LightningStrikesHere does not support Terrorism !

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


He does not think the west is perfect..... and he speaks out on many things in his own ways.....

the problem is when the east paints the west as the only wrongdoer...when you start playing the game of tit for tat then at some point you loose sight of who started it, who is responding, and who is retaliating...

and I think the main people I need to convince of wrongdoinng are my own brothers.... therefore this is who I speak to the most.... and who i speak against when I see them in the wrong....not the west, let them deal with them.... when we stop this tit for tat they did it first so we are right stuff then maybe eventually all this will stop....

or at least more westerners will see that we are not the ones in the wrong.... but as it stands if we are doing evil acts then the west has the appearance of justification in their actions yes? it is time to stop that

Regardless of what he truly thinks he is either directly or indirectly part of the group that makes it continue to happen.
Right now the west is the wrongdoer tho, what has the East done?
It is not an individual problem its a social problem and yes it would appear that the west justifies its acts.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


They justify it because of the acts of wahabis.... point blank

if the wahabis would quit and for once actually follow the religion they want to profess it would make for a whole lot better world... then westerners might see that it is their actions that are wrong

but until we stop.... until those from the east rise above evil, no one will see anything more than justification



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


They justify it because of the acts of wahabis.... point blank

if the wahabis would quit and for once actually follow the religion they want to profess it would make for a whole lot better world... then westerners might see that it is their actions that are wrong

but until we stop.... until those from the east rise above evil, no one will see anything more than justification


Which is paradoxical because using that logic they would be in the right considering we attacked them first.

Its just like if 9/11 was justification for invading Iraq, then wasn't 9/11 justified by us invading them beforehand?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
You cant really say that until you have lived it, also you are saying it from a mindset defined by the opposite environmental conditions.


You don't know where I'm from, do you? You seem to be blissfully unaware of what I have lived, or the environmental conditions that was in.



You tell me, you support your country doing it.


No, I don't. How do you get that?



I never said it was proper direction, in fact I implied the opposite.


And yet you support it by trying to justify the unjustifiable. Interesting.



You would have a hard time denying that your own country needs to be dealt with if that is the case.


Nor have I. I can, however, if you'd prefer.





I dunno... strive for rational response, perhaps?
And when that is not possible?


Rationality is never impossible.





Fight my enemy - not my OWN random women and kids.
Maybe go tell your government that.


Why?

My government does not make a habit of blowing itself up in bazaars full of it's own women and kids.


edit on 2012/6/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Well I condemn the action but not the cause.


"Condemning" Is not the same thing as jumping through hoops and contortions of twisted logic in a vain attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Nor do you "condemn the cause". As a matter of fact, you have yet to elucidate a cause for people who blow up their own women, children, and old people. You'll have to first define a cause for such action before you can condemn it.



Just imagine what the US would do in their position.


I have yet to meet an American who would kill his own civilians because some third party pissed him off.



Its not like these people have much else they can do is it.


I have a Palestinian friend who attempted the same argument. If there is nothing else they are good for, and that is all they can do, then I guess I really DON'T have a problem with those individuals ending themselves in a spectacular fireball. It's a damned shame they feel a need to take their own civilians out at the same time, though.



Maybe they might go to your 'government' and ask them kindly to please stop killing my people.
Yeah right..


Here's a crazy idea - how about they just stop providing a reason for that government to shoot back?


.
If that is the definition of terrorism then you would agree that the US is a terrorist state?


I missed seeing your definition there. Can you elucidate it more clearly?


edit on 2012/6/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Regardless of what he truly thinks he is either directly or indirectly part of the group that makes it continue to happen.


Directly. Not indirectly, but directly.

I'm not a "westerner" as you use the term, either. I presume that by "westerner" you mean white Europeans. They came from the "east", as viewed from over here.

I did my time killing folks and blowing stuff up all the same, though. Not once, not EVER did I kill any women or children. Not ONCE did I kill any non-combatant civilians. I have most definitely never killed any of my own women, children or civilians.

You seem to be unaware of what a "terrorist" is, and what it is they kill, although you may have an inkling of the purpose they do it for, if you are truly ever honest with yourself.

Terrorists kill to inspire terror, with the objective of attaining a political goal thereby. To achieve this end, they attack civilians, because it's a lot easier to scare the crap (i.e. "terrorize") a bunch of civilians than it is soldiers. They hope, by scaring the crap out of the civilians by killing enough of them off, that the rest will fall into line and demand the political objectives the terrorists are aiming for.

Guerrillas fighting soldiers are not terrorists.

Irregulars fighting soldiers are not terrorists.

Militia fighting soldiers are not terrorists.

Soldiers fighting soldiers are not terrorists.

________ fighting soldiers are not terrorists.

Terrorists make war on civilians, with INTENT to make war on civilians, in order to get those civilians to sue for the political objectives of the terrorists.

Killing folks like that off? Damn straight I'm part of the group that made that happen, and damned proud of it. You can defend them all you please. We'll just keep pushing them under the dirt until they stop making war on civilians. We don't really care whether you defend them or not. There are people who SERIOUSLY need defending, and it's a real damned shame that in recent times those people have been THEIR responsibility, but it's WE who defend them.

If that make me a "wrongdoer", then I want to be stood right up at the head of the line bound for hell, and I'll stand there proud, because I'd rather roast with the sinners that made it their business to protect the innocent than drink nectar with the saints who were desperately trying to kill off the innocent.

While your over in your corner trying to defend and justify terrorists.



edit on 2012/6/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Glad to see you have a new thread.


Just dropping by to wish all my opponents good luck.

S&F





posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Why? My government does not make a habit of blowing itself up in bazaars full of it's own women and kids.
Your government drops bombs and has been responsible for millions of innocent deaths, it is also pretty horrible to its own people even tho it isn't so obvious about it.


"Condemning" Is not the same thing as jumping through hoops and contortions of twisted logic in a vain attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Twisted logic? Its the same logic the US uses..


Nor do you "condemn the cause". As a matter of fact, you have yet to elucidate a cause for people who blow up their own women, children, and old people. You'll have to first define a cause for such action before you can condemn it.
And you do not condemn your government which is despicable. I have already defined the cause.


I have yet to meet an American who would kill his own civilians because some third party pissed him off.
Humans are all the same, if America was in their position then they would be doing the same things. But there are already plenty of Americans who would, people seem to go on a shooting spree all the time.


I have a Palestinian friend who attempted the same argument. If there is nothing else they are good for, and that is all they can do, then I guess I really DON'T have a problem with those individuals ending themselves in a spectacular fireball. It's a damned shame they feel a need to take their own civilians out at the same time, though.
Before you try and condemn and argument maybe you should properly understand it. Its not all they can do in theory but in reality they are restricted by things outside of their control i.e. the west.


Here's a crazy idea - how about they just stop providing a reason for that government to shoot back?
???? The government was already shooting them ????
Are you ignoring reality on purpose or are you really this stupid?


I missed seeing your definition there. Can you elucidate it more clearly?
Anything you condemn 'terrorists' of the US government is guilty of it 10000x over.


You seem to be unaware of what a "terrorist" is, and what it is they kill, although you may have an inkling of the purpose they do it for, if you are truly ever honest with yourself.
I don't know how you come to the conclusion but I use the dictionary definition which the US fits perfectly.


Terrorists kill to inspire terror, with the objective of attaining a political goal thereby. To achieve this end, they attack civilians, because it's a lot easier to scare the crap (i.e. "terrorize") a bunch of civilians than it is soldiers. They hope, by scaring the crap out of the civilians by killing enough of them off, that the rest will fall into line and demand the political objectives the terrorists are aiming for.
So you admit the US is a terrorist state then?


Killing folks like that off? Damn straight I'm part of the group that made that happen, and damned proud of it.
Except the US was killing them before they started doing that werent they.


You are a pretty pathetic person and I feel bad for you.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Your government drops bombs and has been responsible for millions of innocent deaths, it is also pretty horrible to its own people even tho it isn't so obvious about it.


That's nice. my original statement was "Why? My government does not make a habit of blowing itself up in bazaars full of it's own women and kids." I stand by it, and you have done nothing to refute it here, or indeed even address it. You just ran AROUND it like it wasn't even there.



Twisted logic? Its the same logic the US uses..


Ok. You don't like the US. That's cool. I already figured that out. it didn't straighten YOUR logic out nary a whit when I did, though. So your reasoning here is that if someone else uses faulty logic, you are bound to as well?



And you do not condemn your government which is despicable. I have already defined the cause.


You have nowhere define a cause for terrorists making war on their own people. Nowhere. I invite you to quote it back to me and get egg all over my face if you think you have.



Humans are all the same,


No, they're not, but if you truly think they are, how do you wash all that blood off of YOUR hands?



if America was in their position then they would be doing the same things. But there are already plenty of Americans who would, people seem to go on a shooting spree all the time.


If. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't go along bumping their asses on the ground. If. Now care to present any evidence that if America were "in their position", they would go along killing off their own women, children, and old folks? I've already explained what a terrorist is. it's not my problem if you can't comprehend it, and think sporadic loons are the same as an organized terrorist group.



Before you try and condemn and argument maybe you should properly understand it. Its not all they can do in theory but in reality they are restricted by things outside of their control i.e. the west.


Boo hoo. GI Joe pissed in my wheaties, so all I can do about it is kill my wife instead. Soldiers are too scary for me to handle, so I'll go after my own women and kids instead. Boo hoo. If they can't figure out what direction to point a gun in, then I guess you're right - all they can do is kill off their own. Bummer.




Here's a crazy idea - how about they just stop providing a reason for that government to shoot back?
???? The government was already shooting them ????
Are you ignoring reality on purpose or are you really this stupid?


Neither. You appear to be blissfully unaware of the recent (post WWII) history of conflict in the middle east, and have the gall to tell ME I don't " properly understand the argument"? You've got the nerve to insinuate that I'M "stupid" after making a comment like that?




I missed seeing your definition there. Can you elucidate it more clearly?
Anything you condemn 'terrorists' of the US government is guilty of it 10000x over.


I've already pointed out the error in that reasoning, but I'll give you another chance. Point out something I've accused terrorists of doing that the US government has "done 10000x over". Being able to actually cite the stats to back it up would be a plus. Maybe you could even throw in the definition I requested somewhere? You know, rather than just blowing past it and spewing out a bunch of nonsense in order to try to hide the fact that you did?




You seem to be unaware of what a "terrorist" is, and what it is they kill, although you may have an inkling of the purpose they do it for, if you are truly ever honest with yourself.
I don't know how you come to the conclusion but I use the dictionary definition which the US fits perfectly.


I get my definition from counter-terrorist experience. Several years worth, interspersed with both guerrilla and counter-guerrilla operations. I know the difference and definitions of "soldier", guerrilla", "irregular", and "terrorist", and I know they are not interchangeable. Where did you get yours (which I noticed you failed to cite)? Which dictionary? What IS the definition you are using, anyhow? I gave mine - where is YOURS?

maybe if you did just a little bit of homework to find out what a terrorist IS, rather than just accepting what the government TELLS you one is, you wouldn't make such egregious blunders.

Here I'll give you part of the definition again - a good place to start your education:



Terrorists kill to inspire terror, with the objective of attaining a political goal thereby. To achieve this end, they attack civilians, because it's a lot easier to scare the crap (i.e. "terrorize") a bunch of civilians than it is soldiers. They hope, by scaring the crap out of the civilians by killing enough of them off, that the rest will fall into line and demand the political objectives the terrorists are aiming for.




So you admit the US is a terrorist state then?


Where did I do that? Please be specific in your response, point it out directly. I've not said either yea or nay to that question.





Killing folks like that off? Damn straight I'm part of the group that made that happen, and damned proud of it.
Except the US was killing them before they started doing that werent they.


No. They've been killing off their own for years. You seem to think it's some brand-new invention.



You are a pretty pathetic person and I feel bad for you.


Considering the source of that comment, I'll wear it proudly. It's sort of a shame that you won't put the same effort into educating yourself and defending the victims, but hey, whatever floats your boat. If you want to defend terrorism, more power to you. Expect opposition, though.

Is that YOU al-Amriki?

I seriously don't care if the US and everyone in it were terrorists. That does nothing to address the question you keep skirting around - WHY DO YOU JUSTIFY THEM KILLING THEIR OWN CIVILIANS?



edit on 2012/6/24 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

My government does not make a habit of blowing itself up in bazaars full of it's own women and kids." I stand by it, and you have done nothing to refute it here, or indeed even address it. You just ran AROUND it like it wasn't even there.
So it would be appropriate for them to drop bombs on the market instead of blowing themselves up?

Ok. You don't like the US. That's cool. I already figured that out. it didn't straighten YOUR logic out nary a whit when I did, though. So your reasoning here is that if someone else uses faulty logic, you are bound to as well?
Its not the US I do not like, it is terrorist states. If the US wasn't doing what it was doing I wouldn't have a problem with it. And yes I do not like other terrorists but I find it stupid to complain about them when the west is a much bigger culprit, deal with the other guys after we sort ourselves out.

You have nowhere define a cause for terrorists making war on their own people. Nowhere. I invite you to quote it back to me and get egg all over my face if you think you have.
Yes I have, we spoke exactly about that a few posts ago.


Well if your country had been getting continuously bombed for decades, putting you in constant danger I wouldn't really expect your anger to be directed properly. When people have problems they usually react irrationally, but it is still a result of how they have been treated.






No, they're not, but if you truly think they are, how do you wash all that blood off of YOUR hands?
Your people would act exactly the same in their position, just like any other culture or race.


If. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't go along bumping their asses on the ground. If. Now care to present any evidence that if America were "in their position", they would go along killing off their own women, children, and old folks? I've already explained what a terrorist is. it's not my problem if you can't comprehend it, and think sporadic loons are the same as an organized terrorist group.
Are you using generic responses for everything, the whole 'if' thing doesn't work for what I said. That's another context you are thinking about.

Neither would they, but they don't have a choice. Some good evidence would be the fact that you are already doing it, the only thing that would change is the method from a non-direct to direct method of attack.
I can comprehend what a terrorist is and I have never denied they are terrorists, you are the only one who is incapable of comprehending your own definitions.



Boo hoo. GI Joe pissed in my wheaties, so all I can do about it is kill my wife instead. Soldiers are too scary for me to handle, so I'll go after my own women and kids instead. Boo hoo. If they can't figure out what direction to point a gun in, then I guess you're right - all they can do is kill off their own. Bummer.
You really are pretty ignorant.



Neither. You appear to be blissfully unaware of the recent (post WWII) history of conflict in the middle east, and have the gall to tell ME I don't " properly understand the argument"? You've got the nerve to insinuate that I'M "stupid" after making a comment like that?
You are incapable of having a legitimate opinion because you have proven yourself to be biased and unable to properly evaluate and critically think.



I've already pointed out the error in that reasoning, but I'll give you another chance. Point out something I've accused terrorists of doing that the US government has "done 10000x over". Being able to actually cite the stats to back it up would be a plus. Maybe you could even throw in the definition I requested somewhere? You know, rather than just blowing past it and spewing out a bunch of nonsense in order to try to hide the fact that you did?
There is no error in that reasoning and you know it.
The US has killed millions of innocent people, what more do I need to say?
You know this is true so do not deny it less you ruin your legitimacy entirely.
You are the only one spewing nonsense.
In fact your spew is so nonsensical even you find it impossible to comprehend because you ignore the fact your government fits your definition perfectly.



I get my definition from counter-terrorist experience. Where did you get yours (which I noticed you failed to cite)? Which dictionary? What IS the definition you are using, anyhow? I gave mine - where is YOURS?

Counter terrorist experience has nothing to do with the definition of a word.
Go to any dictionary and the US fits the definition.


rather than just accepting what the government TELLS you one is
Is that a joke?



Where did I do that?
Because you cited a definition that described the US.



I can only hope you get a dose of reality.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


It is FAR from stupid to complain about terrorism! Terrorism is morally wrong, it is evil, it is against all that is Holy... no matter who is doing it. And I will complain before God and man until everyone decides that the end does NOT now nor ever will justify the means.

The means is what makes one better than another. And to stoop to the level of evil is evil...period. Anyone who would commit acts of terrorism is just that, evil personified.

Anyone who does not understand that, is on the side of evil.
edit on 24-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
So it would be appropriate for them to drop bombs on the market instead of blowing themselves up?


Of course not, nor have they. I realize I don't get out much, but here in central NC, there have been NO instances of the government either blowing themselves up OR dropping bombs from aloft on their own civilians. Until you can cite specific examples in an ongoing pattern of such abuse, I'm afraid your argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The only example I can think of is Waco. that was long ago, and a single example does not a pattern make.



Its not the US I do not like, it is terrorist states. If the US wasn't doing what it was doing I wouldn't have a problem with it. And yes I do not like other terrorists but I find it stupid to complain about them when the west is a much bigger culprit, deal with the other guys after we sort ourselves out.


Still not going to bother yourself to find out what "terrorist" means, I see. Until you do, your argument has no merit, because it has no basis in reality. If you want to intelligently discuss it, educate yourself and come on back.

If you "don't like other terrorists", why are you reaching in an attempt to find excuses for them?



You have nowhere define a cause for terrorists making war on their own people. Nowhere. I invite you to quote it back to me and get egg all over my face if you think you have.

Yes I have, we spoke exactly about that a few posts ago.


Sure we did.
Still waiting on a link to it or the requested quote... and I bet I'll wait forever, because it just isn't there. You seem to be confusing "cause" for your "excuses" you are dreaming up to try to excuse the inexcusable.



Your people would act exactly the same in their position, just like any other culture or race


That's your fantasy, not mine. I have to deal with the reality of what IS, and there is no indication that "my people" would do the same. they never have, so why would they start now?




If. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't go along bumping their asses on the ground. If. Now care to present any evidence that if America were "in their position", they would go along killing off their own women, children, and old folks? I've already explained what a terrorist is. it's not my problem if you can't comprehend it, and think sporadic loons are the same as an organized terrorist group.

Are you using generic responses for everything, the whole 'if' thing doesn't work for what I said. That's another context you are thinking about.


Well, let's just go back and see what you said:



if America was in their position then they would be doing the same things. But there are already plenty of Americans who would, people seem to go on a shooting spree all the time.


Yeah, I think the whole "if" response is a rational response to a stated "if".



Neither would they, but they don't have a choice. Some good evidence would be the fact that you are already doing it, the only thing that would change is the method from a non-direct to direct method of attack.


Intelligent people always have a choice, if they have the means. If they have the means to attack their own people, they have the means to attack their enemy. So it is, in fact, a choice they make when attacking as to WHO to attack.

No, I'm not "already doing it". I've never attacked my own people in preference over an enemy, nor have I ever blown up my own people in order to get them to come around to my way of thinking.

You see, there are two separate issues under discussion here: 1) What is a "terrorist", and 2) What justifies attacking your own people, terrorist or not. It's not my fault that many terrorists combine the two. They are STILL separate issues, One is not a requirement of the other.



I can comprehend what a terrorist is and I have never denied they are terrorists, you are the only one who is incapable of comprehending your own definitions.


Perhaps you can comprehend what your government tells you is a "terrorist", but that appears not to jive with the real definitions in the real world, which I have given you and you have ignored twice now, in preference to your apparently made up definition. I say "apparently made up", because you have so far proven incapable of defining what you think it is, so we can't be sure whether you made it up on the fly, or just took your government's word for it.




Boo hoo. GI Joe pissed in my wheaties, so all I can do about it is kill my wife instead. Soldiers are too scary for me to handle, so I'll go after my own women and kids instead. Boo hoo. If they can't figure out what direction to point a gun in, then I guess you're right - all they can do is kill off their own. Bummer.
You really are pretty ignorant.


Maybe so, but I'M not the one saying that people "have no choice" NOT to kill of their own, when clearly they DO. If I'm "ignorant", what does that say about someone who makes such a foolish argument that even ignorant little me can take down and take apart?



You are incapable of having a legitimate opinion because you have proven yourself to be biased and unable to properly evaluate and critically think.


Guilty as charged on the count of bias. I'm biased in favor of the innocent and unprotected, and get really out of sorts when someone tries to justify just killing them off for no good reason. Your comment has no merit. It's a response to your allegation that I "don't properly understand the argument". You've done nothing there to "educate" me. Before you can claim I'm "unable to critically think", you must at least provide something for me to critically think ABOUT.



There is no error in that reasoning and you know it.


If there's no error, how is it I pointed the error out so easily? You simply ignoring it like an ostrich with his head in the sand does not make it not so.



The US has killed millions of innocent people, what more do I need to say?
You know this is true so do not deny it less you ruin your legitimacy entirely.
You are the only one spewing nonsense.
In fact your spew is so nonsensical even you find it impossible to comprehend because you ignore the fact your government fits your definition perfectly.


I'll wait right here for you to get the stats on that and break them down for me to show where these "millions of US-killed innocents" are, and then I'll show you AGAIN how it doesn't apply - assuming you still cannot find a connection to make it applicable. You have yet to demonstrate how you believe the US government fits the definition. I happen to believe there is a good chance they do, but you have miserably failed to support your contention that they do.

Simply killing doesn't fit the parameters of the definition, and as a matter of fact, killing isn't a required element of it at all.



Counter terrorist experience has nothing to do with the definition of a word.


It has everything to do with the definition. You have to define what it is your fighting against before you can effectively hope to fight it. Anything else is just slapping in the dark. Perhaps you think counter-terrorists are just born whole and full grown. They aren't. They have to be trained, and part of that training is formal definition of what it is they are fighting. I gave you the formal definition of "terrorism", to which all you could reply was a vague "not according to the dictionary", with not even a citation of what it IS your dictionary says.



Go to any dictionary and the US fits the definition.


Yeah, like that. see? You did it AGAIN. Bring meat to the table. Show me your definition, and HOW the US fits it.




rather than just accepting what the government TELLS you one is
Is that a joke?


Nope. it's dead serious until you can show otherwise.




Where did I do that?
Because you cited a definition that described the US.


that's something you'll have to prove rather than just claim. it ought to be easy - just take the definition and show how it applies to the US. I'll wait right here for that.





I can only hope you get a dose of reality.


I've seen enough reality that if you had seen the half it it, it would choke you to death on your own tears.



edit on 2012/6/25 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


It is FAR from stupid to complain about terrorism! Terrorism is morally wrong, it is evil, it is against all that is Holy... no matter who is doing it. And I will complain before God and man until everyone decides that the end does NOT now nor ever will justify the means.

The means is what makes one better than another. And to stoop to the level of evil is evil...period. Anyone who would commit acts of terrorism is just that, evil personified.

Anyone who does not understand that, is on the side of evil.
edit on 24-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)
Whats stupid is to complain about one example of terrorism and then ignore/deny another example of terrorism.
In fact it is quite obvious that he cares not 'what' someone does i.e. the terrorism, but 'who' does it. Which when you think about it proves that this person lacks empathy and is not speaking out because of the victims but to better his political ideologies. Sounds a lot like a terrorist.
Stop defending his ignorant terrorist ass.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I don't need to show any more then this to prove the US is a terrorist state.


ter·ror·ism    [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

If you deny it you should stop lying to yourself and others.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
Whats stupid is to complain about one example of terrorism and then ignore/deny another example of terrorism.
In fact it is quite obvious that he cares not 'what' someone does i.e. the terrorism, but 'who' does it. Which when you think about it proves that this person lacks empathy and is not speaking out because of the victims but to better his political ideologies. Sounds a lot like a terrorist.
Stop defending his ignorant terrorist ass.


I appreciate your effort to put words in my mouth and do my thinking for me, but I can do that for myself, thanks.

You're right - I lack "empathy" - for anyone. it's a fools game that skew your views. Once you "empathize", you are no longer being objective.

What ARE my political ideologies, by the way? How do they apply to this topic? Your answer to that ought to be interesting.

My "ignorant terrorist ass" is going to run rings around you, because you are sorely lacking in objectivity. Must be that misplaced "empathy" thing you've got going on - you know, empathizing with terrorists and all.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition
I don't need to show any more then this to prove the US is a terrorist state.


ter·ror·ism    [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

If you deny it you should stop lying to yourself and others.


OK! Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not sure where you got the definition, but no matter, we can work with that.

It's a pretty generalized definition, but I don't suppose dictionaries have the room to go into any great detail. By the definition above, ANY conflict can be defined as "terrorism". is that your stance, then?

Conflict = terrorism?

WWII was terrorism on both sides? ALL conflict is terrorism? it's OK if you think that, but be man enough to come right out and say so if you do.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by HumanCondition
 


It is FAR from stupid to complain about terrorism! Terrorism is morally wrong, it is evil, it is against all that is Holy... no matter who is doing it. And I will complain before God and man until everyone decides that the end does NOT now nor ever will justify the means.

The means is what makes one better than another. And to stoop to the level of evil is evil...period. Anyone who would commit acts of terrorism is just that, evil personified.

Anyone who does not understand that, is on the side of evil.
edit on 24-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)
Whats stupid is to complain about one example of terrorism and then ignore/deny another example of terrorism.
In fact it is quite obvious that he cares not 'what' someone does i.e. the terrorism, but 'who' does it. Which when you think about it proves that this person lacks empathy and is not speaking out because of the victims but to better his political ideologies. Sounds a lot like a terrorist.
Stop defending his ignorant terrorist ass.


I am not defending him... I am speaking the truth... both you and he are doing the exact same thing in this thread... trying to convince the other only one party is wrong... this is what happens when ego gets in the way of truth...

and I repeat... quit defending your brothers for committing acts of terrorism while at the same time condemning the US for the exact same thing!



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB

I am not defending him... I am speaking the truth... both you and he are doing the exact same thing in this thread... trying to convince the other only one party is wrong... this is what happens when ego gets in the way of truth...

and I repeat... quit defending your brothers for committing acts of terrorism while at the same time condemning the US for the exact same thing!


Whoa there! Just because I think terrorism against civilians is wrong doesn't mean I think the government is RIGHT!

I've been pretty consistent in my stance on the Iraq war in my time at ATS, and it was a stupid thing to do and poorly done at that. The whole war and the contrived premise for it was wrong - but that in NO WAY excuses terrorists for attacking their own people instead of their enemies!

HumanCondition seems to think that it somehow makes the terrorism against their own "ok", that it somehow excuses it, and I don't believe that to be the case.

A warrior does NOT make war on women and children, and I don't care what other tags anyone wants to put on him, whether "terrorist", "freedom fighter" or "soldier". Once he starts making war on women and children intentionally, he loses all right to the title of "warrior".



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


thank you for the clarification, as you appeared to be a bit too supportive of US action. That said, can you name specific incidences of Brotherhood (or AQ) action against their own people.

Also, the Iraq war killed over 1 million Iraqis (just in this go around) and US did not apparently care who they killed, as most incidences of deaths were not soldiers but civilians. In the first gulf war how many promises did the US make to the Shi'a and then sit back and allowed those who helped the US to be slaughtered... just sat and watched after promising safety!

AQ and Brotherhood has a history (albeit not recent for the brotherhood) of killing non arabs in acts of terrorism.

I agree that US is not in the habit of killing their own people, however, this does not make it right to kill civilians on foreign soil using lies and deception as reasoning.

Both are equally wrong, it has been a game of tit for tat between the extremist groups and US government for about 60 years now continually. It is time for both to stop. period. Both are wrong, both are following an evil.
edit on 25-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


thank you for the clarification, as you appeared to be a bit too supportive of US action. That said, can you name specific incidences of Brotherhood (or AQ) action against their own people.


Not the Muslim Brotherhood. I can name actions against their own, but not terroristic actions against their own. as I recall, they were involved in the assassination of Sadat, too. Zawahiri was Muslim brotherhood before he went with their AQ offshoot.

AQ is more of an "umbrella organization" or more like a "disorganization" It's one heading with a gozillion little tentacles with other names. As applied to Iraq specifically, "Al-Qaida in Iraq" is a Sunni organization, and took time off from their fight against their enemy to kill off old people, women and children as long as they were Shi'a or Christian. It got to the point where they were more interested in killing their own than they were their enemies, which is when we started hearing the sanitized phrase "sectarian violence". that "sectarian violence" was in reality terrorists making war on their own civilians.



Also, the Iraq war killed over 1 million Iraqis (just in this go around) and US did not apparently care who they killed, as most incidences of deaths were not soldiers but civilians. In the first gulf war how many promises did the US make to the Shi'a and then sit back and allowed those who helped the US to be slaughtered... just sat and watched after promising safety!


I've seen some interesting breakdowns on those death figures, but never any confirmation of the "over 1 million" claim. The highest toll I've seen confirmed was around 653,000, which is plenty horrendous enough. When you get into the breakdown, however, it's including figures from the "sectarian violence" and even mundane things like car accidents. In effect, a lot of those deaths being blamed on indiscriminate bombing are actually the results of the "sectarian violence".

With that said, however, even ONE is one too many, whichever side does it. The main difference is that terrorists intentionally target civilians, and the US intentionally avoids them, even though some get caught in the fire anyhow. That doesn't make it ok to kill civilians when it happens, but it makes it "not terrorism". It's still not right. The main difference in a "terrorist" and a "guerrilla" is in who he intentionally targets. Guerrillas target military targets, and terrorists target civilians. the methods they use, whether bomb, rifle, or whatever, are irrelevant. The target is what's relevant in differentiating the two.

No Shi'a anywhere should trust the US, because it looks to me like for some unfathomable reason the US is backing some of the Sunni factions, including some of their extremists. it's been that way since at least the late 70's/early 80's, and probably before that. The only time I ever known them to even "sort of" get along was during the Russian Afghan War, when the Iranians were in the north-west backing Shi'as, and the US was in the south backing Sunnis, both being backed against the common enemy - the Russians.



AQ and Brotherhood has a history (albeit not recent for the brotherhood) of killing non arabs in acts of terrorism.


AQ has a history of killing anyone who gets in their way, Arab or not. What makes them terrorists is that they predominantly target civilians.



I agree that US is not in the habit of killing their own people, however, this does not make it right to kill civilians on foreign soil using lies and deception as reasoning.


Nothing makes killing civilians right, for either side, whether foreign civilians or locals. What HumanCondition is saying is that it IS ok to kill civilians, because a foreign military invades you. I'm just not down with that. It's counterproductive.



Both are equally wrong, it has been a game of tit for tat between the extremist groups and US government for about 60 years now continually. It is time for both to stop. period. Both are wrong, both are following an evil.


60 years is about right, and since you know that, I'm pretty sure you know what jumped it off, although most likely from a different perspective than me. I agree that it needs to stop, but it needs to stop DECISIVELY - or else it will just start up again in a few years when they get their numbers pumped back up again.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join