California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,058
- 0
- Banned
- #21
Revenge would be taking out Mecca - during Ramadan.
no that would have just been stupid
Did you duck?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Revenge would be taking out Mecca - during Ramadan.
no that would have just been stupid
Revenge would be taking out Mecca - during Ramadan.
no that would have just been stupid
Revenge would be taking out Mecca - during Ramadan.
Revenge would be taking out Mecca - during Ramadan.
no that would have just been stupid
No, that would be revenge. Of which we have not done.
"We created the obscene definition of "collateral damage", for if "collateral" means that these victims are innocent, then "collateral" also means that we are innocent of killing them. It was not our wish to kill them -- even if we knew it was inevitable that we would. "Collateral" is our exoneration. This one word is the difference between "them" and "us", between our God-given right to kill and Bin Laden's God-given right to murder.
That's why we know how many died on 9/11 -- 2,966, although the figure may be higher -- and why we don't "do body counts" on those whom we kill. Because they -- "our" victims -- must have no identities, no innocence, no personality, no cause or belief or feelings; and because we have killed far, far more human beings than Bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. " - Robert Fisk
Is this your attempt at chicken shit?
"We created the obscene definition of "collateral damage", for if "collateral" means that these victims are innocent, then "collateral" also means that we are innocent of killing them. It was not our wish to kill them -- even if we knew it was inevitable that we would. "Collateral" is our exoneration. This one word is the difference between "them" and "us", between our God-given right to kill and Bin Laden's God-given right to murder.
That's why we know how many died on 9/11 -- 2,966, although the figure may be higher -- and why we don't "do body counts" on those whom we kill. Because they -- "our" victims -- must have no identities, no innocence, no personality, no cause or belief or feelings; and because we have killed far, far more human beings than Bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. " - Robert Fisk
Yes we should declare victory and leave.No nation building in corrupt muslim lands.
Let the islamic barbarians rot in their own stench!
"We created the obscene definition of "collateral damage", for if "collateral" means that these victims are innocent, then "collateral" also means that we are innocent of killing them. It was not our wish to kill them -- even if we knew it was inevitable that we would. "Collateral" is our exoneration. This one word is the difference between "them" and "us", between our God-given right to kill and Bin Laden's God-given right to murder.
That's why we know how many died on 9/11 -- 2,966, although the figure may be higher -- and why we don't "do body counts" on those whom we kill. Because they -- "our" victims -- must have no identities, no innocence, no personality, no cause or belief or feelings; and because we have killed far, far more human beings than Bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. " - Robert Fisk
Is this your attempt at chicken shit?
Attempt? I think he more than make his point. When they do it, they are called "terrorist" and when we do it we are called "heroes" and their innocent is "collateral"
"We created the obscene definition of "collateral damage", for if "collateral" means that these victims are innocent, then "collateral" also means that we are innocent of killing them. It was not our wish to kill them -- even if we knew it was inevitable that we would. "Collateral" is our exoneration. This one word is the difference between "them" and "us", between our God-given right to kill and Bin Laden's God-given right to murder.
That's why we know how many died on 9/11 -- 2,966, although the figure may be higher -- and why we don't "do body counts" on those whom we kill. Because they -- "our" victims -- must have no identities, no innocence, no personality, no cause or belief or feelings; and because we have killed far, far more human beings than Bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. " - Robert Fisk
I don't think you understand the concept of revenge. Revenge would be changing the skyline of daubi or riyadh.
How would that equal justice for 9/11???
Bin Laden did not think we would respond, he said himself he thought we were nothing but a paper tigerI don't think you understand the concept of revenge. Revenge would be changing the skyline of daubi or riyadh.
How would that equal justice for 9/11???
You just proved you do not understand the concept of revenge, I have my doubts you understand the concept of justice either.
Just as a hypothetical.
Do you think Afghanistan and the Taliban would have been so complacent about bin Laden's plans to attack the WTC if we had nuked Iran after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?
Bin Laden did not think we would respond, he said himself he thought we were nothing but a paper tigerHow would that equal justice for 9/11???
You just proved you do not understand the concept of revenge, I have my doubts you understand the concept of justice either.
Just as a hypothetical.
Do you think Afghanistan and the Taliban would have been so complacent about bin Laden's plans to attack the WTC if we had nuked Iran after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?
exactlyBin Laden did not think we would respond, he said himself he thought we were nothing but a paper tigerYou just proved you do not understand the concept of revenge, I have my doubts you understand the concept of justice either.
Just as a hypothetical.
Do you think Afghanistan and the Taliban would have been so complacent about bin Laden's plans to attack the WTC if we had nuked Iran after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?
Even if he tried to convince others of that, they wouldn't believe him if we had a history of responding aggressively.
Bin Laden did not think we would respond, he said himself he thought we were nothing but a paper tigerYou just proved you do not understand the concept of revenge, I have my doubts you understand the concept of justice either.
Just as a hypothetical.
Do you think Afghanistan and the Taliban would have been so complacent about bin Laden's plans to attack the WTC if we had nuked Iran after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?
Even if he tried to convince others of that, they wouldn't believe him if we had a history of responding aggressively.
showing once again, you dont know what the fuck you are talking aboutBin Laden did not think we would respond, he said himself he thought we were nothing but a paper tiger
Even if he tried to convince others of that, they wouldn't believe him if we had a history of responding aggressively.
Hmm, no one more blood thirsty than Americans, so why would you think we lack a history of agressiveness? Bib Laden's complaint was American agression in the world.
"We created the obscene definition of "collateral damage", for if "collateral" means that these victims are innocent, then "collateral" also means that we are innocent of killing them. It was not our wish to kill them -- even if we knew it was inevitable that we would. "Collateral" is our exoneration. This one word is the difference between "them" and "us", between our God-given right to kill and Bin Laden's God-given right to murder.
That's why we know how many died on 9/11 -- 2,966, although the figure may be higher -- and why we don't "do body counts" on those whom we kill. Because they -- "our" victims -- must have no identities, no innocence, no personality, no cause or belief or feelings; and because we have killed far, far more human beings than Bin Laden and the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. " - Robert Fisk
showing once again, you dont know what the fuck you are talking aboutEven if he tried to convince others of that, they wouldn't believe him if we had a history of responding aggressively.
Hmm, no one more blood thirsty than Americans, so why would you think we lack a history of agressiveness? Bib Laden's complaint was American agression in the world.
showing once again, you dont know what the fuck you are talking aboutHmm, no one more blood thirsty than Americans, so why would you think we lack a history of agressiveness? Bib Laden's complaint was American agression in the world.
Tell me village idiot, don't you get tired of me making you look like a fool? Surely, one would think by now, after countless times of me making you look stupid, you might bite off your hand that types nonsense. Now here you go sweet cheeks, and sin no more.
"An examination of bin Laden's speeches over the years shows that the underlying message has remained consistent: Americans have repeatedly humiliated Muslims with a foreign policy that has propped up corrupt governments in the Middle East and perpetuated conflict in the region. Until you prevail on your government to stop, we will strike back. "
"He did not quote the Koran during his latest, 13-minute speech, and he also avoided the obscure historical references that peppered his previous statements. Instead, he justified his embrace of terrorism in layman's language, explaining his tactics as a logical response to what he depicted as U.S. aggression. "
"Should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?" he said, speaking in a composed manner and using formal Arabic. "Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us."
From Bin Laden, Different Style, Same Message (washingtonpost.com)
Now that we know you do not know fuck, crawl under a rock and lick your lack of credibility...........![]()
ROFLMAOshowing once again, you dont know what the fuck you are talking aboutHmm, no one more blood thirsty than Americans, so why would you think we lack a history of agressiveness? Bib Laden's complaint was American agression in the world.
Tell me village idiot, don't you get tired of me making you look like a fool? Surely, one would think by now, after countless times of me making you look stupid, you might bite off your hand that types nonsense. Now here you go sweet cheeks, and sin no more.
"An examination of bin Laden's speeches over the years shows that the underlying message has remained consistent: Americans have repeatedly humiliated Muslims with a foreign policy that has propped up corrupt governments in the Middle East and perpetuated conflict in the region. Until you prevail on your government to stop, we will strike back. "
"He did not quote the Koran during his latest, 13-minute speech, and he also avoided the obscure historical references that peppered his previous statements. Instead, he justified his embrace of terrorism in layman's language, explaining his tactics as a logical response to what he depicted as U.S. aggression. "
"Should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?" he said, speaking in a composed manner and using formal Arabic. "Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us."
From Bin Laden, Different Style, Same Message (washingtonpost.com)
Now that we know you do not know fuck, crawl under a rock and lick your lack of credibility...........Try decompression again..........
ROFLMAOshowing once again, you dont know what the fuck you are talking about
Tell me village idiot, don't you get tired of me making you look like a fool? Surely, one would think by now, after countless times of me making you look stupid, you might bite off your hand that types nonsense. Now here you go sweet cheeks, and sin no more.
"An examination of bin Laden's speeches over the years shows that the underlying message has remained consistent: Americans have repeatedly humiliated Muslims with a foreign policy that has propped up corrupt governments in the Middle East and perpetuated conflict in the region. Until you prevail on your government to stop, we will strike back. "
"He did not quote the Koran during his latest, 13-minute speech, and he also avoided the obscure historical references that peppered his previous statements. Instead, he justified his embrace of terrorism in layman's language, explaining his tactics as a logical response to what he depicted as U.S. aggression. "
"Should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?" he said, speaking in a composed manner and using formal Arabic. "Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us."
From Bin Laden, Different Style, Same Message (washingtonpost.com)
Now that we know you do not know fuck, crawl under a rock and lick your lack of credibility...........Try decompression again..........
a fucking EDITORIAL
LOL
you are a fucking moron and you have the audacity to call ME an idiot?