ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,707
- 245
People are being killed all around us and liberals stand there and want a definition
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.
MrMarbles said:So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.
MrMarbles said:So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not
or carpet bombing cities?
And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.
8236 said:Would the definition apply to the Contras, the Bay of Pigs invaders, the Mujahedeen and the IRA, the ANC, the maquis, the chechens, the russians in chechenia, the serb paramilitaries, blablabla?
Who is a terrorist? Who is a freedom fighter? I honestly don't know. I think all of them must be both.
rtwngAvngr said:The world is a battleground between competing visions of how the world should be. Some of the visions are mutually exclusive, hence why we can't just "all get along". You focus on the violence without thinking about which vision you support. Actually you know which vision you support, global socialism. This is equal to global tyranny and those of us who disagree with it will fight to the death to stop you and your ilk from instituting it. Your intellectually dishonest defenses of your totalitarian worldview and ignorance of the unintended(?) consequences of socialism are not convincing. Go ahead, side with the terrorists if you hate America that much. But you will ultimately fail, because the truth will out and good always wins.
MrMarbles said:If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!
You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.
MrMarbles said:When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.
losing some buildings
MrMarbles said:So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.
HGROKIT said:I think 8236 and Psychoblues are one in the same.
]Kathianne said:They are not.
:HGROKIT said:]
WOW! Scary to think there are TWO such as those around.
MrMarbles said:So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.
8236 said:Sorry, you try your link yourself.
freeandfun1 said:See, you miss the point. When a group attacks a MILITARY target, I could consider that a valid target. During WWII, we were not bombing those cities to "terrorize" we were bombing them because they were the centers of industry that were manufacturing the weapons of war. The factory workers, etc. then become "targets". Furthermore, war has "progressed" (damn, even I hate saying that) so indiscriminate bombing is not needed any longer. In WWII we would have to drop 1,000's of bombs just to hit one target.
Anyway, in Iraq, the problem is that MOST of the "insurgents" are not Iraqis. They are outsiders trying to ferment a revolution that the MAJORITY of Iraqis do not want. Therefore, you cannot call them ANYTHING but terrorists. They are trying to use TERROR as a weapon to convince the Iraqis to turn against us. They cannot win on turn them on THEIR merits, so they try to terrorize them into turning to THEIR ways.
In Israel, attacking a bus station or eatery is nothing but TERRORISM. When they kill Israeli soldiers then I say, "ok, that is a legitimate target". I sometimes even say that when settlers of the disputed lands are attacked. However, when the Islamic chicken-shits attack civilians sitting in an eatery, then I say "BULLSHIT that is nothing more than TERRORISM."
MrMarbles said:So out of the 80,000 - 100,000 that died outright, how many would have been at an eatery, or going for a stroll in the park, or kids attending school? People who opposed the war? Japan compitulated under the threat or 'terror' of all their cities being hit by this weapon. Japan was containd and could not put up an aggressive campaign, she was beat.
I don't support violence, and war is wrong, it can be needed sometimes, but then it is still wrong. The problem is you need to know that when fighting an enemy, you are not just a different version of the same animal.
For Iraq, right or wrong, there are way to many questions on conduct and motives to allow going to war, the UN saw this, and so does a lot of the world.
For Israel, it is a state born out of terrorism. Both sides are wrong. The recent bombings of buses are wrong, but in the last 5 months of what was considered a 'quiet time' 300 palestinians have died at the hands of Israel. Hows right?
rtwngAvngr said:Your moral relativism will be the death of civilization. Yes. Yours personally. You're that important!
MrMarbles said:If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!
You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.
How about some source for your numbers? From all we can tell, there have been few outside of Falluja hit with missiles since the war began its holding pattern.Mr. Marbles said:So out of the 80,000 - 100,000 that died outright, how many would have been at an eatery, or going for a stroll in the park, or kids attending school?
Japan had NOT been contained. Even after the war there were elements of the army that continued to fight. After Hiroshima, the Japanese refused to capitulate, which is why there was a Nagasaki.Mr. Marbles said:People who opposed the war? Japan compitulated under the threat or 'terror' of all their cities being hit by this weapon. Japan was containd and could not put up an aggressive campaign, she was beat.
Mr. Marbles said:I don't support violence, and war is wrong, it can be needed sometimes, but then it is still wrong. The problem is you need to know that when fighting an enemy, you are not just a different version of the same animal.
Mr. Marbles said:For Iraq, right or wrong, there are way to many questions on conduct and motives to allow going to war, the UN saw this, and so does a lot of the world.
Mr. Marbles said:For Israel, it is a state born out of terrorism.
Mr. Marbles said:Both sides are wrong. The recent bombings of buses are wrong, but in the last 5 months of what was considered a 'quiet time' 300 palestinians have died at the hands of Israel. Hows right?
MrMarbles said:If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!
You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.