Dupin

Then you're a freak of nature. I used to drink tons of milk, but over the past year or so I've become increasingly lactose intolerant, until now I only have it on cereal and stuff, and it makes me feel unpleasant.

That survey says nothing about terrorism. Had I found it, you would have said it wasn't specific enough. Regardless, ...

I think the Wikileaks documents confirmed that US knowingly risked the lives of civilians, and may have even intentionally killed civilians with terrorist connections. Look at it from the Muslim side: The enemy terrorists have massive numbers and massive weapons to back them up. The general public of the Western world supports them, or at least doesn't fight against allowing them to continue. Is their terrorism not just as justified?

Again, how does Wikileaks spreading documents destabilize? Without them, the government would be able to run its citizens into the ground without us knowing. You cannot protest a government if you don't know it's doing something wrong.

Please show me a study that says Anon want to "stop order and stability", and anything at all that says Wikileaks are trying to destabilize governments. Attacking websites and stopping business is stopping stability. But please, I don't even need to find a 'study' for you. It is right there in front of you to see. Anon attack companies they don't like without going through the respectful and legal means. It creates a lack of stability for on-line companies and on-line trading. Again, Wikileaks are destabilising governments. They may not be attempting to do so, but it does have the potential to do so (as I said). I didn't know mods don't have to back up their claims with proof. Anon is not one solid organization. It has no leader and no rules. One group of people with an opinion decide to do something, and get a bunch of people from Anon to do it, all in the name of Anon. This does not mean Anon supports the movement. In fact, by definition it cannot support anything, as it has no power to make decisions as a body. It's just a bunch of people with nothing better to do with their lives all thrown into an ugly little melting pot, pretending to make soup. E: Just to be clear: Two claims. Zero proof. Guns have the potential to kill people. Those are legal.

You got arrested? ;) It's not all that bad. Not being arrested, that is. I mean, you have the internet at least.

The study you ask for would be very difficult to conduct and probably not be shared publicly as its results would be extremely questionable. That is why there are no studies indicating ANYTHING about the issue. I would be surprised if you were able to find a study that proves the contrary. However, do either of you deny that many (say, at least ten percent) Americans, Christians included, support the US military, and acts of the US military can fall under the umbrella of terrorism and often harm civilians?

Please show me a study that says Anon want to "stop order and stability", and anything at all that says Wikileaks are trying to destabilize governments.

Each of your posts in this topic has involved some sort of personal attack. My obviously exaggerated responses were pointing out the lack of necessity for your hostility. First of all, I think I explained it clearly, and second of all, flaming is in the presentation. I personally thought the way you presented your own opinion was questionable, but not offensive. Others may have interpreted it differently. Your off topic attacks on Christianity/Catholicism make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion. They're not off-topic at all: we take off our shoes and have cavity searches because we're afraid of adherents to one religion, while ignoring the adherents to another religion shooting people and waging a holy war in the Middle East. There's a strong link between religion and terrorism, and you don't get to single out one group in a pathetic attempt to justify your xenophobia. Your claims that other religions have the same link are baseless. Find me a study that says 10% of Christians support attacks on innocent civilians, and then we'll discuss it. Until then, piss off. I'm sorry, but you need to pay more attention to your own thread. By both your OP definition of terrorism and the "innocent civilians" thing above, the US military commits terrorism in the Middle East. Many Americans (Christian or not) support this. Is this not exactly what you are asking for? As far as links go, I can go ask my semi-Christian mother if she supports the American military and then put the results on a web page, if you'd like.

Wikileaks has done nothing illegal and nothing close to terrorism. In addition, they are an international organization and don't answer to US laws, even if those laws should be protecting them anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljhuPaEBkto

and yet I said, "Muslims don't use terrorism mainly because they want to go to heaven." i know you're sinking and grasping for straws now, especially after that hilarious beatdown by the mod. but i never once posted in this thread that Muslim terrorism is all about religion. I may have misinterpreted that quote - are you saying "Muslims refrain from terrorism because they believe it will keep them out of Heaven," or "Muslims have other reasons to terrorize than getting into Heaven"? As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

It actually wasn't directed at Giordano. And he's white, just look at his avatar.

Those documents would have been released regardless, he merely pushed up the date they were released And the fact that he chooses what to release based on who opposes him doesn't worry you at all? Now Anonymous is attacking organizations that oppose the leaks, apparently in the name of free speech. Their actions are terrorism. If any group opposes the leaks they can expect a DDOS. Now how does that support freedom of speech again? You are confusing freedom of speech and freedom of action. I don't support anon, but these organizations acted out harmfully against Wikileaks. This is not speech or information, it is action.

In a thread specifically about "10% of the Worlds Muslim are Terrorists", explain how Muslim terrorists and Islam are two completely separate things. I don't believe I ever said that. The debate at the time was about terrorism in general, and I doubt I used the word completely in that context. Please stop trolling.

^ Sums up my argument. Then can you please explain your logic? In this specific example, I am pointing out how Faux's logic changes depending on which religion is involved. When we're talking about Islam, terrorism is all about religion, but when it's the Crusades, he's very picky about the small political issues. Religion and politics in the Middle East are the same. Check. "C" is quoted out of context and is an exaggeration. I forget what I was arguing, but the point was that religion is a political issue in the Middle East. The second part is expressing the idea that terrorism is independent of religion - in the sense that there are Muslim terrorists and there are Christian terrorists, while there are terrorists who don't give a damn about religion. Check. Which leads to: Terrorism and religion are two completely different things. Whaaaaa? Terrorism and religion are two different things. They can be connected, potentially, but by definition neither is inherently related.

Depends. What sort of things?

So much for not flaming. When a mod begins a post with "You have no idea about history" you know something's wrong, and don't even get me started on Faux's post. I find it strange that you would have no trouble identifying subtle political issues within a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church with the intention of reclaiming the Holy Land, but refuse to believe the modern issue with Islam, which is not even supported by a majority among Muslims, is not entirely religious. Faux, you called the non-Christian group in the Crusades the "Muslim Nation". And the link there was the "prevention of expansion". The Cuba thing was irrelevant and unnecessary, but it was silly of you to pick it out to argue about. Danqa, I am not an expert on the Crusades. However, the connection to religion is pretty clear. To be fair, I'm sure there were both religious and political issues involved. ^ Sums up my argument.

you're implying that Muslims perform terrorism because they need it to "go to heaven". Muslims don't use terrorism mainly because they want to go to heaven. you're also implying that "if" the Church interprets a form of jihad, Christians will follow it. you act as if that's a legitimate argument. are you kidding me? that's like me saying if you were a homosexual, you would be a child predator. it has no basis in reality or even this argument because you're assuming that 10% of Catholics are willing to commit a crime for the Church without any proof. Please, give us some insight. If terrorism is a religious act (or should I say an act of Islam), and it is not related to eternal salvation, then what is the motivation? LMFAO. Next you'll say the Bay of Pigs and quarantine of Cuba was to prevent Castro from nuking the US.

The Russia thing: it seems to assume that Russia is out to get the US. Still, it's strange that after Assange accused the Russian gov't of being responsible for multiple crime rings throughout Europe they would support him. Assange trial: The plot thickens. That is rather interesting, and I look forward to more information. Maybe Assange can leak it for us. We'll see. People wouldn't have the option to change things if they were unaware of the information in the documents, and if it doesn't change things, then it can't be harmful. Can you prove that? Because I'd like to see your proof. Its called lobbying. Most companies do it. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7856 Agreed, to a certain extent. In other news, the whole Anon ddos'ing Mastercard, Paypal, and Amazon is in today's New York Times. They don't specifically say it's Anonymous, they just say it's a group of internet Assange sympathizers.

This post does not count for doing something awesome. I wrote half a chapter of my book the other day, after procrastinating for like... a fortnight or 20. Edit: For once someone's beaten me in today's top 20 posters, and it is Dupin. He beat me by like 7 posts. The OP says "compliment others on cool things they've done". But I guess having lots of posts is sort of awesome. I don't do much awesome. How do I find this posts thing again? And it's because I got into some crazy debate in one of those religion threads, plus I have a massive project that I have about four hours to complete, and have really no idea how to do. I tend to spend a ton of time on TIF when I have work. Shiny, you're crazy. Death by jellyfish is extremely painful. Whatever possessed you to do such a thing?

Really. I dislike Wikileaks as a whole not because I'm pro-government, but because I don't trust any organization with that kind of power, let alone an individual. The fact that they released information on Visa and Mastercard after the two companies boycotted the site is evidence of how it could be used for blackmail, or when someone involved in the leaks has something to gain. And to me that's more horrifying than a government with secrets. Basically, the same "support us or we'll ruin you" [cabbage] that Anonymous is infamous for. You know, the guys that support free speech by DDoSing everyone that doesn't agree with them. Yeah, governments need to be more open, yeah atrocities are a bad thing. This, I think, is the worst way to go about doing it. Is there a better way you would like to discuss? When the newspapers are not doing their job, someone needs to step up. It's more horrifying for a government to have that sort of power legally than for Wikileaks to have it illegally.

? Hehe. How many other people'll get that reference, do you think? ;o I should hope everyone who owned a PS2. It might be a little less than that, though.

I would like to complement you on making this thread, and hope it will be awesome.

The Klan did not steal private documents and publish them for no reason other then to damage the United States. Wikileaks' intention is not to damage the US, it's to expose corruption and protect freedom of information. It wouldn't be damaging to politicians if they hadn't been, well, politicians to begin with. And I don't see it damaging the United States as a whole either - on the contrary, it's helpful as it allows citizens to see the truth about things the government would rather keep secret.