Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/27/07 12:24 PM, MikeBlackout wrote: We're not fighting terrorists. It was all an inside job.

I've stopped reading from there.

Well it looks like you found an idiot.

lol I made a funny.

Seriously though, the terrorists want to kill as many people from the "Great Satan" as possible. Guess who they consider to be the great Satan? The good ole U. S. of A.

I dont know all im saying is that there are way more effiecnet ways of killing people then blowing yourself up,

also 9/11 wasnt that big of a deal, 3000 people died out of 300 million, when one percent or more of the population dies then ill see it as a big deal.

and the war on terrorism, it isnt a war, a war is when an army comes to your hometown and you have to pick up the nearest avaible weapons to fight them off.

Others have already explained yet you're still going on with that bs.

At 12/27/07 05:43 PM, thedo12 wrote: I dont know all im saying is that there are way more effiecnet ways of killing people then blowing yourself up,

also 9/11 wasnt that big of a deal, 3000 people died out of 300 million, when one percent or more of the population dies then ill see it as a big deal.

and the war on terrorism, it isnt a war, a war is when an army comes to your hometown and you have to pick up the nearest avaible weapons to fight them off.

The Muslim fundamentalist mindset is that of jihad, or holy war. And according to the Quran, those who die during jihad go directly to heaven. That's why suicide bombers are the most common form of Muslim terrorist attack.

At 12/27/07 06:29 PM, Bookman60 wrote:

At 12/27/07 05:43 PM, thedo12 wrote: I dont know all im saying is that there are way more effiecnet ways of killing people then blowing yourself up,

also 9/11 wasnt that big of a deal, 3000 people died out of 300 million, when one percent or more of the population dies then ill see it as a big deal.

and the war on terrorism, it isnt a war, a war is when an army comes to your hometown and you have to pick up the nearest avaible weapons to fight them off.

The Muslim fundamentalist mindset is that of jihad, or holy war. And according to the Quran, those who die during jihad go directly to heaven. That's why suicide bombers are the most common form of Muslim terrorist attack.

Note however that nowhere AFAIK in the Quran, Jihad is reffered to as a war where people are killed. There are AFAIK to Jihads within Islam, the large Jihad and the small Jihad. The large Jihad is the one with yourself, to not sin and so on. The large is with the rest of the world, to make it too adhere to Islam. It is not expressed literally as a physical war, and many muslims take it as a spiritual war too, that it's about impressing people to see the "truth".

Most suicide bombers aren't terrorists per se, but rather tools used by terrorists.

Terrorists don't necessarily want as many deaths as possible. They want to create as much fear as possible, and by doing something that receives as much attention as a suicide bombing, they achieve this goal.

Terrorists seek to create fear, which is why they are called terrorists. Kind of simple when you put it like that. Also explains why Osama isn't strapping on a bomb right now. If he's really such a devout Muslim that hates us, why isn't he blowing up random servicemen? It would save us the trouble of hunting him down.

Everything is never as bad as it seems once understand it. Of course no one wants to understand other the other person's view if it conflicts with their own. Case in point, Terrorism.

At 12/27/07 11:01 PM, Kidlazarus wrote: Everything is never as bad as it seems once understand it. Of course no one wants to understand other the other person's view if it conflicts with their own. Case in point, Terrorism.

When you understand the motivation behind most cases of terrorism, you will find it is actually worse.

At 12/27/07 03:04 AM, thedo12 wrote: biological warefare ahs been used for thousands of years, in medevil tiems they would catpult rooten cows into castles.

why not just throw some rotten meat into a water supply?

technology hampens effectiveness. also those terrorists in the mid-east don't really have much in the way of options with lack of funds and places to buy supllies.

At 12/27/07 03:54 PM, Bookman60 wrote: Well it looks like you found an idiot.

lol I made a funny.

Seriously though, the terrorists want to kill as many people from the "Great Satan" as possible. Guess who they consider to be the great Satan? The good ole U. S. of A.

Because we give people the right of religion that we are a threat to Islam. They beleive where Allah is not fully accepted, he/she/it cannot exist.

At 12/27/07 02:12 AM, thedo12 wrote: most people see terrorist as people who will kill as many people as they can its not true though,
they must have soem form of honor, otherwise they would just poison water supplies and stuff like that to kll people.

think about it

They kill innocent people it does not matter how they do because of a misinterpreted sense of pride they are scum, dirt, and do not deserve to live. and Idiots like you are defending terrorist.

PS use spell check.

At 12/27/07 02:12 AM, thedo12 wrote: most people see terrorist as people who will kill as many people as they can its not true though,
they must have soem form of honor, otherwise they would just poison water supplies and stuff like that to kll people.

think about it

ok, what most of them do for an "honorable death" blowing themselves up and taking others with them. most being innocent people. what the call honor i call disgusting.

At 12/27/07 02:12 AM, thedo12 wrote: most people see terrorist as people who will kill as many people as they can its not true though,
they must have soem form of honor, otherwise they would just poison water supplies and stuff like that to kll people.

think about it

Hahaha do some research. Most "terrorist" groups are poisining wells ect. Yet there are many different forms of terrorism such as fear... So specify what terrorist group you are talking about "Alkeida" or "Government" (I like quotation marks! =)

To the topic starter, it is not "honour" that drives terrorists. What it is, oddly enough, is terror.

By doing such open attacks, they make people scared, achieving their goal.

lets see here um 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 over 3,000 people were killed on that day because some asshole ( osama ) decided he wanted to see something go boom. personally if I were president ( which i wouldnt be because their are so many damn liberals that would rather kill themselves then vote for me) i would send all the troops from iraq into afganistan and periodicly bomb their cities until they handed over osama then i would give him a free vasectamy with a sledgehammer, then i would perform some dentistry and rip out all his teeth, then maybe i would give him an eye exam with a nail gun. Then i would be nice enouph to chain him to a brick wall and let the 9/11 victims families do what they want.

At 12/30/07 03:45 PM, FDNY343 wrote: lets see here um

AHAHAHAHAAH fucking moron.

A. Osama may not even be in Afghanistan.
B. The government nor the people of Afghanistan have no idea in the world where Osama is.
C. Osama doesn't fight for the country of Afghanistan, so he doesn't give a shit about whether or not Afghani citizens get killed.
D. You can't torture people just for the sake of it.

I am so glad you will never be president.

Another thing, to the OP, honour is only virtuous when it is done selflessly.

Everything is never as bad as it seems once understand it. Of course no one wants to understand other the other person's view if it conflicts with their own. Case in point, Terrorism.

When you understand the motivation behind most cases of terrorism, you will find it is actually worse.

What a strange, undecipherable comment. I think most people would find that they had a lot in common with the motivations of terrorists, but not the methods that they employ. Course it's the methods that anyone who wishes to portray terrorists as irrational that they focus on. I mean, honestly, do people really think that Al Qaeda is run by idiots who are trying to destroy everything? I think that generally people like to believe that there are things out in the world which are irredeemably evil and so, in setting themselves against it, can identify themselves as good.

Anyhow, I just thought that I'd post a useful website for people
http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp
Use it as you will.

At 12/27/07 03:04 AM, thedo12 wrote: biological warefare ahs been used for thousands of years, in medevil tiems they would catpult rooten cows into castles.

why not just throw some rotten meat into a water supply?

Because modern technology allows us to remove said meat.

Are you seriously expecting them just to walk into a water treatment plant, no one tries to stop them, then they throw rotten meat into a vat of water and no one notices?

At 12/27/07 05:43 PM, thedo12 wrote: I dont know all im saying is that there are way more effiecnet ways of killing people then blowing yourself up,

also 9/11 wasnt that big of a deal, 3000 people died out of 300 million, when one percent or more of the population dies then ill see it as a big deal.

and the war on terrorism, it isnt a war, a war is when an army comes to your hometown and you have to pick up the nearest avaible weapons to fight them off.

How about you have one of your family members be one of those 3000 people and then see if you think it's a big deal. I consider just one person getting killed is a big goddamned deal.

TERRORISTS NOT AS BAD AS THEY SEEM!!!??? bull sh***t!!!! i cant believe you! do you like them!!!??? f***k you!!!! there WORSE that they seem!who knows what theyl do next!!!!!??????????? >=(

At 12/27/07 12:24 PM, MikeBlackout wrote: We're not fighting terrorists. It was all an inside job. That's why terrorist is in Quotes. And, according ot our wonderful government who just wants to protect us, we don't have the right to freedom of speech. Infact we don;t have the 1st

Then how come we are allowed to bash Bush as much as to our heart's content?

, third

How can you quarter soldiers in your home without anyone knowing about it?

, fourth

I don't recall people being ransacked by authorities because of the fear that they are terrorists?

and fifth amendments

This isn't the McCarthy Era any more, stop acting like paranioed whiny little bitch!

and soon, we won't have the second either.

That part you might be right about if someone like Hilary Clinton was in office.

Actually its funny that you are saying that a person killing for his belifs is a piece of trash. You know how the land to build your beloved US was obtained right? Just in case you dont know. Milllions (idk if it was this much ...) of "native americans" were slaghtered just to find a new place for you guys to get goods, this was the main reason for exploring america. IDK about you, but to me, a person who kills for money is a much bigger "PIECE OF TRASH" than the person killing for his belifs.

PS. im not defending terrorism, im just commenting about what he said.
PSS. IM BACK !!! DID YOU GUYS MISS ME ? :P

The previous post is directed to PantyWIpe.

If terrorism is defined by the number of people a "group" can kill to cause fear to get to specific goal, then i know a terrorist group far worst than Al Qaeda. Its name is The United States of America. Why is that? Does Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell?

Id like to see Cellar finding a way to explain why 220,000 (wiki)innocent people.

At 1/8/08 02:58 AM, Ahmudi wrote: The previous post is directed to PantyWIpe.

If terrorism is defined by the number of people a "group" can kill to cause fear to get to specific goal, then i know a terrorist group far worst than Al Qaeda. Its name is The United States of America. Why is that? Does Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell?

Id like to see Cellar finding a way to explain why 220,000 (wiki)innocent people.

I'm willing to bet good money that your a troll, but I'll bite this once.

Terrorism is not defined by the number of people a group can kill but by the methods employed. Droping a bomb, no matter the destructive force, when the citizenry of an area are warned is not by any stretch of the imagination terrorism, especially Nagasaki as they should of been painfully aware that such a weapon was in fact real. Also, if you would stop for but a moment and look at your source, in this case Wiki, it says up to, meaning that the estimate is not a conservative one. The final death toll that was calculated came to 185,000 when it was all said and done.

Now then, as to why such an event occured. Do you have any knowledge of history involving the Pacific theater in WWII? I'm going to assume you don't and so I'll lay it out as simply as possible for you, attempting to invade the Japanese home islands would result in massive casualties on both sides ranging somewhere into the millions. The amount of troops it would require to establish a beach head and invade would make Normandy look like a walk in the park, not to mention that although the Japanese carrier fleet had been destroyed, they still had a number of destroyers and battle cruisers left to use, they merely lacked carriers. Simply put, no chance in hell for success, and so, after leaflitting the city in advance, we dropped the bomb, first in Hiroshima, then in Nagasaki.

True, the horrors of the events should never be forgotten, but they pale in comparison to what we could of had to deal with, and so, with all due respect, stfu and learn a little history before you open your mouth.

At 1/8/08 04:24 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

At 1/8/08 02:58 AM, Ahmudi wrote: The previous post is directed to PantyWIpe.

If terrorism is defined by the number of people a "group" can kill to cause fear to get to specific goal, then i know a terrorist group far worst than Al Qaeda. Its name is The United States of America. Why is that? Does Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring a bell?

Id like to see Cellar finding a way to explain why 220,000 (wiki)innocent people.

I'm willing to bet good money that your a troll, but I'll bite this once.

Terrorism is not defined by the number of people a group can kill but by the methods employed. Droping a bomb, no matter the destructive force, when the citizenry of an area are warned is not by any stretch of the imagination terrorism, especially Nagasaki as they should of been painfully aware that such a weapon was in fact real.

SO lets see, killing innocent people with a normal bomb is terrorism while killing people with a nuclear bomb which damage the land permanently is a justified way? Lets say they knew that it existed, what could they do? Pick up there stuff and leave? The last time i check, the japanese government and army were the ones that decided not to surrender, not the population who was attacked.

:Also, if you would stop for but a moment and look at your source, in this case Wiki, it says up to, meaning that the estimate is not a conservative one. The final death toll that was calculated came to 185,000 when it was all said and done.

Ok, sorry about the number!

Now then, as to why such an event occured. Do you have any knowledge of history involving the Pacific theater in WWII? I'm going to assume you don't and so I'll lay it out as simply as possible for you, attempting to invade the Japanese home islands would result in massive casualties on both sides ranging somewhere into the millions. The amount of troops it would require to establish a beach head and invade would make Normandy look like a walk in the park, not to mention that although the Japanese carrier fleet had been destroyed, they still had a number of destroyers and battle cruisers left to use, they merely lacked carriers. Simply put, no chance in hell for success, and so, after leaflitting the city in advance, we dropped the bomb, first in Hiroshima, then in Nagasaki.

Ahh, and why did the US have to invade Japan? To stop the attacks? I really think that there could have been a better choice than nuking them.

True, the horrors of the events should never be forgotten, but they pale in comparison to what we could of had to deal with, and so, with all due respect, stfu and learn a little history before you open your mouth.

I'll give you a history lesson for free. The US is never wrong, no matter what they do, someone will find a way to make them appear like heros.

At 1/8/08 01:31 PM, Ahmudi wrote:
SO lets see, killing innocent people with a normal bomb is terrorism while killing people with a nuclear bomb which damage the land permanently is a justified way? Lets say they knew that it existed, what could they do? Pick up there stuff and leave? The last time i check, the japanese government and army were the ones that decided not to surrender, not the population who was attacked.

In Japan virtually everyone had solidarity with their leadership, it wasn't like modern-day U.S.A. What we did was ugly, but what we did ended a long hard war. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives and who knows how much resources. It was the lesser of two evils.

Ahh, and why did the US have to invade Japan? To stop the attacks? I really think that there could have been a better choice than nuking them.

As is pretty much common knowledge the other choice was a full blown land invasion, which the best estimates were calling for 1 MILLION dead. Also the chance of success were lower. So no there was no better option.

I'll give you a history lesson for free. The US is never wrong, no matter what they do, someone will find a way to make them appear like heros.

That works both ways bub, no matter what we do there will be plenty who think we are the spawn of satan.

Ahh, and why did the US have to invade Japan? To stop the attacks? I really think that there could have been a better choice than nuking them.

that was the tenant set by our goal of "unconditional surrender". The Japanese would not have surrendered without either an invasion on Japanese mainland, or (through hindsight) a nuclear attack on their cities.

World War II was not the most forgiving or humane war fought by man. Keep in mind that many of the Universal Human Rights, Geneva Convention protocols and other guidelines to warfare were made AFTER World War II.

While I do not necessarily believe the nuke attacks (nor Dresden, London, or most of the carpet bombing throughout the war for that matter) were "justified" in the sense that we understand as being "deserved" or universally morally correct, I DO understand and appreciate the circumstances under which such tactics were used.

There is some sound reasoning behind your stance about the US always being the "good guy" even when we're not, but I think you're taking your position to a little extreme and dangerous grounds.