BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115

Subject: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 03:04 PM

Yesterday, the FBI refused to say that the gunman who murdered two people and injured several others at the El Al counter at LAX was a terrorist.

(Maybe it was just a coincidence that he opened fire at the El Al counter just as passengers for the only El Al flight that day from LAX were checking in.)

Today, the murderer has been identified as Hesham Mohamed Hadayet. A 41 year old Egyptian Muslim fundamentalist.

Israel's El Al is the only airline that posts armed guards at the check-in counter. An El Al guard stopped the murders by quickly killing Hesham Mohamed Hadayet. At any other airline's counter, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet's terrorist bloodbath would have been much worse.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: toadfrog
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 03:38 PM

I saw a fine bunny rabbit yesterday. It ran away when it heard the fireworks, though. It had fluffy brown and white fur, and must have weighed seven pounds! Any one else ever see a bunny like that in the City?

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 03:42 PM

---

Search for "terrorist" threads

---

I dunno. I think it's probably best for the FBI to stick to the facts, and to refuse to define anybody as a terrorist. Better to leave the job of labeling to the talk show hosts and Internet "experts."
I think the FBI learned one lesson with the Oklahoma City bombing - they're not as quick to point the finger of blame at one group or another.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 04:24 PM

Guest Demontrates his/her steel trap mind by first saying that the attack was on El Al because of who the attacker was. Then immediately contradicts his/herself by opening the possiblity of the attacker attacking another airline. You all can talk with this idiot, I won't.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 04:31 PM

According to the latest AP story at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20020705/ap_on_re_us/airport_shooting_48

Israeli officials do consider Hesham Mohamed Hadayet to be a "terrorist."

For it's part, the FBI now says, "we are not ruling out hate crime. We are not ruling out terrorism."

The FBI is also reporting that Hesham Mohamed Hadayet had at least two different California driver's licenses with different names and birthdates and that he went to LAX for the express purpose of killing. He carried two guns, a knife and lots of extra ammo.

The people that Hesham Mohamed Hadayet murdered were both Jewish. Victoria Hen was 25 and was an El Al ticket agent. Yaakov Aminov was 46. He was a jeweler and father of eight children who was at the airport to drop off a friend.

One of the people that Hesham Mohamed Hadayet missed killing was the granddaughter of Israeli Foreign Minister (and former Prime Minister) Shimon Peres, who co-won the Nobel Peace Prize with Itzhak Rabin for his efforts to make peace with the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 04:38 PM

Jack the Sailor needs to learn to read what people say before putting words in their mouths.

I did not open the possibility that Hesham Mohamed Hadayet's terrorist attack might have been aimed at another airline. I was pointing out that IF it had taken place at any other airline, the bloodbath would have been much worse.

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet's actions and history speak eloquently of his motive.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Benny
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 04:43 PM

And your conduct on this thread, guest, speak eloquently of yours.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 04:48 PM

So Guest Benny,do you mean to say that deploring the actions of murdering terrorists should be off limits?

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Benny
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 04:59 PM

No, guest. I mean to say that your behavior is tranparent.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 05:00 PM

Israel accuses everyone who disagrees with them of either being a terrorist or an antisemite.

It doesn't make their definitions of the words very useful bit it is apparantly effective in stiring up the passions of idiots who feel entitled to have their cake and eat it to. Guests statements are idiotic because obviously if the attacker was the person guest assumes he is those at other airlines would have been quite safe. There is a reason El Al has more security, because they NEED it. Guest for someone who uses words like "eloquently" you sure are dumb.

What the FBI is speaking about is whether the attacker is part of an established terrorist cell, or just a disgruntled United State resident of Arab decent acting alone. You know, like the people who go crazy and shoot up school yards.

In this particular case there is a very thin line between terrorism and hate crime. I think the FBI needs to find that distinction to see where their investigation will lead. As for the rest of us, 3 people were killed in Airports this July 4th. How many thousands of others died of other causes? The people who make a big deal of this and blow it out of proportion to futher their political agendas are the terrorists.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 05:19 PM

According to Jack the Sailor, "Israel accuses everyone who disagrees with them of either being a terrorist or an antisemite."

Such a lying blanket statement reveals much about the credibility of Jack the Sailor.

Furthermore, according to the wisdom of Jack the Sailor, to be a terrorist, the murderer must be part of an organized cell.

So if Hesham Mohamed Hadayet was part of a terrorist cell, maybe then we can call him a terrorist. But if he acted alone, then, in the words of Jack the Sailor, he was merely "disgruntled."

However, someone acting alone, and saying on the internet that they deplore terrorism, is, according tothe wise Jack the Sailor, a terrorist.

So, to sum up the lessons of Jack the Sailor, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet opens fire in an airport and is just someone who is "disgruntled" while someone who says that Hesham Mohamed Hadayet's actions make him a terrorist is the real terrorist.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 05:23 PM

You are really stupid. Profoundly so.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 05:25 PM

[sigh]
Another thread, headed down the Purple Path.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 05:39 PM

Isn't this just a continuation os B.S. that has been going on for months? When I see "Who are the terrorists?" I read it as "some idiot wants to fight" I opened the thread and I certainly was not proved wrong.

The last time is was in a discussion at the level that guest seems to prefer it ended at "Neah Neah Neah" and "Your mother wears army boots." I suspect this one will end at the same place, so I am speeding it on to its logical conclusion.

How can we continue to take this B.S. seriously? All minds seem to be make up and Guest, if you think you can win people to your cause by arguing with them you ARE an Idiot.

Now, are you going to let this thread die a well deserved death or shall I taunt you a second time.

"You father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 06:10 PM

Israel accused Desmond Tutu of being an antisemite for speaking out against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. I think such and accusation reveals much about the credibility of Israel.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 08:48 PM

I think the point is not to persuade anyone of anything, as it is a complex and tragic situation all the way around. But, the point is to say, for the first time probably in most of our lives, what we see, how we interpret the situation and where we stand on aspects of it, rather than maintaining a silence that will only lead to more and more deaths and cruelties. mg

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 09:04 PM

GUEST,mg.. I've seen your posts on these threads. I don't buy what you just said for one second. You haven't been expressing your feelings. You have been arguing like everyone else. I don't see how childishly sniping at one another on this forum is preventing cruel deaths. Perhaps you would like to explain to us all how this BullShit is keeping people alive.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,in the Mudcat Observatory Tower
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 10:01 PM

Jack the Sailor,

At 5:39 you challenged the Guest who started this thread to let it die. Guest has let things be but you're the one who is perpetuating it.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jul 02 - 10:04 PM

And now so are you. Oh superior one how does it feel to look down from those lofty and indignant heights?

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Pipes
Date: 09 Jul 02 - 09:05 AM

On the 4th of July last week, an Egyptian immigrant to the United States who believes in wild conspiracy theories about Jews, is known for his great "hate for Israel," and has possible ties to Al-Qaeda, armed himself to the teeth and assaulted the Israeli airline counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing two.

It is obvious why Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet targeted Jews in a highly visible place on so prominent a date: to engage in terrorism against Israel.

But one important institution - the U.S. government - claims not to know Hadayet's goals. An FBI spokesman has said that "there's nothing to indicate terrorism." Another FBI official said of Hadayet: "It appears he went there with the intention of killing people. Why he did that we are still trying to determine." Possible causes named include a work dispute and a hate crime.

Sure, law enforcement should not jump to conclusions, but this head-in-the-clouds approach is ridiculous. It also fits a well-established pattern. Consider three cases of terrorism in the New York City area:

1) Rashid Baz, a Lebanese cab driver with a known hatred for all things Israeli and Jewish, armed himself to the teeth in March 1994 and drove around the city looking for a Jewish target. He found his victims - a van full of Hassidic boys - on the Brooklyn Bridge and fired a hail of bullets against them, killing one boy. And how did the FBI classify this crime? As "road rage." Only because the murdered boy's mother relentlessly fought this false description did the bureau finally in 2000 re-classify the murder as "the crimes of a terrorist."

2) Ali Hasan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian gunman hailing from militant Islamic circles in Florida, took a gun to the top of the Empire State building in February 1997 and shot a tourist there. His suicide note accused the United States of using Israel as its "instrument" against the Palestinians but city officials ignored this evidence and instead dismissed Abu Kamal as either "one deranged individual working on his own" (Police Commissioner Howard Safir) or a "man who had many, many enemies in his mind" (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani).

3) Gamil al-Batouti, an EgyptAir copilot, yelled "I put my faith in G-d's hands" as he crashed a plane leaving Kennedy airport in October 1999, killing 217. Under Egyptian pressure, the National Transportation Safety Board report shied away from once mentioning Batouti's possible terrorist motives.

And despite all the "world-has-changed" rhetoric following the horrors of last September, Western officialdom continues to pretend terrorism away.

Damir Igric, a Croat immigrant from the former Yugoslavia, used a box cutter to slash the neck of a Greyhound bus driver in Tennessee last October, causing the bus to roll over, killing six passengers and himself. Although this bus-hijacking scenario echoed similar attacks by Palestinians on Israeli buses, the FBI immediately classified it "an isolated incident" and not an act of terrorism. The media attributed the violence to post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Hassan Jandoubi, an Islamist with possible connections to Al-Qaeda, had started working at the AZF fertilizer factory in suburban Toulouse, France, just days before a massive explosion took place there last Sept. 21. This, the worst catastrophe ever in a French chemical plant, killed Jandoubi and 29 others, injured 2,000, destroyed 600 dwellings, and damaged 10,000 buildings. The autopsy revealed that Jandoubi was wearing two pairs of trousers and four pairs of underpants, which the coroner compared to what is worn by "Islamic militants going into battle or on suicide missions."

Also, the chemical plant was processing ammonium nitrate, a stable chemical that requires a substantial infusion of energy to explode. Ignoring these signs, the French authorities declared there was "no shred of evidence" of the explosion being a terrorist act and ruled it an accident. They even prosecuted two publications merely for calling Jandoubi a "radical Islamist," making them pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines to Jandoubi's heirs, a mosque, and a Muslim organization for their "defamation" of Jandoubi.

Work dispute, hate crime, road rage, derangement, post-traumatic stress, industrial accident ... these expressions of denial obstruct effective counterterrorism. The time has come for governments to catch up with the rest of us and call terrorism by its rightful name.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jul 02 - 11:13 AM

Why does it matter whether it was terrorism or a hate crime or a disgruntled male, all of which "motives" were bandied about in the news? Yet another individual went and killed some other individuals who'd done him no real harm but belonged to some other group, or something.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Nemesis
Date: 09 Jul 02 - 11:28 AM

Anyway, in the UK with the Prevention of Terrorism loosely speaking any group of people gathering together are defined as Terrorists. Including families small children, elderly people, dogwalkers, cyclists all walking down a leafy country lane protesting against the greed and profit that will see Ice Age forest remnants sold off for density housing with the Police agressively in-your-face gathering video evidence of us all! Sadly for them given the evident profile of the protesters - i.e,.'normal' 'not terrorists' they eventually resorted to unprovokedly attacking a 14 year old boy, his mother and another guy. I witnessed that - I'd say the Police were the terrorists.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 02 - 01:01 AM

Well researched (I assume) GUEST:Pipes.
But it seems that you are the one who believes in wild conspiracy theories. Your premise does not even hold water as you have written it. It is Parinoid, ill founded, niave and silly. Your co-conspirators for this one are:

1. The FBI - That is patently ridiculous - No motive, they'd get more budget and support if they pointed to terrorism, as no doubt J. Edgar Hoover would have. But Instead they act as responsible policemen. Good for them! Thank God for this capable, professional police force. How paranoid are you?

2. The city of New York - Nearly as ridiculous - When it is a lone gunman, bomber or knifist, no conspiracy and there is no point in further investgation why claim terrorism? How impractical are you?

3. The NTSB - THe most ridiculous of all. You know it I was going down in a crashing airplane I would say "I put My fate in God's hand's" or something to that effect. If the guy was a terrorist he would have much less ambiguous. Something Like "I kill these people for a free Palestine. THAT would scare people, That would be terorism.

4. THe US Media, Maybe they are the most ridiculous. because a "real" terrorist would make a better story. Gee whiz they've been "crying wolf" for 10 months. How blind are you??

4. The government of FRANCE - Incredibly ridiculous and again, If he had sent a letter to the police ,left a note in his home to claim credit for the explosion it would have been terror. If he doesn't then the terror he generates is of faulty chemical plants instead of his cause. That is not terrorism it is just bombing. How Naive are you?

I think you have made it clear that your definition of terrorism is "Anytime a Jew gets killed with a Moslem in the neighbourhood." How bigotted are you?

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Mark in NH
Date: 10 Jul 02 - 09:19 AM

Suppose on Martin Luther King Day I went to the offices of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and shot the receptionists. How many nano-seconds do you think it would take before the attack was being characterized as racially motivated? Your top Olympic hotshot could ingest every steroid on the planet and he couldn't beat that time.

Suppose it was Judy Garland's birthday and I went to my local gay bathhouse and opened fire on the fetching young men handing out the towels. How many minutes would tick by before the word "homophobia" was heard?

Or suppose it was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and me and my semi-automatic swung by the abortion clinic ...

Well, you get the idea. On the Fourth of July (hint) a guy went to the airport in Los Angeles, sauntered up to the ticket counter of El Al (hint) and fatally shot two people and wounded three. How many folks hearing the news on a quickie radio update honestly expected it to be anyone other than a Muslim male of Middle Eastern origin? Obviously, Underperformin' Norman Mineta, the scrupulously sensitivity-trained U.S. Transportation Secretary, would have been wary of jumping to conclusions. Were he running the LAPD, he'd have pulled in a couple of elderly nuns and Kelli-Sue, a trainee hairdresser from Des Moines.

But, fortunately for the final death toll, El Al has its own security and so the suspect, after firing 10 rounds, was himself killed. And whaddaya know? He wasn't an elderly nun but a 41-year-old Egyptian male! His name wasn't Kellie-Sue, it was Hesham Mohamed Hadayet!

This stunning development seems to have completely disoriented the FBI. I quote from The New York Times headline: "Officials Puzzled About Motive Of Airport Gunman."

Hmm. Egyptian Muslim kills Jews on American national holiday. Best not to jump to conclusions. Denial really is a river in Egypt. "It appears he went there with the intention of killing people," said Richard Garcia, the Bureau's agent in charge. "Why he did that we are still trying to determine."

CNN and The Associated Press all but stampeded to report a "witness" who described the shooter as a fat white guy in a ponytail who kept yelling "Artie took my job." But, alas, this promising account proved to be a prank. Saudi Arabia's popular Arab News suggested that Mr. Hadayet had made the mistake of doing business with El Al and that "the Israeli airline had been late in paying for two limousine rentals from the Egyptian immigrant's company." If a couple of late cheques were a motive for murder, Izzy's and Conrad's heads would now be stuffed and mounted in my trophy room. But, sadly, this cautionary tale about the Jew bloodsucker's commercial wiles proved also to be false.

That left the police with no leads. Nothing to go on. The trail's stone cold. All the FBI has is an Egyptian male, who'd complained to his apartment managers after his neighbours post-9/11 began displaying the American flag; who'd posted a banner saying "READ KORAN" on his own front door; who told his employees that he hated Israel, that the two biggest drug dealers in New York were Israelis, and that Israel was trying to wipe out the Egyptian population by flooding the country with AIDS-infected Jewess prostitutes.

Could even the most expert psychological profiler make sense of such confusing and contradictory signs? Beats me, Sherlock. But, as Agent Garcia says, there's no indication of "anti-Israel views or any other type of racial views." Orange County's Muslim Public Affairs Council has praised Agent Garcia for his exceptionally advanced levels of sensitivity. Any moment now, they'll be demanding to know why Governor Gray Davis has failed to visit a mosque to reassure Muslims.

Meanwhile, a London newspaper says that Mr. Hadayet may have met with Osama bin Laden's deputy on at least two occasions in Cairo. If last Thursday's shooting is the spectacular Fourth of July massacre al-Qaeda have been promising for months, then they're to be congratulated for a bloody slaughter on an epic scale never before seen in America except from incompetent grade-school psychos who steal Uncle Bud's hunting rifle but forget to take any extra ammo.

In a story headlined "Bin Laden Plans Fresh Terror For September," Britain's Observer reported yesterday that "terrorists are planning a series of spectacular attacks on American, British and Israeli targets to coincide with the anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September last year." As spectacular as Thursday? Well, let's not get too ambitious ... Oh, speaking of the late Mr. bin Laden, whatever happened to that new video we were promised any day now? Well, apparently, that's been pushed back to the new fall season, too, and should be premiering the same week as the new romantic comedy in which I star as the world's most eligible bachelor unable to choose between Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz and so forced to make love to both repeatedly. I offered Osama a small part, but he said, "I've got one already."

Credit where it's due. Between September 11th and July 4th, there were no terrorist attacks on American soil. That's a longer period of peace than the British ever managed in the 30 years it took them to surrender to the IRA. Much of this 10-month calm is due to increased vigilance but some of it is also due to al-Qaeda's preference for hiring morons. If their glorious Fourth was really the follow-up to 9/11, then I'd say that's the worst-performing sequel since Dudley Moore made Arthur II.

But let's take the Feds at their word when they insist there's "no connection" between the LAX killer and any terrorist organizations. In its way, that's even more disturbing. Mr. Hadayet doesn't fit the poverty-breeds-desperation-breeds-resentment routine: He lived in a prosperous L.A. suburb and ran his own business. America had been good to him, at least when compared with the economic basket-case he emigrated from. On July 4th, he had plenty of reasons to get out the bunting and firecrackers. Instead, he went Jew-killing.

Osama and al-Qaeda are a small problem, which since September 11th has been managed about as well as can be expected. But the broader culture of "intolerance" in certain unassimilated communities is a potentially much bigger problem. You win wars not just by bombing but by argument, too: Churchill understood this; he characterized the enemy as evil, because they were and because it was important for the British people to understand this if they were to muster the will to see the war through. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost the rhetorical ground to Jane Fonda and co., and wound up losing the war, too.

It's critical that the same thing does not happen here. The organizations that purport to represent Muslims in North America and Europe have their own excuses for turning a blind eye to the torrent of hate from respectable sources within the Muslim world -- mosques, media, government. There's no reason why the FBI and other U.S. agencies should sign on to their fictions.

In the meantime, spare a thought for Thursday's victims, Victoria Hen, 25, and Yaakov Aminov, 46. Mr. Hadayet successfully orphaned eight children -- and a ninth on the way. Congratulations to another heroic Islamist martyr!

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 10 Jul 02 - 01:24 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Read all this before, many times.

But one thing did interest me: in GUEST,Pipes post yesterday, it mentioned this: "Damir Igric, a Croat immigrant from the former Yugoslavia, used a box cutter to slash the neck of a Greyhound bus driver in Tennessee last October, causing the bus to roll over, killing six passengers and himself. Although this bus-hijacking scenario echoed similar attacks by Palestinians on Israeli buses, the FBI immediately classified it "an isolated incident" and not an act of terrorism. The media attributed the violence to post-traumatic stress syndrome."

A Croat? So, the Pope's probably in on it, too?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 02 - 06:59 PM

Mark in NH, is it the deaths of innocents that you are against, or just the deaths of innocent Jews? You seem to be entirely focused on deaths of innocents (Jews in particular) at the hands of Muslims, but you have not said anything about the innocents who were not Jewish who have died at the hands of Jewish extremists.

And that's a pretty glaring omission since for every innocent Jew who has died at the hands of Muslim extremists, there have been more than ten innocent non Jews who have died at the hands of Jewish extremists.

The only conclusion one can draw from your post is that you value the lives of Jews more than you value the lives of non Jews. And that would make you a Jewish supremacist.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 02 - 07:05 PM

Mark in NH, Pipes, There are treatments for your condidtions. If your paranoia is cases buy psychosis, Lithium may help. If it is Depression, threre are, SRI's but get help. It is likely that both posts are from the same nutter. That can be helped as well.

The fact is the FBI is among the most professional police organizations in the worlds. They have no axe to grind and no reason to lie. Like them I have no reason to take sides in an Arab Israeli dispute. I see no reason to bomb forigners or detain citizens for the actions of individuals.

Again you torpedo your own attack with your own words. then try to distract us with several pages of bullshit.

Suppose on Martin Luther King Day I went to the offices of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and shot the receptionists. How many nano-seconds do you think it would take before the attack was being characterized as racially motivated? Your top Olympic hotshot could ingest every steroid on the planet and he couldn't beat that time.

Suppose it was Judy Garland's birthday and I went to my local gay bathhouse and opened fire on the fetching young men handing out the towels. How many minutes would tick by before the word "homophobia" was heard?

Or suppose it was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and me and my semi-automatic swung by the abortion clinic ...

None of your three examples would immediately be considered terrorist. Indeed people would raise a hue and cry if they were! But since Mr. Hadayet is an Arab who attacks Jews.

One of the traits of a Terrorist is to hide behind Aliases. If Mr. Hadayet were part of a terrorist cell he would not proclaim his hatred for Israel until after he acted.

Why don't you come out of the shadows and tell us who you are rather than throw out your bombs of bullshit and skulk away. I am tired of this discussion and plan to throw light onto the cockroaches in it. Come out and discuss this forthrightly and you may help your cause. Skulk like a cowards and spout paranoia, you can only hurt it.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Mark in NH
Date: 10 Jul 02 - 07:10 PM

Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. Yes I am GUEST,pipes and yes I have been a paranoid fool. I am now checked into a mental facility and am getting the help I need from a nice Jewish Doctor.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Mark in NH / Pipes
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 12:04 AM

Well I've been in the institution for a few days. The medication is working. The doctor says that If I continue to improve I'll have my choice of the Neil Young center or the William Shatner school of bad acting. I can attend either as vocational training. As I am not a Mudcatter, but a troll who til now just used the forum to showcase mu ignorance an bigotry, would you wise and compassionate Mudcatters please advise me as to which one is better?

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 01:47 AM

I am so glad you have come to your senses. I'd recommend the Shatner School.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 05:33 AM

Lepus Rex, for your information: Damir Igric was both Croat and Muslim. No need to mention the Pope.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 07:22 AM

According to news reports, the administration, the FBI and every other relevant official agency cannot yet determine whether Hesham Mohamed Hadayet's murderous attack on El Al Airlines customers at Los Angeles International Airport last week was an act of terrorism. They are not sure whether Hadayet's murders were a hate crime, terrorism or an act of personal anger. They even claim not to be sure about Hadayet's motives.

The American government sure is easily baffled. An extremist Egyptian Muslim chooses July 4th to murder Americans and Israelis who are flying from an American airport on Israel's national airline -- and the official line is that we can't call this terror or even identify the murderer's motives?

This country's officials are in a state of denial and confusion that is almost as frightening as the terrorism they are supposed to be fighting. The FBI says that unless Hadayet is linked to a terrorist organization, he did not commit an act of terror. But if that is now America's criterion for defining terrorism, Timothy McVeigh did not commit an act of terrorism. He wasn't linked to a terrorist group.

This absurd definition is worthy of the Keystone Cops, not the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of course, we need to know if this man was linked to a terrorist organization, but the absence of such a link in no way lessens the fact that this was terrorism.

By confining our definition of terrorism to acts committed by those with links to terrorist organizations, we may be ignoring the most frightening aspect of Islamic terror: There are many individual Muslim extremists without any links to any terror organizations who are prepared to slaughter Americans and Jews.

Only God knows how many Hadayets there are. But based upon what we humans can know, millions of Muslims, especially Arab Muslims, have been raised with a hatred of Jews and Americans whose intensity is unique in the world. According to a former employee of Hadayet, Abdul Zahab, 36, a Syrian immigrant, Hadayet had told him that "the Israelis tried to destroy the Egyptian nation and the Egyptian population by sending prostitutes with AIDS to Egypt."

Hadayet learned this grotesque libel from the Egyptian government's controlled media, which, like other Arab media, routinely spread such lies about Israel and Jews. Millions of Arab and other Muslims believe that Jews kill non-Jewish children to use their blood for Jewish holidays and that 4,000 Jews avoided working at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 because they knew about the attack in advance. No wonder Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is a best seller in the Arab world and the anti-Semitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is widely reprinted and read there.

And this hate is taught here, too. The Washington Post and The New York Times have reported on Islamic schools in America that teach hatred for America and Jews. That is why this debate about whether to call Hadayet's act "terror" or merely "a hate crime" is not only foolish, it is suicidal. If al Qaeda is destroyed tomorrow, it will hardly mean the end of Islamic terrorism. There are so many Muslims filled with a diabolical hatred of Israel, America and Jews that no terror organization is needed for Americans and Jews to be murdered regularly.

Were it not for the fact that Israeli security people were armed and spectacularly capable, Hadayet would probably have murdered and maimed dozens of innocent people. How many Hadayets must there be before America calls their actions terror and awakens to the dismal reality that a frightening number of such terrorists are created daily?

This is not a call to hate Muslims. It is a call to acknowledge Muslim hate. This hatred, the most virulent in the world today, created both 9-11 and Hesham Hadayet. Denying this serves no one, and it breeds contempt for those entrusted with protecting us from Islamic terror.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 08:14 AM

This GUEST is Obviously the same Idiot. Couldn't think of another clever name? How about Idiot in Idaho?

Your contempt obviously does not have to be bred you hatefull cowardly bigot.

No you Idiot! Timothy MacViegh did NOT commit terrorism. In his mind it was a military attack. Bringing about desired ends through terror did not enter into it. Read the paper you fool! And read a dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 08:18 AM

Huh, maybe, Wolfgang. Where'd you hear that? The only references to Muslims I found when searching for info on Mr.Igric' involved the fact that he'd fought in an mixed Catholic/Muslim army for Croatia during the war of independance, and had seen and done some unpleasant things with them. I assumed he was Catholic after reading that he had sought refuge at a Croatian monastery in Chicago shortly before the bus incident. So, Catholic, the Pope, my wise-ass response to the guest, etc. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 08:20 AM

You know the guys in the Alamo were on a suicide mission. And at the time, they damn well hated Mexicans. By your moronic, biased, definition that would make THEM terrorists. Does your stupidity know no bounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 08:39 AM

GUEST you bone head. drill a hole and pour this into your thick skull.

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

One person, committing one act, on his own, can in no way be considered systematic. The lack of any stated goal of coersion by Mr. Hadayet also negates you coersion. The most likely scenerio is that it was a hate crime, Like Columbine or Dunblane. If evidence is found that he committed this crime as a part of some systematic plan under orders then the FBI will call it terrorism.

If your paranoid conspiracy even came close to the extent you would have us believe, the mid East conflict would be long over. With nearly a billion Moslems. There would be on the order on 50 suicide attackers for every jew.

Again. and I am sure I'm talking to the same person. How stupid are you? If you must Troll why can't you do it with just a little common sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 08:55 AM

Lepus Rex, I had it from a German newspaper that he was born (bred) Catholic and later became Muslim. That, of course, doesn't make it true.

Jack: Idiot, Idiot, hateful, cowardly, bigot, idiot, fool. That's what you called GUEST in just five lines in one post. That GUEST doesn't sound convincing to me, but if you think you have a strong case don't you think you could make it without personal attacks? You're the only one in this thread who uses this method consistently.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 12:02 PM

Excuse me, I shall rephrase. GUEST Has demonstated Bigotry by tarring all Moslems with the same brush. Bigotry is idiotic, in my opinion. I have a very low opinion of bigotry. It is very offensive to me, even if it is dressed up in pseudoqoutes from the Washingto Post. Guest has shown a high level of ignorance by disproving GUESTS own points. GUEST has said hateful things. GUEST is apparantly trying to boost the Isreali cause by foolishly trying to change the meaning of words in the english language. Guest demonstrated cowardice by changing names 3 to 5 times in this one thread. GUEST does not have any function or meaning in the Mudcat other than writing and diseminating hate literature.

To be polite I will say that it is possible that GUEST personally none of those things. But I'll stand by my contention that its words are all of those things.

Nothing personal GUEST, but what you are saying is stupid and offensive and you are saying these things in a cowardly manner.

How's that?

I also would like to say that it is not just a matter of stating a case, i.e. making a rational aguement. GUEST is not attempting to do that. GUEST is spreading home made propaganda. GUEST will not come out in the open and discuss things. GUEST does not want to be a person. GUEST wants to be some sort of formless virtual entity which can make its hatefull announcements without consequence. By making it personal we are reminded that GUEST is a person. A troll, a skulker, but a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 12:13 PM

Tell you what though Wolfgang, this is getting tiresome anyway. I'm pretty sure that GUEST is pigheaded enough to rewrite its arguements and come back with the same garbage. Next time I'll just refer it to my previous responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,J. Edgar Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 02:30 PM

Jack the Sailor likes to invoke the authority of the FBI is his efforts to convince us that Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet was not a terrorist.

Jack the Sailor's latest claim is that Timothy McVeigh was also not a terrorist.

If Jack the Sailor were to visit the FBI's website at http://www.fbi.gov/ and do a search with the keyword "McVeigh," Jack the Sailor would find dozens of documents that refer to Tomothy McVeigh as a TERRORIST including references to McVeigh's act being "the largest terrorist attack within the United States in our history." Of course, that's from a document dating from before September 11, 2001.

FBI aside, I'm sure the suvivors and victims' families in Oklahoma City will be relieved to know that Jack the Sailor of Mudcat Cafe has overruled the FBI, the Justice Department and a jury of 12 Americans and determined that Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: PeteBoom
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 02:52 PM

W.H.S.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 03:36 PM

Timothy McVeigh may not have been a terrorist IN HIS MIND, given that to him, he was a legitimate military personnel making an attack on a legitimate military target. Had he bombed the Federal Building TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING ELSE, like getting the paramilitary prisoners freed, and knowing that the target was civilian, THEN he would have been committing terrorism in his own mind.

The fact remains that what he did was an act of terrorism. However again, the "12 Americans" referred to above did not find him to be a terrorist, they found him guilty of murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 09:59 PM

Ah! At last, something interesting to talk about. Intelligent response GUEST. Why don't you step out of J. Edgar's Hoover's closet and discuss this like a real person?

Mrrzy is right. MacVeigh was tried as a murderer. His crime had more elements of terrorism than Mr. Hadayet's. Moslems can be simple psychotics just like everyone else. His actions were hateful and racist as are your's Guest. But it has yet to be proved if they were terrorism.

Every Moslem who attacks a jew is not a terrorist, just as every agency which dissagrees with Israel is not part of a consipacy. If Israel convinces us that all Moslems are terrorists they gain an ally in the conquest of Palestine, which, to be fair, is also not technically terrorism, but it is equaly evil. The FBI has no such motivation to lie. Thus they are much more credible.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Amnesty watcher
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 10:41 PM

Amnesty International answers the question: Who are the Terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 11:17 PM

Amnesty watcher, not Amnesty reader. Again an example of unfathomable ignorance. The question of terrorism is not even addressed. The word is not mentioned. BTW I am sure that everyone will agree that attacks on civilians are bad. Keep talking if you speak infinately, eventually you will say something that will make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Amnesty watcher
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 11:18 PM

And lest we forget Israel's continuing crimes against humanity, here's what Amnesty International has to say about state terrorism committed against the Palestinians by Israel:

Amnesty International on the subject of just a tiny fraction of Israel's crimes against humanity

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Amnesty watcher
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 11:20 PM

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/israel06262002_2.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST,Amnesty watcher
Date: 11 Jul 02 - 11:31 PM

Gotta love that Amnesty International. This part of their page on Israeli crimes against humanity is especially timely and insightful:

""Unlawful killings of Palestinians continue as a result of the virtually complete impunity offered to Israeli soldiers who kill Palestinians," said Amnesty International.

"Durable security cannot be addressed by more repression and more walls and barriers," commented Amnesty International. "It can only be achieved if the human rights of all are guaranteed.""

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jul 02 - 06:11 AM

Every Moslem who attacks a jew is not a terrorist

Jack, do you really mean what you have written?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jul 02 - 08:28 AM

Yes, Wolfgang I certainly do mean that. I don't understand why it needs explaining. The definition of terrorism goes to motive. A twelve year old who thows rocks at an Israeli soldier is not a terrorist. Someone who kills for revenge is not a terrorist. One who attacks to rob is not a terrorist.

Palestinians have plenty of motive to attack Israel other that terrorism. Hamas is systematically using terror. But There are 800,000,000 Arabs in the world who are not in Hamas. Some of them are simply pissed off and some of them are just crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jul 02 - 08:42 AM

Well, I thought you had meant to write Not every Muslim who attacks a Jew is a terrorist which is something completely different from what you have written.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 02 - 08:55 AM

Jack the Sailor, you say that "someone who kills for revenge is not a terrorist."

We alreday know, thanks to you, that Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist.

But I want to be clear on something. Are you actually stating that the Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers who killed those old ladies at the Passover seder or the children at the Jerusalem cafe, who have committed "crimes against humanity" according to Amnesty International are "not terrorists" because they are acting out of revenge for what the Jews have done?

So, who are the terrorists according to Jack the Sailor? If you read his writings, it is not the McVeighs or the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. They are not terrorists.

Jack the Sailor says, "the people who make a big deal of this and blow it out of proportion to futher their political agendas are the terrorists." So, according to Jack the Sailor, Timothy McVeigh is not a terrorist, the Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers are not terrorists. If we extend Jack the Sailor's logic, we can easily conclude that the Muslim terrorists who killed almost 4,000 people on September 11 are not terrorists because Osama bin Laden clearly stated they were acting in revenge for what America and Istrael has done in the Middle East.

But me, just a guy with a computer in Ohio, I'm the real terrorist, according to Jack the Sailor, because I say that those murderers are terrorists.

Ah, it's all clear now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jul 02 - 08:58 AM

Wolfgang. Both sentences mean the same thing. But I can see how you might interpret it that way. The meaning is quite clear in the context of the paragraph in which it was used. English can be subtle that way. But your phrasing is better because it is less likely to be misinterpreted.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 115
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jul 02 - 09:30 AM

No I'll concede that you are clearly are not a terrorist. You seem to display some religous bigotry toward moslems. I'm going to give you credit for all the nasty guest comments on this post and I will freely admit I have a bias against all who choose to post that way. That comment was aimed at Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Chaney et. al who are apparantly not above using terror to promote their agendas and take away your civil rights.

The men who killed 3,000 people on Sept 11, were terrorists. It clearly was systematic, it clearly was intended to evoke clear and it clearly was part of Bin Laden's plan to coerce the US to leave what he considers to be the holy land and to end US support for Israel.

But if it had been done JUST for revenge, then it would not have been terrorism. That wouldn't excuse what they did.

The US Department of Justice and 12 of his Peers has told us that MacVeigh was not a terrorist.

Hitler was not a terrorist. Terror was incidental to his bad deeds. But he was the most evil man of this century.

Why you have this need this need to call people terrorist? There are plenty of other accurate, nasty words to use.

It is my understanding that the passover suicide bombers were terrorists. Hamas sent them, it was systematic, invoking terror, provoking an Israeli reaction to destablize the peace process.

Why don't you register here, guy with a computer in Ohio? You'll get a lot more respect if you discuss things as a person. Sniping from the shadows is so degrading.