Quote from: James McMurrayThe big question though is whether Steve Jackson is Muslim or not.

Well he has got a beard.

That's proof enough for me.

Quote from: StumpydavePersonally I think he's an escaped character from an RPG, trying desperately to understand this brave new world he's been thrust into.  Henceforth everything he talks about is related to gaming because he is Gaming.

.

Which RPG would this poor demented wretch hail from?

My Life with the Bastard?
Dogpiss on the Pavement?

Paranoia

Quote from: David RNo, he comes here, because he feels comfortable around folks who share the same interest (RPGs) as him and because there are probably those who are sympathetic to his views if not his expression of them.


Regards,
David R

I'm pretty sure the only reasons Nox is here is because its the one place that won't automatically ban him, and perhaps because he thinks he might get an audience for his moronic hatred of SJG and RPG.net just because many of us on here were also banned from RPG.net, failing utterly to understand that the reasons for it are totally different.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StumpydaveWhatever you do don't lose Nox.  The guy's comedy gold and one of the main reasons I've stuck around.  Who the hell else could come out as an Islamic hating "cliff'em all!" psycho and then announce he's a lefty.

Oh, I agree, the sheer dementia of his position is pretty captivating. Its like being a communist who loves money, or saying you're a devout Lutheran who hates Jesus or something like that.
Its just the most batshit crazy stuff, that could only come out of someone who was either mentally ill or so unbelievably uneducated that they only randomly spew out opinions formed by picking up random soundbites in popular media, with absolutely ZERO comprehension of the deeper issues of each subject.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzHey, let's try that, "use the other guy's reasoning against him" trick again, that's fun.

When was the last women's rape of a man?
When was the last man's rape of a woman?
Oh no, all men are rapists!

When was the last time another country killed US civilians?
When was the last time the US killed another country's civilians?
Oh no, the USA are terrorists!

We can play this game all day. Or, we can be reasonable and sane. The world of Islam is not a world of murderers.

My only point was that people who generally act as apologists for Islamist terrorism always fall back on abortion clinic bombings, as if there was any comparison. Ideologically - maybe. In reality - not even a sniff.

And no going back to the Crusades to try to draw some moral equivelence to today's/yesterday's/last week's/last month's/last year's neverending hit parade of suicide bombings.

And don't drag out Tim McVeigh again, either. Gimmie some FRESH ideological Christian terrorism.

Quote from: WerekoalaAnd no going back to the Crusades to try to draw some moral equivelence to today's/yesterday's/last week's/last month's/last year's neverending hit parade of suicide bombings.

I fail to understand why some people insist that comparing contemporary Islamic extremism with the Christian Crusades is somehow irrelevant.  If anything, it can serve as an example of how, contrary to Dominus Nox's assertions, a religious movement gone mad can eventually be steered away from the morass of genocide and become the largely non-insane religion it is today.  Honestly, if medieval Christianity could eventually give way and give rise to the Renaissance, there's possibly light at the end of the tunnel of radical Islam.

Yes, yes, that's a lot of conditional statements and hypothesising, but historical gap aside, looking at how bad a particular religious movement once was seems like fair game for comparison and understanding of another religious movement.  Particularly when the histories of the two are so intimately intertwined.

!i!

Quote from: WerekoalaMy only point was that people who generally act as apologists for Islamic terrorism always fall back on abortion clinic bombings, as if there was any comparison. Ideologically - maybe. In reality - not even a sniff.

And no going back to the Crusades to try to draw some moral equivalence to today's/yesterday's/last week's/last month's/last year's never ending hit parade of suicide bombings.

And don't drag out Tim McVeigh again, either. Gimmie some FRESH ideological Christian terrorism.

Well first you need to define terrorism. If we define the terms of the debate then we can better answer your question.

What is terrorism?

Quote from: Serious PaulWell first you need to define terrorism. If we define the terms of the debate then we can better answer your question.

What is terrorism?

As close as I can manage: attacks by irregular forces (insurgents, partisans, whatever) against civilian targets for the purpose of achieiving a political or cultural outcome. I'd probably not include attacks against military targets, since military forces are trained to defend and fight back, whereas most civilians are not.

Note that this puts abortion clinic bombers squarely in the "terrorist" column. I'm not defending them, just trying to point out the fact that - in my opinion - the sheer voulme and wide-spread nature of Islamist terrorism puts the clinic bombings wayyyyyy down the list of things that need to be addressed.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI fail to understand why some people insist that comparing contemporary Islamic extremism with the Christian Crusades is somehow irrelevant.  If anything, it can serve as an example of how, contrary to Dominus Nox's assertions, a religious movement gone mad can eventually be steered away from the morass of genocide and become the largely non-insane religion it is today.  Honestly, if medieval Christianity could eventually give way and give rise to the Renaissance, there's possibly light at the end of the tunnel of radical Islam.

I've never seen anyone complain about it when used that way. But most people that bring up the Crusades in a religious or terrorism discussion don't do it to say "see, Islam doesn't have to stay bad." It's usually* done to say "see, Christianity is evil too."

* By "usually" I mean that I've never seen it brought up for any other reason than to point out Christianity's shortcomings.

Quote from: WerekoalaAs close as I can manage: attacks by irregular forces (insurgents, partisans, whatever) against civilian targets for the purpose of achieving a political or cultural outcome.

So terrorism can not be used by regular military forces? I know this may seem like an absurd question, but please bear with me.

Also how do they achieve these "outcomes", or goals?

QuoteI'd probably not include attacks against military targets, since military forces are trained to defend and fight back, whereas most civilians are not.

I think you should be careful here.

QuoteNote that this puts abortion clinic bombers squarely in the "terrorist" column.

I may have missed it, but I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with you here.

As an aside this article is a farly useful resource, but certainly not the only one.

I tend to classify attacks on military targets as military actions, and attacks on civilians as terrorist actions. And yes, this means that I think the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist activities.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI fail to understand why some people insist that comparing contemporary Islamic extremism with the Christian Crusades is somehow irrelevant.  If anything, it can serve as an example of how, contrary to Dominus Nox's assertions, a religious movement gone mad can eventually be steered away from the morass of genocide and become the largely non-insane religion it is today.  Honestly, if medieval Christianity could eventually give way and give rise to the Renaissance, there's possibly light at the end of the tunnel of radical Islam.

Yes, yes, that's a lot of conditional statements and hypothesising, but historical gap aside, looking at how bad a particular religious movement once was seems like fair game for comparison and understanding of another religious movement.  Particularly when the histories of the two are so intimately intertwined.

!i!

YAAAAAAWWWWWWN. Damn, some people never seem to wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes we do have a few, a few, christian nutjobs, or haloheads, as I like to call them. Yes, they occasionally commit acts like clinic bombings and murders, a'la eric rudolph. Yes, there are evil fanatics like fred phelps.

In christianity, these people are a micro minority, they are the extreme fringe. They act as very small goups or as individuals.

Now in islam we have vastly larger numbers of violent fanatics comitting murders in the name of islam, from the ones who murdered nuns in outrage of the "mohommad" cartoon last yeat to the one who murdered the film director in Amsterdam because he made a movie portraying islam's oppression of women to the ones who bombed nightclubs this new year's eve to the ones who murdered nick berg to the ones who wanted to murder the guy in afghanistan because he converted to chiristianity to....

Well, anyone who isn't a total PC pod person would get the idea. For every christian nut like eric rudolph or fred phelps there are thousands and thousands of islamic whackos.

But why bother? You can't reason with a PC pod person, they are essentially mindless vessels spewing forth the PC dogma they've been programmed with.

Quote from: WerekoalaAnd don't drag out Tim McVeigh again, either. Gimmie some FRESH ideological Christian terrorism.

Thing is, your Christian and libertarian terrorists are pretty incompetent, and your FBI is very good. So a lot of attacks get stopped before they happen. Whereas the Islamic terrorists, or guerillas comitting atrocities, are quite competent, and the US military isn't as good as the FBI. Plus there's the simple fact that it's easier for Americans to inflitrate and report on American terrorist groups, than it is for them to infiltrate and report on foreign ones. Same reason the US can take down the New York mob, but not the Mexican mob.

If you have a look at the FBI website, you'll see there's a shitload of attacks planned but stopped by them, and most of them are domestic.

You're confusing "level of hostility" with "rate of success." It's like pointing out that more civilians are killed by cops than vice versa, and then concluding that cops are more violent - they're not, they're just more competent than criminals in shooting.