they are commiting acts in the US? i mean i am all for kicking out irish people, but i have yet to see any IRA attacks in the US.FatherTed wrote:
ira/pira/rira/uvf/udf/etc etc etcusmarine wrote:
the guy would be charged with acts of terrorism of something like that. i dont know anyone with a brain that considers a person who puts a pipe bomb in a mail box a terrorist.Varegg wrote:
The point is the pipe bomb guy is still classified as a terrorist and that is what lowing doesn't understand ...
I will stand by this post you responded toVaregg wrote:
It's funny how you constantly excuse your arguments lowing ... if it's classified as a terrorist act it is a terrorist act no matter how you twist it, doesn't matter if it is a foreign muslim or a native american that commits the act ...lowing wrote:
In the context of this discussion, if you can not see the difference between and international terrorist group planning and staging a history, economic, and society altering event from a guy with a pipe bomb in a mailbox then I am sorry, you are the one who will not acknowledge the fact that Bush's innitiutives, prevented this from happening again under his watch.BN wrote:
I think what you meant to say was "oh sorry, i am wrong, you are right"
But that what I would expect from someone who is rational, has creditability and willing to listen.
The crimes listed were acts of terror as defined by US law and were treated as such.
You claim that most on this forum that doesn't agree with your views have a hard time to acknowledge certain facts but you are just as bad or worse when it comes to just that ... you seek understanding for your own points but totally discard what others post always, you are blind to believe that all your points are the truth ...some of it may be the truth, some of it may be the truth for you and some of it is simply not the truth but just a point of view ... know the difference between those and you will be more rational and credible ...
And that goes for more members that just you lowing and in both camps of the political debate ...
I think you have no idea what we are talking about in our little side discussion here Varegg. I did not say Iraq was a coalition of peacekeepers. I said they went back in force to enforce a peace treaty that ceased hostilities, in force. In other words, the peace treaty was broken, war resumed to re-establish it, or finish Saddam off.Varegg wrote:
Killing off one side in the conflict is not peacekeeping lowing ... what fairytale book have you gotten that from?lowing wrote:
gotta back up, regardless as to reason or intent, PEACEkeepers show up in FORCE to keep the PEACE, with GUNS.m3thod wrote:
Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeedicable!
UN peacekeepers don't partake in wars to force 'peace'. It's the demonstration and presence of overwhelming force that prevents any fuckhead getting any ideas. So your comparison as ever fails.
Also on the topic of UN peacekeepers they also tend to show up under a general consensus amongst the UN security council, and also tend to keep the peace rather than leave a country wide open so terrorists could flood in and turn it into a bloodbath. So fail again.
M3thod argued that peace by force is kinda an oxymoron. I gave an example as to where it was not.
The fighting resumed, only this time the UN didn't wanna back up its own threats.Dilbert_X wrote:
It didn't 'resume' it was a whole new war.lowing wrote:
fighting resumed
If it had 'resumed' the US wouldn't have wasted any time going to the UN.
Directed by liberal govt. interference. So yes I agree, liberals are domestic terrorists.m3thod wrote:
Your bankers have fucked your country in ways that mooslim terrorists could only dream of sweetcheeks.usmarine wrote:
speaking for the US (which is the only country I care about) muslims terrorists are the biggest threat to us. some white kid with a pipe bomb in oregon is not going to keep my up at night.Varegg wrote:
lowing is generalizing terrorism in one post and then singles out muslims as the only real terrorists in another, it's called inconsistency ...
Reality check.
Oh lowing, you cute little thing.
If you meant something else by liberals, please elaborate before making any proclamations of truth by lowing.
That's scary. And they're at your doorstep!Liberalism stresses the importance of human rights, the rule of law, and representative liberal democracy as the best form of government. Elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the majority, thereby liberalism, especially if backed up by a written constitution, becomes a necessary precursor and ultimate guarantor of democracy.
If you meant something else by liberals, please elaborate before making any proclamations of truth by lowing.
I need around tree fiddy.
We are not discussing who or what groups are terrorists we are discussing the term ... lowing stated there had been no acts of terrorism in the US after 9/11 because of Bush and that is wrong ... so since a pipebomb is an act of terror the guy blowing it up is clearly a terrorist.Lai wrote:
There is still a hole in the argument though: if terrorists occasionally use pipe bombs that doesn't mean anyone with a pipebomb is a terrorist (though in this particular case I'd say they are).FatherTed wrote:
ira/pira/rira/uvf/udf/etc etc etcusmarine wrote:
the guy would be charged with acts of terrorism of something like that. i dont know anyone with a brain that considers a person who puts a pipe bomb in a mail box a terrorist.I am inclined to disagree with this, not because what it claim isn't true, but because it completely disregards who set out the respective definition. If someone is considered a terrorist by one country's law, that doesn't necesarily mean he is a terrorist in the eyes of any given subject of any given country thousands of miles away. For example, the Kurdic PKK has been recognized as a terrorist organization by the US. While some PKK elements certainly act 'out of line', I have strong reservations about labeling the entire PKK as 'terrorist'.Varegg wrote:
You can't argue the meaning of a preset definition, a terrorist is a terrorist foreign or domestic doesn't matter ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Yes, I mean what we have in America in charge of our govt. not what is in the Websters dictionary.DonFck wrote:
Oh lowing, you cute little thing.That's scary. And they're at your doorstep!Liberalism stresses the importance of human rights, the rule of law, and representative liberal democracy as the best form of government. Elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the majority, thereby liberalism, especially if backed up by a written constitution, becomes a necessary precursor and ultimate guarantor of democracy.
If you meant something else by liberals, please elaborate before making any proclamations of truth by lowing.
Well, I guess I will make an observation that I think you will have to agree with in order to prove my point.Varegg wrote:
We are not discussing who or what groups are terrorists we are discussing the term ... lowing stated there had been no acts of terrorism in the US after 9/11 because of Bush and that is wrong ... so since a pipebomb is an act of terror the guy blowing it up is clearly a terrorist.Lai wrote:
There is still a hole in the argument though: if terrorists occasionally use pipe bombs that doesn't mean anyone with a pipebomb is a terrorist (though in this particular case I'd say they are).FatherTed wrote:
ira/pira/rira/uvf/udf/etc etc etcI am inclined to disagree with this, not because what it claim isn't true, but because it completely disregards who set out the respective definition. If someone is considered a terrorist by one country's law, that doesn't necesarily mean he is a terrorist in the eyes of any given subject of any given country thousands of miles away. For example, the Kurdic PKK has been recognized as a terrorist organization by the US. While some PKK elements certainly act 'out of line', I have strong reservations about labeling the entire PKK as 'terrorist'.Varegg wrote:
You can't argue the meaning of a preset definition, a terrorist is a terrorist foreign or domestic doesn't matter ...
IF all we had over the last 8 years was no 911 attack, no London bombing, no Madrid bombing, etc...,and all that made the news was a pipe bomb in mail box every now and then, we would not be having this discussion about terrorism at all. Nor would terrorism be on the frontlines of every media outlet for almost a decade.
If you can not distinguish the difference of context of this discussion and what I meant, to that of any jack-off with a fire cracker. I am at a loss. Since, history will agree with me and I am sure the jack-off with a fire cracker will not be making the history books as a life altering event.
Last edited by lowing (2009-02-13 01:35:05)
There is a small difference between a firecracker and a pipebomb lowing ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Not in the context of historical, news worthy, society altering events, VareggVaregg wrote:
There is a small difference between a firecracker and a pipebomb lowing ...
lowing wrote:
Not in the context of historical, news worthy, society altering events, VareggVaregg wrote:
There is a small difference between a firecracker and a pipebomb lowing ...
Okay ... whatever
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
So that means the kid next door that is into firework pranks is a terrorist? Wow, I've never looked at it that way!TheAussieReaper wrote:
A terrorist is by definition someone with the goal of causing terror. If your mailbox blows up, chances are you'd be terrified.
wow...there is terrorism all over then. fat chicks in tight clothes make me feel terrified.Lai wrote:
So that means the kid next door that is into firework pranks is a terrorist? Wow, I've never looked at it that way!TheAussieReaper wrote:
A terrorist is by definition someone with the goal of causing terror. If your mailbox blows up, chances are you'd be terrified.
Well, if I am wrong about that, do tellVaregg wrote:
lowing wrote:
Not in the context of historical, news worthy, society altering events, VareggVaregg wrote:
There is a small difference between a firecracker and a pipebomb lowing ...
Okay ... whatever
Is there anything you don't blame liburls for?! It amazes me.lowing wrote:
Directed by liberal govt. interference. So yes I agree, liberals are domestic terrorists.m3thod wrote:
Your bankers have fucked your country in ways that mooslim terrorists could only dream of sweetcheeks.usmarine wrote:
speaking for the US (which is the only country I care about) muslims terrorists are the biggest threat to us. some white kid with a pipe bomb in oregon is not going to keep my up at night.
Reality check.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
nopem3thod wrote:
Is there anything you don't blame liburls for?! It amazes me.lowing wrote:
Directed by liberal govt. interference. So yes I agree, liberals are domestic terrorists.m3thod wrote:
Your bankers have fucked your country in ways that mooslim terrorists could only dream of sweetcheeks.
Reality check.
Yeah, Liberals made the straight banana's curve!lowing wrote:
nopem3thod wrote:
Is there anything you don't blame liburls for?! It amazes me.lowing wrote:
Directed by liberal govt. interference. So yes I agree, liberals are domestic terrorists.