Poll: Who is a terrorist?

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: 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?

Jesus Christ.

Wearing tight pants is... Well... A little different from being imperialistic assholes, is it not?!

Rapists are not coerced or angered into their actions, they're pathetic monsters. Imperialists are also pathetic monsters, and they too have no excuse for their crimes of violence, invasion of privacy and personal space.

Wow, now that I've typed this out, there are quite a few similarities between imperial nations and rapists.

Haha, oh wow. This whole rape case is really quite ironic, when you look at the bigger picture.

It's also disturbingly sad the number of people who still defend or victimize rapists and invaders.

Don't get me wrong. Killing in self defense? GREAT!

If we had killed the so called hijackers before or during their attack, that would be a wonderful action to be rewarded and praised. Even if we had afterwards found some of the organizers and attackers and killed them, I would praise that. We're not doing that, though. We're in Iraq. ---I'm just saving myself from being called a terrorist sympathizer, here. We all know how insult happy brainwashed people can be.

I'm not going to go any further off topic, but just know that I could! ::shakes his fist threateningly::

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 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?

Jesus Christ.

Wearing tight pants is... Well... A little different from being imperialistic assholes, is it not?!

Rapists are not coerced or angered into their actions, they're pathetic monsters. Imperialists are also pathetic monsters, and they too have no excuse for their crimes of violence, invasion of privacy and personal space.

Wow, now that I've typed this out, there are quite a few similarities between imperial nations and rapists.

Haha, oh wow. This whole rape case is really quite ironic, when you look at the bigger picture.

It's also disturbingly sad the number of people who still defend or victimize rapists and invaders.

Don't get me wrong. Killing in self defense? GREAT!

If we had killed the so called hijackers before or during their attack, that would be a wonderful action to be rewarded and praised. Even if we had afterwards found some of the organizers and attackers and killed them, I would praise that. We're not doing that, though. We're in Iraq. ---I'm just saving myself from being called a terrorist sympathizer, here. We all know how insult happy brainwashed people can be.

I'm not going to go any further off topic, but just know that I could! ::shakes his fist threateningly::

Ok, since you're also part of the "blame America first" crowd, I'll pose the same question to you. "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?"

 

[JD50]

Double post

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 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?

Jesus Christ.

Wearing tight pants is... Well... A little different from being imperialistic assholes, is it not?!

Rapists are not coerced or angered into their actions, they're pathetic monsters. Imperialists are also pathetic monsters, and they too have no excuse for their crimes of violence, invasion of privacy and personal space.

Wow, now that I've typed this out, there are quite a few similarities between imperial nations and rapists.

Haha, oh wow. This whole rape case is really quite ironic, when you look at the bigger picture.

It's also disturbingly sad the number of people who still defend or victimize rapists and invaders.

Don't get me wrong. Killing in self defense? GREAT!

If we had killed the so called hijackers before or during their attack, that would be a wonderful action to be rewarded and praised. Even if we had afterwards found some of the organizers and attackers and killed them, I would praise that. We're not doing that, though. We're in Iraq. ---I'm just saving myself from being called a terrorist sympathizer, here. We all know how insult happy brainwashed people can be.

I'm not going to go any further off topic, but just know that I could! ::shakes his fist threateningly::

Ok, since you're also part of the "blame America first" crowd, I'll pose the same question to you. "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?"

First of all, you really need to refrain from putting criminal sounding labels on people. "blame america first". That puts people on the defensive, and will get you no respect.

Also, I don't blame anyone first, ever. I blame assholes, and the people who happen to run our country are assholes. So are terrorists. Let us just blame both?

To answer your question, I'm not sure. I'm not a career tactician/strategist, and as you can tell, I'm sure as hell not a diplomat. I'm sure he did what he THOUGHT was right, but it was obviously not enough. Bush did not do enough, either. Perhaps this attack was unavoidable, even...? That is past and done with, and as angry as I am, nothing can be done about it except to better our RELATIONS and ATTITUDES toward other countries. (unless the conspiracy theorists were right and the government did expect or have a hand in 9/11). Our reaction was completely unacceptable, and is still being carried out.

 

[palehorse]

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

1) In other words, you're afraid to answer the challenge, or you're incapable of articulating a response. Got it.

2) What specific question was it that you wanted me to answer?

3) the rest of your post was almost entirely off topic, and was nothing more than the usual bullsh*t propaganda we see here every day... but hey, thanks for playing!

 

[Lemon law]

To avoid more double quotes---I will just post the JD50 question---Ok, since you're also part of the "blame America first" crowd, I'll pose the same question to you. "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?"

No JD50, I don't blame just Clinton because he is just the smallest part of the blame picture. The blame for 911 can better be traced to Reagan and GHB so don't try speaking for me because you will get a equally idiotic flame response right back---and neither argument will be totally correct or totally address the question.

But you do raise an interesting question. 911 was the greatest foreign attack since Pearl Harbor. No doubt about that. But unlike Peal Harbor, 911 represented an attack by terrorists unaligned to any nation state. But because we were attacked, we assert the self defense right to retaliate against our attacker. Which was clearly Japan with Pearl Harbor but is it as clear with international terrorism. But if we accept the doctrine of self defense, we must also accept the right of others to use violence to deter us from attacking them. That is if we want to be logically consist rather than just using double standards for them without it applying for us.

So the immediate question becomes, what motivated Ossama Bin Laden and his Al-Quida buddies to think they were justified in attacking us? Or are we going to think that Ossama was just some totally evil rich playboy who got tired bonking the 72 virgins he could well afford to buy, got tired of picking the wings off flies, and just woke up one day and had the brainfart that he could use his wealth to blow up tall buildings and kill a bunch of people? And then just magically found some equally morally bankrupt and less wealthy friends, and then carried his brainfart out for fun and amusement.

Or are we going to wonder what actions we did overseas may have caused him to self-justify what he did as a form of that same self-defense doctrine? Even though I don't endorse his actions, my mind is sufficiently open to realize that there are many US and European colonial actions that would give him quite a few semi valid arguable justifications. Especially when we don't limit those grievances to only the last quarter of a century.

Even if we think Ossama or Al-Quida are totally wrong and we are totally innocent, even a crazy emotion is as valid as a fact, and when our self-defense revenge is creating more Ossamas than we can kill, maybe we need to start thinking about creating less grievances instead. But get a clue---we are not totally innocent either. And hence are creating more problems than less problems. Maybe its time to start thinking about better ways to solve problems because our current way is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

And that the way to reduce terrorism is to create more social justice and reduce grievances others have with us. Terrorism is a tactic and an idea which can't be defeated
with guns. You can only reduce terrorism by reducing its appeal. And when we increase its appeal we get---guess what---more terrorism as they reject us because they hate our actions. And the more we kill the more we get.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: nick1985
LOL @ the people who vote straight "no"

Why? In a nation of laws we don't kill people directly for any reason other than self defense or national imminent threat. We are a nation of laws and we have courts to decide who lives and who dies. It is not the individuals right, unless on a jury, to act on his own determination.

You are against the US forces being able to shoot active insurgents?

I didn't look carefully enough at the poll.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: 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?

Jesus Christ.

Wearing tight pants is... Well... A little different from being imperialistic assholes, is it not?!

Rapists are not coerced or angered into their actions, they're pathetic monsters. Imperialists are also pathetic monsters, and they too have no excuse for their crimes of violence, invasion of privacy and personal space.

Wow, now that I've typed this out, there are quite a few similarities between imperial nations and rapists.

Haha, oh wow. This whole rape case is really quite ironic, when you look at the bigger picture.

It's also disturbingly sad the number of people who still defend or victimize rapists and invaders.

Don't get me wrong. Killing in self defense? GREAT!

If we had killed the so called hijackers before or during their attack, that would be a wonderful action to be rewarded and praised. Even if we had afterwards found some of the organizers and attackers and killed them, I would praise that. We're not doing that, though. We're in Iraq. ---I'm just saving myself from being called a terrorist sympathizer, here. We all know how insult happy brainwashed people can be.

I'm not going to go any further off topic, but just know that I could! ::shakes his fist threateningly::

Ok, since you're also part of the "blame America first" crowd, I'll pose the same question to you. "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?"

First of all, you really need to refrain from putting criminal sounding labels on people. "blame america first". That puts people on the defensive, and will get you no respect.

Also, I don't blame anyone first, ever. I blame assholes, and the people who happen to run our country are assholes. So are terrorists. Let us just blame both?

To answer your question, I'm not sure. I'm not a career tactician/strategist, and as you can tell, I'm sure as hell not a diplomat. I'm sure he did what he THOUGHT was right, but it was obviously not enough. Bush did not do enough, either. Perhaps this attack was unavoidable, even...? That is past and done with, and as angry as I am, nothing can be done about it except to better our RELATIONS and ATTITUDES toward other countries. (unless the conspiracy theorists were right and the government did expect or have a hand in 9/11). Our reaction was completely unacceptable, and is still being carried out.

Yes, you and Non-Lemon Law both jumped to blame the US for 9-11. You have both basically said that its our fault that we were attacked and that we should have done something different. I'd just like to know what it was that we did, and what you would have done differently to prevent the 9-11 attacks.

Yes, I see that you blame BOTH the US and the terrorists, but you jumped to blame the US first, hence the label, "blame America first". If you don't want that label, then don't blame the America first. I don't really care if people that act like that respect me or not. Now maybe you didn't mean to come off and blame the US first, but thats the way it looked.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He believes in the fundamental teachings of Islam (he is non violent)

Lost me, since its fundamental teachings are violent.

Agreed, from London to Madrid to New York, to the Shoe bomber, to Fort Dix, to a shooting in Oakland, to a bomb found in a car in South Carolina on Saturday, to the DC snipers, the only security we shall have from the hateful ideology is to banish it from our land.

OK, I'll banish you just as soon as I can. Islam is an ideology of surrender to God the highest good that there is. There is no evil in Islam. The evil is in those that don't understand their religion. It is just like the great American freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It is a beautiful thing but not understood by Americans of your low caliber. To satisfy the hate created by your fear you would destroy what makes American great. You, like the false in Islam, are what create terror. You are what you fear and fear makes you blind.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: JD50
Yes, I see that you blame BOTH the US and the terrorists, but you jumped to blame the US first, hence the label, "blame America first". If you don't want that label, then don't blame the America first. I don't really care if people that act like that respect me or not. Now maybe you didn't mean to come off and blame the US first, but thats the way it looked.

Perhaps it's not really that we blame the USA first, but rather, we (at least I do) realize that we are actually in the USA. We have more control here than we have control over extremists.

We're not in control of them, but we are in control of ourselves.

Well, at least that's how it's supposed to be.

 

[Lemon law]

Well lets try another analogy. Its summer time and if I go to scenic swampy bog, I am going to be bitten by a hoard of mosquitoes. They may or may not hate me for what I am but they want to drink my blood. And its does not matter how many of them I swat, they will be oblivious to all my best self-defense efforts. And there is then but two things to do. Either (1) If you can't stand the heat, stay out the kitchen so I stay away from the delights of scenic swampy bog and instead stay in my own kitchen. (2) Or I either drain the swamp or pour oil on their children. So the larva can't breathe and become adult mosquitoes.

So now lets examine alternative two in more detail.

Lets look at the drain the swamp which is what we are trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that all our efforts are just making the swamp more swampy. As we create the anarchy conditions that best breed terrorists and proliferate swamplands.----or has no one noticed that this has been the results of our best efforts.

Lets look at the pour oil on all their children so they can't reproduce. The problem is that we can't tell the good species from the bad so we kill the innocent Muslims at the same
time we are trying to kill the terrorists. So either you have to be prepared to kill all 1.4 billion Muslims or start thinking of something else. Because 1.4 billion Muslims are not going to stand idly by and let themselves be killed without fighting back. And instead of having a few that hate us all will hate us.

It might be nice if we could say to them---just give up your terrorists and all your people who dislike us---and we will go away---but humans are just stubborn that way and it also goes over like a lead balloon. It did not work in Vietnam, it did not work in Lebanon last summer, and the British found it did not work here during our revolutionary war.
In short, it never works.

Draining swamps works with dumb mosquitoes and never with smarter and more stubborn humans. Mosquitoes don't hate us but humans need a reason to become more violent.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Agreed, from London to Madrid to New York, to the Shoe bomber, to Fort Dix, to a shooting in Oakland, to a bomb found in a car in South Carolina on Saturday, to the DC snipers, the only security we shall have from the hateful ideology is to banish it from our land.

OK, I'll banish you just as soon as I can. Islam is an ideology of surrender to God the highest good that there is. There is no evil in Islam. The evil is in those that don't understand their religion. It is just like the great American freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It is a beautiful thing but not understood by Americans of your low caliber. To satisfy the hate created by your fear you would destroy what makes American great. You, like the false in Islam, are what create terror. You are what you fear and fear makes you blind.

When will the more moderate Americans rise up and get rid of these extremists among them

 

[alejandroAT]

Lemon law has the sort of reason and logic that america needs right now to save itself from the moral downhill and isolation its "patriots" are leading her to.

Palehorse74...i bet you wear that hat in real life and you drive a pick-up and your best friend's name is Skitter.

"Bring the dogs Skeeterr , We gat us ah'coupl'ah 'arabs"

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Lemon law has the sort of reason and logic that america needs right now to save itself from the moral downhill and isolation its "patriots" are leading her to.

Palehorse74...i bet you wear that hat in real life and you drive a pick-up and your best friend's name is Skitter.

"Bring the dogs Skeeterr , We gat us ah'coupl'ah 'arabs"

lol... wtf?!

1 - As a soldier, I've proudly worn "that hat" for years. You have a problem with that?

2 - I drive a BMW.

3 - I'm an educated, well-read, and well-traveled city boy - living just outside of Washington DC, to be exact - after being raised on a Northeastern beach.

4 - I'm also one of the few folks around here who recognizes that terrorists do not represent the majority of Muslims, and that most Muslims are not even Arab.

good calls Nostradamus! you're on point tonight!

Please aim your poo elsewhere Mr. Eurotrash...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Agreed, from London to Madrid to New York, to the Shoe bomber, to Fort Dix, to a shooting in Oakland, to a bomb found in a car in South Carolina on Saturday, to the DC snipers, the only security we shall have from the hateful ideology is to banish it from our land.

OK, I'll banish you just as soon as I can. Islam is an ideology of surrender to God the highest good that there is. There is no evil in Islam. The evil is in those that don't understand their religion. It is just like the great American freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It is a beautiful thing but not understood by Americans of your low caliber. To satisfy the hate created by your fear you would destroy what makes American great. You, like the false in Islam, are what create terror. You are what you fear and fear makes you blind.

When will the more moderate Americans rise up and get rid of these extremists among them

I don't know about you but I'm thinking of defecting to Canada.

You know, set up shop and get some good property bought before the big surge of draft dodgers moves up and gets all the prime spots.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

All this poll proves is that there are a lot of dumb-as-fuck morons here.

8% think people that are 'Directly connected to terror operations. (money, planning etc)' are not terrorists.
8% would kill a person just because he's an Arab
16% would kill a person just because he's Muslim

:roll:

Mega-LULZ @ the fucktards (12%) that think a person that "disagrees with the American war in Afghanistan" is a terrorist and ought to be killed. :laugh::roll:

I'm just going to hope you guys are too dumb/drunk to read the poll and answer the questions.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
All this poll proves is that there are a lot of dumb-as-fuck morons here.

8% think people that are 'Directly connected to terror operations. (money, planning etc)' are not terrorists.
8% would kill a person just because he's an Arab
16% would kill a person just because he's Muslim

:roll:

Mega-LULZ @ the fucktards (12%) that think a person that "disagrees with the American war in Afghanistan" is a terrorist and ought to be killed. :laugh::roll:

I'm just going to hope you guys are too dumb/drunk to read the poll and answer the questions.

Or maybe you just take an anonymous online poll too seriously.....:Q

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
All this poll proves is that there are a lot of dumb-as-fuck morons here.

8% think people that are 'Directly connected to terror operations. (money, planning etc)' are not terrorists.
8% would kill a person just because he's an Arab
16% would kill a person just because he's Muslim

:roll:

Mega-LULZ @ the fucktards (12%) that think a person that "disagrees with the American war in Afghanistan" is a terrorist and ought to be killed. :laugh::roll:

I'm just going to hope you guys are too dumb/drunk to read the poll and answer the questions.

Or maybe you just take an anonymous online poll too seriously.....:Q

Perhaps he's a Ron Paul support, and therefore has to!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's nice to see that common sense is prevailing in this poll (mostly)... however, I'd seriously like to have a long talk with those voting "no" on the insurgent question. WTF else are we supposed to do with people trying to kill Americans?! smile and wave!?

Maybe they were thinking that we have invaded a soverign nation in violation of international law, and therefore killing people who resist us there isn't justified because our invasion was immoral and illegal. Just a thought.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
All this poll proves is that there are a lot of dumb-as-fuck morons here.

8% think people that are 'Directly connected to terror operations. (money, planning etc)' are not terrorists.
8% would kill a person just because he's an Arab
16% would kill a person just because he's Muslim

:roll:

Mega-LULZ @ the fucktards (12%) that think a person that "disagrees with the American war in Afghanistan" is a terrorist and ought to be killed. :laugh::roll:

I'm just going to hope you guys are too dumb/drunk to read the poll and answer the questions.

Or maybe people answered the question that was asked, which was if it was justified to kill someone because of it.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
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"

Are you serious?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

He believes in the fundamental teachings of Islam (he is non violent)

Lost me, since its fundamental teachings are violent.

Why aren't the millions of Muslims in the US committing acts of violence then - much less, committing fewer acts than the acerage non-Muslim? You sound quite ignorant.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Aimster
He is a Muslim (Total Votes: 30)
yes

3 votes 10.00 (%)
no

27 votes 90.00 (%)


3 people on this forum are idiots.

He is an insurgent trying to counter Americans in Iraq (Total Votes: 33)
yes
24 votes 72.73 (%)
no
9 votes 27.27 (%)


No, I would say 9 are idiots.

So, if a foreign power invaded our nation, illegally, for a phony reason but really more for its own advantages, and was occupying your neighborhood 5 years later:

You would not be inclined to act against that occupying army? BS - you would defend acting against it, and that's the same situation many innocent Iraqis are in now.

Clearly some Americans are simply unable to comprehend the wrong their side can do, unable to take any responsibility for doing wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

but we are not trying to kill anyone who does not take up arms against us. We are not there to occupy or take over their land. We are not there to expand our borders. We are not there to kill any more of their people.

Why don't you explain to me how you can say the hundreds of thousands of mostly women and children killed by our economic sanctions, leaving them with some extreme problems with disease and other effects, was 'not killing anyone who did not take up arms against us'. Clearly they had not, and yet you appear to excuse the polic which contradicts your claim.

That's apart from the countless thousands killed more directly, including all kinds of innocents who have not 'taken up arms', from those killed in our *50* bombing attempts to kill Saddam which killed others who happened to be in the area, to the many accidental shootings of civilian families who did not understand about some checkpoint or military vehicle on the road and got too close, to civilians walking down the street when someone shot at troops from a building and the troops shot whoever was close, among many, many other casualties of the war.

This was is for *our* interests, however the spin is done to find nice justifications to sell it with.

You don't see us spending a trillion dollars with hundreds of thousands of troops in Darfur. You see them in the oil region.

 

[maluckey]

You don't see us spending a trillion dollars with hundreds of thousands of troops in Darfur. You see them in the oil region.

Chad is CHOCK FULL of oil...what's the U.S. doing there?

EXACTLY!