Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/24/04 04:23 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 12/24/04 03:57 PM, Hermannator wrote:

I would say, "Well, geez, where was you rebellious and hostile attitude when Saddam was in power?"

Interesting, my response would be, "Well what the fuck do you want me to do about it?"

Usually if you sympathize with them you can get a free luncheon outta them. They wait until your mouth is full then they really let you have it.

One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

At 12/25/04 06:33 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

UBL is not a muslim extremist, he's a terror-extremist you turd.

At 12/25/04 06:33 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

Someone IM me or Email me when we get some smart people back in the Politics BBS.

At 12/25/04 06:33 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

Can you explain that at all?

At 12/26/04 12:35 PM, BobDoUrden wrote:

At 12/25/04 06:33 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

Can you explain that at all?

With Pleasure.
You see we have all these evangelists in America, who kill in the name of Jesus, kill abortionists, kill homosexuals and try to keep races out of thier churches. They have they same type of people in the middle east with one twist, they do the exact same thing in the name of Allah instead of Jesus. When we look at the religious extremists in the middle east, we label them as terrorists, sinners, and assholes. We don't bare the fact that all the SUV drivers support terrorism by filling thier gas tanks up with all that Afganhi/Iraqi/Lybian oil.
That's my 5 cent.

I'm sure there are some terrorists, and religious extremists there in Iraq, but there are freedom fighters aswell.

The dood who blew up the US army camp in Mosul was from Mosul. So he is a Freedom Fighter, right?
But he also did the deed in the name of allah, so now hes a Muslim Extremist, right?
And, he was a suicide bomber, so that means he
was a terrorist, right?
But he went after a military target and not a civilian target, so therefor he must be a Freedom Fighter.

All depends on what angle you look from.

At 12/26/04 08:27 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote:

With Pleasure.
You see we have all these evangelists in America, who kill in the name of Jesus, kill abortionists, kill homosexuals and try to keep races out of thier churches. They have they same type of people in the middle east with one twist, they do the exact same thing in the name of Allah instead of Jesus. When we look at the religious extremists in the middle east, we label them as terrorists, sinners, and assholes. We don't bare the fact that all the SUV drivers support terrorism by filling thier gas tanks up with all that Afganhi/Iraqi/Lybian oil.
That's my 5 cent.

Well, I dunno, some religious extremists in the middle east also believe in honor killings (like when a daughter marries out of the religon or has an affair and are killed by their family). Also, there are the bombings and such that are the trademark of middle eastern extremists. I haven't seen nearly as many Christian extremists do that as I've seen Islamic.

I may be wrong here, but does Afganistan have oil?

At 12/24/04 11:27 AM, Slizor wrote: The US Army is both a terrorist and freedom fighting organisation. It fights against the freedom of nations - deposing democratically elected leaders (Allende, anyone?) and kills civilians left right and centre - so much so they refused to take a body count.

*sigh. A terrorist intentionally targets innocents...America accidently kills innocents. It makes the aforementioned innoncents no less dead...but it changes the definition of what we are.

You should know these things. I suspect you do, and you just pretend not to.

At 12/27/04 12:52 PM, BobDoUrden wrote: I may be wrong here, but does Afganistan have oil?

Not that much, it mostly has an important set of pipelines.

At 12/27/04 11:03 PM, Damien3003 wrote: America accidently kills innocents.

I'm affraid that's false.

The only difference between a freedom fighter anda terrorist is the type of civilian they kill.

At 12/26/04 08:27 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: At 12/27/04 12:32 PM, bcdemon wrote: I'm sure there are some terrorists, and religious extremists there in Iraq, but there are freedom fighters aswell.
The dood who blew up the US army camp in Mosul was from Mosul. So he is a Freedom Fighter, right?

No, wrong. First off, he attacked a military target. That means he's not a Terrorist, by definition. Do you people even fucking know what terrorist means?

But he also did the deed in the name of allah, so now hes a Muslim Extremist, right?

Yes, he's a muslim extremist. They have twisted the Islam religion to fit their purpose...as most religious extremists will twist a religion.

And, he was a suicide bomber, so that means he

was a terrorist, right?

No...a suicide bomber is not neccesarily a terrorist. If he attacks a military target...he's not a terrorist. If he attacks a civilian target...he is. It's so fucking simple.

But he went after a military target and not a civilian target, so therefor he must be a Freedom Fighter.

The correct term is 'insurgent'.

All depends on what angle you look from.

No. A terrorist is always a terrorist. ANYONE who intentionally targets a civilian target is a terrorist. Period. There are no exceptions.

At 12/25/04 06:33 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

Oh, yes. Because so many christians blow themselves up in crowded market places.

Evil_Alex37 wrote:

You see we have all these evangelists in America, who kill in the name of Jesus, kill abortionists,

How many times have christians killed an abortionist? I bet you don't have a source...but i'm willing to bet it's nothing on par with suicidal muslim extremists.

kill homosexuals

lol you're a joke. You could give me ten examples (and i don't think you have that many, at all), and it still wouldn't even be a fraction of the number of people muslim extremists have killed.

They have they same type of people in the middle east with one twist, they do the exact same thing in the name of Allah instead of Jesus.

Prove to me with two examples when a christian extremist killled a bunch of innoncets for god.

When we look at the religious extremists in the middle east, we label them as terrorists,

Some of them are terrorists, some of them are insurgents.

sinners,

They're only sinners in the context that they've horribly and grotesquely twisted their own religion.

We don't bare the fact that all the SUV drivers support terrorism by filling thier gas tanks up with all that Afganhi/Iraqi/Lybian oil.

Give me a source...and then maybe i still won't care.

That's my 5 cent.

Still hardly worth that much.

At 12/27/04 11:11 PM, aingery_faic wrote:

At 12/27/04 11:03 PM, Damien3003 wrote: America accidently kills innocents.

I'm affraid that's false.
The only difference between a freedom fighter anda terrorist is the type of civilian they kill.

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Civilians, get it. You'll notice that no other definition in this post of mine has the word 'civilian' in it's definition.

Freedom Fighter.

First off, if you'd click the link, you'll notice the words 'oppressive government'. We are niether a constituted government of Iraq, nor are we oppressing the civilian population. Therefore, the Iraqis are not freedom fighters, they're insurgents.

Insurgent

An example of an insurgent would be an iraqi man who attacks American forces. He is not a terrorist, for he has not killed any innocents...yet he fights against an occupying force.

Get it now?

I wasn't reffering to iraqis. Or Iraq.

At 12/27/04 11:24 PM, aingery_faic wrote: I wasn't reffering to iraqis. Or Iraq.

Why does that matter? He was explaining how a terrorist is different than that of a Freedom Fighter. Iraq is an example.

Using dictionary.com? Plenty of freedom-fighters have killed civilians.

At 12/27/04 11:52 PM, aingery_faic wrote: Using dictionary.com? Plenty of freedom-fighters have killed civilians.

Exactly. And that makes them...go ahead...choose from the list of definitions i provided. If you have any intellect, you would have chosen the word 'terrorist'.

No one but a terrorists intentionally targets innocents, and civlians.

End of fucking story. Or, you can find me a source that disputes mine. Until you can, drop it.

At 12/27/04 11:24 PM, aingery_faic wrote: I wasn't reffering to iraqis. Or Iraq.

Nor was I. I was simply giving an example for my definitions. The IRA fit the defition of a terrorist, too. This is a non-partisan, non-affiliated definition that transcends race, culture, creed, and color.

A terrorists remains to be a terrorists. Much as you may try, there's nothing you can do to change definitions.

At 12/27/04 11:52 PM, aingery_faic wrote: Using dictionary.com? Plenty of freedom-fighters have killed civilians.

If so, then the examples listed by damien3003, they would not be considered freedom fighters. They would be terrorists because of the killings of civilians.

Then I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a filthy terrorist-supporter and a liar because of his support for the Contra and Mujahedeen, amongst others.

At 12/28/04 12:22 AM, aingery_faic wrote: Then I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a filthy terrorist-supporter and a liar because of his support for the Contra and Mujahedeen, amongst others.

Hey, you're finally starting to understand! You didn't call Reagan a terrorist, but a terrorist-supporter. Still, that's incorrect. He wasn't 'supporting terrorism', as in, paying for terrorists acts. What he was doing was 'supporting a terrorist group'. It's not too much better, but there's a difference.

Does that end the topic now? Are we all very clear on the difference of a terrorist, a freedom fighter, and an insurgent?

At 12/28/04 12:22 AM, aingery_faic wrote: Then I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a filthy terrorist-supporter and a liar because of his support for the Contra and Mujahedeen, amongst others.

Are you saying that because of the last conversation we had? Ok, i looked it up and so far all ive seen is that he did not support terrorism, but a "terrorist group" not terrorism as Damien has said. Every president has screwed up on something that would need to come to the people's attention, but the last time we talked about reagan all you came up with was that he was horrible because people died...because there was a war.

Ok, let me get this straight, Reagan is/was allowed to support terrorists groups? I thought america was dead against all terrorists and thier actions? Ohhhhh, sorry, I forgot the US double standard thingy. Ya know, Saudi Arabia.

BTW Damien, in your list of definitions you forgot guerilla and militant. Both definitions that are fitting.

At 12/28/04 11:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Ok, let me get this straight, Reagan is/was allowed to support terrorists groups? I thought america was dead against all terrorists and thier actions? Ohhhhh, sorry, I forgot the US double standard thingy. Ya know, Saudi Arabia.

Well, Reagan's little side deals did cause a bit of a scandal. Also, although it doesn't matter much, his buisness with said groups happened before the whole War on Terror era.

At 12/28/04 04:50 PM, silencedintruder wrote: Listen bro you dont have to convince me, I have known that the people in iraq have nothing to do with 9/11 and the war on terror is just a name to use people to fight any war the american illuminati government wants its populace to fight.

A dictator who used chemical weapons on his people, and was looking into WMDs and was harboring terrorists into his own country...yep nothing to do with the war on terror.

At 12/28/04 05:13 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: A dictator who used chemical weapons on his people, and was looking into WMDs and was harboring terrorists into his own country...yep nothing to do with the war on terror.

Over 30 reasons were given to justify the invasion of Iraq, most of them valid when the US was supporting him.

At 12/28/04 11:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Ok, let me get this straight, Reagan is/was allowed to support terrorists groups?

Did i ever say i condoned his actions? Even once?
Stop assuming things.

I thought america was dead against all terrorists and thier actions?

Actually, at the time, we weren't.

BTW Damien, in your list of definitions you forgot guerilla and militant. Both definitions that are fitting.

But either are subject to the term of 'terrorist', if they target innocnents; or 'insurgent', with insurgent being the wider group a word like 'militant' would fall into, no?

At 12/29/04 04:13 AM, Damien3003 wrote: Actually, at the time, we weren't.

Officialy, you were.

Slizor, I wrote a post just for you and other history revisionists on this board called, "What REALLY happened in Chile, 1973." You'll see that the US did nothing to stage a coup against Allende. We only funded parties in opposition to him, hoping that they would be democratically elected and the country could go back to normal.

The interpretation of history requires normative judgements because the issues are so multi-causal. To suggest things such as Reagan causing the end of the Cold War is a crass and wholly inaccurate action.

I do have to ask the question, what do you mean by "go back to normal?"

Anyhow, a historical view is only as good as your sources - http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm

By most historians these would be considered pretty damn fucking good.

At 12/28/04 05:13 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

A dictator who used chemical weapons on his people,

Over 10 years ago.

and was looking into WMDs

But not deveping. I can look up how to make pipe bombs, but that doesn't mean I am going to. I understand the mechanics of a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean I am going to attempt to build one. He might have been looking into it for when the sanctions were lifted.

and was harboring terrorists into his own country...

Where are these terrorists. They made a big deal out of one of them they found in a city during the invasion, but in a country a little bigger than California there are lots of places to hide without the Iraqi government even knowing you are there.

yep nothing to do with the war on terror.

Exactly.

At 12/29/04 02:27 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Over 10 years ago.

ok.

But not deveping. I can look up how to make pipe bombs, but that doesn't mean I am going to. I understand the mechanics of a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean I am going to attempt to build one. He might have been looking into it for when the sanctions were lifted.

With the situation after 9/11, and the people demanding action and with evidence saying that saddam had possible ties and saddam restricting inspectors, we gave saddam 48 hours to leave, we got no response so we went to war.

Where are these terrorists. They made a big deal out of one of them they found in a city during the invasion, but in a country a little bigger than California there are lots of places to hide without the Iraqi government even knowing you are there.

exactly, it'd be the perfect place to hide "terrorists".

Exactly.

sure...whatever.