BF2S Forums theloonies have spoken....

Spumantiii wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

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.

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.

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 some

Actions taken covertly by intel agencies that have the sole purpose of affecting the people of a region fully qualify as terrorism.  The same may be said for mercenaries ie non state funded militants.  State funded militants are the responsibility of the state (CIA) but don't fall into the same category since they are not military, and all over the world are the most prolific source of terrorism.

Ah yes true true lol

but minus the assumptions of legitimacy or criminality we are nowhere in this thread. One small question? How would we put the UN on the other side when it was they who defined the " who and what" terrorist/ism are/is??? What is the opposite side of the United Nations? Non-soveriegn, non-national entites, or anarchists, idk or uh terrorists! lol

The definitive conundrum (or however its spelled im too tired now to look it up). We can't fix it until we define it, legislate it, and debug it.

CameronPoe wrote:

beerface702 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

You get loonies on both sides of the ideological fence. They don't do their respective sides any service whatsoever spouting their entrenched lines of thinking. One doesn't have to resort to making such implausible claims to expose the inadequacies and failed policies of Bush in his 'war on terror'.

I sometimes wonder where we would be if we didn't broaden the WoT after Afghanistan fell. We will never know. I am not ready however to say failed policies, etc., not yet. Wars can turn on a dime. The chief inadequacy I see is the Bush camp just tells the story badly. The think they need to emphasize one reason for justification when there are twenty good reasons that ALL count. They are just not up on the information age and informed populace - their predecessors didn't need to worry but we know alot more now than citizens in the days of Clinton and the inventor of the interent. Bush's PR people are still writing speeches for mushrooms, and you all know what a mushroom is right?