|
Muslims are main perpetrators of terrorism (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Calm down mr.tool
Let me comfort you with this:
The U.S. has engaged in wars for regime changes for the "better" of the world. |
"better" by whose standards? you tool.
| quote: | | The United States under the Reagan administration used military force in Latin America and the Caribbean to promote democracy. |
and aren't they better for it? i wish we had the foresite to invade venezuela before all their problems beagn to manifest.
| quote: | | The invasion of Grenada was a three-day military campaign which gained wide popular support in the United States. |
because it was the first successful public show of force in over thirty years. we got our taste of blood from easy targets. what, we sent over an entire US navy battle fleet, 2000 marines and the 82nd airborne all to crush a small communist mutiny and rescue 400 medical students. Woo-f-n-hoo!!!
| quote: | | Both were anticommunist policies aimed at eliminating leftist governments and both were publicly cast as efforts to promote democracy. |
and now grenada is a thriving market because of our actions. :rolleyes:
| quote: | | But yes, we have in the past used our military for some pretty dastardly deeds. |
last month? plz be more specific.
| quote: | NOW:
Invasion of Panama: We invaded panama in 1989 to capture manual noreiga.
|
yeah, the poor bastard abused the power we gave him and owed daddy bush a lot of money
| quote: |
Do you see a trend?
If you say the U.S. goes into countries sets up gas chambers to gas another society's people with mustard gas or nerve gas then I would call you a liar. Its quite obvious they had other intentions as opposed to lining up 12 Nepalese people on the floor and beheading them.
Now going into a food market and exploding yourself for reasons of religion as basis...Thats a different story.
You see....you have to draw the line.
Unfortunately the U.S. has been guilty of slaying innocent civilians in the line of fire. innocent Human lives lost in wars. They were not the sole purpose of the U.S. going into those regions. The U.S. didnt enter those areas with their rocket launchers targeting innocent civilians....there was a mission. Innocent lives are lost in wars whether we like it or not. So pls dont call human casualties in a war terrorism because if you do...then the entire world is guilty of it throughout history.
The terrorist radicals of today hold innocent civilians as a main target. They often use religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
There is a war..they are waging it on innocent people whether it be children or the elderly. That my friend is the difference. They purposely target innocent people. Ask Nick Berg's family, ask paul johnson's family |
yet you are confused by these "missions". you still think that the US is honorable in our "under god" excuses to submit the world to our ruling class's will. hell, if we sent one man to take out a city, we'd celebrate him as a Rambo, yet that populace would view him as a terrorist. but for some reason, we have the patent on the terrorist name-calling, and we'll be damned if it gets used against us.
you think that estabishing gas chambers seperates us from hitler, but i challenge you to not look at his specifics, but his reasons. it's that same populace instilled fear that drove him to power that keeps bush in the polls. it's the same structured system of control that we see through tom ridge and john ashcroft that will later be compared (whether you like it or not) to the gestapo tactics.
you should understand that tactics change as we progress through time. if i were stuck in a tactical analysis of history, my teachers would be wrong in proclaiming that those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. i'm sorry that a majority of my american brothers and sisters are so consumed with our "cheerwine and debbie cakes" distractions to see our president for his actions, past and present, vs. his excused lies we hear on fox news. if he gets elected for another term, we will get the government we deserve... a menace with nothing to lose. (btw, i still think cheney will drop if it looks like bush can win... after all, he has the face of evil that no baby can stand to be kissed by (referring to the 2008 election possibility;) ))
If we are to so flagrently toss around terrorist accusations, shouldn't we allow ourselves to view the world not through the scope of unflawed perfectionism of our godly mission to rid the world of evil, but as our kindling source of hatred that we ourselves produce though our own greed. i can't say that kerry is going to be any better than the spoiled rich kid we have right now, but , how can he be any worse?
we still should have picked the wild turkey as our nation bird... at least it's too smart to become endangered. [/pointless rant on deaf ears] |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
[/pointless rant on deaf ears] |
I'm listening. You make much more sense than the knuckleheads on here.
It's amazing how many American's still think that we are benefitting the rest of the world with our latest foreign policy endeavors. It almost makes me think that people are really just in denial about the whole issue but I don't know how it could actually be such a mass phenomenon.
Seriously, it's going to take decades or perhaps generations to repair our (America's) reputation with the rest of the world.
Conspiracy theories aside, it almost seems fitting that this has grown to be our replacement for the now defunct Cold War.
 |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
"better" by whose standards? you tool.
and aren't they better for it? i wish we had the foresite to invade venezuela before all their problems beagn to manifest.
because it was the first successful public show of force in over thirty years. we got our taste of blood from easy targets. what, we sent over an entire US navy battle fleet, 2000 marines and the 82nd airborne all to crush a small communist mutiny and rescue 400 medical students. Woo-f-n-hoo!!!
and now grenada is a thriving market because of our actions. :rolleyes:
last month? plz be more specific.
yeah, the poor bastard abused the power we gave him and owed daddy bush a lot of money
yet you are confused by these "missions". you still think that the US is honorable in our "under god" excuses to submit the world to our ruling class's will. hell, if we sent one man to take out a city, we'd celebrate him as a Rambo, yet that populace would view him as a terrorist. but for some reason, we have the patent on the terrorist name-calling, and we'll be damned if it gets used against us.
you think that estabishing gas chambers seperates us from hitler, but i challenge you to not look at his specifics, but his reasons. it's that same populace instilled fear that drove him to power that keeps bush in the polls. it's the same structured system of control that we see through tom ridge and john ashcroft that will later be compared (whether you like it or not) to the gestapo tactics.
you should understand that tactics change as we progress through time. if i were stuck in a tactical analysis of history, my teachers would be wrong in proclaiming that those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. i'm sorry that a majority of my american brothers and sisters are so consumed with our "cheerwine and debbie cakes" distractions to see our president for his actions, past and present, vs. his excused lies we hear on fox news. if he gets elected for another term, we will get the government we deserve... a menace with nothing to lose. (btw, i still think cheney will drop if it looks like bush can win... after all, he has the face of evil that no baby can stand to be kissed by (referring to the 2008 election possibility;) ))
If we are to so flagrently toss around terrorist accusations, shouldn't we allow ourselves to view the world not through the scope of unflawed perfectionism of our godly mission to rid the world of evil, but as our kindling source of hatred that we ourselves produce though our own greed. i can't say that kerry is going to be any better than the spoiled rich kid we have right now, but , how can he be any worse?
we still should have picked the wild turkey as our nation bird... at least it's too smart to become endangered. [/pointless rant on deaf ears] |
Let me ask you this:
Terrorists target civilians. They use UNCONVENTIONAL methods.
THe U.S. targets civilians purposely then?
Yea the U.S. has had selfish goals but never has it been on the agenda to purposely eliminate civilians. The targets have either been to take out Soviet expansion or place democracy.
Like I said, Terrorists target civilians purposely. I still dont understand why you cant see the difference. Its pretty sad...
Btw im holding a clean debate so keep your lil cheapshots and snide remarks for other kids.;) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
We also did a great job in bringing Pol Pot to power, via Henry Kissinger - while in the name of enforcing our lofty American ideals.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/s...bodia/tl02.html
| quote: | On March 18, 1969, American B-52s began carpet-bombing eastern Cambodia. "Operation Breakfast" was the first course in a four-year bombing campaign that drew Cambodia headlong into the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration kept the bombings secret from Congress for several months, insisting they were directed against legitimate Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge targets. However, the raids exacted an enormous cost from the Cambodian people: the US dropped 540,000 tons of bombs , killing anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 civilians.
Shortly after the bombing began, Sihanouk restored diplomatic relations with the US, expressing concern over the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. But his change of heart came too late. In March 1970, while Sihanouk was traveling abroad, he was deposed by a pro-American general, Lon Nol. The Nixon Administration, which viewed Sihanouk as an untrustworthy partner in the fight against communism , increased military support to the new regime.
In April 1970, without Lon Nol's knowledge, American and South Vietnamese forces crossed into Cambodia. There was already widespread domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam; news of the "secret invasion" of Cambodia sparked massive protests across the US, culminating in the deaths of six students shot by National Guardsmen at Kent State University and Jackson State University. Nixon withdrew American troops from Cambodia shortly afterwards. But the US bombing continued until August 1973.
Meanwhile, with assistance from North Vietnam and China, the guerrillas of the Khmer Rouge had grown into a formidable force. By 1974, they were beating the government on the battlefield and preparing for a final assault on Phnom Penh. And they had gained an unlikely new ally: Norodom Sihanouk, living in exile, who now hailed them as patriots fighting against an American puppet government.
Sihanouk's support boosted the Khmer Rouge's popularity among rural Cambodians. But some observers have argued that the devastating American bombing also helped fuel the Khmer Rouge's growth. Former New York Times correspondent Sydney Schanberg said the Khmer Rouge "... would point... at the bombs falling from B-52s as something they had to oppose if they were going to have freedom. And it became a recruiting tool until they grew to a fierce, indefatigable guerrilla army." Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has dismissed the idea that the US bears any responsibility for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. As he argued in his memoir, "It was Hanoi-animated by an insatiable drive to dominate Indochina- that organized the Khmer Rouge long before any American bombs fell on Cambodian soil." |
|
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
cheap shots.. i must be a terrorist, too, by ignoring the conventional reasoning of the tools of this administration. if conventional means is the line you draw between state-sponsored and muslim terrorism, then your credit is fastly diminishing. i can't expect to break you self-protectionistic texan bubble, but hell, i'll give it a shot.
the true patriots of this country are against tyranny of all forms, whether it be the faceless evils of the jihad or the faces we see every night at 6pm. fake americans live in fear of losing our established way of life, not in fear of losing their lives. the true patriots aren't concerned with maintaining the status quo, rather with preserving the ideals established by our forefathers making this country the model for democracy worldwide. i just refuse to see a single faceless enemy as being the only enemy of democracy.
you speak of the nobility of previous administrations to destroy the communist threat. it sounds like your already mentally prepared for a new mccarthistic approach to the sand****** threat. do you think that these people really hate freedom? do you think that dubya really gives a about the iraqi people? no wmds there, but they're better because of us. you soak their lies like a sponge, and then get offended when a mountain boy from nc sees you as a tool. stop reguritating the bs and think for yourself.
the election upcoming is probably if not the most important you will see in your lifetime, and not because kerry is the man (which he isn't). it is our chance to show the enemy that we don't condone this administrations tactics in dealing with those who hate this country. we preach a democratic environment, therefore our enemies target those who elect this swine. isn't it worth the chance to say: "hey, we ed up, we still don't want to be ed with, but you (towelheads) can live your lives without fear of our influence."
of course i'm expecting some cheap rebuttal regarding kerry's love-affair with france, or that i'm a jihad operative who wants kerry to win because all of us sand******s think that the us will be easy pickings once we remove the onmipitant dubya from office. or kerry's wife is strong willed and has money.
or rush says... |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
no, you can't argue about the use of conventional weapons as instruments of terror. speedracer_bot has already established that. and kissinger is discounted because he worked for a criminal president. keep in mind, bush hasn't been busted yet, that's for his second term. hopefully his agnew will also go down and he'll have to nominate an inefective yet sympathetic powell to keep him free from prison.
sorry, i'm having too much fun with this morbidness. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
or rush says... |
But dude, come on! Bill Maher got smoked!!!
It's not like he's some sociopolitical luminary or anything like that. He's basically an entertainer who has the amazing ability to criticize the current administration and it's policies without losing his job - an actual feat in itself! |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
no, you can't argue about the use of conventional weapons as instruments of terror. speedracer_bot has already established that. and kissinger is discounted because he worked for a criminal president. keep in mind, bush hasn't been busted yet, that's for his second term. hopefully his agnew will also go down and he'll have to nominate an inefective yet sympathetic powell to keep him free from prison.
sorry, i'm having too much fun with this morbidness. |
You mean that
Suicide bombers > bomb laden B-52's
:conf:
Haha |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
no, you can't argue about the use of conventional weapons as instruments of terror. . |
k thx
I asked a question....you decided to bash the other side.
Let me ask one more time
Terrorists target civilians. They use UNCONVENTIONAL methods.
THe U.S. targets civilians purposely then?
Don't Terrorists use civilians as a main target?
If the U.S. is guilty....give me one example where they go into a specific region to wipe out a certain population purposely(e.g.saddam/kurds) |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Let me ask you this:
Terrorists target civilians. They use UNCONVENTIONAL methods.
THe U.S. targets civilians purposely then?
Yea the U.S. has had selfish goals but never has it been on the agenda to purposely eliminate civilians. The targets have either been to take out Soviet expansion or place democracy.
Like I said, Terrorists target civilians purposely. I still dont understand why you cant see the difference. Its pretty sad...
Btw im holding a clean debate so keep your lil cheapshots and snide remarks for other kids.;) |
First am glad you admit, USA is selfish indeed.
I'd like to answer this in a decent way.
There is a difference indeed, But there is no difference if you look it from the Victims view.
you see a terrorist takes out a life of a person, that person did not want to die, but he/she died.
You see a smart bomb drops on a house with innocent people, yes not purposley, but those people did not want to die, but he/she died.
Now please understand what am saying, this goes for alot of people, you can't use the word "war" as an excuse, saying yes they died but it was not on purpose. It is very lame and weak to say yes it was not on purpose. You kill a soldier that is shooting you, fine your choice beeing a soldier, your choice fighting, your risk of dieng.
Civillians dieng is another story purpose or not, it's all the same |
|
|
| Yoepus |
look, simple.
The US doesn't conduct terrorism.
It might not obey all the agreements of war, and it may be to brutal to your liking.
But it an't conducting terrorist policy, why?
Because if the USA was to conduct terrorist policy it would be ineffective.
I'm sure even you numbskulls can understand that. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
look, simple.
The US doesn't conduct terrorism.
It might not obey all the agreements of war, and it may be to brutal to your liking.
But it an't conducting terrorist policy, why?
Because if the USA was to conduct terrorist policy it would be ineffective.
I'm sure even you numbskulls can understand that. |
Or conduct terrorist training camps (aimed towards civilians specifically) for that matter. |
|
|
|
|
