ISIS Beheads Another Brit

[frigidweirdo]

AS has already been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES. A terrorist targets INNOCENT civilians. THAT is not a freedom fighter. Get it yet?

So you're working on the theory that if you say something enough times it becomes true.

God, this is ridiculous. You just say "it's been pointed out to you" while ignoring dictionary definitions.

You won't listen, don't want to listen, what's the point of you being on here if you're just going to parrot the US govt bull?

Inside Terrorism

"What is terrorism? Few words have so insidiously worked their way into our everyday vocabulary. Like `Internet' -- another grossly over-used term that has similarly become an indispensable part of the argot of the late twentieth century -- most people have a vague idea or impression of what terrorism is, but lack a more precise, concrete and truly explanatory definition of the word. This imprecision has been abetted partly by the modern media, whose efforts to communicate an often complex and convoluted message in the briefest amount of airtime or print space possible have led to the promiscuous labelling of a range of violent acts as `terrorism'. Pick up a newspaper or turn on the television and -- even within the same broadcast or on the same page -- one can find such disparate acts as the bombing of a building, the assassination of a head of state, the massacre of civilians by a military unit, the poisoning of produce on supermarket shelves or the deliberate contamination of over-the-counter medication in a chemist's shop all described as incidents of terrorism. Indeed, virtually any especially abhorrent act of violence that is perceived as directed against society -- whether it involves the activities of anti-government dissidents or governments themselves, organized crime syndicates or common criminals, rioting mobs or persons engaged in militant protest, individual psychotics or lone extortionists -- is often labelled `terrorism'."

The rest you can choose to read, or not!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. That is all that needs to be said on that matter. The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.

Hence the reason why I said "would have been", it's grammar, it's not difficult, yet people who don't seem to understand the difference between verb tenses will hammer me for it anyway.

I didn't say the foundering fathers WERE, I said "would have been", ie, if they were in the modern era they WOULD HAVE BEEN considered terrorists.

Jeez, it's impossible on a board where people can't even do ENGLISH.

No, you screwed up your grammar. That is not anyone's problem except for your own. OWN your own mistakes and don't try to blame others.

I said "would have been" and this gets interpreted to "was" and it's my fault? Uh hu!

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.

A) I didn't write this to change the past. However you can LEARN from the past.
B) I said this to show what it means to people to be a terrorist. It's the same as being a freedom fighter, only, it's the negative word for it, for the perspective of those who don't support them.

The British though the founding fathers wrong. Hence, why they WOULD HAVE BEEN (If you don't know the grammar it isn't MY fault) considered terrorists by the British at least, and probably the Russians and anyone who wasn't the French.

Apparently you do not know what a terrorist is at all. Pathetic. A terrorist deliberately targets innocent people, even their OWN people.

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist What is the Difference Beyond the Cusp

Now comes the most crucial determination, what are the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters. If they both have similar methods and goals, how do we discern one from the other? The most glaring difference is that of target selection. Where both will target the occupation forces, freedom fighters attempt to avoid collateral deaths among the people they purport to be helping while the terrorists often target those they are supposedly assisting. Freedom fighters will often own up and apologize when their actions go awry and the indigenous population suffers from their actions while terrorists blame the occupation forces for forcing them to attack and kill the indigenous population. Basically this is the major and defining difference but it is a most serious and easily observable difference. The next time somebody argues that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters whose motives we happen to disagree upon, just tell them that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is denoted by their targeting strategy. If they have a narrow scope aimed at inflicting damage solely on the occupation forces, then they are freedom fighters, but if they target indiscriminately or intentionally target the indigenous peoples, then they are terrorists. It is that simple.

So apparently quoting one person, who is annonymous, on the internet and really not able to reply back, is your evidence? that's it? No dictionary definitions, nothing else? I'm guessing this is a govt hack who wants you to believe..........

 

[Hossfly]

You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.

Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse?

How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?

Only the ones that were trying to kill them.

And why were they trying to kill invaders in their country I wonder?

What would you do if Muslims turned up armed to the teeth in the US, putting in place a puppet govt and making sure your resources were being sold abroad for a low enough price?

Is that what you would like to see, Abdul?

 

[Hossfly]

Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....

Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.

You could always enlist and volunteer for combat duty in the ME.

 

[Hossfly]

I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.

And who's problem will this be, if and when it happens, as threatened.


The militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) released a video purportedly showing the execution of British hostage Alan Henning, which closes with a threat against Peter Edward Kassig, an American citizen who served with the US Army Rangers. [ Peter Kassig, converted to Islam and has gone by the name Abdul-Rahman since 2013]


Read more: ISIS Threatens Peter Kassig - Business Insider

AquaAthena here's another article about beheading. This heinous act is getting to be very political with the Muslim terrorists.

The British Islamist imam Anjem Choudary has been released from police custody after he was arrested for allegedly being a member of a banned terrorist group.

Choudary and nine other radical Muslims were detained during dawn raids in London on September 25 as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism.

Choudary—one of the most high-profile jihadists in the United Kingdom, and well known for his relentless resolve to implement Islamic Sharia law there—is a former spokesman of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: The Emigrants).

Anjem Choudary I Don t Feel Sorry for Those Beheaded Clarion Project

 

[Hossfly]

You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...

Talk about being bombed into the Stone Age!!!

 

[irosie91]

You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...

Talk about being bombed into the Stone Age!!!

I see no reason to bomb ISIS---in response to its "beheading" policies-----I prefer to
respond "in kind"------grab a few muslims and--------return the compliment----a kind of random thing-----here and there.

 

[Rotagilla]

You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...

Talk about being bombed into the Stone Age!!!

I see no reason to bomb ISIS---in response to its "beheading" policies-----I prefer to
respond "in kind"------grab a few muslims and--------return the compliment----a kind of random thing-----here and there.

We aren't talking about what the tribe would do piecemeal.

We're talking about possible reasons isis isn't beheading russians or chinese citizens.
Assured massively disproportionate retaliation is our conclusion.

 

[Antares]

Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....

Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.

You could always enlist and volunteer for combat duty in the ME.

Poor you.

I'm too old.
I've already served so my world isn't hypothetical like yours and the Fridge.

In other words it's easy for you to encourage others to go fight and die for no good reason.

In other words I've served and neither you or the Fridge ever has.

Fairly simple kid.

 

[Antares]

Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....

Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.

Ah, the old black and white and nothing in between sort of argument.

Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old. I don't like Islam, however I believe that people should have religious freedom, I understand this concept is a little alien to a lot of Americans, however if you look hard enough in the constitution you may just be able to find it.
Another concept is that just because some people do something bad, doesn't mean all of them do.

The funny thing is that a lot of people saw what Bush was trying to do. Make a common enemy so that the people of the US and other western countries would become docile, they'd act how they're supposed to act allowing the big players behind the scenes to get what they want, usually cheaper oil and other minerals, allowing them to bomb other countries more easily.

It's worked a charm.

"Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old"

You are the only one here that thinks that son.

Now, this isn't about Bush and like it or not Radical Islam IS a common enemy.

 

[Antares]

Everyone knows what the answer to ISIS is an all out military assault using both air power and ground troops the only question left is does the world have the courage to do it.

Everyone SHOULD know that ISIS are hoping, praying, that the US sends in ground troops.

The reason Afghanistan and Iraq have been failures is because there were ground troops. Why go to all the trouble to go to the US to attack Americans when they come to you?

This is the reason by Bush senior did not go into Iraq.
But then Dubya just didn't have the brains, and those who did have the brains didn't give a damn about the lives that would lost, they saw PROFIT.......

Who would go and die just so ISIS has an easy target? I'm sure there are enough people who would, and then you'd have lots of single parent families, which apparently aren't great for bringing up kids. But what's more important here? Oil and death or living life and bringing up your kids?

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

 

[Hossfly]

Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....

Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.

Ah, the old black and white and nothing in between sort of argument.

Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old. I don't like Islam, however I believe that people should have religious freedom, I understand this concept is a little alien to a lot of Americans, however if you look hard enough in the constitution you may just be able to find it.
Another concept is that just because some people do something bad, doesn't mean all of them do.

The funny thing is that a lot of people saw what Bush was trying to do. Make a common enemy so that the people of the US and other western countries would become docile, they'd act how they're supposed to act allowing the big players behind the scenes to get what they want, usually cheaper oil and other minerals, allowing them to bomb other countries more easily.

It's worked a charm.

Islamic terrorists believe in religious freedom. In fact they are terrorizing, butchering and beheading all over the world in the name of religious freedom. Yes indeedy. Their religious freedom.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.

Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse?

How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?

Only the ones that were trying to kill them.

And why were they trying to kill invaders in their country I wonder?

What would you do if Muslims turned up armed to the teeth in the US, putting in place a puppet govt and making sure your resources were being sold abroad for a low enough price?

Is that what you would like to see, Abdul?

great response. I think only about 99% of the population has the brains to come up with such a response.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....

Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.

Ah, the old black and white and nothing in between sort of argument.

Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old. I don't like Islam, however I believe that people should have religious freedom, I understand this concept is a little alien to a lot of Americans, however if you look hard enough in the constitution you may just be able to find it.
Another concept is that just because some people do something bad, doesn't mean all of them do.

The funny thing is that a lot of people saw what Bush was trying to do. Make a common enemy so that the people of the US and other western countries would become docile, they'd act how they're supposed to act allowing the big players behind the scenes to get what they want, usually cheaper oil and other minerals, allowing them to bomb other countries more easily.

It's worked a charm.

Islamic terrorists believe in religious freedom. In fact they are terrorizing, butchering and beheading all over the world in the name of religious freedom. Yes indeedy. Their religious freedom.

Any point within your sarcasm? I doubt it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

 

[frigidweirdo]

"Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old"

You are the only one here that thinks that son.

Now, this isn't about Bush and like it or not Radical Islam IS a common enemy.

Oh, how you make people laugh. Your insults against me are pretty much the same as you use against Obama and everyone else. It's so ridiculous.

Sure, Islam is now the common enemy, Bush made sure of that. How many lives will it cost? Millions. Who benefits? Republicans, Defence contractors. You know, the same old people who were making a ton of money in the Cold War.

Who loses out? Normal people. Again. Yet again.

How they manage to get so many people onto their side, when they're essentially doing them over at the same time is interesting.

 

[TooTall]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

 

[ChrisL]

AS has already been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES. A terrorist targets INNOCENT civilians. THAT is not a freedom fighter. Get it yet?

So you're working on the theory that if you say something enough times it becomes true.

God, this is ridiculous. You just say "it's been pointed out to you" while ignoring dictionary definitions.

You won't listen, don't want to listen, what's the point of you being on here if you're just going to parrot the US govt bull?

Inside Terrorism

"What is terrorism? Few words have so insidiously worked their way into our everyday vocabulary. Like `Internet' -- another grossly over-used term that has similarly become an indispensable part of the argot of the late twentieth century -- most people have a vague idea or impression of what terrorism is, but lack a more precise, concrete and truly explanatory definition of the word. This imprecision has been abetted partly by the modern media, whose efforts to communicate an often complex and convoluted message in the briefest amount of airtime or print space possible have led to the promiscuous labelling of a range of violent acts as `terrorism'. Pick up a newspaper or turn on the television and -- even within the same broadcast or on the same page -- one can find such disparate acts as the bombing of a building, the assassination of a head of state, the massacre of civilians by a military unit, the poisoning of produce on supermarket shelves or the deliberate contamination of over-the-counter medication in a chemist's shop all described as incidents of terrorism. Indeed, virtually any especially abhorrent act of violence that is perceived as directed against society -- whether it involves the activities of anti-government dissidents or governments themselves, organized crime syndicates or common criminals, rioting mobs or persons engaged in militant protest, individual psychotics or lone extortionists -- is often labelled `terrorism'."

The rest you can choose to read, or not!

And I posted a definition that mde a lot more sense! Lol! Why do you think YOUR definition (which really doesn't define it, like my definition did) is any more valid than mine? Simply put, it is not. I will go with MY definition of terrorism, the correct one, thank you.

 

[ChrisL]

You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.

A) I didn't write this to change the past. However you can LEARN from the past.
B) I said this to show what it means to people to be a terrorist. It's the same as being a freedom fighter, only, it's the negative word for it, for the perspective of those who don't support them.

The British though the founding fathers wrong. Hence, why they WOULD HAVE BEEN (If you don't know the grammar it isn't MY fault) considered terrorists by the British at least, and probably the Russians and anyone who wasn't the French.

Apparently you do not know what a terrorist is at all. Pathetic. A terrorist deliberately targets innocent people, even their OWN people.

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist What is the Difference Beyond the Cusp

Now comes the most crucial determination, what are the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters. If they both have similar methods and goals, how do we discern one from the other? The most glaring difference is that of target selection. Where both will target the occupation forces, freedom fighters attempt to avoid collateral deaths among the people they purport to be helping while the terrorists often target those they are supposedly assisting. Freedom fighters will often own up and apologize when their actions go awry and the indigenous population suffers from their actions while terrorists blame the occupation forces for forcing them to attack and kill the indigenous population. Basically this is the major and defining difference but it is a most serious and easily observable difference. The next time somebody argues that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters whose motives we happen to disagree upon, just tell them that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is denoted by their targeting strategy. If they have a narrow scope aimed at inflicting damage solely on the occupation forces, then they are freedom fighters, but if they target indiscriminately or intentionally target the indigenous peoples, then they are terrorists. It is that simple.

So apparently quoting one person, who is annonymous, on the internet and really not able to reply back, is your evidence? that's it? No dictionary definitions, nothing else? I'm guessing this is a govt hack who wants you to believe..........

You must be joking, guy on an internet website. He describes the difference perfectly well. Please point out what it is you disagree with.