I say its the goddamn terrorists. If they hadn't gone Jihad on us, we wouldnt be forced to kick their ass.
Poll
The blame for Iraq
| George W. Bush | 36% | 36% - 57 | ||||
| The Republican Party | 18% | 18% - 28 | ||||
| The Democrat Party | 18% | 18% - 28 | ||||
| Other | 27% | 27% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 155 | ||||||
Are you going to just keep talking shit or are you going to post the "DoD and the FBI definition of terrorism" to prove your point that the US is a terrorist state?? Iraq is not the war on terrorism, Iraq is the front on which it is now being fought.UON wrote:
Purposely setting out to kill women and children is not how the DoD and FBI define terrorism. Breaking laws (e.g. Iraq War) to influence government (e.g. overthrowing Saddam) is.lowing wrote:
Really? Do you care to back up what you say with facts or are just gunna destroy me with irrational opinions?UON wrote:
Good luck, given that by the DoD's and FBI's own definitions of the word 'terrorism' America is one of the worst offenders on the global stage today...
You know where America has the best chance of winning the War on Terror? The same place it was started, in America.
You can start by showing me where the US is purposely setting out to kill women and children in this struggle.
After that, you can actually address my post, instead of bombarding me with anti-American rhetoric.
When you do that I will counter with articles on smart weapons technology that the US is spending countless dollars to perfect in an effort to spare the innocent.
edit: I suppose you are going to claim that the DoD and FBI must be Anti-American too
Who gives a shit? Most of the soldiers believe that they're making a difference and that "we're" winning the fight over there and that's good enough for me. I believe the words that come out of the soldiers mouths who has been in the middle of the shit as opposed to some news channel or politician giving a thumbs up. Gawd I hate politicians.
Google define:terrorism.lowing wrote:
Are you going to just keep talking shit or are you going to post the "DoD and the FBI definition of terrorism" to prove your point that the US is a terrorist state?? Iraq is not the war on terrorism, Iraq is the front on which it is now being fought.
Did that along time ago pal, still waiting for you prove your point. YOU show me a definition where the US falls into a catergory of a terrorist state. You said it, you back it.UON wrote:
Google define:terrorism.lowing wrote:
Are you going to just keep talking shit or are you going to post the "DoD and the FBI definition of terrorism" to prove your point that the US is a terrorist state?? Iraq is not the war on terrorism, Iraq is the front on which it is now being fought.
Uh, lowing, you do realise that, technically speaking, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the biggest terrorist attacks in history, don't you?
And also America was tried and convicted of international terrorism by the International Court of Justice, but they didn't accept the judgement on the ground that terrorism is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#U. … assistance
Last edited by UON (2007-01-14 06:11:53)
no I do not "realize" that and neither does history. Only a warped Anti-American pansy would make such a claim.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh, lowing, you do realise that, technically speaking, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the biggest terrorist attacks in history, don't you?
Add yet another post from bubbalo that twists a comment and sends it spinning into a whole new realm of bullshit.
where were the words "convicted of terrorism" used in the judgement? and where was it pointed out that the constitution allowed terrorism?UON wrote:
And also America was tried and convicted of international terrorism by the International Court of Justice, but they didn't accept the judgement on the ground that terrorism is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#U. … assistance
So was Pearl Harbor, not only did the Japanese destroy a lot of the Pacific fleet, but they also bombed hospitals and schools on Pearl Harbor. But an organized military can't really be considered a terrorist organization now can it? Watch kids, later this thread will turn into WW2 debate on why America is actually a terrorist state that want to rule the world. Oh btw bubbalo, your gonna say firebombing Berlin was also an act of terrorism huh?Bubbalo wrote:
Uh, lowing, you do realise that, technically speaking, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the biggest terrorist attacks in history, don't you?
They lost in court. Hence they were convicted. They were charged with unlawful use of force to coerce the government. Hence it was terrorism. America said that the judgements of the court did not supercede (read replace) the U.S. constitution which means that it must not be considered illegal by the U.S. constitution or charges would have brought in America.lowing wrote:
where were the words "convicted of terrorism" used in the judgement? and where was it pointed out that the constitution allowed terrorism?UON wrote:
And also America was tried and convicted of international terrorism by the International Court of Justice, but they didn't accept the judgement on the ground that terrorism is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#U. … assistance
Uh, whilst I'm not familiar with the firebombing of Berlin, if then singled out civilian targets then yes, it was.
If the Japanese targetted civilian structures then yes, Pearl Harbour was also a terrorist attack.
Why can't a military be a terrorist organisation? Technically speaking, the Al Qaeda we've been led to believe exists is an organised military, and groups like Hamas certainly are. In fact, any terrorist organisation is, by definition, organised, and therefore an organised military.
If the Japanese targetted civilian structures then yes, Pearl Harbour was also a terrorist attack.
Why can't a military be a terrorist organisation? Technically speaking, the Al Qaeda we've been led to believe exists is an organised military, and groups like Hamas certainly are. In fact, any terrorist organisation is, by definition, organised, and therefore an organised military.
It was the use of force against civilians or civilian property in order to produce political change. That's the generally accepted definition of terrorism.lowing wrote:
no I do not "realize" that and neither does history. Only a warped Anti-American pansy would make such a claim.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh, lowing, you do realise that, technically speaking, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the biggest terrorist attacks in history, don't you?
What comment did I twist?lowing wrote:
Add yet another post from bubbalo that twists a comment and sends it spinning into a whole new realm of bullshit.
Thanks fore explaining the definition of terrorists Bub But wait, don't troops get court martial if they harm innocent civilians? I don't think a terrorist organization does that =/Bubbalo wrote:
Uh, whilst I'm not familiar with the firebombing of Berlin, if then singled out civilian targets then yes, it was.
If the Japanese targetted civilian structures then yes, Pearl Harbour was also a terrorist attack.
Why can't a military be a terrorist organisation? Technically speaking, the Al Qaeda we've been led to believe exists is an organised military, and groups like Hamas certainly are. In fact, any terrorist organisation is, by definition, organised, and therefore an organised military.
A military can punish it's soldiers, so can a terrorist organisation. The fact that the military chose not to punish those who dropped the bombs and Japan, and, further, the fact that they ordered them to do it, shows that they are willing to kill civilians.
Time's change old bub, in WW2 that may just be a normal form of bombing. Hitler wasn't considered a terrorist, he is considered a dictator. There are differences bub.Bubbalo wrote:
A military can punish it's soldiers, so can a terrorist organisation. The fact that the military chose not to punish those who dropped the bombs and Japan, and, further, the fact that they ordered them to do it, shows that they are willing to kill civilians.
Forget it Robot, you are arguing with a reptile. They can't be trained.
So they can't be programmed to think like us? Weak beings I say...ATG wrote:
Forget it Robot, you are arguing with a reptile. They can't be trained.
stat tuned, and bubbalo and OUN will explain why a soldier killing an enemy during wartime is "technically" murder and thus should be charged with it, then sent to prison for life, ( because they don't believe in the death penalty I am sure)
What problem(s) do you refer to?lowing wrote:
Well bubbalo, I kinda looked at like we were in combat against repeated Bali bombings, repeated London bombings, repeated Spain bombings ( although appeasement and cowering seems to work best for them), against attacks in the Phillipines as well as repeated 911 attacks. The mistakes that were made were by the world burying its head in the sand for too long hoping this problem would go away.Bubbalo wrote:
So, basically, you feel it is the world's responsibility to fix the mistakes of a few nations?lowing wrote:
The terrorists are to blame for Iraq, and the world is to blame for letting it continue. DO NOT assign blame for terrorism to the nations that are in open combat against it.
Define 'terrorism'.lowing wrote:
So you think terrorists will NOT find safe harbor in Iraq if we leave there. Keep dreaming. In case you hadden read the papers lately, this fight is not for Iraq anymore, hasn't been for a few years now. This fight is against terrorism and that fight happens to have fronted itself in Iraq. If it were not in Iraq we would be fighting this same fight somewhere else. That is, those nations with the stones to stand up and fight terrorism in the first place..Bubbalo wrote:
None of which had any relation to Iraq, with the exception of the Spain attacks, which were made when Spain looked certain to withdraw from Iraq: that is to say, if Muslim terrorists made them, their intent could only have been to draw them back into Iraq.lowing wrote:
Well bubbalo, I kinda looked at like we were in combat against repeated Bali bombings, repeated London bombings, repeated Spain bombings ( although appeasement and cowering seems to work best for them), against attacks in the Phillipines as well as repeated 911 attacks . The mistakes that were made were by the world burying its head in the sand for too long hoping this problem would go away.
Why did they go Jihad on you?Capt_Flapjack wrote:
I say its the goddamn terrorists. If they hadn't gone Jihad on us, we wouldnt be forced to kick their ass.
That super-villain organization Axis of Evil. They got tha Osama, I mean WMD's, err they hate freedom nono they need freedom, but they hate it, and um all that bad stuff he did, you know, they want to be free but they hate it someone has to do something bout it.
Because there are Americans in the middle east...and they want us out. Kind of ironic considering how many arabs there are in America and other countries.Pierre wrote:
Why did they go Jihad on you?Capt_Flapjack wrote:
I say its the goddamn terrorists. If they hadn't gone Jihad on us, we wouldnt be forced to kick their ass.
In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."Pierre wrote:
Define 'terrorism'.lowing wrote:
So you think terrorists will NOT find safe harbor in Iraq if we leave there. Keep dreaming. In case you hadden read the papers lately, this fight is not for Iraq anymore, hasn't been for a few years now. This fight is against terrorism and that fight happens to have fronted itself in Iraq. If it were not in Iraq we would be fighting this same fight somewhere else. That is, those nations with the stones to stand up and fight terrorism in the first place..Bubbalo wrote:
None of which had any relation to Iraq, with the exception of the Spain attacks, which were made when Spain looked certain to withdraw from Iraq: that is to say, if Muslim terrorists made them, their intent could only have been to draw them back into Iraq.
Xbone Stormsurgezz