here.

Thanks for finding it. I was glad you found that page. I remember a version--same source, but earlier, closer to 9/11 and before the current Iraq war--and I think the Islamic statements condemning terrorism did not get enough credit or mention in the world.

 

[cmhs75]

Good one. And further...after the killing spree, all of the NSX owners proudly proclaim, "Who, us? No way! Why our NSX philosophy dictates that we are tought to love all other cars...that even people driving '75 Plymouth Valiants are to be protected in a time of automotive conflict! In fact, the code of NSX ownership specifically states that we cannot drive into a Valiant at an intersection. It's not ethical!"

And that, my friends, is EXACTLY how it has rolled out. It's no wonder Michael "Docu-Fiction" Moore is trying to connect imaginary dots between the Bush family, the Kingdom's ruling family and UBL's family.

drop it already, read my post your getting false info from the news

 

[cmhs75]

All right, now you have it completely wrong. I do agree with you that drinking and driving is a big problem, but do you honestly think that excessive drinking will make a person want to molest someone or even assault and individual? You can feed Jack Daniels into my bloodstream until I am dead, and I would never have the desire to do those things. That need lies inherent with the individual and no drug causes that. Alcohol may reduce one's inhibitions, but it absolutely does not create a desire to do something not already appealing or contemplated by an individual.

you proved my point, if alcahole might bring out the worst of people and claods thier judgment, then why have it? can't we live without it? we know that it can't be a good thing, so why not leave it?

would you ever recomednd it to a child, even in small doses?

 

[cmhs75]

hey nkb and acomplice

can't you guys shack hands and cool off already?

this is becoming unhealthy

points have already been provin so move on

 

[Accomplice]

Earlier you reminded me of Dr. Evil with your grand schemes to subjugate the Muslims. Now you're reminding me more and more of the black knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
Your ability to reason is amazing (oh, sorry, more of that sarcasm that you have difficulty with). If you say something is a certain way, and keep repeating it, it must make it so.

Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right, and I have not been able to make a single point stick against your intelligently formulated statements. Let's recap your thoughts:

1. Putting Saddam Hussein back in charge is the only way to control Iraq.
2. 50% - 90% of all Muslims support the terrorists.
3. Nuking Mecca (or secretly hiding sources of deadly radiation among the population) is still a viable way to get the terrorists to stop. Kill a few million innocent people, turning every other friendly country against us will make everyone see the light.
4. Committing genocide is an acceptable way to avert genocide.
5. Executing Muslims, then burying them with pig guts is a viable way of controlling Muslim terrorists. Even though this myth has been debunked, it still remains a viable option.
6. Muslims have a "well-known" aversion to swine, which goes beyond just not eating pork. Almost everyone knows that.
7. Reports of Saudis celebrating after terrorist attacks can safely be applied to the majority of Saudis, even if people living in Saudi refute this assumption.
8. What terrorists say about religious teachings can be taken as the truth for all followers of said religion. The majority of Muslims believe that Allah wants them to kill people in his name, and they will go to heaven where an endless supply of virgins awaits them.
9. Prejudice is no longer a negative word. Making judgements without prior knowledge or experience is a perfectly acceptable way to form opinions, because sometimes they might be accurate.
10. Dictionaries list definitions of words in a "Top-Ten" format.
11. As long as the KKK keeps its hate crimes within the 50 states, we're cool with what they do in the name of the white race. As long as they stick to attacking blacks, hispanics, jews, etc (as long as they're not foreigners), they do not make Americans as a whole look bad.

If, as you say, none of my points stuck, then you still stand by the 11 points above, which were made by you, correct?

Fixed a gramatical error.

1. Nobody seems to appreciate our efforts there. Let's at least threaten to let them have him back.
2. Doesn't that make you mad also?
3. What if all non-Islamic states were in on the plan?
4. Averting genocide is good but it may come at a cost.
5. It's a widely held belief and a solution that has yet to be tried. Let's give it a shot. If it works then maybe it'll help the cause. If not, back to the drawing board.
6. Everybody but you. Your still smarting over that gap in your knowledge. Get over it already.
7. Fox News may be a tad slanted but it damn sure is more accurate than the Arab press. One Saudi citizen has said in this thread that he didn't celebrate. That is a good thing.
8. The virgins comment came from the terror group in question. I never said that I agreed that virgins awaited them. Not sure why they think that. I didn't say that the majority of Muslims believe that Allah wants them to kill people in his name. For one thing, Allah probably doesn't even exist. But I do think that far to many of them DO in fact kill in his name and a much greater number don't seem to care when it happens.
9. Prejudice is a human trait. We all have preformed opinions. Some are accurate others are not. Your PC mindset won't accept it as a word with non-negative meanings.
10. I don't recall saying a "Top 10" format was used. In fact it sounds like you just pulled that phrase out of nowhere. In fact, saying that I said that strikes me as a bold faced lie.
11. I never said one word about condoning the actions or beliefs of the KKK. In fact, I've said a lot about how many people here in the US consider them to be nuts. That entire paragraph may be your perspective but it sure as hell isn't mine so don't even attempt to label me in that way.

I don't feel the need to "Shack" hands with you and make up because I have no negative feelings towards you. I'm not coming from a position of anger and I hope you're not either. I do hope that you will become open to finding points of view that can be substantiated by facts. I can tell that you desperately want to cling to your PC views even when the facts clearly don't support the perspective. If the beheading video doesn't give you that flash of anger that at least for a moment conjures up images of a mushroom cloud over Mecca then maybe Allah meant for you to be a neck stabber.

 

[Spencer]

drop it already, read my post your getting false info from the news

Sure, sure, it's all a case of inaccurate reporting…

So I suppose that you refute the universally reported idea that the movers and shakers in the Kingdom as well as the government have supported whack job Madrasas throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Africa for years...

No, my friend, the recent evolution in the royal family's viewpoint, is due to bombs going off within the KSA itself. If they continued to think they were impervious to terrorism (or overthrow) and it was only happening to us "Crusaders" this same $hit would be continuing forever throughout the rest of the World -- and they'd be continuing to buy peace and quiet at home at the expense of the rest of us. (For your information, in the vernacular it's called "playing both sides against the middle.")

Only NOW that it's hitting close to home, and their control is in peril, are they getting the message and (perhaps) doing something about it.

 

[Bryant95]

....I don't feel the need to .... make up because I have no negative feelings towards you. [/B]

You mistook who proposed the handshake. cmhs75 was playing the peacemaker between you & nkb. nice try. Blessed are the peacemakers....

It's hard to keep initials.

 

[Accomplice]

You mistook who proposed the handshake. cmhs75 was playing the peacemaker between you & nkb. nice try. Blessed are the peacemakers....

It's hard to keep initials.

Mr. Bryant,

I knew that cmhs75 had made the proposal. I just addressed it via my post to nkb to let them both know that everything is okay and that I harbor no ill will towards either one. I think we’ve all had our fair share of fun taking jabs at each other. Now if you'll excuse me, I must retire to my 'lair of evil' to plot my next incendiary retort.

 

[NA1/2-R GT]

All I have to say is:

Religion Kills!!! period. I am not going to say why, because there are so much to say bad about religion.... Because of religions, that's why we have hatred and violent etc.
Don't flame me for what I think of religions in the world... people think differently and that's how I think of religions. I wish there's only one religion.

 

[nkb]

I can tell that you desperately want to cling to your PC views even when the facts clearly don't support the perspective.

I can tell that you desperately want to cling to your knee-jerk views, even when you have to make up "facts" to support them, and ignore information that contradicts them.

If the beheading video doesn't give you that flash of anger that at least for a moment conjures up images of a mushroom cloud over Mecca then maybe Allah meant for you to be a neck stabber.

Let me get this straight: You have just accused everyone on this forum who doesn't support your juvenile, knee-jerk, genocidal approach (and I have yet to see anyone say that the plan had merit) as being no better than the cowardly murderers that cut a defenseless human's head off.

Excellent generalization. Very insightful indeed! How proud your family must be.