Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/26/03 07:04 AM, swayside wrote:

At 3/25/03 04:49 PM, karasz wrote:

but u are going to have to wait about 8 years until u can start complaining about the lack of progress being made cuz it took the US from 1776 to 1789 (13 years) to go from a 'terrorist group' to a democracy...

first off, america is not a true democracy. secondly, WHAT?! america is not a terrorist group.

We were a terrorist group to the British and, to some extent, the Spanish, though that was later on. They didn't really use the word "Terrorism", though, and I don't think people wanted a "Regime Change" in the colonies. I like using words that have been run into the ground by Donald Rumsfeld.

LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

Terrorism is using violence and illegal and unenthical methods that are disapproved by the majority which are the civilian.

if otherwise, that is called revolution. no one shame the french for casuing a bloody terror to their own country and their own royal blood.

instead the later generation praise them for their effort for overthrowing the corrupt royal family and the f..king monarachy system.

At 3/26/03 09:39 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

Then the Palestinians are just being "revolutionaries" and shouldn't be punished for blowing busses full of civilians up.

Terrorism is using violence and illegal and unenthical methods that are disapproved by the majority which are the civilian.

Where do you get this definition? We consider Palestine terrorism, but most of the Palestinians strongly support the "revolution" to create a Palestinian state, which Bush says he will look at in 2005.

if otherwise, that is called revolution. no one shame the french for casuing a bloody terror to their own country and their own royal blood.

The French hardly won a war against themselves. Yes, I know this was uncalled for, but come ON.

instead the later generation praise them for their effort for overthrowing the corrupt royal family and the f..king monarachy system.

People in Afghanistan were praising Osama bin Laden for attacking the corrupt American nation. The Palestinians praise the attacking of a nation they don't feel should be there. But none of those are terrorism. That's just "revolution".

true... very true.....
damn it, i always keep forgetting that there is a place called Palestine.

i always recognise it as Israel.

At 3/26/03 09:51 AM, Anti-corruption wrote:
i always recognise it as Israel.

Don't worry about it - so does Sharon.

At 3/26/03 09:39 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

so then Al-Qaeda is a bunch of revolutionairies...

Terrorism is using violence and illegal and unenthical methods that are disapproved by the majority which are the civilian.

well only 1/3 of the colonists were pro-independence... lets not forget how some people tarred and feathered some loyalists...

if otherwise, that is called revolution. no one shame the french for casuing a bloody terror to their own country and their own royal blood.

so then which is it? terrorism or revolution?

At 3/22/03 12:51 PM, shamROCK678 wrote: It's a war on terrorism, all countries should be participating in this war. Harboring, supporting, and supplying terrorists. Broken terms of The Gulf War Treaty, this war is justified.

wait a sec......i've seen pictures of factoies being in use, then 2 months later empty, and cartoons of what the trucks with WMD on them probly look like.....but i've seen no proof of terrorists....hell, its my understanding that Isreal, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabi have more terrorists than Iraq.....

but i guess since Bush said they were there, i guess we don't need any proof, now do we?

At 3/26/03 01:16 PM, karasz wrote:

At 3/26/03 09:39 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

so then Al-Qaeda is a bunch of revolutionairies...

wow.....glad you're reading his post in its entirely.....he said terrorists use violence to get their message across- revoltutionaries do not(not entirely true on its own either, since the American revoltutionaries were extremely violent, but still)

well, i don't know. Majority wins. this is what i can say. i mean if the leader of that particular fraction group is corrupted. he will definitely lost support and become terrorists.
example:- al-qaeda
they sell drugs and pirated vcds and cds to fund money for their terrorism acts.

At 3/22/03 01:01 PM, flamewolf wrote:

At 3/22/03 12:51 PM, shamROCK678 wrote: this war is justified.

No it isn't, George bush is doing it for the oil!

Yeah, George bush is going to pump out all the oil and store it in his closet and hen he is going to sell it himself and take the money and use it to make george bush clones and take over greenland and after greenland Iceland and then finland and after finland thats right you guessed it the world. Get real the war is not for oil. And even if it was, there is one good reason to continue it, Stoping the genocide of the kurdish people. And I have said it before and I will say it again, If stopping genocide is not a good enough reason to go to war then I don't know what is.

At 3/26/03 11:53 PM, Jiperly wrote:

At 3/26/03 01:16 PM, karasz wrote:

At 3/26/03 09:39 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: LOL. that is not called terrorism. that is called revolution.

so then Al-Qaeda is a bunch of revolutionairies...

wow.....glad you're reading his post in its entirely.....he said terrorists use violence to get their message across- revoltutionaries do not(not entirely true on its own either, since the American revoltutionaries were extremely violent, but still)

wait a sec... u say that im wrong... THEN u agree with me... which is it??? also im just using this as an example... i dont really wanna hear that im anti-american or shit... just tossing out the idea... forcing EVERYONE to think...

At 3/22/03 12:33 PM, Das_Gaylien wrote: Sorry I called you idiots guys really only the American and Iraq and Danish governments are idiots.

Well I'll say one thing: What the people support and what its government supports can be two completely different things. The US is a good example. There are thousands of protestors here against the war however there are many that do support the war. I believe the majority are those that are still riding the fence and haven't chosen a side yet. Whatever the case may be, this whole issue has split the world into two warring sides basically with the Swiss-like neutrals in the middle.

The revolutionaries were terrorists but most of the stuff they did didnt result in deaths. They were terrorist in the way that they did terrorise people, they would pour tea down the throats of taxmen and tar and feather them. I hardly think the Boston Teaparty compares to 9/11. The Palestinian extremists cant be compared to the revolutionaries either. Most Palestinian extremeists are against any Jewish state, the revolutionariies only wanted control of the land they already had. Although the Jewish government could be compared to the Brits because they both are acting pretty much the same.

Arabs don't want diversity...their belief is in one nation, one religion, one leader. The power of one does not coexist in the global world. They will be shut down. It's already happening...

At 3/27/03 08:43 PM, jimsween wrote: The revolutionaries were terrorists but most of the stuff they did didnt result in deaths. They were terrorist in the way that they did terrorise people, they would pour tea down the throats of taxmen and tar and feather them. I hardly think the Boston Teaparty compares to 9/11. The Palestinian extremists cant be compared to the revolutionaries either. Most Palestinian extremeists are against any Jewish state, the revolutionariies only wanted control of the land they already had. Although the Jewish government could be compared to the Brits because they both are acting pretty much the same.

maybe so, but do not forget that Blacks, Jews, Aboringials and "Loyalists" were also on the hit lists, and many of these people fled to Canada(after your revolution, Canada got 3 times bigger from people escaping the predijest of American citizens....)

Loyalists homes were burned and children were killed....

At 3/27/03 05:12 PM, karasz wrote:

wait a sec... u say that im wrong... THEN u agree with me... which is it??? also im just using this as an example... i dont really wanna hear that im anti-american or shit... just tossing out the idea... forcing EVERYONE to think...

I agree with your revolutionary- Terrorist statement, although I isn't exactly right either.....

gotcha...