Are you a terrorist?

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 30 Nov 2004 15:10

yeah, ok, i see your point jeremy. basically, terrorists are people who have a lot of nationalistic sentiments, and believe things about their nation, or the nations they attack. i just believe that in many cases terrorists take extreme actions to get there way, such as blowing themselves up in areas crowded with possibly wives and children. there is no real excuse for that.
there are people who could be considered "terrorists," such as people who wish for social reform or the furthering of their national causes, but the name alone, "terrorist" implies that they are using violence and fear to get what they believe to be right. some people shouldnt be labeled terrorists if they dont practice violent ways of acheiving personal, religious, or social goals.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 30 Nov 2004 15:11

I follow the lead of God and the finest leader His church could find for America.

When someone tries to bully me around, I find some random strangerand kick the crap out of him for harboring ill wishes and hating my freedom.

Chris Hanratty · Post by **Chris Hanratty** » 30 Nov 2004 15:25

1. French fry
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. Oppose
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
10. Yes

Edit - #7 , confused races with civilizations. I'm tired

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Nov 2004 15:26

LittleBoy footbag wrote: Look, Jeremy mentioned that it is acceptable for the people to fight for their rights. Terrorism is such a tool. However, even we, Americans, Canadians, Finnish people, Autralians, footbaggers (i may have excluded other cultures. Sorry) also have their firm belief in certain things but we do not go in a holy war. In fact, from my point of view (and you can all post a reply to this), we only attack when we are attacked first. I.E, 9-11. We attacked Afghanistan because we believed that Osams was hiding there. This was, from my point of view, legitimate as he was the one who has attacked us in the first place. Had he not decided to attack us, both our beliefs may still have clashed yet we may not have gone to a war. If we just keep our beliefs yet do not go to extremes to promote it, the world may be a far more stable place.

I wasn't defending terrorism - I believe that the same rules should apply to everybody.

Going to war in Afghanistan actually helped Osama Bin Ladin and hurt the US cause. It gives much more legitimacy to Osama's cause and it turns many more people towards his cause or against the US cause. It was a disaster and it has turned the country into chaos. It was already one of the poorest countries in the world and now it will be a very long time before the people still alive in Afghanistan regain any control or peace in their lives. The links between Osama Bin Ladin and the s11 attacks are pretty flimsey. Yes he is the leader of the organisation that carried out the attacks - but all the evidence points to the actually people in the planes doing most of the organising and planing - not Osama Bin Ladin at all. Trying to take out Bin Ladin is the same as blaming George Bush for all the human rights abuses that have occured at the hands of US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes there is some responsibility but only in the overall cause - not single attacks.

The US went to war to catch one person - they haven't caught that person and they've killed tens of thousands of innocent people and turned the country over to drug lords. This is pretty much exactly what many people said would happen before the war. It is obvious if you study history that such a move was bound to fail - there is no reason to think anything else would happen.

There is also something else that I should mention. It is the fact that since Osams attacked us, it is okay for us to attack back. That is merely human nature. If we are slapped in the face by a random person, chances are, we would bitch-slap them twice. This is just that on a world scale. We have been slapped in the national face. we have decided to slap back. Also, if one extremist decides to nuke you just because of that fact that we have accidentally done seomthing to them half a century ago, how owuld you feel? WOuld you attack back? Your belief would most likely be that that attacker is a SOB. And that is your belief. The attacker's beliefs are that he has to avenge that missing trillion drums of oil from his country. Both your beliefs are legitimate. However, if it was you who decided to attack first, it would not have made sense. It should actually have been that one extremist as he was the one who was missing the oil. As he attacked you, a reason opened up for you to attack him: He has attacked you.

That might be so - but most of the people you are attacking are not Osama Bin Ladin or his followers. About 80% of peole killed in the war in Afghanistan have been women and children. What you are really doing is killing innocent people because he killed innocent people. But the obvious difference is that he killed around 3,000 and the US has killed over 12,000 plus created a situation where over 100,000 people have been killed over the normal death rate.

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 30 Nov 2004 15:56

wow I'm like super terrorist... I tied for first, oh yeh.

SlashC · Post by **SlashC** » 30 Nov 2004 17:41

1. What do you call thinly sliced deep fried potato? [french fries]

2. Do you own or have on your computer - any music by Cat Stevens? [never heard of]

3. Do you support George Bush? [nope]

4. Do you think it is a good idea for one culture or race to have complete control over another? [no]

5. Do you support the cocaine industry? [no]

6. Would you support a government that sprays poison on your farm - making it impossible to grow anything - or would you oppose them? [I'de spray them with poison.]

7. Do you believe that some races are more superior to others? [no]

8. Are there any causes you are prepared to die for? [humankind... or maybe to save a puppy or something. Chicks dig that.]

9. Are you an Afghanistani? [nope]

10. Have you ever had a beard of some description? [tried and failed]

edit: Oh I didn't realize it was over. I got 7/10 anyways. I blame canada.

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 30 Nov 2004 18:07

3. I'm sure you're all aware that Bush said regarding the war on Terror - "you're either with us or you're with the terrorist" or whatever it was to that meaning. Not supporting Bush is another point towards Terrorism

This statement was made to any country harboring terrorists. Terrorism is hard to fight because terorrist groups are virtual states aka they have no land defined as theirs. How can Bush fight them if they don't have their own land. So Bush made that statement and GAVE them land so he could fight them. If you don't do anything about terrorism in ur country, you are in a way helping it by allowing it to grow.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Nov 2004 18:34

He can address their grievences so they don't have a desire to kill americans.

It's like you see an ant nest. You can leave it only and let it do what it wants. Or you can piss on it and see how the ants react. - ants in Australia bite too!

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 30 Nov 2004 20:45

SlashC wrote:1. What do you call thinly sliced deep fried potato? [french fries]

good GOD people, a thinly sliced deep fried potato is a potato chip (or a crisp if you live in the uk) a julienned (thick or thin) deep fried potato is a french fry!!! get it together guys!!!

lightningbolt · Post by **lightningbolt** » 30 Nov 2004 20:54

You all are wrong! 'French fries' arn't french fries! There called Freedom fries according to the congress cafetiera. God, people keep up with what food being called in Washington D.C.

HackyRichard · Post by **HackyRichard** » 01 Dec 2004 04:43

Andrew wrote:
SlashC wrote:1. What do you call thinly sliced deep fried potato? [french fries]

good GOD people, a thinly sliced deep fried potato is a potato chip (or a crisp if you live in the uk) a julienned (thick or thin) deep fried potato is a french fry!!! get it together guys!!!

I was waiting for someone else to notice that too

Oh and thanks for not calling them Afghans Jeremy, that's one thing that irks me when they're reporting on something to do with Afghanistan it's always "Afghan this Afghan that" like they're a frickin biscuit or a stupid dog ... Afghani not Afghan, person not biscuit

LittleBoy footbag · Post by **LittleBoy footbag** » 01 Dec 2004 12:12

................What you are really doing is killing innocent people because he killed innocent people. But the obvious difference is that he killed around 3,000 and the US has killed over 12,000 plus created a situation where over 100,000 people have been killed over the normal death rate.......

Touche Jeremy. Man, you should be a fucking congressman or whatever they have over there in Australia..... cool

modified

Are you a terrorist?

Re: Are you a terrorist?

Re: Are you a terrorist?

Re: Are you a terrorist?