that means no islamic fascism, how about you?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- I like being able to do what the hell i want
Poll
Do you want the west to win the war on terrorism or the terrorists?
| west | 56% | 56% - 50 | ||||
| terrorists | 6% | 6% - 6 | ||||
| go fuck yourself (winks to cp) | 36% | 36% - 32 | ||||
| Total: 88 | ||||||
I null voted. If you include Israel in the West, since it is supported by most Western countries, I don't want the West or the terrorists to win, because Israel is a terrorist State. I don't think there are winners here, only losers.
Rule 1 of serious polls - never include a non-serious answer because half the people will vote for it.
Me being part of that half.
Me being part of that half.
Rule 2 of serious polls - include a serious answer and maybe some will vote for it! LOL
that means no fascism whatsoever...
that means no fascism whatsoever...
ƒ³
Last thread like this got closed.
that's why i reworded it as requested
This is a simple question with a simple answer. I definitely want the west to win. This is why I want someone else in the White House.
My sentiments EXACTLY. +1sergeriver wrote:
I null voted. If you include Israel in the West, since it is supported by most Western countries, I don't want the West or the terrorists to win, because Israel is a terrorist State. I don't think there are winners here, only losers.
Again I'm forced to point out that Al Qaeda isn't trying to take over the world. You've watched too many movies.
Yeah I want the West to win,
Mostly because there are terrorists in the state department and terrorists in Hollywood.
We need Senator McCarthy dammit!
Mostly because there are terrorists in the state department and terrorists in Hollywood.
We need Senator McCarthy dammit!
Maybe your not watching enough.---------------Bubbalo wrote:
Again I'm forced to point out that Al Qaeda isn't trying to take over the world. You've watched too many movies.
While the parallels between the Red Scare and the current "Brown" Scare are disturbing, what's even worse is how Wahhabism has spread throughout the Middle East. I think a lot of what the American government has done has worsened the situation, but it's also quite apparent that eliminating the Wahhabists and other extremists is the only option we have.TeamZephyr wrote:
Yeah I want the West to win,
Mostly because there are terrorists in the state department and terrorists in Hollywood.
We need Senator McCarthy dammit!
Yes, you're right. How could I not attend the James Bond school of global machinations.ATG wrote:
Maybe your not watching enough.---------------Bubbalo wrote:
Again I'm forced to point out that Al Qaeda isn't trying to take over the world. You've watched too many movies.
Again, I want society to win. If one sides "wins" they will continue to think they are the almighty and will continue to try and pressure everyone else on Earth to adopt their ideas.
If society as a whole wins, we learn from our mistakes, correct ourselves and the faults we hide from others.
If society as a whole wins, we learn from our mistakes, correct ourselves and the faults we hide from others.
West...
Fine, if you are going to keep posting this topic with such polarized expectations for answers, I will ask this question:
What defines a "Win" for the west?
What defines a "Win" for the west?
This war on terror is nothing but a phrase.
It cant be won because it is not defined.
Its an excuse for countries to enact regime change and make it look like governments are doing something against terrorist. When, in reality, it fuels terrorism.
It cant be won because it is not defined.
Its an excuse for countries to enact regime change and make it look like governments are doing something against terrorist. When, in reality, it fuels terrorism.
I'll bite.
An end to the state sponcering of terrorism.
Saddam was giving money to the familes of suicide bombers. Hugo Chavez allows Farc narco-terrorist to operate on his borders. Saudi Arabia breeds terrorism in its schools. We need to end this as a acceptable way for governments to do business.
Our own government is guilty of many things, as well. But thats our overall objectives as I see it.
= welcome to the next 100 years war.
An end to the state sponcering of terrorism.
Saddam was giving money to the familes of suicide bombers. Hugo Chavez allows Farc narco-terrorist to operate on his borders. Saudi Arabia breeds terrorism in its schools. We need to end this as a acceptable way for governments to do business.
Our own government is guilty of many things, as well. But thats our overall objectives as I see it.
= welcome to the next 100 years war.
If you vote for the Terrorists ill come to your house and fuck you with a knife. What kinda question is this REALLY?
15 more years! 15 more years!
Yes, because the US has never involved itself with those sortsATG wrote:
An end to the state sponcering of terrorism.
I was speaking from the governments point of view not mine.
I think a dose of isolationism sounds pretty good right now.
I think a dose of isolationism sounds pretty good right now.
Got any sources for those far-fetched allegations?ATG wrote:
Saddam was giving money to the familes of suicide bombers. Hugo Chavez allows Farc narco-terrorist to operate on his borders. Saudi Arabia breeds terrorism in its schools.
Where exactly did the Chavez claim come from?
Source on your Venezuela claim please.ATG wrote:
I'll bite.
An end to the state sponcering of terrorism.
Saddam was giving money to the familes of suicide bombers. Hugo Chavez allows Farc narco-terrorist to operate on his borders. Saudi Arabia breeds terrorism in its schools. We need to end this as a acceptable way for governments to do business.
Our own government is guilty of many things, as well. But thats our overall objectives as I see it.
= welcome to the next 100 years war.
For most people it means Israel getting all the land, bringing enforced democracy to all the countries in the Middle East. I don't endorse this idea. You won't stop terrorism with these things, you will get it stronger.Marconius wrote:
Fine, if you are going to keep posting this topic with such polarized expectations for answers, I will ask this question:
What defines a "Win" for the west?
any chance it might mean Israel being left alone to exist?sergeriver wrote:
For most people it means Israel getting all the land, bringing enforced democracy to all the countries in the Middle East. I don't endorse this idea. You won't stop terrorism with these things, you will get it stronger.Marconius wrote:
Fine, if you are going to keep posting this topic with such polarized expectations for answers, I will ask this question:
What defines a "Win" for the west?
You guys act like Israel is the one surrounding the Islamic nations. Why don't you entertain the idea that if the ME quit fucking with Israel and co-exist with it, peace might also break out in the ME. Unless of course you can prove the Jews have no right to live in the ME. I am only wondering this since their history in the ME goes JUST as far back as does the Muslims.
I said this in another one of Cam's anti Israel threads and it turned out to be a thread killer, lets see if it works here.:
The Islamic nations SURROUNDING Israel attacks Israel with a bat, Israel TAKES the bat away from the Islamic nations. In turn the Islamic nations start screaming that Israel STOLE their bat!!
Pretty damned rediculous!!
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- I like being able to do what the hell i want