kam Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 and Americans were to fight back to save their beloved country (that they stole from the Indians), do you think it would be fair to label the Americans who fight back as thugs and terrrorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Say you are an omelette, would you be a Denver or a Western? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kam Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Say you are an omelette, would you be a Denver or a Western? I know you are scare of the truth, don't worry I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 http://petit.philou.free.fr/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kam Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 You guys get real quiet when the truth is being talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by kam and Americans were to fight back to save their beloved country (that they stole from the Indians), do you think it would be fair to label the Americans who fight back as thugs and terrrorist? It would depend I think. We plan on turning the country over to the Iraqis themselves. Therefore, the fighting against us doesn't rise to that of fighting an occupying force. But, what truly defines a terrorist as a terrorist is his capacity for targeting innocent people rather than those he views as occupiers. As the people in Iraq largely fighting against us are killing innocents willfully, they are terrorists by any use of the term. The cleric's mob, holding people hostage, using them as shields and endagering a city they say is holy to them are thugs by any definition of the term. That many of them come from other countries to fight also limits your position. If, however, it were to turn out that we're keeping Iraq as our very own, then the people who would fight against our troops would not qualify as terrorists or thugs to me. I have no real problem with Palestinians killing and attacking Israeli soldiers. I find there to be honor in that. That's fair game. If Palestinians wouldn't willingly target civilians you could almost find yourself to view their cause with some sympathy. A terrorist is what a terrorist is. We, however, are not occupiers since we've announced our intention to turn the country over to the Iraqis shortly and will go as they say go. If we turn out to have not been truthful with that, then we might start having a reasonable cause to be called occupiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by kam and Americans were to fight back to save their beloved country (that they stole from the Indians), do you think it would be fair to label the Americans who fight back as thugs and terrrorist? Um... what kind of a question is that exactly? I don't remember Clinton using chemical weapons on anyone in DC. Am I missing something here? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by kam I know you are scare of the truth, don't worry I understand. We are scared of moronic statements like having stoled the country from the Indians. We bought some of it and won a fight for the rest of it. That's different than stealing. The truth doesn't happen to be any wretched statement you can come up with. It is a factually based on judged so by knowing the language, how it's used, and that means knowing the difference between winning a fight and stealing as well as what a terrorist or thug is and what it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 kam Plainly put you are a moron of the first order and would probably pick up a rifle or RPG to kill American troops if you had the chance. Besides, I've already said that a small percentage of those we're fighting against may be legitimate patriots, but eventually when kids are getting burned alive, people are getting killed and all order is being destroyed, you'd have to argue that a patriot would see the truth path to the salvation of his country would be in NOT engaging in attacks on the coalition or on new Iraqi authorities. Most of them ARE thugs and terrorists. Even if they had never before been involved in terrorism or thuggery, their aims are pretty much that. What alternative goals or plans do they have for Iraq? Theocracy under Sunnis? Saddam II? Do they even have a plan or platform for a new Iraq without the Coalition? You'll forgive me for not believing that these people are the equivalent of the minutemen--you Moore-wannabe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Terrorists/Rebels etc are always viewed differently depending on the outcome... Early American's were surely terrorists to the British... Setting bombs on ships in the harbor etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama Terrorists/Rebels etc are always viewed differently depending on the outcome... Early American's were surely terrorists to the British... Setting bombs on ships in the harbor etc... That's something I keep hearing and yet it seems that those suggesting it are morally blind. The Patriots were hardly blowing up civilians on purpose. Actions against military targets, even if your cause is evil, is 'legitimate.' Anyone know the etymology of terrorist? Because I'd like to know if that word was even in use at the time. This "one man's terrorist" business only applies to those who would cynically manipulate the language. A terrorist is NOT just a rebel by another name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kam Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin kam Plainly put you are a moron of the first order and would probably pick up a rifle or RPG to kill American troops if you had the chance. Besides, I've already said that a small percentage of those we're fighting against may be legitimate patriots, but eventually when kids are getting burned alive, people are getting killed and all order is being destroyed, you'd have to argue that a patriot would see the truth path to the salvation of his country would be in NOT engaging in attacks on the coalition or on new Iraqi authorities. Most of them ARE thugs and terrorists. Even if they had never before been involved in terrorism or thuggery, their aims are pretty much that. What alternative goals or plans do they have for Iraq? Theocracy under Sunnis? Saddam II? Do they even have a plan or platform for a new Iraq without the Coalition? You'll forgive me for not believing that these people are the equivalent of the minutemen--you Moore-wannabe. Why do I have to be a moron. Your prez is the moron and anybody that supports him is a moron as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin That's something I keep hearing and yet it seems that those suggesting it are morally blind. The Patriots were hardly blowing up civilians on purpose. Actions against military targets, even if your cause is evil, is 'legitimate.' Anyone know the etymology of terrorist? Because I'd like to know if that word was even in use at the time. This "one man's terrorist" business only applies to those who would cynically manipulate the language. A terrorist is NOT just a rebel by another name. Chill Ghost, I'm not making THAT comparison, my post had no hidden agenda, I don't side with the Iraqi's... I'm merely pointing that the end result of a conflict determines how the paricipants were viewed... The Patriots WERE terrorists to the English because they were fighting by different rules... We HAD to use guerrilla warfare in order to stand a chance and the British thought we were uncivilized barbarians. I KNOW that you know that. IF we lost the Revolutionary war, the Patriots would have been terrorists and regardless, they were terrorists or rebels from the English point of view. The confederates would have been patriots to the Confederate States of America had they won the Civil War. That's the only point I'm making, don't try to lump me in with people sympathetic to terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Code I'm not saying YOU had a hidden agenda. I'm merely recalling some other more obvious statements that caused me concern. Usually in DIRECT response to AQ or some other disgusting group. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Code I'm not saying YOU had a hidden agenda. I'm merely recalling some other more obvious statements that caused me concern. Usually in DIRECT response to AQ or some other disgusting group. That's all. No problem then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by kam Why do I have to be a moron. Your prez is the moron and anybody that supports him is a moron as well. Why you have to be a moron is a question we are unlikely to uncover here. How you became a moron though, certainly would be something worth considering. Perhaps dropped on your head as a wee one? Could be you simply have a learning disorder. An inability to discern right from wrong certainly would factor in. As for Bush being a moron, well, let's just say, he's got a better job than you, has more money than you, went to a better school than you, has more power and influence than you, and, well, as dumb as he is, he's outclassed you in every way possible. Therefore, perhaps instead of contemplating his intelligence you ought to worry about your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 "your President" He's yours too, jackass. Unless you're a foreign student living in Columbus, Ohio. In fact, the more I think about it---you taking flight classes?:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Art We are scared of moronic statements like having stoled the country from the Indians. We bought some of it and won a fight for the rest of it. That's different than stealing. The truth doesn't happen to be any wretched statement you can come up with. It is a factually based on judged so by knowing the language, how it's used, and that means knowing the difference between winning a fight and stealing as well as what a terrorist or thug is and what it isn't. are you being sarcastic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by Leonard Washington are you being sarcastic? Both yes and no depending on how you're asking the question. Or, perhaps caustic would be more appropriate. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 As much as I hate to give Kam a point, we did kinda, well... take the land from the Indians... we gave it a nice little name called Manifest Destiny too... But for the rest of Kam's points... Wow... just... wow... Seriously, did you fall out of an open window as a toddler? Or perhaps as Ghost pointed out, can you fly an airplane at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Manifest Destiny came later and it probably affected the mexicans the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 good point... but it's still relevent to what I was saying... However, I still think Kam is a clueless toolshed, let's not derail this topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by KDawg As much as I hate to give Kam a point, we did kinda, well... take the land from the Indians... we gave it a nice little name called Manifest Destiny too... But for the rest of Kam's points... Wow... just... wow... Seriously, did you fall out of an open window as a toddler? Or perhaps as Ghost pointed out, can you fly an airplane at all? KDawg, Stealing is what Kam said, which suggests possession of the land in some way. Simply having been the first to pee in the woods doesn't give you ownership of it. It may be correct to say we took the land from them, though that's a different meaning than stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Art, Gotcha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 and Americans were to fight back to save their beloved country (that they stole from the Indians), do you think it would be fair to label the Americans who fight back as thugs and terrrorist? No... because the Iraqis would not have a legitimate reason for attacking and occupying the United States other than pure aggression and the desire to force their religion and culture upon the west. Americans would be patriots, beating back the evil and it's maniacal Islamofacists. We're liberators in Iraq... the major media refuses to believe that. As for you, I'd have you on a "suspicious" list and keep 24/7 tabs on you. Now.. if that day came... I'd set up a small guerilla force that would attack the supply lines and communication points of the enemy. I'd name this ban of patriots something cool.. like Wolverines or something..... and scrawl the name on burnt out pieces of military machinery we destroyed. Slowly... this ban of patriots would become martyrs of the cause.... but hold out long enough to see the groundswell of resistance rise up and toss the aggressors back across the pond. Kinda sounds like a movie doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.