Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/1/04 05:17 PM, TruthSpeak wrote: THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK...IF WE ARENT DEAD, THEY'RE MISSION ISNT COMPLETE. They will not negotiate, they will not back down, they will only die. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, you can only kill them. And thats what we will do. When two stand in their place, we will kill both of them.

And another 4 rise. Eventually, you just gunna run out of bullets.

You sir, are a moron and a pussy.

Alright then, smartarse, let's hear your solution to the problem. It will go something along the line of "Kill them all" won't it?

The middle east is a big place, but then again, we have alot of nukes......

At 9/1/04 06:57 PM, gravity-is-merciless wrote: completely owned truthspeak\

you forgot this:

Yes, I do believe TS has been thuroughly shut-down by now.

thoughtspeak=PWNED

All I wanted to hear was a Republican honestly say whether they think the war on terror can be won or not. I didn't want TS and Frylock to come in here just spouting Conservative arguments, I just wanted to know their opinion on whether we could win the 'war on terror.'

At 9/1/04 10:59 AM, TruthSpeak wrote:

At 9/1/04 02:42 AM, Angry_Hatter wrote:

At 9/1/04 02:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Well...? Can it?

What war? As far as I'm conserned it never started. It's a shame that you think that terror attacks happen/are planned every day.

Lack of intelligence is going to be your downfall, I can see it now.

Note how after the war on terror officially began, teh number of terrorist incidents INCREASED.

Just like drug use after the War on Drugs, or Poverty after the War on Poverty. All increased.

It seems like if we want to see an explosion in the incidence of something all we need do is declare a war on it...

Ok, you too Antiklaus. Please post your opinion on whether the 'war on terror' can be won or lost, or don't post at all.

The war on terror will be won! Economy may suck, but terror is an asinine way to suggest a change! Goddamn Fuckin morons!

At 9/1/04 06:57 PM, gravity-is-merciless wrote:

At 9/1/04 05:15 PM, TruthSpeak wrote: They supported Saddam Houssein by selling him weapons (france, germany, russia) - they are in time out right now.

So did we, genius.

No no...you arent understand...they had OPEN contracts with him. Dumbass.

man, is common sense something you have to acquire these days??? Somebody loan this guy some.

During the Gulf War, the U.S. almost had more friendly-fire fatalities than enemy-fire fatalities. We did a much better job of killing ourselves than they did...only we killed a whole lot more of them on top of that, "so I guess it evens out" (just trying out your type of logic for a moment).

You've never been in the military have you?

he attacks our ally (israel) constantly,

Constantly???

Iraq and Palestine are two different places, you nimrod. The last time there was a real Iraq/Israel conflict was when Israeli fighter jets bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981.

LOL...only a moron would forget the real issues.

SADDAM HOUSSEIN PAID THE FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS THAT ATTACKED ISRAELI TARGETS. He was funding suicide bombers up until the day we launched an attack on his country.

Note how after the war on terror officially began, teh number of terrorist incidents INCREASED.

Not on america.

I think these other countries being attacked, Spain and Russia...they deserve it. They turned their backs on the terrorists because they thought their dicks were bigger than ours, and now they are being stabbed right in the middle of it.

A) can i have a source for that
B) maybe he was just being philanthropic. The eldest sons of these families had blown themselves up, and they were left without one of their main sources of income. Maybe he was just paying the families to compinsate for the fact that one of the family memebers wasn't out working, he was dead. sort of like free life ensurence, but from an evil dictator.

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU AT ALL???

I DONT KNOW, MAYBE SADAM HAS A CHARITABLE SIDE AFTER ALL!!! MAYBE JOHN ASHKROFT PRESENTED HIM WITH THE KEYS TO THE CITY OF CHICAGO (MAYBE DETROIT) IN THE 80'S BECAUSE HE WAS CHARITABLE!!

Shut up both fo you! Neither of you have answered the question! Answer the question or leave and stop fucking up my thread!

Alright, since no one can seem to answer my question, I will pose a new one.

What do you think must happen for the war on terror to be won?
What are the criteria for winning the war on terror?

And Please stick to the question (TS and Quanze, I'm looking at you two.)

What alot of people don't stop to consider is why we are a target of terror.

Ever since the time of Teddy, we've had a tendency of sticking our noses in other people's business. Think Korea, Vietnam, Latin America. Since Democracy gave us a stable form of government, we instantly assume that if we install democracy in another country, it's saved! Many of the people in the middle east see us as an imperial power, trying to contol as much as we can. Ever since the Roosevelt Correlary, it's like we take responsibility to clear up any leader we don't like. When see NATO or UN forces "keeping the peace," they think "damn Americans." Every place we put ourselves in, we get unhappy neighbors willing to attack us or whatever side we're on.
They see us as supporting the alien state of Isreal opressing the original Palastenians, they see us as taking over Afghanistan and Iraq and not leaving. They don't hate us because we love freedom, liberty and justice, they hate us because they see us as challenging their values. And that's because we are, because we blindly believe the American way is the best way.

No the "war" on terrorism can not be won. And with the methods used today to increase "security" and force democracy on other countrys, terrorism will only increase. .

Hell no. There will always, be war, terror, and rebellion. It's human nature and experience and diffences which lead to it. No ones equal, nor can they be. The end.

At 9/2/04 11:15 AM, John_Kerry wrote: SADDAM HOUSSEIN PAID THE FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS THAT ATTACKED ISRAELI TARGETS. He was funding suicide bombers up until the day we launched an attack on his country.

In-correct, it was Yasser Arafat who did that. MORON!

At 9/2/04 03:56 PM, MuShrOomBastard wrote: No the "war" on terrorism can not be won. And with the methods used today to increase "security" and force democracy on other countrys, terrorism will only increase. .

A-fucking-men

At 9/2/04 04:21 PM, cAnNoN1234 wrote: In-correct, it was Yasser Arafat who did that. MORON!

do you know what kind of people shouldn't throw stones?

Deadly Spoon: Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post, it's not just US companies that profit from the military industry. A lot of other countries do too. I'm not sure if it's the same with the Czech Republic now, but back in the day, manufacturing weapons was Czechoslovakia's major industry I think. Now it's probably porn and stag nights for drunk Brits.

Quanze: So you don't care about the domestic climate of fear and rampant attacks on civil liberties caused/justified by these colour coded alerts?

Deadly Spoon: I'm just a big cynic from way back. Being Australian has little to do with it. Actually, you'd be surprised. There are a lot of Americans who are really disenfranchised with things right now. Some make a song and dance of it. Others dig in for the winter and/or try to slip through the net. Others flee the country. I have met plenty of the last group in the past year.

I don't know about the risk of planting the evidence. I'm sure they could get away with it, even if they had to assassinate a few journalists. Not that the journalists would expose it anyway. They're all a bunch of government whores.

Tal-con: You know what I've never understood? The whole Olympic flag. The rings are supposed to represent the continents, right? There are seven continents though. Even excluding Antarctica, that still leaves six. Who gets left out? Okay, maybe a tenuous argument could be made for grouping North and South America together as one land mass based on a pre-Panama Canal date (was this before or after the Olympics started? Besides, the Olympic flag wasn't used until the 20s I think, which was definitely after the canal was built). However, if that's the case, then Europe, Asia and Africa should be considered one (since they were before the Suez Canal was built), or at least Europe and Asia should be. I don't think it makes sense to leave Australia out either, since it's been there pretty well from the beginning, and has hosted two Games (while the games have never been to South America or Africa). Whatever the case, there are either too many or too few rings. Does this sort of thing worry anyone else, or do I simply have too much time on my hands?

Truth: Regarding taking 50 years to set up a government in Germany, what are you talking about? Otto Von Bismark unified Germany in 1871 for Wilhelm I, taking him just nine years to do so.

Quanze: Whether a pro or anti PM is voted into power in Britain may not truly affect Britain's relationship with the US. Of course, it might, but it might also be the case that Britain can't afford to turn its back on the US without embracing Europe, which it seems equally (and perhaps more) reluctant to do. The third option, that it go it alone, is simply not possible.

Phineus: Russia is in both Europe and Asia. Everything west of the Ural Mountains is in Europe. Some 80% of the population lives in the European part. The issue of whether Russia is European or Asia has never been fully resolved though, especially at a cultural level.

Truth: Again, you're wrong on the issue of terrorism in Russia. The situation with the Chechens goes back about one hundred and fifty years when Russia annexed the whole Caucasus region under the pretext of defending Orthodox Georgians. The Chechens (amongst others) weren't too happy about that and the subsequent "Russification" enforced upon them. It wasn't helped by the fact that significant numbers were also sent to Siberia (where many died) in the 20th century. Whilst the Chechens aren't exactly the good guys, Russia's current terrorist woes are much of its own making.

As for thinking the Europeans are wrong for selling weapons to Saddam, sure, but I think there's a very large dose of hypocrisy there given America's efforts in funding and training terrorist groups all over the world, especially in Latin America, particularly to overthrow democratically elected governments. Actually, come to think of it, didn't the US back Saddam against Iran and sell him a lot of the weapons they're now looking for?

Furthermore, your attitude of simply fighting them to the last man simply won't work without genocide. The British tried that for decades in Northern Ireland.

antiklaus: How about a "War on the Number of Hot Chicks" then? Hehe.

John Kerry: What the fuck? How the fuck did Spain and Russia deserve it? Are you saying people deserve to die in terrorism? Even by your logic that's wrong. An argument might be made for saying that about Spain, but Russia has been running a brutal war in Chechnya for a decade now. It certainly hasn't turned its back on terrorism. Quite the opposite actually.

i dont think we can wit our current presedent, maby if bush gets kicked out in november we might have a better chance...

At 9/4/04 04:47 AM, Joeytho wrote: i dont think we can wit our current presedent, maby if bush gets kicked out in november we might have a better chance...

A better chance with Kerry??? Where do you live, candy land?

At 9/2/04 11:17 AM, John_Kerry wrote:

Note how after the war on terror officially began, teh number of terrorist incidents INCREASED.

Not on america.

I think these other countries being attacked, Spain and Russia...they deserve it. They turned their backs on the terrorists because they thought their dicks were bigger than ours, and now they are being stabbed right in the middle of it.

Well I would lay claim that terrorist attacks on americans have increased. Iraq is now one giant cesspool of terrorism. The local authorities are weak, hell the nation itself is weak. SO any intelligent terrorist sees a country where we have troops that they can easily attack and they will go in and attack.
This just seems logical.

At 9/1/04 02:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Well...? Can it?

No. Terrorism has been defined as an ideology over these years. In reality, terrorism is a practice. There are no "basics tenets" of terrorism. You don't have to be an Arab to be a terrorist.

Gdub is starting to realize this. He was spot on in his interview when he said the war on Terrorism couldn't be won. You can't fight against a practice. The US defined terrorism as an ideology to make it something we could fight against, but in reality, terrorists are a vast group of different kinds of people, fighting for different causes.

Unfortunately he retracted this statement due to liberal criticism, who probably believe exactly the same thing he said but saw it as a weakness and charged.

At 9/4/04 07:58 AM, TruthSpeak wrote:

At 9/4/04 04:47 AM, Joeytho wrote: i dont think we can wit our current presedent, maby if bush gets kicked out in november we might have a better chance...

A better chance with Kerry??? Where do you live, candy land?

Mby Krry will stick to Oama and and co. instead of attacking the countries that suposably have "weapons of mass destruction" that we sold to them.

to eliminate all terrorist we'd have to nuke all of the USA ASAP

all im saying is kill/capture some of the terroists leaders and see where it goes from there. To elimanate terrorism would be impossable but to get rid of the leaders may weaken morral and lessen the threat.