Terrorists........Kind ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

At any rate, I don't care what they're like on a personal level. All I know is they're trying to kill me and my loved ones and enforce their ideals onto anyone who survives. That equates to kicking the out of them.

---

This is down right pathetic. NO WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF TERRORIST IS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MENTIONED. This is seriously LUDICROUS. What the hell goes through you peoples minds? "Terrahist why he must be talkins bout 9-11!!!"? WTH? You people act like terrorists haven't protected you. IT's pretty damn ignorant to claim that all terrorists are out to kill you. I honestly hope you aren't always that introverted.

Soldiers also kill innocent people. Why's the connotation for soldier so much more positive than terrorists?

Quote:

---

They've been there for 1500 years, so it's their home too.

---

The first time the word 'Palestinians' has been sounded was in 1965. Also, please note that there weren't any Arabs at all, 1500 years ago, in Israel. They were tribes in the Saudi peninsula.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

At any rate, I don't care what they're like on a personal level. All I know is they're trying to kill me and my loved ones and enforce their ideals onto anyone who survives. That equates to kicking the out of them.

---

This is down right pathetic. NO WHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF TERRORIST IS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MENTIONED. This is seriously LUDICROUS. What the hell goes through you peoples minds? "Terrahist why he must be talkins bout 9-11!!!"? WTH? You people act like terrorists haven't protected you. IT's pretty damn ignorant to claim that all terrorists are out to kill you. I honestly hope you aren't always that introverted.

Soldiers also kill innocent people. Why's the connotation for soldier so much more positive than terrorists?

---

What are you talking about? I can barely decipher your post. Please calm down and type with a little more consideration of your words next time. Nevertheless: I know what terrorists are like. I've lived in Northern Ireland on and off through much of the more recent times of the Troubles. I lost family in the Shankill Bombing.

But no, I don't consider terrorists as a blanket evil. Terrorist being a person who induces or causes terror. It is simply how the world works. Everyone has their own objectives and agendas. Armies use terror to win battles and wars. This isn't something I like, but I accept and support those who induce terror to protect things like liberty and freedom and life and not being forced to be religion 'X' or 'Y'.

But that quickly becomes a case of might making right. So, you know, the entire flaw is governments being more powerful than individuals. We need to reduce governmental powers to law enforcement (And the laws are: No force, no coercion, other than the extraction of taxes which is required to ensure these very laws are held.), and let individuals and groups thereof handle everything else.

Alright I know I'm coming in late but there were a couple things that needed replying to:

Quote:

---

that is what America wants, Bush dosent want a war.....

---

this word has been thrown around a lot but that is ignorant, not only my opinion but factually. the "downing street memos" which were memos of the british head of intelligence to the blair cabinet saying (23rd of July Prime Minister meeting 2002 happening at the same time that Bush was saying he wanted a peaceful solution and had not sided on war) "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destrustion). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (national security council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." pretty obviously Bush did want more; if you feel like that's not enough (I don't know how it wouldn't be but if) I'll post more evidence. Needless to say the press in America took weeks to cover it and it was only covered when blogs forced them to. When they did cover it they tried to explain it away by saying everybody already knew so it's not news or that it really wasn't a report on Bush because it said "Washington said" both are clearly nonsense. President Bush and Rumsfeld asked for plans for invasion of Iraq within weeks of the 9/11 attacks. Other info can be found in Farenheit 9/11. During Clinton's administration Cheney and Wolfkowitz pushed for an invasion of Iraq, so they came into office wanting that.

Oh yeah BTW I agree with udsuna more than anyone else here.

Quote:

---

You see, I thought I had to explain certain things, like why Jews have a right to live, why they have a right to live where they did for eons, why they have a right to protect themselves, etc... but then I thought - why? Why isn't all that obvious? It should be. And if for some reason, to someone, it isn't... well, then there's nothing I can do about it, because as I've said, they are either too hateful, too ignorant or too dumb to want to change their minds.

---

hmmm... I just read the whole post and stunningly I never noticed anyone saying Jews do not have the right to live; please post an example as I utterly missed that. And if it's not there don't stick horrible words in other people's mouths and then call people stupid in some of your other posts if they didn't say what you stick on their mouths. Sorry if I read innacurately. I personally thought he was saying other people had a right to live, but I see how these things could be confused. :p

Quote:

---

We dont mean to kill inoccent people.

---

OK we're not out to kill innocent people, on that point though we (US) are very clearly willing to kill innocent people.

Quote:

---

ike the Linkin Park song, in the end, it doesn't really matter. America is strong, Israel is strong, both are standing on their feet and ready to fight the good fight. If some idiots want to symapthise or join the opposing side - let 'em, as long as they only do so verbally, like in this site. I know they're wrong, and that's really enough for me, and I also know they are powerless to affect the course of things with their baseless hate, ignorance and sometimes sheer stupidity (don't get all pissy, udsuna, you're not stupid. ). I would advise, however, not to sound these opinions outside the Internet, as you may never know who is listening and might get offended by you supporting the enemy's cause, for whatever reason you might have.

---

specifically could you tell me what you knoow is wrong? I didn't see that in your post and as your other posts didn't seem to talk about what other people said I have no idea what you're taling about,please clarify for slower people like me.

Finally (I make come back to pick out more things I disagree with) on the initial subject could you find terrorist more specifically. I know that could be considered simple but with all the other views of it it should be defined or at least considered opinion instead of fact which is how it's usually stated. I consider it a primitive term something undefined that can be understood, as opinions on it's meaning are different. One might define it 'one who causes terror' which would give us no sense of to what scale it's considered or anything. 'One who kills innocent people' already feels biased towards calling them evil without any discussion. Another word that comes up is 'freedom fighters'. Is Bush considered a terrorist- it's all so subjective. The problem is not that we have different opinions it's that to each of us it has different meaning. We disagree but in a way it's about different subjects.

edit: just so you know I was writing this as MILF put up what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

All completely true, but the Israelis can't force the Palestinians to leave. They've been there for 1500 years, so it's their home too. Not that I support the PLO or any other terrorists.

---

You did screw that one up. You're confused about "Palistine"- a small section of land, the occupied territories that Israel took in during a defensive war with the other Arabic nations in the area. Anyways, you seem to think Palestine matters.

However, aside from your lack of understanding of location/seperation, you're right. The people who NOW call themselves palestinians have been there for thousands of years. They've been muslims (of one nature or another) for the last 1500, but they've been native to that land for many hundreds of years earlier than that.

But, aside from saying "palistinian", you were correct. Nothing has changed but the names.

You can be nice and still be a smurfing dick at the same time.

This whole thread looks like a dog chasing its tail. Honestly it is simple. Terroism is not nice. Neither is killing for any reason, aside from putting a murder down.

I belive that you can make an excuse for every attack, and find a reason it was wrong. This could go on forever, and would prolly never end.

"aside from putting a murder down." sorry is that meant to say murderer? and in what way is that right? and that is why terorism exists. because every tax paying citizen pays the government for it's tanks and soldiers that kill people. at the end of the day the people are supporting the killing and so are part of the murder.

Yup murderer was the word I meant to use. What I say is right by outting a murderer dwon, is simply killing a person, whom is sick and beyond help. This is part of my opinion.

Obviosuly terrorists should rethink thier strategy if they are trying to attack the taxpayers. That would take a lot of work, and would prolly piss us off even more. I am sure you know there true motives as well as I do - so lts not stand in the dark and try to pick out thier targets. I would not go as far as to say I am a killer or a target. These terrorists, (if we are even talking of the same group) do more killing than talking, and that is not cool in my book.

I have faith in my government, and I know they have killed innosent; but to pass judgement based on the bad facts that you have, is wrong. The right thing to do is bring them up, and instead of condemning the US - bring your points up with proof, an sell others on the idea.

The world is not all that bad, no matter how much we complain, it could be worse. Latley I have seen some great positive steps in the right direction; it just seems to be that moving on is a slow and hard process, while pointing the finger and screaming comes a bit easier.

Bipper

Quote:

---

However, aside from your lack of understanding of location/seperation, you're right. The people who NOW call themselves palestinians have been there for thousands of years. They've been muslims (of one nature or another) for the last 1500, but they've been native to that land for many hundreds of years earlier than that.

---

Prior to 1881, there were anywhere between 25,000 and 30,000 Arabs in the land of Israel. They lived as good neighbours with their Jewish friends, who were about 4,000 (roughly a quarter, or so), a group of Jews which is reffered to as 'the old settlement', as they never moved from Israel, inspite of all the exiles and all the empires, 3,000 years-worth of them, that tried to capture Israel. As the Jewish immigration began to rise in the late 1800s (due to the rising of the Zionist movement, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state), so did the Arab nations around Israel (which was then called Palestine, due to a practical joke of a Roman emperor) got nervous - namely Jordan, which was, and is still today, a proud monarchy, and a very cautious nation. So, they did what seemed right - and as they couldn't risk open war, as the Ottomans controlled the area, they flooded it with civilians instead. Masses of poor Jordanian Arabs that lived near the border came to (or rather, were pushed into) Israel, to counter the Jewish settlements. They weren't too happy about it, mind you, as there was practically nothing for them here, other than the up-coming strife with the Jewish population.

So, the angry Arabs that now call themselves Palestinians, are those Arabs that came a little over a hundred years ago into Israel. They are misreable, bitter, and have very little hope, and no-where else to go. So, they fight, not yet realising a lasting peace with the strongest nation and also the only democracy in the area could actually benefit them...