Newt spelled backward is Twat.

Wenchmaster: Real Women Drink Akvavit: named her son after a relatively obscure Nordic deity

Uller?
Perkunas?
Tyr?
Jumala?
Frey?
Ilmarinen?
Donar?
/Inquiring minds, and all that.

My money's on either Bragi or Vidar. I'd bet "Loki's Favorite Daughter" wants either an artist, or a survivor.

NewportBarGuy: I liked when Newt said this morning on CBS, "This President capitulates to our enemies..."



Unavailable for comment.

RexTalionis: [s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 496x301]

More dangerous than Abraham Lincoln riding a bear?

Hey he had to fight off the Vampires you know.

Seriously? Nobody has provided any of the dozens if not hundreds of examples the disprove Mr. Moo's silly hypothesis?

How about the Muslim PKK, who fight against Muslim Turks for the recognition of an ethnic Kurdish state? Muslim Chechens who hate Russian imperialism?

Both groups are fairly devout Muslims, but the roots of their conflict are political rather than religious, as evidenced by the large number of non-Muslims in their ranks.

Boy, it sure sucks when you make hugely broad claims with nothing to back them up, huh!

Pants full of macaroni!!: And he's going to confiscate our guns and force them to gay-marry each other.

Homosexual guns?!

Tommy Moo: Every single Islamic terrorist in the history of human civilization has cited his devotion to Islam as a principle inspiration in driving his actions. Every single one. It's not "tribalism" or "economics." There are many dirt poor, traditional civilizations that manage not to carry out terrorist attacks on the West. When have you heard of a Laotian blowing up a bus? The problem is Islam.

April 2003. I guess you've never heard of the Hmong or the Khmer Rouge?

Sygerrik: Seriously? Nobody has provided any of the dozens if not hundreds of examples the disprove Mr. Moo's silly hypothesis?

How about the Muslim PKK, who fight against Muslim Turks for the recognition of an ethnic Kurdish state? Muslim Chechens who hate Russian imperialism?

Both groups are fairly devout Muslims, but the roots of their conflict are political rather than religious, as evidenced by the large number of non-Muslims in their ranks.

Boy, it sure sucks when you make hugely broad claims with nothing to back them up, huh!

Not to mention that there certainly isn't any lack of conflict WITHIN the Muslim community. Maybe he slept through the Iraq War.

From wiki:

Some of the worst Shia-Sunni sectarian strife ever has occurred after the start of the Iraq War, steadily building up to present.[12] Deaths from American and allied military collateral damage[68] have become overshadowed by the cycle of Sunni-Shia revenge killing-Sunni often using car bombs,with Shia favoring death squads.

Hmm. . . That sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard that before?

Sunnis and shiates are Islam's version of Catholics and Protestants in the commonality of some fundamental beliefs.

Tommy Moo: In fact, the only reason I prefaced it with "Muslim" terrorists at all is to preempt the "But Timothy McVeigh" crowd. Neglecting him and a tiny handful of other people, it is fair to say that all acts of terrorism are inspired by Islam.

So you're well aware of the fact that what you say is factually untrue, and yet you say it anyway. As I'm pretty sure that 94% isn't "a tiny handful of other people," it is fair to say then that you, sir, are a liar.

Tommy Moo: Ok, then by your hypothesis, I should not be able to come up with a list of oppressed, powerless secular minorities who do not also engage in terrorism. No one is a better example of a group that has been "desperate" and "seriously outgunned" than homosexuals in the United States over the last several decades, and yet I can't think of an example of when even the most radical gay rights activist committed terrorism to achieve his or her goal. Immigrant activism in America is just as volatile. Why don't we see Mexicans bombing shopping malls to prove a point? I'll tell you why: because it takes religion to do that. There really aren't any Christian terrorists anymore because they won. The whole developed world minus Japan is Christian.

Actually, according to the FBI, about 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory are are motivated by Islam, and 42 percent by Latinos. I won't bother to fuss over Latinos who are non-Mexican and/or Muslim, because the point that you are batshiat insane is clear enough in any case.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Deucednuisance: Tommy Moo: The whole developed world minus Japan is Christian.

India and Indonesia and Pakistan and China are "undeveloped"?

Who knew?

Developing, I'd say. Yeah, none of those countries can be called "developed." Their economies are still growing much faster than those of the countries that have leveled off.

fracto73: FTA:"Defeating Barack Obama becomes in fact a duty of national security because the fact is he is incapable of defending the United States," Gingrich said.

Also FTA: "Someone was arrested over the weekend for trying to blow up the US Capitol"

That doesn't support his argument of Obama being incapable of defending the US. Since, you know, they stopped the bomber. If you want an example of someone being unable to defend the US, here you go:

[standinginadictionary.files.wordpress.com image 600x333]



Bill Clinton, right?

ciberido: Tommy Moo: In fact, the only reason I prefaced it with "Muslim" terrorists at all is to preempt the "But Timothy McVeigh" crowd. Neglecting him and a tiny handful of other people, it is fair to say that all acts of terrorism are inspired by Islam.

So you're well aware of the fact that what you say is factually untrue, and yet you say it anyway. As I'm pretty sure that 94% isn't "a tiny handful of other people," it is fair to say then that you, sir, are a liar.

Way, way, WAAAAAAAAY off. Does that even pass your smell test? Think about it: Almost 20% of the world's population is Muslim. In order for only 6% of terrorists to be Muslim, practicing Islam would have to make you significantly less likely to be a terrorist than the average person.

Read your article again. It says that the FBI claims that 6% of terrorists within the United States are Muslim. It's counting Latino gang members as terrorists. If you go global, the number jumps profoundly. And FYI, Muslims compose about 0.5% of the population of the United States, so that makes them 12 times as likely per capita to be a terrorist in this country.

Newt Gingrich is the leader of a terrorist organization and he says that Obama is the most dangerous.

Maybe he's dangerous to Newt, because Obama seems to be able to deal with terrorists.

ciberido: Tommy Moo: Ok, then by your hypothesis, I should not be able to come up with a list of oppressed, powerless secular minorities who do not also engage in terrorism. No one is a better example of a group that has been "desperate" and "seriously outgunned" than homosexuals in the United States over the last several decades, and yet I can't think of an example of when even the most radical gay rights activist committed terrorism to achieve his or her goal. Immigrant activism in America is just as volatile. Why don't we see Mexicans bombing shopping malls to prove a point? I'll tell you why: because it takes religion to do that. There really aren't any Christian terrorists anymore because they won. The whole developed world minus Japan is Christian.

Actually, according to the FBI, about 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory are are motivated by Islam, and 42 percent by Latinos. I won't bother to fuss over Latinos who are non-Mexican and/or Muslim, because the point that you are batshiat insane is clear enough in any case.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

That article is counting gang violence as "terrorism." This is a horrid definition. Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change. And, as I said just above, Muslims compose only 0.5% of the population. At 6% of terrorists, this makes them 12 times their due representation. You're going to argue that Islam isn't a terror factory? If one school in New Jersey produced graduates who were 12 times as likely to become serial killers, you'd bet your ass it would be getting some attention.

Tommy Moo: unexplained bacon: hmmm, well the only claim I made is that you're talking outta your arse fella.
on that I'm 100% positive. I wont be educating you today.

terrorism is desperate tactic used by groups who are usually seriously out gunned, it's a tactic of the underdog and islam is simply the tool that is being used to motivate the underdogs currently in the hot seat. Christians, atheists, or any group of humans can also be motivated to use terrorism through whatever religious or nationalist sentiments their leaders whip up.

your entire premise is useless, and clearly 100% wrong.

Ok, then by your hypothesis, I should not be able to come up with a list of oppressed, powerless secular minorities who do not also engage in terrorism. No one is a better example of a group that has been "desperate" and "seriously outgunned" than homosexuals in the United States over the last several decades, and yet I can't think of an example of when even the most radical gay rights activist committed terrorism to achieve his or her goal. Immigrant activism in America is just as volatile. Why don't we see Mexicans bombing shopping malls to prove a point? I'll tell you why: because it takes religion to do that. There really aren't any Christian terrorists anymore because they won. The whole developed world minus Japan is Christian.


oye, no I never said any and every oppressed group will use terrorism...if I would have you'd have made a bit of sense there. That was a close one.

read what I said again.
you have a serious problem with logic, and some deep need to turn everything exactly black or white.

Tommy Moo: ciberido: Tommy Moo: In fact, the only reason I prefaced it with "Muslim" terrorists at all is to preempt the "But Timothy McVeigh" crowd. Neglecting him and a tiny handful of other people, it is fair to say that all acts of terrorism are inspired by Islam.

So you're well aware of the fact that what you say is factually untrue, and yet you say it anyway. As I'm pretty sure that 94% isn't "a tiny handful of other people," it is fair to say then that you, sir, are a liar.

Way, way, WAAAAAAAAY off. Does that even pass your smell test? Think about it: Almost 20% of the world's population is Muslim. In order for only 6% of terrorists to be Muslim, practicing Islam would have to make you significantly less likely to be a terrorist than the average person.

Read your article again. It says that the FBI claims that 6% of terrorists within the United States are Muslim. It's counting Latino gang members as terrorists. If you go global, the number jumps profoundly. And FYI, Muslims compose about 0.5% of the population of the United States, so that makes them 12 times as likely per capita to be a terrorist in this country.

You are profoundly terrorized by Muslims, aren't you Tommy?

Philip Francis Queeg: Tommy Moo: ciberido: Tommy Moo: In fact, the only reason I prefaced it with "Muslim" terrorists at all is to preempt the "But Timothy McVeigh" crowd. Neglecting him and a tiny handful of other people, it is fair to say that all acts of terrorism are inspired by Islam.

So you're well aware of the fact that what you say is factually untrue, and yet you say it anyway. As I'm pretty sure that 94% isn't "a tiny handful of other people," it is fair to say then that you, sir, are a liar.

Way, way, WAAAAAAAAY off. Does that even pass your smell test? Think about it: Almost 20% of the world's population is Muslim. In order for only 6% of terrorists to be Muslim, practicing Islam would have to make you significantly less likely to be a terrorist than the average person.

Read your article again. It says that the FBI claims that 6% of terrorists within the United States are Muslim. It's counting Latino gang members as terrorists. If you go global, the number jumps profoundly. And FYI, Muslims compose about 0.5% of the population of the United States, so that makes them 12 times as likely per capita to be a terrorist in this country.

You are profoundly terrorized by Muslims, aren't you Tommy?

Show me on the doll...?

Tommy Moo
100% of Muslim terrorists who have been captured and tried or left any kind of diary of their thoughts have clearly stated that their goal was to kill as many people as possible to spread Islam for the glory of Allah, because that is what they believe he wanted them to do.


this is where I got on this silly ass ride, walked away for a bit so I'm not sure where it's gone (wont bother reading the whole thread), but I'm pretty damn sure you haven't been able to back this mess up yet.
You seem to demand proof from others an awful lot for someone who busts out such huge claims with nothing at all backing it up.

And all this time I thought it was Millard Fillmore. Silly me. Fortunately it looks like future generations will be spared the knowledge that Newt Gingrich was the worst President in US history.

Tommy Moo: There really aren't any Christian terrorists anymore because they won.

They need to celebrate by ringing a large victory bell. Yes, they need to ring that bell, fast. . .

HighOnCraic: Tommy Moo: There really aren't any Christian terrorists anymore because they won.

They need to celebrate by ringing a large victory bell. Yes, they need to ring that bell, fast. . .

And then they can bask in the glow of their success. . .

Tommy Moo: That article is counting gang violence as "terrorism." This is a horrid definition. Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change.



What intimidating the public in order to effect political change may look like:
Link (new window)

Tommy Moo: Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change.

By your definition, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Department was a terrorist organization in the 60s. I'm pretty sure they considered themselves to be Christians.

Tommy Moo: Neglecting him and a tiny handful of other people, it is fair to say that all acts of terrorism are inspired by Islam.

Sri Lankans might disagree. The Hindu-Christian Tamil Tigers actually pioneered the use of the sucide belts. Here's a list of about 20 attacks which killed at least 2,500 people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE

Many times that number were killed in conflicts with the Sri Lankan military.

And that's just one organization. Many anti-colonial and other insurgent groups have conducted terrorist attacks on a routine basis -- the IRA (Christian), the Irgun (Jewish), Babbar Khalsa (Sikh), FARC, the Shining Path, and the Nepalese CPN (all atheist) are just a few examples. Most or all of these are internationally recognized as terrorist groups.

After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, Robert Pape concluded that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion. "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". he wrote.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Dying_to_win.html?id=SOlnH3f_dXwC

Even if you want to restrict it to Muslims, terrorism in South Asia -- whether directed against Kashmiris, Sikhs, Hindus, or others -- is heavily political no matter how the perpetrators might to position it. The Muslim terrorist conducting attacks against the US or Israel has a lot brethren around the world, and is insomething of a minority.

I should be in the kitchen: theknuckler_33: Rapmaster2000: liberaleducator 12 minutes ago
Romney is un-electable.

The only candidate that Obama could beat is Romney and liberals know it. That's why they are so upset about the possibility of us choosing a conservative.

Nobody would be voting for Romney, only against O. Obama would win the enthusiasm gap again, and Romney will lose. McCain 2.0.

But Santorum inspires and excites people. And he will whoop Obama in their debates!

Oh please oh please oh please.

Wow. I really can't believe how delusional some people are. Santorum inspires? Yea, maybe rage and disgust.

Santorum inspires me to bleach the sheets.

/Blech, can't believe I just said that...

Poop before coitus and use less lubricant, that problem will go away.

I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

Tommy Moo: Developing, I'd say. Yeah, none of those countries can be called "developed." Their economies are still growing much faster than those of the countries that have leveled off.

What a leveled off economy might look like.



Pssst.

When there's no more growth of actual wealth, the only thing that WILL maintain an economy is to redistribute it. So far printing more just makes it more worthless and sends it to the same place.

F*cking endless growth as a physical impossibility, how does it work?

DrExplosion: I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

Yeah, what a poser. We all know it was Secret G.W. and Zombie Cheney.

Most dangerous president?

He's coming. (NSFW language)

DrExplosion: I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

So Jimmy Carter wasn't at fault for the Eagle Claw failure?

Tommy Moo: ciberido: Tommy Moo: Ok, then by your hypothesis, I should not be able to come up with a list of oppressed, powerless secular minorities who do not also engage in terrorism. No one is a better example of a group that has been "desperate" and "seriously outgunned" than homosexuals in the United States over the last several decades, and yet I can't think of an example of when even the most radical gay rights activist committed terrorism to achieve his or her goal. Immigrant activism in America is just as volatile. Why don't we see Mexicans bombing shopping malls to prove a point? I'll tell you why: because it takes religion to do that. There really aren't any Christian terrorists anymore because they won. The whole developed world minus Japan is Christian.

Actually, according to the FBI, about 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory are are motivated by Islam, and 42 percent by Latinos. I won't bother to fuss over Latinos who are non-Mexican and/or Muslim, because the point that you are batshiat insane is clear enough in any case.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

That article is counting gang violence as "terrorism." This is a horrid definition. Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change. And, as I said just above, Muslims compose only 0.5% of the population. At 6% of terrorists, this makes them 12 times their due representation. You're going to argue that Islam isn't a terror factory? If one school in New Jersey produced graduates who were 12 times as likely to become serial killers, you'd bet your ass it would be getting some attention.

Ah, the old "No true terrorist" defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history.

bunner: DrExplosion: I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

Yeah, what a poser. We all know it was Secret G.W. and Zombie Cheney.

Don't be thick. Giving any one person the credit for killing Bin Laden is ridiculous. I'm sure even the guy who actually pulled the trigger realizes he didn't do it alone. It was the efforts of the special operations and intelligence communities which made the mission possible and accomplished it.

Obama was just lucky enough to be in charge at the time. The only credit he deserves is for not completely farking it up. Considering how much and how quickly info about the raid has become public and the way intelligence and OPSEC work, I'm not so sure that he even deserves that much.

More_Like_A_Stain: So Jimmy Carter wasn't at fault for the Eagle Claw failure?

The logic behind what you're implying is flawed. The guy in charge is entirely capable of farking things up, but success is achieved by the guys on the ground. There's a reason it's standard practice for a good leader to "pass on the credit and take the blame." Obama is much too eager to accept the credit in order to capitalize on the efforts and accomplishments of other people.

(FWIW, I don't know enough about the particulars of Eagle Claw to offer an informed opinion on who exactly dropped the ball.)

DrExplosion: bunner: DrExplosion: I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

Yeah, what a poser. We all know it was Secret G.W. and Zombie Cheney.

Don't be thick. Giving any one person the credit for killing Bin Laden is ridiculous. I'm sure even the guy who actually pulled the trigger realizes he didn't do it alone. It was the efforts of the special operations and intelligence communities which made the mission possible and accomplished it.

Obama was just lucky enough to be in charge at the time. The only credit he deserves is for not completely farking it up. Considering how much and how quickly info about the raid has become public and the way intelligence and OPSEC work, I'm not so sure that he even deserves that much.

More_Like_A_Stain: So Jimmy Carter wasn't at fault for the Eagle Claw failure?

The logic behind what you're implying is flawed. The guy in charge is entirely capable of farking things up, but success is achieved by the guys on the ground. There's a reason it's standard practice for a good leader to "pass on the credit and take the blame." Obama is much too eager to accept the credit in order to capitalize on the efforts and accomplishments of other people.

(FWIW, I don't know enough about the particulars of Eagle Claw to offer an informed opinion on who exactly dropped the ball.)

Nonetheless, Carter took the blame for it, and Obama would've definitely taken the blame if the bin Laden mission had failed.

As far as good leaders passing on the credit and taking the blame: mission-accomplished-banner-on-flight-deck.jpg.

/Oh wait, you said "good" leaders.

fracto73: Since, you know, they stopped the bomber.

Well, when you've practically begged the guy to detonate a bomb, and give him the actual bomb to begin with, then it's pretty hard not to catch him.

Sygerrik: Ah, the old "No true terrorist" defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history.

Words do have to have meaning, you know. Otherwise you can just semantically call every guy named Fred a terrorist. Then when I say that that definition is stupid, you can just say "Ah, the old 'No true terrorist' defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history."

HighOnCraic: Tommy Moo: Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change.

By your definition, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Department was a terrorist organization in the 60s. I'm pretty sure they considered themselves to be Christians.

Not sure who that is, but if their actions included at least one premeditated campaign of physical violence in their efforts to effect political change through intimidation, then yes, that would fit the definition.

Tommy Moo: HighOnCraic: Tommy Moo: Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change.

By your definition, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Department was a terrorist organization in the 60s. I'm pretty sure they considered themselves to be Christians.

Not sure who that is, but if their actions included at least one premeditated campaign of physical violence in their efforts to effect political change through intimidation, then yes, that would fit the definition.

It really is terribly tragic how little many Americans know about the Civil Rights struggle in the south. I guess it conflicts too much with the concept of American Exceptionalism.

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: This gets a Hero tag? That had better be sarcasm on the part of Subby...

Tommy Moo: Sygerrik: Ah, the old "No true terrorist" defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history.

Words do have to have meaning, you know. Otherwise you can just semantically call every guy named Fred a terrorist. Then when I say that that definition is stupid, you can just say "Ah, the old 'No true terrorist' defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history."

i'm honestly not sure what the fark you're even saying here because of how stupid it is. you're claiming that mexican drug gangs who kill people and spread terror to advance their political agenda aren't terrorists, qed most terrorists are muslims. the definition of terrorist isn't immutable but it fits some pretty broad parameters and i'd say everyone from al qaeda, the hutaree, to the zetas all fit those parameters. arguing otherwise is attempting to enlist semantics to support your unsupportable argument. remember-- words have to have meaning.

you're also either saying outright or heavily implying that there is a causal relationship between islam and terror, and when called on the fact that this is demonstrably false you abandon the premise entirely to focus on semantic complaints. know how i know you're an old hand at arguing on the internet?

DrExplosion: I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

And you can die in a fire right back at ya.

Sygerrik: Tommy Moo: Sygerrik: Ah, the old "No true terrorist" defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history.

Words do have to have meaning, you know. Otherwise you can just semantically call every guy named Fred a terrorist. Then when I say that that definition is stupid, you can just say "Ah, the old 'No true terrorist' defense. No Scotsman has ever committed an act of terror, either, in all of recorded history."

i'm honestly not sure what the fark you're even saying here because of how stupid it is. you're claiming that mexican drug gangs who kill people and spread terror to advance their political agenda aren't terrorists, qed most terrorists are muslims. the definition of terrorist isn't immutable but it fits some pretty broad parameters and i'd say everyone from al qaeda, the hutaree, to the zetas all fit those parameters. arguing otherwise is attempting to enlist semantics to support your unsupportable argument. remember-- words have to have meaning.

you're also either saying outright or heavily implying that there is a causal relationship between islam and terror, and when called on the fact that this is demonstrably false you abandon the premise entirely to focus on semantic complaints. know how i know you're an old hand at arguing on the internet?

Not all crime is terrorism, dude. If we're going to call Mexican drug gangs "terrorists," then we have to call it terrorism every time a guy robs a bank. Gangs kill each other. I have never, in my entire life, heard of a drug cartel randomly killing innocent civilians in order to intimidate legislators into changing laws or police into not enforcing them. When one drug dealer kills another because he was selling on his block, that's a very loose definition of terrorism.

Tommy Moo: HighOnCraic: Tommy Moo: Killing rivals over territory is not the same thing as intimidating the public in order to effect political change.

By your definition, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Department was a terrorist organization in the 60s. I'm pretty sure they considered themselves to be Christians.

Not sure who that is, but if their actions included at least one premeditated campaign of physical violence in their efforts to effect political change through intimidation, then yes, that would fit the definition.

Does this jog your memory?

Tommy Moo: Sygerrik:
i'm honestly not sure what the fark you're even saying here because of how stupid it is. you're claiming that mexican drug gangs who kill people and spread terror to advance their political agenda aren't terrorists, qed most terrorists are muslims. the definition of terrorist isn't immutable but it fits some pretty broad parameters and i'd say everyone from al qaeda, the hutaree, to the zetas all fit those parameters. arguing otherwise is attempting to enlist semantics to support your unsupportable argument. remember-- words have to have meaning.

Not all crime is terrorism, dude. If we're going to call Mexican drug gangs "terrorists," then we have to call it terrorism every time a guy robs a bank. Gangs kill each other. I have never, in my entire life, heard of a drug cartel randomly killing innocent civilians in order to intimidate legislators into changing laws or police into not enforcing them. When one drug dealer kills another because he was selling on his block, that's a very loose definition of terrorism.


Speaking of Los Zetas - and just a couple months ago, too.

Fun bunch. Even Anonymous backed off just a couple days after saying they'd reveal personal info of people helping the cartel, once the Zetas started promising bloody retribution. They're also credited with a certain Monterrey casino attack, among other greatest hits. Calling them terrorists hardly seems like much of a stretch; they're big and bad enough to get in the local government's face, and they're doing it.

on the road: And that's just one organization. Many anti-colonial and other insurgent groups have conducted terrorist attacks on a routine basis -- the IRA (Christian), the Irgun (Jewish), Babbar Khalsa (Sikh), FARC, the Shining Path, and the Nepalese CPN (all atheist) are just a few examples. Most or all of these are internationally recognized as terrorist groups.

Um, I think you're confusing the Nepalese CPN (Communist Party of Nepal) with the Maoists ("Unified Communist Party of Nepal"). The Communist Party of Nepal is not and never were Maoist, nor were they behind the uprising in the mid-1990s. They're a peaceful political party. They were, in fact, the democratically-elected ruling party of Nepal (minority government) when the UCPN started a civil war. "Maoist" and "Communist" are two very different things, though a Maoist might try to claim otherwise.

The fact that the Maoists in Nepal call themselves "Unified Communist Party of Nepal" with "Communist" in their name is about as meaningful as the fact that North Korea calls themselves "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." The UCPN is as communist as the DPRK is democratic.

/lived in Nepal in the mid-1990s
//I know that doesn't make me an expert
///and yes, I know it sounds like the People's Front of Judea

DrExplosion: I would just like to say "fark you" to everyone in this thread who is giving Obama credit for killing Bin Laden.

Why? Why shouldn't we give Obama at least some of the credit for killing Bin Laden? Apart from Seal Team Six, who else do you think deserves it?