Last edited by DonFck (2006-08-10 22:36:47)
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-08-10 22:54:53)
How about read the news you dullard.DonFck wrote:
How about some context, so we'll know exatcly what event/series of events you're referring to, mmkay?
Last edited by JimmyBotswana (2006-08-11 01:42:14)
Last edited by DonFck (2006-08-10 23:16:42)
I think he's been watching too many Rainbow Six trailers................Spumantiii wrote:
What kind of terror are you worried about living in Vegas, ugly strippers? Lose a hand of poker?
I would guess the most recent foiled plot. But to aid in a general definition of terrorism, it is defined as:DonFck wrote:
How about some context, so we'll know exatcly what event/series of events you're referring to, mmkay?
Thanks, I had no idea because I hate myself and my country and I want everyone to diebeerface702 wrote:
I can't beilive some people. Blaming the bush adminstration the day of a foiled attempt, and also blaming Blair and their "brotherhood" to scare the world.
open your eyes. i know some of u asshat's troll here.
TERRORISM IS REAL
get a clue
sources?JimmyBotswana wrote:
Contrary to popular belief the U.S. was actually instrumental in HELPING the Ayatollah come into power.
The reason for this was at the time Saddam Hussein was proposing to set up an Arab version of the International Monetary Fund, using profits from the oil in the region. This Arab Monetary Fund, or AMF was an abherration according to the United States, who used and still uses the IMF as leverage over other countries. The Shah of Iran, who was an ally of the U.S., was pro-AMF and therefore drew much ire from the United States. The Ayatollah came to power with U.S. help and swiftly killed the idea of an AMF, saying that Iran would not participate. Without Iran the AMF could not survive and the idea quickly faded.
EDIT: Excuse me I was wrong the AMF actually was created in 1976, though Iran is not a member.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-08-11 17:44:28)
I doubt he can cite any, the US backed the previous dictatorship.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sources?
Just because something like being uberpwned is terrifying doesn't mean it is terrorism. Of course some people would call it that - they will do anything to advance their cause so what's the harm in a little lie between enemies ? Politics man, public image and mudslingin politics is all it is.Jbrar wrote:
u know what the problem is, people don't know the what terrorism means. For fuck sake, what the U.S. is doing right now in the middle east is considered terrorism to some people.
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize quote by Stalinmcminty wrote:
I would guess the most recent foiled plot. But to aid in a general definition of terrorism, it is defined as:DonFck wrote:
How about some context, so we'll know exatcly what event/series of events you're referring to, mmkay?
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Take your pick...
Mcminty.
Last edited by Fat guy in speedos (2006-08-12 08:18:40)
Some interesting wording by the UN on the"Legal" definition of terrorism. The operative word is criminal, not just an action but a criminal action. Bombing an enemy causes terror but if in time of war or national defense it is not terrorism. If a non-combatant aids and abets a war criminal/terrorist they are an accomplice, if they do it under duress they are unfortunate.bijzondere wrote:
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize quote by Stalinmcminty wrote:
I would guess the most recent foiled plot. But to aid in a general definition of terrorism, it is defined as:DonFck wrote:
How about some context, so we'll know exatcly what event/series of events you're referring to, mmkay?
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Take your pick...
Mcminty.
thanks bijzondere
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-08-12 12:03:51)
On the contrary, if you took the people who decide what is terrorism and put them on the other side, they'd be screaming bloody mary at the western world and Israel for terrorism, there is a ton of evidence if you'd like someOpsChief wrote:
Just because something like being uberpwned is terrifying doesn't mean it is terrorism. Of course some people would call it that - they will do anything to advance their cause so what's the harm in a little lie between enemies ? Politics man, public image and mudslingin politics is all it is.Jbrar wrote:
u know what the problem is, people don't know the what terrorism means. For fuck sake, what the U.S. is doing right now in the middle east is considered terrorism to some people.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-08-12 13:17:01)
commies ftw...DonFck wrote:
To sum it up: "Terrorists" are the new "Communists".
"We will by God always have an enemy! If there is no enemy, we will create one! We do this so we can succesfully turn the attention away from our domestic situation; poverty, a deteriorating social and public schooling system along with a alarming increase in crime."
The true enemies of the American people are the people governing the USA.
This is how it occasionally seems to me, I'm not saying it's how it really is.
And Alexander, I was just pointing out that the first post of the "Debate and Serious Talk" wasn't really thorough. I am aware of what's going on. I might be a dumb fuck but hey, you should know I'm not THAT stupid? Am I?