So not revenge thenSo the cunt attacked chinese tourists the PLA is infamous for its attacks on iraq and afgahistan oh wait its not.
So hes a dead and they cant even get any viable organs out of him
...I assumed it was a random attack on the victims but thinking about it China's got it's own little anti-terror dirty war going on in that volatile part of the world...
Xinjiang: Has China's crackdown on 'terrorism' worked? - BBC News
"They" being who?
Run away again I see Phil, rather than defend your revenge thesis.
So post up something to substantiate your claim that the attack was revenge or stfuPickers, your motives here are as transparent as they are reprehensible.
So post up something to substantiate your claim that the attack was revenge or stfu
Pisspoor. Your understanding of this incident is founded on your belief it was revenge, for which you've produced - what a surprise! - no evidence. This matters, as it colours all your subsequent statements on this subject - if this attack, if the nice attack, if the Charlie Hebdo attack etc etc etc are all revenge attacks then you concentrate as you have on invasions of middle east countries as the root.This is ridiculous Pickers, even by your standards. Please allow us to continue our conversation without your puerile yapping.
Out of curiosity phildwyer what do you think 9/11 was intended to provoke?
for...I think it was intended as revenge.
for...
and your source for this is...US foreign policy, particularly with regard to Israel.
Indeed, though I am impressed by the amount of armchair psychiatry going on here. With the amount of definitive opinion available without anyone even needing to have spoken to the perpetrator, one has to wonder if the entire mental health sector is missing a trick here...strange how er liberal you are when considering other people's mental health.
and your source for this is...
and would you say that bin laden succeeded in his stated objective?And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."
and would you say that bin laden succeeded in his stated objective?
Yes. His stated objective was revenge.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."
1) obl says 'punish', not 'revenge'; 2) do you really believe that the americans were in any way shape or form deterred from 'killing our women and children'?Yes. His stated objective was revenge.
1) obl says 'punish', not 'revenge'
no the is because his stated objectives were a) punishment, and b) deterrence. not revenge. perhaps if you proceed from what he wrote instead of what you think he wrote we could move forwards.Seriously though, it's surprising how few people know that speech. It would seem quite important to know why we're being attacked. I guess there are few limits to the media's capacity for obfuscation.
and he says that where?Aye. It's because he conceived of himself as the scourge of God, instrument of divine retribution and that.
no the is because his stated objectives were a) punishment,
no, the problem is you just make assertions like 'by punish he means revenge' without adducing any actual evidence to support your position.As I have just explained, in his theocentric world-view there is no distinction between punishment and revenge.
Part of the problem here is the inability of the secular mind (here represented by Pickers but also more widely applicable) to comprehend such relations.
if there is no distinction for obl between punish and revenge then it is odd he so rarely says 'revenge' (twice in a compilation of his statements from 1994-2004)As I have just explained, in his theocentric world-view there is no distinction between punishment and revenge.
Part of the problem here is the inability of the secular mind (here represented by Pickers but also more widely applicable) to comprehend such relations.