RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not?

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Rule -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Antikapitalista So, why is there so much moral panic and fear-mongering about terrorism?! More specifically: why is war celebrated and terrorism is condemned? I hate litter terrorists and noise terrorists. So I am opposed to terrorists. I do hope that some psychopath murders five per cent of my neighbors. (I will applaud such a benevolent act softly.)

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:09:51 PM)
Try come back when you have a clue about celebrating war and celebrating terrorism. pathetic, both of you...try looking outside your little comfort zone, before 9/11 before iraq, before libya, before your balls dropped EOS

Antikapitalista -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You are a loathsome and repellent excuse for a human being. Terrorism does not save lives and does not prevent war. It is a cowards way of waging war against an enemy he cannot defeat with ideas or arms. Haha... you see, my idea of a hero is much closer to the pilot of an airliner who crashes it into the WTC than to operator of an unmanned drone hiding in the safety of a bunker on the other side of the Earth and pulling the trigger and bombing from there, really.

Politesub53 -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:13:54 PM)
Another day another sockpuppet.

Slavehandsome -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:13:56 PM)
What about financial terrorists? We should give them a bailout right?

Rule -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:14:27 PM)
No planes have crashed into the WTC.

Rule -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:16:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Another day another sockpuppet. Perhaps they are both sock-puppets? But whose?

isoLadyOwner -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:16:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome The Democrats got us into Libya. Nato got you into libya Obama got the USA into Libya. Obama twisted a UN resolution "authorizing" the "protection of civilians" into "kinetic action" aggressively seeking regime change in Libya on behalf of islamists. Authorizing something is not mandating it. Obama chose to put the USA on the path of war in Libya and used the UN and NATO for cover. France and the UK didn't have the power to force Obama into the Libyan debacle either. Here's a link to what was approved by the UN: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm ...Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters. Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures... The UN's language does not require Obama to enable Libyan "ex rebels" to impose sharia law and slaughter sub Saharan African day laborers.

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Another day another sockpuppet. where is random stupidity when you need it

Slavehandsome -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:20:29 PM)
When I need random stupidity, I find it in Lucy's posts.

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:21:24 PM)
I didnt realise obama had any power over anyone imposing sharia law...its strange all these things are able to be done by the messiah...did he make you constipated today? blame him for everything go ahead, it might give you back your verbal diarrhea

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome When I need random stupidity, I find it in Lucy's posts. aww so cute, there there, you nearly made a funny. but massive fail because you dont have the abilities needed to insult me sweetcheeks

Slavehandsome -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:25:45 PM)
So how is it different losing someone to war versus losing someone to terrorism versus an accident?

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:26:22 PM)
five year olds cant join an army

Slavehandsome -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:33:20 PM)
Just curious, would you call Hitler's organized army 'a terrorist organization'? What about the Soviets, the British?

Antikapitalista -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 4:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm ...Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters. Exactly! They have been violating the provisions of the U.N.S.C. resolution 1973 since Day 1, and with sky-high arrogance at that. It is actually a huge shame for the United Nations, the supreme international crime (aggression) still cannot be prosecuted, and this case shows the savage state of things into which the international law(lessness) has devolved. As one columnist in the Russian Pravda aptly put it: "International law is just something to throw in the other guy's face when you aren't wiping your feet on it." Resolutions of the U. N. Security Council worth are worth less than used toilet paper and completely irrelevant, this has been the situation ever since the end of the Cold War. Note that the number of resolutions passed during the last 15 years is roughly the same as during all those 50 years of its previous existence. (BTW, it wasn't so much Obama as Hillary Klingon who actually pushed for it the strongest, it seems.)

servantforuse -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 5:46:09 PM)
Terrorists are cowards. They have no problem targeting innocent people, children included.

tweakabelle -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 5:51:12 PM)
I don't see much difference between a terrorist planting a bomb and an air force pilot dropping bombs on civilian areas from a height, or, say, the IDF firing artillery into Gaza. Just because someone wears a uniform doesn't mean they're not a terrorist. But that doesn't make terrorism right. In my book they're ALL wrong. About as wrong as a person can be.

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 6:05:09 PM)
quote: I wonder why there is so much moral panic about terrorism... I do support terrorism, especially international terrorism (while somehow condemning domestic terrorism), purely on humanitarian grounds. The logic is simple: terrorism greatly saves human lives and property, while still being able to achieve the same political goals as war. So, why is there so much moral panic and fear-mongering about terrorism?! More specifically: why is war celebrated and terrorism is condemned? Aren't you special.. Congrats as to your first and failed attempt at socialization.

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 6:17:30 PM)
I think ISO had a sock day, hes the only one to have responded to what it wanted, it kinda fell flat really... bit embarrassed for them to be honest

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02