Poll: Who is a terrorist?

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of choice a,b,c,d,and e---none of the above.

We are still waiting for your answer Lemon Law. Tell us what you would do in the scenario I described if you were "the decider."

Impress me.

Does anyone else hear crickets?

oh Lemonnnnnnnnn...

*chirp chirp*

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: manowar821
I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

Would you punch the 1/4 people in P&N that feels we should leave the insurgents in Iraq unharmed?

What does that have to do with racist pigs? I have no beef with pacifists, nor do I have beef with our soldiers shooting back at insurgents. So, no, I wouldn't. I'd still be mad at them, though.

I put these 5 people in the same boat as murderers/terrorists, because they're disgusting wastes of space. Kill a man because he's ARAB? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like racist Nazism to me.

That's why I'd like to physically harm them. The people who say that they wouldn't want to kill an insurgent are perhaps misled, but they're not supporting murderers. Perhaps they're simply pacifists.

To say that an Arab man deserves death is nothing short of disgusting.

Do you honestly think that those votes in this poll are legit? They are obviously trolls.....I can't believe that people are getting so worked up over obvious trolls...

Actually I wasn't worked up in my first response, I was saying that they were probably trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't.

My second response was worked up because of nick1985's question and what kind of meaning it had behind it.

Well, it was an honest question, and a good one at that. The people that he was talking about were most likely not trolls and very serious in what they said.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I also don't see any one raising their eyebrows over Pakistan's selling of Guantanamo prisoners to the US for bounty. They are treated worse than slaves, tortured, beaten, humiliated, killed

That is not true. Prisoners at Gitmo are not "tortured, beaten, humiliated, and killed." That is simply what Al Jazeera and the American far Left would have you believe. It's complete bullsh*t.

In reality, they are treated better than most prisoners in American prisons! Go there for a visit and see for yourself.

You're not still peddling that are you? We already went over this several times.

Then again, I guess it depends on if you consider the International Red Cross, the European Union, the OAS, the United Nations, and US military lawyers as all members of the American Far Left... because they all seem to think that torture is going on at Guantanamo. They probably just hate America though.

Of course it would be great for Americans to be able to decide for themselves, but not only are Americans barred from going there, even international groups and NGO's are only permitted there on scripted visits, and aren't allowed to privately interview prisoners.

Sounds like everything's A-OK to me!

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: manowar821
I really want to meet the 5 people or so who voted all yes, and punch them in the throat.

I'm guessing they're trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't... Complete and blatant racist/nationalists still exist, and probably know how to use a computer, regardless of the fact that they have the IQ of a pile of cow dung.

Would you punch the 1/4 people in P&N that feels we should leave the insurgents in Iraq unharmed?

What does that have to do with racist pigs? I have no beef with pacifists, nor do I have beef with our soldiers shooting back at insurgents. So, no, I wouldn't. I'd still be mad at them, though.

I put these 5 people in the same boat as murderers/terrorists, because they're disgusting wastes of space. Kill a man because he's ARAB? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? Sounds like racist Nazism to me.

That's why I'd like to physically harm them. The people who say that they wouldn't want to kill an insurgent are perhaps misled, but they're not supporting murderers. Perhaps they're simply pacifists.

To say that an Arab man deserves death is nothing short of disgusting.

Do you honestly think that those votes in this poll are legit? They are obviously trolls.....I can't believe that people are getting so worked up over obvious trolls...

Actually I wasn't worked up in my first response, I was saying that they were probably trolls, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't.

My second response was worked up because of nick1985's question and what kind of meaning it had behind it.

Well, it was an honest question, and a good one at that. The people that he was talking about were most likely not trolls and very serious in what they said.

No, it really wasn't. Perhaps my own defensive walls are too far up, but it seemed less like an honest question, and more like a probe to see if I was one of the "terrorist sympathizers".

Besides, they're just as likely trolls as the other 5 I was speaking of. Also, at what level in the answers is it NOT trolling to be answering yes/no? The level at which you or I agree with them 100%? We can dance around this all day, see.

So I think agreeing to disagree is the best we can hope for here (unless you actually do agree with me, which is fine, too), and also hoping to whatever god you believe in that these two extremes are simply shaking the bees nest, and don't actually believe what they picked.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I also don't see any one raising their eyebrows over Pakistan's selling of Guantanamo prisoners to the US for bounty. They are treated worse than slaves, tortured, beaten, humiliated, killed

That is not true. Prisoners at Gitmo are not "tortured, beaten, humiliated, and killed." That is simply what Al Jazeera and the American far Left would have you believe. It's complete bullsh*t.

In reality, they are treated better than most prisoners in American prisons! Go there for a visit and see for yourself.

You're not still peddling that are you? We already went over this several times.

Then again, I guess it depends on if you consider the International Red Cross, the European Union, the OAS, the United Nations, and US military lawyers as all members of the American Far Left... because they all seem to think that torture is going on at Guantanamo. They probably just hate America though.

Of course it would be great for Americans to be able to decide for themselves, but not only are Americans barred from going there, even international groups and NGO's are only permitted there on scripted visits, and aren't allowed to privately interview prisoners.

Sounds like everything's A-OK to me!

And I bet you agree with them that loud music, four hours of sleep, and bright lights constitute "torture," right? Do you also agree with Beanie's statement that prisoners are being "beaten" and "killed" at Gitmo?

bah... let's not go down this road again. Your Holiday Inn Express exposure to reality is too annoying to debate with.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And I bet you agree with them that loud music, four hours of sleep, and bright lights constitute "torture," right? Do you also agree with Beanie's statement that prisoners are being "beaten" and "killed" at Gitmo?

bah... let's not go down this road again. Your Holiday Inn Express exposure to reality is too annoying to debate with.

No, I think that our government allows no independant evaluations of the prison and no private interviews with the prisoners because conditions are so good that they don't want people to try to move there.

What I was considering torture was indefinite detention, extreme periods in 'stress positions', yes.. beatings, prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, etc. My opinion is shared by those organizations previously listed. I'm glad your high status as an enlisted soldier places you in a superior position to determine these things over these internationally recognized groups.

'Beanie' was probably confusing the murder of prisoners in US custody that has ocurred at other detention sites, and assumed they happened at Guantanamo. Last time I checked there were nearly 30 actionable cases that involve prisoners of the US being murdered by their interrogators according to the army criminal investigation command. I personally have not heard of any murders that have taken place at Guantanamo. Something to be proud of to be sure.

Like I've said tons of times before, you might be able to bull$hit other people on here, but you can't bull$hit me. I've been there just as you have. (or claim that you have) and I know from personal experience that the view that you offer is complete and total crap. The mere fact that you try and pass off the lie that a single enlisted guy (a reservist no less!) is actually privy to the amount of information and authoritative knowledge about activities throughout highly secretive commands, across several operational areas, conveniently encompassing both high level intelligence activities in and out of Iraq, interrogations in Guantanamo, infantry work, etc. strains credulity. What did you say you were anyway, an E-6? Yeah, I'm sure you were totally in the loop. I worked in the message/intel processing area of my ship for about 4 years with a TS clearance and I know exactly how much information is compartmentalized. At least I'm honest enough to admit how much I don't know.

Simply put: I call BS on you. Even if your duty rotation somehow let you be in all the places you claim to have been in the last 5 years (and why you would spend so much of that forward deployed is beyond me anyway), you would not have the level of authoritative knowledge that you claim.

So stop it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
And I bet you agree with them that loud music, four hours of sleep, and bright lights constitute "torture," right? Do you also agree with Beanie's statement that prisoners are being "beaten" and "killed" at Gitmo?

bah... let's not go down this road again. Your Holiday Inn Express exposure to reality is too annoying to debate with.

No, I think that our government allows no independant evaluations of the prison and no private interviews with the prisoners because conditions are so good that they don't want people to try to move there.

What I was considering torture was indefinite detention, extreme periods in 'stress positions', yes.. beatings, prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, etc. My opinion is shared by those organizations previously listed. I'm glad your high status as an enlisted soldier places you in a superior position to determine these things over these internationally recognized groups.

'Beanie' was probably confusing the murder of prisoners in US custody that has ocurred at other detention sites, and assumed they happened at Guantanamo. Last time I checked there were nearly 30 actionable cases that involve prisoners of the US being murdered by their interrogators according to the army criminal investigation command. I personally have not heard of any murders that have taken place at Guantanamo. Something to be proud of to be sure.

Like I've said tons of times before, you might be able to bull$hit other people on here, but you can't bull$hit me. I've been there just as you have. (or claim that you have) and I know from personal experience that the view that you offer is complete and total crap. The mere fact that you try and pass off the lie that a single enlisted guy (a reservist no less!) is actually privy to the amount of information and authoritative knowledge about activities throughout highly secretive commands, across several operational areas, conveniently encompassing both high level intelligence activities in and out of Iraq, interrogations in Guantanamo, infantry work, etc. strains credulity. What did you say you were anyway, an E-6? Yeah, I'm sure you were totally in the loop. I worked in the message/intel processing area of my ship for about 4 years with a TS clearance and I know exactly how much information is compartmentalized. At least I'm honest enough to admit how much I don't know.

Simply put: I call BS on you. Even if your duty rotation somehow let you be in all the places you claim to have been in the last 5 years (and why you would spend so much of that forward deployed is beyond me anyway), you would not have the level of authoritative knowledge that you claim.

So stop it.

I have ample exposure to most of the topics you named, and most of the locales you mentioned - primarily first-hand - and I have every right to testify to the reality of each situation vs. that which you saw in "message traffic" or on TV.

So think what you will.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have ample exposure to most of the topics you named, and most of the locales you mentioned - primarily first-hand - and I have every right to testify to the reality of each situation vs. that which you saw in "message traffic" or on TV.

So think what you will.

Sure you do... and I certainly will.

I think everyone else here should think long and hard before believing a word this guy says.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I also don't see any one raising their eyebrows over Pakistan's selling of Guantanamo prisoners to the US for bounty. They are treated worse than slaves, tortured, beaten, humiliated, killed

That is not true. Prisoners at Gitmo are not "tortured, beaten, humiliated, and killed." That is simply what Al Jazeera and the American far Left would have you believe. It's complete bullsh*t.

In reality, they are treated better than most prisoners in American prisons! Go there for a visit and see for yourself.

And when they are released they have gone back to being terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[Siddhartha]

Were the US's fire and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilian area acts of terrorism?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I also don't see any one raising their eyebrows over Pakistan's selling of Guantanamo prisoners to the US for bounty. They are treated worse than slaves, tortured, beaten, humiliated, killed

That is not true. Prisoners at Gitmo are not "tortured, beaten, humiliated, and killed." That is simply what Al Jazeera and the American far Left would have you believe. It's complete bullsh*t.

In reality, they are treated better than most prisoners in American prisons! Go there for a visit and see for yourself.

Yeah, the 5 guys that hung themselves rather than stick around for more fun are clearly wimps.

No, we're not treating our captives as bad as the Taliban and Al Qaeda do. But if that's our moral compass, we are lost.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The only persons I would classify as 'terrorists' are those who commit attacks outside of wartime. Once we invaded sovereign nations we invited attacks to our people and assets. Anything that happens to us now is our own fault and I do not look down upon those who do it.

That being said if you choose to attack a nation who is not directly your enemy, then you deserve to be hunted. When you get into things like the IRA I still don't look down on those who commit the acts...when faced with an overwhelming opponent you have to get creative...but I would also support those that try to stop them. It's really a no-win situation.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Were the US's fire and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilian area acts of terrorism?

Oh JHC not this crap again. Stupid comparison anyways. The Iraqi people are killing each other...... Now if the US's response to the Japanese attacking us was nuclear bombing our own cities then you *might* have some kind of comparison, but we weren't that dumb.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I was looking for American opinions as to what they think. It's getting hard for me to decide who is lesser of the two evils: Osama and his gang or Bush and his thugs. Who really kills because of hatred? Because I think America may have to kill in the millions depending on how they define "terrorist"

how many nutcases are there in Pakistan, that would kill someone because they are

American
Christian
Jewish
A women (having premarital sex)
Any homosexual
Someone who disagrees with muslim orthodoxy
Someone who eats a bacon cheeseburger or drinks beer

It doesn't surprise me that you've got a hard time deciding who is "less" evil....because you've got a warped ideal about what evil is...

 

[heartsurgeon]

Were the US's fire and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilian area acts of terrorism?

No.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Were the US's fire and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilian area acts of terrorism?

No.

Why? The DoD definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

The bombing of Rotterdamn by the Germans in WW2 was widely considered an act of terrorism at the time, despite the fact that Germany was at war with the Netherlands when it bombed the heart of the city, specifically targeting civilian targets as we would later do. This was considered 'unlawful' at the time.

Was the US in the right overall in WW2? Definitely. Did we commit acts of terrorism? Definitely. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo in particular are inexcuseable from a military or humanitarian standpoint, and are profoundly evil. God you people whine about those who hate America no matter how much good it does, well maybe those who defend our actions no matter how reprehensible should take a look at themselves too.

 

[alejandroAT]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Were the US's fire and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilian area acts of terrorism?

No.

NO???? the whole point of nuking japan was to scare them and everyone else out of messing with the US... simple word ....terror-ism...means to infuse terror into an entire nation into submitting to your will. That was the purpose of nuking japan as admitted by the military personnel who committed this act. Who are you to make up your own theories? You evaporated hundreds of thousands of civilians to terrorize japan into signing defeat, something they were about to do anyway; do some research.

And what was that about "if you're not with us you're against us?". Sorry my friend but thats a plain and simple threat. Like all the other threats you make so easily and feel no remorse about. According to Americans everything America does is justified. And thats what makes you lose credibility in all sort of arguments like the above. You are on the good side defacto so there's no point even talking about it.


And who was that said its stupid NOT to kill a man cause he is Muslim? an American....who is saying things like kill'em'all and such on forums like this and on others? again an American. I have heard so many extremist comments on this forum and they ALL come from Americans.

Someone also said that its ok that you bombed Iraq cause they were killing each other anyway!!!! You may or may not know (i don't know what they teach you lot over there - its insane ) that America had a civil war not so far ago and you were killing each other over the right to have SLAVES...SLAVES MAN.....would it be ok for France or england to bomb you cause you were killing each other anyway? Sort it out...you have no moral high-ground on which to stand and accuse ....and guess what, if you decided to invade my country tomorrow because as you say it will bring world piece, i wouldn't greet you with open arms either!!!!

 

[alejandroAT]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I was looking for American opinions as to what they think. It's getting hard for me to decide who is lesser of the two evils: Osama and his gang or Bush and his thugs. Who really kills because of hatred? Because I think America may have to kill in the millions depending on how they define "terrorist"

how many nutcases are there in Pakistan, that would kill someone because they are

American
Christian
Jewish
A women (having premarital sex)
Any homosexual
Someone who disagrees with muslim orthodoxy
Someone who eats a bacon cheeseburger or drinks beer

It doesn't surprise me that you've got a hard time deciding who is "less" evil....because you've got a warped ideal about what evil is...

you are funny man...America has the 8th rank of homicides anywhere in the world! get real and don't open your mouth much.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2167...ime-Statistics-Murders

oh you might notice that all the countries in the list (top 32) are christian. I rest my case.

 

[alejandroAT]

http://www.genocidewatch.org/r...hgenocide21april05.htm

and have a read here about your selective justice morality you're so proud about!

You know, i used to write a lot in this forum but i quit due to all the polite adjectives and epithets you reserve for anyone that doesn't think like you. Due to comments like "kill them all" and "who cares if they are children and women". Something tells me i will regret getting involved once again. I hope someone proves me wrong. Have a nice life, all alone in that mess you call a civilized country, where every minute someone gets shot to death. You are running out of friends with every passing moment.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Were the US's fire and nuclear bombing of Japanese civilian area acts of terrorism?

No.

NO???? the whole point of nuking japan was to scare them and everyone else out of messing with the US... simple word ....terror-ism...means to infuse terror into an entire nation into submitting to your will.

What is ironic is that the nuking of Japan not only saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers, but it almost assurabely saved Japanese civilian lives in the end. Imagine if we had to invade that Island...Iwo Jima *1000. The Japanese government was arming farmers and peasants with spears and simple weapons to "defend the homeland" with.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
You know, i used to write a lot in this forum but i quit due to all the polite adjectives and epithets you reserve for anyone that doesn't think like you. Due to comments like "kill them all" and "who cares if they are children and women".

Same here.

This has been going on for forever on ATP&N. :frown:

 

[Lemon law]

This really boils down to imposing ideas on others using violent means. And also the concept of self defense. That we were somehow justified in punishing the Japanese people who attacked us first. And since a nuke is the ultimate punishment, it somehow saves lives when it becomes
possible to justify that it reduces the overall level of violence on both sides.

Pretty soon these logical arguments make us lose sight of the fact that the initial goal is to reduce the overall level of human on human violence. And we lose sight of the fact that someone is imposing ideas on someone else by using violence. And that someone is often US. And in terms of violence, there is not a dimes worth of difference between a terrorist and an organized military.

So maybe we need to look more at our overall justifications first. Which is usually rationalized as self defense. And here we have had only one 911 where they came and attacked us totally indiscriminately. And killed men or women, Christian and Muslim, and the only sin was in being there. And being there was in that plane or in that set of buildings. And less than 3000 paid that forfeit.

So now we go overseas, can't find the terrorists to punish, so we totally destabilize a number of Countries, cause all kinds of indiscriminate violence in which men, women, houses, and cities are totally destroyed, and then wonder when they use self defense and their own brands of terrorism to resist. And then the local population gets caught between our military and their terrorists---and patriots.

Where is the balance between our less than 3000 innocent people and GOD only knows how many hundreds of thousand of their innocents brought into the cycle of violence.

The point being----ideas are ideas---they can forced on others with the point of a gun very inefficiently and usually with counter productive results---or can be voluntarily bought by others because the ideas we have will be realized to be superior if indeed they are. In the free market of ideas, let market forces rule.

And somehow we lose total sight of the latter option---when it and not the former point of a gun method are the ways to reduce violence. And the easy and not hard way forward.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of choice a,b,c,d,and e---none of the above.

We are still waiting for your answer Lemon Law. Tell us what you would do in the scenario I described if you were "the decider."

Impress me.

Does anyone else hear crickets?

oh Lemonnnnnnnnn...

*chirp chirp*

Lemon... please answer the question.

 

[Lemon law]

No palehorse74, I will not answer your totally hypothetical question----nor will you answer my real world actual question.

But even if its all about us being 100% good and them being 100% wrong---lets look at the calculus.

We lose 3000 totally innocent people in 911 because of evil terrorists.

And now we may have killed 3000 terrorist by now maybe by chasing them all over the world to deter them. And have directly and indirectly caused the deaths of many many many times that number of totally innocent people overseas.

Meanwhile we have spent upwards of a trillion dollars, had at least 3700 of our military killed, we have upwards of 10,000 of our military personnel severely wounded to a point
where they will suffer lifelong disabilities, and has caused an overall increase in the amount of terrorism world wide.

And you don't have sufficient wit to even wonder is there anything wrong with that picture.

Maybe you can claim that you have prevented more 911's here----while ignoring the fact that your kind of thinking caused the 911 we had.

But sure as God made little green apples, the terrorists your thinking has bred will cause many future 911's here. Its just a matter of time when your efforts to fight terrorism just creates more terrorists. Are you winning in Iraq and Afghanistan?----the short answer is an undeniable no as you cause misery to the populations of other nations.

You better practice your answers now----what will you tell those in the USA who lose family members in those future attacks your thinking makes inevitable.

And maybe you think that you can chase Al-Quida out of Pakistan---and when they run somewhere else---what then? But as it is, Pakistan has caught more Al-Quida members than everyone else combined---and that includes the somewhat pitiful efforts of the US military. And if you try to get US boots onto the lawless regions of Pakistan, you are almost 100% likely to destabilize Pakistan, and make the problem infinitely worse.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No palehorse74, I will not answer your totally hypothetical question----nor will you answer my real world actual question.

But even if its all about us being 100% good and them being 100% wrong---lets look at the calculus.

We lose 3000 totally innocent people in 911 because of evil terrorists.

And now we may have killed 3000 terrorist by now maybe by chasing them all over the world to deter them. And have directly and indirectly caused the deaths of many many many times that number of totally innocent people overseas.

Meanwhile we have spent upwards of a trillion dollars, had at least 3700 of our military killed, we have upwards of 10,000 of our military personnel severely wounded to a point
where they will suffer lifelong disabilities, and has caused an overall increase in the amount of terrorism world wide.

And you don't have sufficient wit to even wonder is there anything wrong with that picture.

Maybe you can claim that you have prevented more 911's here----while ignoring the fact that your kind of thinking caused the 911 we had.

But sure as God made little green apples, the terrorists your thinking has bred will cause many future 911's here. Its just a matter of time when your efforts to fight terrorism just creates more terrorists. Are you winning in Iraq and Afghanistan?----the short answer is an undeniable no as you cause misery to the populations of other nations.

You better practice your answers now----what will you tell those in the USA who lose family members in those future attacks your thinking makes inevitable.

And maybe you think that you can chase Al-Quida out of Pakistan---and when they run somewhere else---what then? But as it is, Pakistan has caught more Al-Quida members than everyone else combined---and that includes the somewhat pitiful efforts of the US military. And if you try to get US boots onto the lawless regions of Pakistan, you are almost 100% likely to destabilize Pakistan, and make the problem infinitely worse.

Instead of blaming the US for everything bad in the world why don't you tell us what your solution is and what you would have done differently? What do you think Clinton should have done differently in the 90s to prevent 9-11, since you obviously lay the blame on him and his administration?

Do you blame the rape victim when she is raped, just because she was wearing tight pants?