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.

 

'US has no excuse to attack Iran'

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


#1. I'm talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran could within days cause the deaths of thousands of American Soldiers through the Resistance.

#2. Hezbullah is a resistance group against European/American/Russia Zionists who came to that land, which apparently no one wants.

#3. Everyone which is prescribed by the empires as terrorists, are not terrorists.. That should be an obvious fact by now.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


#3: Expand for those of us who understand the definition of "terrorist" and "fact" and are unable to decipher your biased jibberish.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
reply to post by oozyism
 


#3: Expand for those of us who understand the definition of "terrorist" and "fact" and are unable to decipher your biased jibberish.


I guess you haven't heard, definitions change, just like history, who changes it? The people in power.

So it is not about looking at definitions, it is about comparing..



Last I checked some US soldiers were killing innocent people and taking a chopped finger for trophy, that doesn't make the US military force terrorist, does it? But hey, the US is still in my terrorist list. Yeah, I have a terrorist list of my own dummie.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


And I guess that you haven't heard that the definition is very simple and it hasn't changed once.


Last I checked some US soldiers were killing innocent people and taking a chopped finger for trophy, that doesn't make the US military force terrorist, does it? But hey, the US is still in my terrorist list. Yeah, I have a terrorist list of my own dummie.



US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies'


Sport =/= Terrorism, so you're right it certainly doesn't make the entire US military force terrorists and it doesn't even make those five sickos terrorists. Make up your own word, you can use "sicko" if you like.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Soshh because: five sickos*



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
reply to post by oozyism
 


#3: Expand for those of us who understand the definition of "terrorist" and "fact" and are unable to decipher your biased jibberish.


Is it really so difficult to "decipher" what he meant?


"#3. Everyone(Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) which is prescribed by the empires(US, Israel, UK etc.) as terrorists, are not terrorists.. (They're lying!) That should be an obvious fact by now. "




Originally posted by Soshh
reply to post by oozyism
 


And I guess that you haven't heard that the definition is very simple and it hasn't changed once.


Last I checked some US soldiers were killing innocent people and taking a chopped finger for trophy, that doesn't make the US military force terrorist, does it? But hey, the US is still in my terrorist list. Yeah, I have a terrorist list of my own dummie.



US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies'


Sport =/= Terrorism, so you're right it certainly doesn't make the entire US military force terrorists and it doesn't even make those five sickos terrorists. Make up your own word, you can use "sicko" if you like.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Soshh because: five sickos*




There's no point arguing over semantics. If killing innocents for sport isn't "terrorism" by definition, it's at least borderline close.

Bottom line is both scenarios are awarded with the "murdering" title.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSam
Is it really so difficult to "decipher" what he meant?


No, it’s difficult to determine what makes it a fact because he was wrong. I should have just said that he was talking bollocks and putting his own spin on words with a completely different meaning.


Originally posted by TheSam
There's no point arguing over semantics. If killing innocents for sport isn't "terrorism" by definition, it's at least borderline close.

Bottom line is both scenarios are awarded with the "murdering" title.


Terrorism by definition isn't anywhere near close to killing for sport, you are not looking to influence anyone it's for your own amusement. Evidently these guys would have preferred if no-one at all had found out what they had done so it cannot be called terrorism in any shape or form. Any "terror" that results is coincidental and as it wasn't intended then it isn't terrorism.

Murder is exactly right, what's the problem with sticking with that? You don't have to call it terrorism for the sake of using a word against the people who coined it, murder is bad enough.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Soshh because: typo



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
reply to post by oozyism
 


And I guess that you haven't heard that the definition is very simple and it hasn't changed once.

Are suggesting English words do not change meaning? English is not even my first language and I know that lol.. There is a reason why one word, has soo many meanings, because it continuously changes. Terrorism literally means to terrorize. So when I come to your house and kill your brother, then chop his finger off, to keep as a trophy, I can guarantee you'll be terrorized.



Sport =/= Terrorism, so you're right it certainly doesn't make the entire US military force terrorists and it doesn't even make those five sickos terrorists. Make up your own word, you can use "sicko" if you like.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Soshh because: five sickos*


OK, let's go one step ahead, heard of the drone attacks in Pakistan which has killed almost a thousand innocent people? Do you think that is terrorism?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I like this post only because it illustrates the irony that would occur if China loaned the U.S money to attack Iran. Wouldn't China risk damage to any of their investments in Iran (do they even have any? pardon my ignorance)? I know that Russia would have a lot to lose from such an attack.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I like this post only because it illustrates the irony that would occur if China loaned the U.S money to attack Iran. Wouldn't China risk damage to any of their investments in Iran (do they even have any? pardon my ignorance)? I know that Russia would have a lot to lose from such an attack.


Sometimes you'd rather see your enemies legs broke... then get the 5000$ he owes ya.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
reply to post by oozyism
 


And I guess that you haven't heard that the definition is very simple and it hasn't changed once.


Where the hell have you been over the past 10 years?

Terrorist is the new red scare.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I hear you there, 10 years ago you would rarely hear that word at all..... After 9/11 it seemed you couldn't escape it, it almost felt like they were trying to put mass hypnosis on everybody... Everyone after 9/11 was a terrorist, even whole countries were labeled terrorist.... The term gets thrown around so loosely anymore you kind of lose site of what the actual definition is.....



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Please dont be silly. The US is one of a relative handful of nations with complete and unfettered access to lazer based anti missile tech, and Im sure if they decided to go to war with Iran, they would have thier bases covered in lazer mesh so fine you could split hairs with it.
No the only question to consider here is this:
Would an attack on Iran be moraly correct. If so , why ? And if not, what are you going to do to ensure any government which supports such an action is not re elected? Because I can assure you, if the American people continue to allow the presence of dangerous warmongers in an apparantly free nation, then I think the US will find it increasingly hard to gain support in the future, for pretty much anything.

Edit to add:
The question of attacking Iran with the excuse that some Taleban are Iranian is ridiculous. There are white British, American, Australian members too, but if the US wants to rumble with Britain or Australia on that basis, then it will have to wipe out its own population also. What an idiot notion.
You cannot make a nation responsible for the actions of a few morons who happen to have been born in it. Fact is , those who join these groups are no longer proper members of thier home nations , because joining such a group requires loyalty which overides the thoughts of national pride, and loyalty to ones queen ,king, president or prime minister which may be familiar to patriots of those nations.


[edit on 6-9-2010 by TrueBrit]


Is this laser system deployed across every single base and carrier and city in the US and over seas? has it been battle tested? Cant it simultaneously take down a few hundred missles coming at the SAME base? Who is the contractor for this system, if it is even deployed. What happens if a missle hits the laser...is there a backup laser? All the iranians have to do is use optically reflective materials...problem solved..



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join