TERRORISM

[mahamed99_sex]

how come we dont call isreal a terrorist when in fact it kills civilians everyday and invades someone'e land.



dhuusa deer get ver you stupid self and go make some sense.its oky when one a country goes and ivades and another country and kills millions.




"kill one you're a murderer,kill a million you're a conquere" a great man once said this.

[Gacalisa]

you just said it.

[The Arabman]

"thats why I said BUSH is terrorist"

How can the leader of democracy and the free world be a terrorist?

[Gacalisa]

BUSH as a person is terrorist, who he is and what he does has nothing to do with democracy or a free world, as you put it.

[The Arabman]

"BUSH as a person is terrorist, who he is and what he does has nothing to do with democracy or a free world, as you put it."

You seem to have an issue with BUSH. What's your beef with him?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I don't even like the word because it has become so politically loaded.

I have made up my own definition just because the dictionary ones are so devoid of meaning.

Anyone who employs violence for political purposes while operating across international boundaries and not under state sanction.

[mahamed99_sex]

so this would include the u.s.a mad mac.

[Gacalisa]

my problem with BUSH does not justify a problem with the US, cuz i always like the us prior to his leadership, even after clinton attacked us.

but BUSH on the other hand is danger to the world as it is, not only does he want to demolish Islam, but he wants christianity and only christianity to exist.

off course this would not told, as state and church as strictly separet, but we all know that BUSH is religious, if not he would have legalized gay marraige.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Is the USA a state Maxamed? Then by definition it can't be a terrorist.

[mahamed99_sex]

so the u.s.a have right to go over borders and kill civilains.

[Gacalisa]

MAD MAC

the last time i knew the US was considered a STATE.

[The Arabman]

"Anyone who employs violence for political purposes while operating across international boundaries and not under state sanction."

Interesting. Let's see this:

The US has:

Employed violence (invasion, occupation, massacre, genocide, murder, rape, etc) in Iraq.

For political purposes (re-elect Republicans).

It operated across international boundaries (distance of several thounsand miles).

It did it without state (Congress didn't authorize Iraq war) or international (UN) sanction.

Now, if it flies like a duck, quacks like a duck and hunters shoot it like a duck-- what do you call it?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Maxamed
You're killing me here.

Is a murderer a terrorist? NO. Does that mean he has unconstrained rights? No.

I said a state can't be a terrorsit, because states can employ violence legally for political ends. I didn't say the US was always right or even legal in the employment of the same. Simply that a state can't be a terrorist. A state could sponsor a terrorist, but again, when we start heading down that slippery slope we are in trouble.

[mahamed99_sex]

like i said before.


kill one you're a murderer,kill a million you're a conquere.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Some truth in that.