Don't try and make a terrorist into a complex definition.
I would say most simply stated it would be someone who uses coercion to promote their political agenda.
Printable View
Don't try and make a terrorist into a complex definition.
I would say most simply stated it would be someone who uses coercion to promote their political agenda.
The war in Iraq can be used for and against bush, the for being he toppled an evil man and brought freedom to iraq, this freedom costing the lives of i think over 1000 people.
Way over 1000 people, you gotta remember that not just Americans count.
terrorism is a system of government that uses terror to rule. Thats just one of the definitions but it is the one that applies to what i said. Thats straight from the dictionary. I don't think it was too complex a definition, do you?
you're right, thats just the soldier death toll, think how many people in iraq must appreciate this "freedom"Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
Quote:
Originally Posted by theotheimpaler
How many people are in Iraq? just a question.
i think iraq is fairly big, how densely populated i don'y know.Quote:
Originally Posted by leatherman
It has a little over 22 million people. Saddam killed 250,000 kurds. US hasn't killed that much. Thus making US's rule better than that of Saddam. Feel me?
Mathematically yes, but a lot of groups could probably attest to how many bush has killed, now we know of the 1000+ but the many more might come to a lot but no i can't see it being more than 250,000 one question. If or when bush comes out of office do you think he could be arrested for war crimes?Quote:
Originally Posted by leatherman
edit: i liked the way you tricked me into that question very smooth.
That's one jacked up dictionary...Terrorism, a system of government?Quote:
Originally Posted by leatherman
One of the most disturbing parts of the Iraq War has to be the all the new enemies Bush has created. Bush mentioned during the first debate that he had expected to slaughter a ton more of the so-called terrorists on the first run through. People tend to focus on the death's of our soldiers, yet the deaths of Iraqi citizens are in the hundreds of thousands. The people dying are not all evil terrorists that deserve to be killed. Some of these people are just normal people whose families have suffered, been violated and feel the need to defend their country. They didn't need to hate us... Bush has created more hate, and completely ruined so many lives. Saddam was evil, but at least the people could still have a semblance of a normal life. What was the reason for this war? To ensure the security of our nation? With all the people that now hate us because of the war, I would guess that we are in even more danger than before. Was it for "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? Apparently they didn't really matter, considering we created chaos in their land and now many of them believe believe us to be as evil as they were told.
I disagree with Bush on almost all of his policies, not to mention the fact he's the first president to ever get an "F" for the environment by doing things like doubling the allowable amount of arsenic in drinking water(which was already proven to cause cancer at that amount) and by pulling out of the Global Warming agreement even though we are the biggest contributor to the problem and almost every other country in the world is a part of it.
Honestly, can a Bush supporter tell me about something Bush has done that they like?
US's "RULE" is better than Saddam's rule was? "US HASN'T KILLED THAT MUCH!" WoW! That makes it all ok doesn't it? Do you have any idea how many wars the US has caused? Do you haven any idea that America had as much hand to play in the genocide of those 250,000 Kurds as Saddam did...If the no. of deaths really counts which country's 'rule' is better then, I seriously would say Iraq...feel me?Quote:
Originally posted by leatherman
It has a little over 22 million people. Saddam killed 250,000 kurds. US hasn't killed that much. Thus making US's rule better than that of Saddam. Feel me?
Nicely done DarkSol. It's nice that you've brought the ecological perspective out too...
Correct, the US had an role in the genocide... we were allies with Iraq at the time and give them the Bio Weapons and Helocopters used to by Saddam against the Kurds...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
That I didn't know, are you trying to be sarcastic though? Just confirming.
Anyway, I was talking about the US role in the genocide in way of non-action. When you take a neutral stand on an issue between unequals, you automatically have sided with the stronger and intend to perpetuate the status quo. When a powerful country like America jumps in and tilts the balance in wars like the IWW, IIWW it's kind of expected from America to act to what it claims to be (The saviour of democracy). And when thousands of shi'as and kurds rebelled with the hope that the US would back them up, the US doesn't even look twice at them. And all for the simple reason that they didn't want them to overthrow Saddam's rule because that would mean the end of westernization in Iraq and thus no export of oil to America.
America at this very point conceded for Saddam to continue to rule. That's why I continue to say, it is America which has armed people like Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
leatherman throws around the word terrorist almost as much as W. does himself
Wake up! Smell the blood!Quote:
Originally posted by reagan80
Any other American "blood for oil" conspiracies that I need to know of?
In the words of Watcher...wow! Just wow!Quote:
If we leave now, that is the best way to piss away any chance of the Iraqis ever achieving a free democratic society. When we leave, the Iranians and Syrians are going send dumptrucks of AK-47's to their fellow fundamentalist loons in Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't have enough of its own cops and military to provide stability, the current transition government in Iraq would be overthrown by these terrorists. When their government is overthrown by these fuckwits, the major factions there aren't going to stand idly by to get fucked over by another ethnic or religious group's dictator. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will secede their territory from each other and then start battling over who has control of the oil reserves. In any case, the terrorists win and they get a new area of operations to start conducting their next attack on American soil.
You fucking attack a country because you're scared it'll attack you and it's preparing this huge stock of nukes and shit to blast America off and wickedly planning it's next attack and casting spells and mixing potions. This whole Iraq war was to preempt an Iraqi attack on American soil, and you dishevel the entire country, make it worse than it ever was or could be, of course not to forget blame everything on Saddam, who's sitting in a prison cell this very moment.
Your entering Iraq has pissed away any chance of Iraq ever becoming a free democracy. The first step to achieve that is to make it FREE! Independent, do you know what that means? Why can't you let a country follow its natural path of governmental evolution? No, you've just got to butt in...everywhere. Whether it's a Chavez in Venezuela trying to nationalize oil industries or a Saddam in Iraq doing absolutely nothing to threaten America. But when America should've and could've interfered and stopped Saddam's genocide...nothing.
Show me one post where I've 'bitched' about Americans! I don't think they're awful at all. Though I do maintain that Bush should be crucified.Quote:
you're gonna bitch about the awful Americans and the evil boosh.......
Yes.Quote:
1. Really?
It's not the job of my country to be running around everywhere trying to save the suffering people being tortured under the iron fist of a brutal dictator. And it would be disgraceful for my country to do so and jump into superman's undies whenever it best suits it.Quote:
2. Let me see your country work a miracle and turn a country that has been under the iron fist of a brutal dictator for decades into a stable free society in less than a year.
When America did get a call for help-nothing. When it doesn't get as much as a whimper Bush promptly decides..."fuck Osama, lets help the poor Iraqis living under that horrible man."
Oh! so now I'm a terrorist, eh? ;)Quote:
We'll be hated after Bush. I don't give a shit what anyone outside my country thinks and I sure as hell don't care what the terrorists think or why they hate us.
See, that's where you and Bush go wrong...the one group of people you seriously must care about are terrorists...especially if what they feel for you is HATE! It's strange how you can say "I don't give a shit of what you think" to a terrorist...very strange.
BAH! You don't care about terrorists at all, remember? Excellent, since you're definition of a 'terrorist' means someone who's either pro-communist/anti-Bush, then you better get ready to kill the rest of the world apart from yourself, Bush and of course leatherman.=)Quote:
I don't care if there are a million terrorists. It is possible to kill every one of them. If we could perforate a few million Axis soldiers in WW2, we could do it again today.
You couldn't get the one guy you were supposed to be after...and you'll kill a million terrorists?? Dream on...
I correct myself...Quote:
Post-war Iraq = Saddam's Iraq............LMAO
postwar Iraq = WORSE than Saddam's Iraq
And it's only just begun.
Congrats! You've just won the best president award! You have done so much for the world Pres. Bush, how can we ever repay you? Oh! What's that you said...you want 20 million more barrels a day...no problem, sir, anything for The bestest president in the world!Quote:
You've gotta give us credit for something.......
You want credit? Here you go- Thank you for not going after OBL. Thank you for creating thousands of widows, widowers, orphans in A'stan. Thank you for raping, mutilating and murdering Iraqis and then asking for your credit. Thank you for torturing prisoners in their own country and saying "I was in the wrong place at the wrong time". Thank you, oh Lord Bush!
Hmmm...did I create the power vacuum?Quote:
Do you care to find out what can happen to a country that doesn't have an effective national security apparatus and has hostile neighbors trying to take advantage of a power vacuum?
Please try and understand this...I am not a Saddam supporter and don't believe that someone as oppressive as him should've been in power, but I didn't suddenly jump to this conclusion. I knew this since I had learnt about the genocide. There is a way and a time to suddenly jump into a country and try and overthrow a dictator.
Do you know how the Iraq war is different from every other US intervention in the past? At least in the past it has aroused the pro-American/capitalist classes within the country and armed them to rebel against the dictator and then follow the normal path of a coup and then instability and then gradual attempts to bring about democracy. But Iraq was an outright invasion....
Once again my thread's not showing up...argh!
No scarsam at all, it's the truth. We were allied with Iraq durring the Iraq-Iran war... we did not send troops but we gave them arms, and trained their army...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
I'm too young to vote, but if I could, I'd most likely vote for Kerry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy
Yeah you just said Saddam's rule is better than the US's and an unpartisan person would figure out that you are wrong. Feel me? Did the Us force Saddam to kill 250,000 people? If you answer no, then you are wrong, if you answer yes, you are still wrong because the US didn't force Saddam to do it. Umm....and you last statement about no. of deaths determining which countries rule is better....yeah your wrong on that too. Congrats you managed to be wrong three times, but i will give you this, at least you tried, and thats what really matters.
If I was old enough, I'd vote for G Dubs.
Your statement about being wrong either way doesn't make any sense...Quote:
Originally Posted by leatherman
You can't just bring up your "just cause" whenever it is convenient.
I said and I quote meself.."If the no. of deaths really counts which country's 'rule' is better then, I seriously would say Iraq" That is a statement made by me on a previously stated hypothesis made by you (I've quoted you below, just incase your memory abandoned you). I don't believe that the no. of deaths caused by a country should/shouldn't determine the adequacy of the country to govern. I only made that statement to show you that the US has killed the same amount if not more people ever since it's existence. I think it was an inane speculation you made in the first place. Have I ever indicated that the "US forced Saddam to kill 250,000"? And I will repeat myself...the reason why the kurds and the shi'as rebelled was because they were told they had US support, but that never materialized. That's non-action, which is where the US has to be blamed. One of the reasons Saddam went to war with Kuwait was because the US had done nothing to stop him or even condemn him when he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 in Halabjah.Quote:
Originally posted by leatherman
Yeah you just said Saddam's rule is better than the US's and an unpartisan person would figure out that you are wrong. Feel me? Did the Us force Saddam to kill 250,000 people? If you answer no, then you are wrong, if you answer yes, you are still wrong because the US didn't force Saddam to do it. Umm....and you last statement about no. of deaths determining which countries rule is better....yeah your wrong on that too. Congrats you managed to be wrong three times, but i will give you this, at least you tried, and thats what really matters.
That's where I said the US was at fault.
An unprejudiced (btw-there's no such word as 'unpartisan') person would think I were wrong, eh? Well, then you have no business telling me I am wrong:P But criticism is good, thankyou.
I only wonder how I'm wrong either way...please explain.
You really do get immense pleaure in telling me I'm wrong...atleast tell me why I'm wrong:P
I wasn't the one who made the statement about the no. of deaths making a country good/bad...
Ring a bell?Quote:
Originally posted by leatherman
It has a little over 22 million people. Saddam killed 250,000 kurds. US hasn't killed that much. Thus making US's rule better than that of Saddam. Feel me?
DO i get pleasure from saying you are wrong? No i would feel better if you were right. You were wrong about the US killing more people then Saddam. And that 250,000 people figure was just a one time thing. He has killed many people before and after that. I don't think that Iraq invaded Kuwait because the US didn't condemm them, they went into Kuwait to get richer, you know for oil. And Saddam finally got his :dance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy