It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dad ... what's a terrorist?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
A terrorist really doesn't care ig he takes the life, he cares nothing for doing god, he cares nothing for morality and depises god. The world seem's these people are mostly crimnals.

hmm, that description fits the guy sitting in your white house, corrent me if im wrong!




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Thinker
A terrorist really doesn't care ig he takes the life, he cares nothing for doing god, he cares nothing for morality and depises god. The world seem's these people are mostly crimnals.

hmm, that description fits the guy sitting in your white house, corrent me if im wrong!


Yes, he is terrorists in black suit.

Like i said, terrorists is one the instill fear into another person or people.

From the banker robber at the bank teller, from a muslim kidnapper that wants ransom, hijacker, to the mafia who threaten common people, triad memebers. Alll these people have no problem commitng murder.

Compare them all together and they all follow the same though pattern. They have not been enlightened with judean/christian values.

god is not with bush or the muslim freedom fighters/terrorists.

You know the muslim freedom fighters exploit judean/christian values. They know the muslims are safe in western country's because of the values, but take christians with the though to ransom.

You could also call the french resistance terrorists, i'm sure the german army where scared of them.

I guess one can be good terrorists or a bad one. good is attacking army targets not cillvillian targets.

terrorist/crimnal is better term for people targeting cillvillians



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker

Originally posted by Souljah
hmm, that description fits the guy sitting in your white house, corrent me if im wrong!

Yes, he is terrorists in black suit.

well im glad we agree at some point!

but you must understand that "terrorists" in black suit are guilty of world wide phenomenon known today as "terrorism", which is actually just a good excuse for war. nothing more. nothing less.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Thinker
A terrorist really doesn't care ig he takes the life, he cares nothing for doing god, he cares nothing for morality and depises god. The world seem's these people are mostly crimnals.

hmm, that description fits the guy sitting in your white house, corrent me if im wrong!


I'm not american. I'm no supporter of bush. Propanganda doesn't work on me. But this doesn't mean i support Islamic freedom fighters. I don't support their culture, i don't support islam or like it. I wouldn't even support military invasion to rid of it. If arabs want to follow islam thats their problem, but don't bring its influence into europe or america. It's already here in europe and it already effecting the crime rate, rape rates and murderor rates. I believe in civilised europe. i don't want europe to turn into an arab state where european have to live in fear of being raped, or haressed for not following islamic customs.

The young Muslim males eppects a soicety with women covered up, he goes off and lives in europe and gets one muslim one down the street all covered up and one half naked western women down the street. Clearly Islam is incaplitable with the western world. Which of course then causes problem's.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
...to be a child again, when all was black or white.....

there are some things (like death, the inevitable) that are best kept for a mature, developed mind to puzzle. We lose our innocence as children, and trade it in for our valuable critically thinking skills, like logic and rational -whered those ever get us?! some of the more taboo ideas and topics (like sex and drugs) might fall on dead ears when explained to a 8 year old, but IMHO, the logic backing up prezbush's war in iraq is *SEE-THROUGH* -and its a beautiful thing when the unbiased logic of an 8 year old reminds us all with a big booya.

when the US first invaded Iraq -a European Graffiti Magazine (Polish I believe) titled "Nonstop" issued a similar fabricated dialogue that made parody out of the double standards of the USA. -maybe some have read it? anyhow, I have the article at home. will bring and share tomorrow. like this threads original Q & A between parent and child - the graffiti mag version is pretty hard to argue.

if you want to test your common-sense and integrity against your apt-ness to be dooped by your own bias, then try explaining to a child why you support the things you do without contradicting yourself. tough -no matter what your position!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Thinker

Originally posted by Souljah
hmm, that description fits the guy sitting in your white house, corrent me if im wrong!

Yes, he is terrorists in black suit.

well im glad we agree at some point!

but you must understand that "terrorists" in black suit are guilty of world wide phenomenon known today as "terrorism", which is actually just a good excuse for war. nothing more. nothing less.


I see it terrorism againist terrorism. Power struggle. Revoultionaires wanting the power. You the Islamic empire in 670AD were also terrorists and empiralistis. they invaded and terrorised many nations. Mabe this is karma coming back the islamic empire for its past. Then again half of europe were terrorists to neopleon to hilter, to roosovelt.

When the man has the power and she his chance he will take it. The islamic empire is weak, so bush is strong so he makes the move to take it.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
When the man has the power and she his chance he will take it. The islamic empire is weak, so bush is strong so he makes the move to take it.

what makes you think that islamic "empire" is weak?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
There is no point arguing, at least until Adolf Bush is in power. WWIII is coming and freedom is something that no longer exists today.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

what about a "smart bomb" that hits a civilian building instead of a military one? gets hundreds people killed with just one blast, so that bomb crosses that line and becomes a stupid bomb? or is bomb still smart and is the pilot stupid one?
could you explain this?


Yes, according to my definition, the act would have to be an INTENTIONAL miss to be a terrorist act. Accidents and collateral damage occur in war. Bombs miss, things malfunction. Indeed, I think it can be safely said that the US has gone to historic extremes to avoid civilian casualties (hell, even damage to shrines, etc.), regardless of how one feels about the war. In fact, this has even been done to the point of endangering our troops there. You'd have to DELIBERATELY be targetting the civilians to be called a terrorist.


and what happens when hundreds of prisioners do not get treated like human beeings anymore, because they are "terrorists" they are tortured, raped and de-humanized? is that called torture chamber then? spanish inquisition? or is it still a "prision"?
i think many words get new meanings in war,
and it all depends from what point of view you are looking upon this tragedy.


Nope, not point of view. The people who did this to those prisoners are just as bad as those they were mistreating. Since the abused were combatants, and not civilians, you couldn't really call the abusers "terrorists" by my definition, but you could certainly call them monstrous and guilty of human rights violations.


[edit on 3-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Gazrok:

Accidents and collateral damage occur in war. Bombs miss, things malfunction. Indeed, I think it can be safely said that the US has gone to historic extremes to avoid civilian casualties (hell, even damage to shrines, etc.), regardless of how one feels about the war. In fact, this has even been done to the point of endangering our troops there. You'd have to DELIBERATELY be targetting the civilians to be called a terrorist.


Not quite. It's not always the actual damage inflicted by the terrorist attack, it's the EFFECT. To TERRORIZE and to inflict fear on a population. Like dropping heavy ordnance on civilian targets (think Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, etc.).

Tell me more of these "historic extremes" that the US has gone to avoid civilian casualties. Historic compared to who, the Nazis? The Russians? All invading armies that have fought a thrid world country?

The only historic extremes that the US has gone to is to minimize the reporting of civilian casualties. The Pentagon doesn't even keep count.

If you don't care who you kill with your bombs, you are at least guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In the US. If you're attacking white Christian people.


The people who did this to those prisoners are just as bad as those they were mistreating. Since the abused were combatants, and not civilians, you couldn't really call the abusers "terrorists" by my definition, but you could certainly call them monstrous and guilty of human rights violations.


The abused were combatants, not terrorists. Not even accused of a crime necessarily, and even if they were accused, there were actually no TRIALS and none of these people were convicted. So a lot of them could very well have been innocent before being subjected to torture.

Bin Laden's best ally in the War on Terror is American Foreign Policy. It does his recruiting for him.


jako



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   


Yes, according to my definition, the act would have to be an INTENTIONAL miss to be a terrorist act. Accidents and collateral damage occur in war. Bombs miss, things malfunction. Indeed, I think it can be safely said that the US has gone to historic extremes to avoid civilian casualties (hell, even damage to shrines, etc.), regardless of how one feels about the war. In fact, this has even been done to the point of endangering our troops there. You'd have to DELIBERATELY be targetting the civilians to be called a terrorist.

but dropping ten bombs on a house where a sniper is hidden, leveling the building with all people inside is ok, right? since you were targeting a valid military target, so called collateral casualties are apart of the war. bombing a city is always the same, since all have more civilan population that military, and is an act of lowering the enemy morale and public opinion.
and dont matter how smart your bombs are, if the big boss in charge is still a fool!



Nope, not point of view. The people who did this to those prisoners are just as bad as those they were mistreating. Since the abused were combatants, and not civilians, you couldn't really call the abusers "terrorists" by my definition, but you could certainly call them monstrous and guilty of human rights violations.

ofcourse, everybody wearing a turban, or beeing part of the iraqi regular army is a terrorist, how could i forget! and damn those 12-year old boys and girls that shoot at your marines! must rape and kill them all!
and now knowing that the highest people in charge approved of those monstrous violatons, it is similar to nazi germany sending all the jews in camps, killing them slowly.


but i have to admnit i understand the status of a prisoner of war, that dont have much meaning in modern warfare, since basic human rights are deprived the moment enemy soldiers catch you in the battlefield. from then on nobody cares if you live or die like a dog.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Sorry about that first reply. Made a typo down there at the bottom. What I meant is that Iraq should have the freedom to choose their own government, whether it be communism, a theocracy, democracy, a monarchy, whatever. America shouldn't make the choice for them, because when the U.S. does, it isn't really giving them freedom. It is just forcing democracy on them when many would be happier under Saddam. Over 25 years, Saddam killed so many of his own people (I will have to look for the exact numbers), while in the short time America has occupied the country, we have killed millions (or something like it, will get back with the numbers) of innocent civillians just trying to go about their lives.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
I'm not american. I'm no supporter of bush. Propanganda doesn't work on me. But this doesn't mean i support Islamic freedom fighters. I don't support their culture, i don't support islam or like it. I wouldn't even support military invasion to rid of it. If arabs want to follow islam thats their problem, but don't bring its influence into europe or america. It's already here in europe and it already effecting the crime rate, rape rates and murderor rates. I believe in civilised europe. i don't want europe to turn into an arab state where european have to live in fear of being raped, or haressed for not following islamic customs.

i support everybody that fights for their own home and land! doesnt matter if they are from poland, portugal, panama, peru, phillipines or pakistan.
but because we are currenly witnessing a war of religions among other filthy tricks, there is a dark light upon all islamic world! suddenly you will label all islamic people for everything bad happening in this world? they are the only rapists and thieves and killers and liars? isnt that a little bit too much?

i come from former yugoslavija and i know muslim people. can i ask you something, do you know any? have you ever talked to "a muslim"? what in the hell is wrong with him and his religion? he is still a man. just like you. same blood flows thru his body. or is something wicked and evil in all of "them muslims"? who the fu** are you to judge them? god maybe?

you said you belive in civilized people. are you saying that "the arabs" are not civilized? let me tell you something mr.thinker, there were arab cities prospering the middle east, while there were tribes of wild men in europe and the rest of todays "civilized world" hunting and gathering berries for food!

or do you maybe think their "barbaric customs" of covering the women! you know why the women are covered in islamic world? "because a woman is too beautifull and precious for all the strangers to see and feast their eyes upon! she is a princess, a queen, and should wear best clothes and jewlery at home, not on the streets for all mean to see her charms! after all, she is not a whore!"
now that doesnt sound too barbaric, does it?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
"There are three on whom Allah will not look mercifully on the Day of Judgment: A lying ruler, an aged adulterer and an arrogant begger."

If i was god, i destroy anyone who has beheaded anyone. Who has taken my creation and dismemeber will be cursed for all time.
If i was god, i would destroy all the lairs, all the adultery's, age is not an issue.
IF i was god, i would destroy all the murderor's.
If i was god, i would destroy people who inslave people.
If i was god, i will destroy anyone who turns the youth against me.
If i was god, i would take my sheep to my home and destroy the blood thirst wolves that wish to kill them.
If i was god, i would destroy the false prophots and their followers.
If i was god, i would destroy anyone who uses my name to overide my laws.

my name are the laws, you can not murderor! and worship me.

Who can not see me , will never see me.


Then you would be forced to destroy yourself and unmake all things for you will have broken your own laws, defied your own word...

wraith



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Nope, not point of view. The people who did this to those prisoners are just as bad as those they were mistreating. Since the abused were combatants, and not civilians, you couldn't really call the abusers "terrorists" by my definition, but you could certainly call them monstrous and guilty of human rights violations.


I think those citing this should read it again...

I am stating that those who did this are just as bad as terrorists...

As for dropping a bomb on a sniper with others in the house...well, if they're letting him use the house as a station, then well, the innocence is shed a bit... Even if they were coerced though, you simply cannot (and nobody historically has) simply ignore the target when they hide behind a human shield all the time. THEY are the ones putting the innocent in harm's way, and the use of human shields is simply another act of terrorism.

As for what steps.... Do you think any OTHER force would have held off on taking out combatants just because they holed up in a mosque? Please, anyone else would have levelled that mosque...



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

or do you maybe think their "barbaric customs" of covering the women! you know why the women are covered in islamic world? "because a woman is too beautifull and precious for all the strangers to see and feast their eyes upon! she is a princess, a queen, and should wear best clothes and jewlery at home, not on the streets for all mean to see her charms! after all, she is not a whore!"

now that doesnt sound too barbaric, does it?



Arab empire is weak because low encomy's, low military strength. When nations become weak, they are target's. Look animals in the animal kingdom, when the old lion can't fight, he becomes dominated by the young lions. This like human history, and has always happened, from the greek empires, to the roman empires to muslim empires, to the british empire. christianity never had an empire.

I've know many muslims and i've also looked into it. After all these terrorist attacks, public heading's, certain passages of the koran . I realized that koran has influenced and created a culture for the muslim people that i don't like. From the civil war in lebanon from kidnappings and ranson, to the palastian tactices which come from the culture of islam. It's an ideology, there many ideology's in this world, from judean, muslims, nazism, the christians, buddisists, the secularists, the witchcraft people. Simply Islam is the ideology of one man called mohammmed. The muslim people just follow that mentality.

"i come from former yugoslavija and i know muslim people. "

You the Islamic army invaded that part of europe. Christanity used to be in turkey, then islamic empire came riding in killing the soilders. After this they attacked the eastern part of europe to yugoslavija. Then remain there until they left the culture of Islam on it's people and thats why your a muslim. go do a DNA test on your blood to find out if your european descentant or an arab. If your european, realize this, your four fathers where most likely killed by arab invaders, if your a descentant of an arab, then your on someone else's soil.

This why u have the issue of hate between serbs and albians. Serb's where always at the front line fighting off the Islamic empire.

Spain was occuiped by the islamic empire, but it took backs it land, and the left no muslims in the land it also kept their bloodlines in tact. This why they don't have the problems like jews and palastians, serbs and alibians, russians and cheynese.

If they allowed the Muslims to say, the muslims would of though they had right to remain in the land, then start civil wars.

It's all a culture war. I prefer being dominated by christian influenced nations.



"or do you maybe think their "barbaric customs" of covering the women! you know why the women are covered in islamic world? "because a woman is too beautifull and precious for all the strangers to see and feast their eyes upon! she is a princess, a queen, and should wear best clothes and jewlery at home, not on the streets for all mean to see her charms! after all, she is not a whore!"
"

I was refering to Islamic ritual of beheadings.

"she is not a whore!" This is the type of mentality muslim males in europe have. They believe that western women is subclass of human being because she doesn't follow islamic customs and deserves to be raped. Yeah they as lookupon as whores and treated as such.

I'm not even going to get into female desire, which i don't like much. But women do desire instictly immoral men.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Thinker]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by Thinker
"There are three on whom Allah will not look mercifully on the Day of Judgment: A lying ruler, an aged adulterer and an arrogant begger."

If i was god, i destroy anyone who has beheaded anyone. Who has taken my creation and dismemeber will be cursed for all time.
If i was god, i would destroy all the lairs, all the adultery's, age is not an issue.
IF i was god, i would destroy all the murderor's.
If i was god, i would destroy people who inslave people.
If i was god, i will destroy anyone who turns the youth against me.
If i was god, i would take my sheep to my home and destroy the blood thirst wolves that wish to kill them.
If i was god, i would destroy the false prophots and their followers.
If i was god, i would destroy anyone who uses my name to overide my laws.

my name are the laws, you can not murderor! and worship me.

Who can not see me , will never see me.


Then you would be forced to destroy yourself and unmake all things for you will have broken your own laws, defied your own word...

wraith


When you walk off a cliff, is it your fault or gods?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
Arab empire is weak because low encomy's, low military strength. When nations become weak, they are target's. Look animals in the animal kingdom, when the old lion can't fight, he becomes dominated by the young lions. This like human history, and has always happened, from the greek empires, to the roman empires to muslim empires, to the british empire. christianity never had an empire.

the arab empire is far from beeing weak, after all there are the best oil reservers in the world, and i belive everybody wants them. so you can not say they are "poor" since they have alot of black gold. if you have oil you can have alot of friends and alot of enemies, or both.

and dont tell me christianity never had an empire, because its just not true!



I've know many muslims and i've also looked into it. After all these terrorist attacks, public heading's, certain passages of the koran . I realized that koran has influenced and created a culture for the muslim people that i don't like. From the civil war in lebanon from kidnappings and ranson, to the palastian tactices which come from the culture of islam. It's an ideology, there many ideology's in this world, from judean, muslims, nazism, the christians, buddisists, the secularists, the witchcraft people. Simply Islam is the ideology of one man called mohammmed. The muslim people just follow that mentality.

you know koran, if you have ever read it, is basicly a very good book, but as all books, this one can also be interpreted the wrong way. just like everything, you can turn a holy book into your "advantage" if you want that. if you ask me koran is just as bad as bible is. both are "good books" for those who read them and "very bad books" for those who oppose them.
just like some people are and were using bible as a weapon against everybody who oppose it (spanish inquisition, conquestedors in america, crusades...). so dont tell me christianity is a pure and clean as a lamb, because its NOT. its just as dirty as any other "world mafia" that tried to gain control of this planet!



You the Islamic army invaded that part of europe. Christanity used to be in turkey, then islamic empire came riding in killing the soilders. After this they attacked the eastern part of europe to yugoslavija. Then remain there until they left the culture of Islam on it's people and thats why your a muslim. go do a DNA test on your blood to find out if your european descentant or an arab. If your european, realize this, your four fathers where most likely killed by arab invaders, if your a descentant of an arab, then your on someone else's soil.

This why u have the issue of hate between serbs and albians. Serb's where always at the front line fighting off the Islamic empire.

Spain was occuiped by the islamic empire, but it took backs it land, and the left no muslims in the land it also kept their bloodlines in tact. This why they don't have the problems like jews and palastians, serbs and alibians, russians and cheynese.

If they allowed the Muslims to say, the muslims would of though they had right to remain in the land, then start civil wars.

It's all a culture war. I prefer being dominated by christian influenced nations.

well if i remember correctly, the famous crusades started before any arabs attacked europe. so sending a bunch of heavily armored knights with their "chivalrious" deeds and actions to "free" jerusalem of those pesky arabs and find the "holy grail" is ok then? i guess that didnt piss off nobody living in a muslim world? and there wasnt just one crusade, there were few more. and what good did that do? not a thing! it just united all the muslim people to rise against the "evil european crusaders" and attack them once and for all. so, who had his "bad idea" first?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
Christianity keeps the society moral.

I read that and literally laughed. Do you have any foggy idea what you just implied? Would you like a good treatise on the history of Christianity and Catholicism, or are you willing to concede that that statement is utterly ridiculous? I don't want to get burned at the stake or have my printing press smashed up and my family tortured for learning to read, but I'm pretty sure that is a bit of a hyperbole.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Only in a world this bad could you find people supporting members of the human race who use rage and explosive materials to kill their own countrymen/neighbors/friends (If the friend happens to wear the bomb) and say that any force fighting it.. is wrong. Terrorists want power.. but they don't have the guts to step up and make their own party and run for office.. so they run around.. making bombs and blowing up party members/leaders to deal with their inadequacies. Yeah, if you want power.. and you are a weak puling coward; it's a great tactic.

Also note, that these Terrorists will probably kill more people than any "stupid" bombs that fell in the wrong location during our attack on Bagdad, to achieve their goal.

Note : I'm talking about the Terrorists in Iraq right now. I don't care if you call them Freedom fighters. They are using bombs to stop an electon process. So that power would be in their own people's hands. Does anyone really believe that the US is staying in Iraq right now for any reason than to make sure there is a stable government when they leave?

Is that thought too altruistic for every cynical person on these boards to realize? It does the US not a bit of good to leave a country with that much wealth waiting around to be snapped up by another country.

Maybe a lot of these people that hate Bush, hate the fact that Iraqi's people will be getting the money from their oil rather than one man and his "chosen" underlings. Money that would help them get food rather than the oil that was traded for kick backs on ROTTING food from Russia, France, and just about all the rest of the other self-serving nations. Oil for food.. what a crock. The UN that encouraged Saddam to starve his people.. is the same UN that wimped out on going in and taking him out. Diplomacy at its best.

Just wanted to throw out another opinion. Maybe I believe it. Maybe I don't. You tell me?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join