To my way of thinking.....any taking of innocent lives, whether by self detonation or by a war that is waged on the premise of a lie is an act of terrorism. Particularly when that war was purely strategic and had been in progress covertly for years.
Poster
To my way of thinking.....any taking of innocent lives, whether by self detonation or by a war that is waged on the premise of a lie is an act of terrorism. Particularly when that war was purely strategic and had been in progress covertly for years.
nikita69 what you said pretty much goes with what i say, depends on the people, look ilw if the american public all of a sudden turned around decided osama bin ladin is the freedom fighter and the american government is the terrorist... hell they would get rid of bush and vote in a guy who would give bin ladin a medalever since the iraq war alot of people have re-aranged the way they use the word "terrorist", these days i here more people call the brit and US army a terrorist group or oppresors then hamas,
there can be a universal definition of terrorism written in some dictionary, but that definition comes down to how you view it, who do you put next to the definition, the USA would say the definition fits exactly with bin ladin, saddam hussain, Ayetollah Khamena'i, whereas the east would say the definition fits exactly with Bush, Blair, (other names of western politicians), and at the end of day conventions war crimes its all a load of rubbish no one has the balls to convict an american in a war crimes court unless they feel like getting there ass nuked by the US army
PS my english is not eloquent so dont expect amazing arguments from me
>H
so terrorist has just become an expletive/derogotary term? is it no longer supposed to be justified or make sense? I'm sorry i wasn't informed.
Broken
Ilw, your own definition earlier in the thread, calls the USA/UK terrorists.
You defined it to include changing a way of life.........isnt that whats happening in Iraq at the moment?
My own opinions have been said many times before in these threads...but i dont think i ever went so far as to declare USA/UK terrorist states.....
Im sure some of my american friends will correct me if im wrong....
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
My point is simply each country has its own rules, own justifications, own ways just as each individual has his own beliefs, ideas and values, barley any person pays attention to the geneva convention or laws set by countries when they decide whos the good guy, they follow what they find to be moral and just and for each person that changes, to simply say theres a universal definition for whos good and whos bad doesnt make sence in a world that doesnt follow one system and one way, every one has there views wether it be based on religion, international law or basic human morals doesnt really matter, they still define things in a different way, and part of what they define in a different way is whos the terrorists and whos the legal combatents (spelling?) like i said bombing of embasies, sky scrapers, cars, can all be justified in a military way by those groups who do it... they all do, no leader with a brain is going to come out and say "well hey i just felt like killing the guy" he's going to come out with a well thought out reason that is believable and almost justifies the killing of the inocent just as not only terrorist groups but armies have done in the past. and so on....ilw Posted on 7 September 2003 - 20:00
so terrorist has just become an expletive/derogotary term? is it no longer supposed to be justified or make sense? I'm sorry i wasn't informed.
>H
I'm Marklar, but the Marklar with your Marklar is that these Marklar all have Marklar, so that what you are saying makes Marklar. If you wish to use one Marklar in Marklar of another Marklar then Marklar just doesn't really mean Marklar.Originally posted by noname12@7 September 2003 - 22:08
My point is simply each country has its own rules, own justifications, own ways just as each individual has his own beliefs, ideas and values, barley any person pays attention to the geneva convention or laws set by countries when they decide whos the good guy, they follow what they find to be moral and just and for each person that changes, to simply say theres a universal definition for whos good and whos bad doesnt make sence in a world that doesnt follow one system and one way, every one has there views wether it be based on religion, international law or basic human morals doesnt really matter, they still define things in a different way, and part of what they define in a different way is whos the terrorists and whos the legal combatents (spelling?) like i said bombing of embasies, sky scrapers, cars, can all be justified in a military way by those groups who do it... they all do, no leader with a brain is going to come out and say "well hey i just felt like killing the guy" he's going to come out with a well thought out reason that is believable and almost justifies the killing of the inocent just as not only terrorist groups but armies have done in the past. and so on....
As for the point about definition, yeah I suppose I did include attacking a way of life in the definition, i don't remember why exactly because when i look back it doesn't make as much sense as the comments preceding it , but if i take it back it'll look like i'm changing the definition I gave to make the UK/US better, So Marklar it, I'm a national of a terrorist state.
I'm Marklar, but the Marklar with your Marklar is that these Marklar all have Marklar, so that what you are saying makes Marklar. If you wish to use one Marklar in Marklar of another Marklar then Marklar just doesn't really mean Marklar.Originally posted by ilw+7 September 2003 - 23:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 7 September 2003 - 23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-noname12@7 September 2003 - 22:08
My point is simply each country has its own rules, own justifications, own ways just as each individual has his own beliefs, ideas and values, barley any person pays attention to the geneva convention or laws set by countries when they decide whos the good guy, they follow what they find to be moral and just and for each person that changes, to simply say theres a universal definition for whos good and whos bad doesnt make sence in a world that doesnt follow one system and one way, every one has there views wether it be based on religion, international law or basic human morals doesnt really matter, they still define things in a different way, and part of what they define in a different way is whos the terrorists and whos the legal combatents (spelling?) like i said bombing of embasies, sky scrapers, cars, can all be justified in a military way by those groups who do it... they all do, no leader with a brain is going to come out and say "well hey i just felt like killing the guy" he's going to come out with a well thought out reason that is believable and almost justifies the killing of the inocent just as not only terrorist groups but armies have done in the past. and so on....
As for the point about definition, yeah I suppose I did include attacking a way of life in the definition, i don't remember why exactly because when i look back it doesn't make as much sense as the comments preceding it , but if i take it back it'll look like i'm changing the definition I gave to make the UK/US better, So Marklar it, I'm a national of a terrorist state. [/b][/quote]
When a superpower, you are bound to be ruled by such an administration. You can do nothing to change that, that's why I was not attacking the American people here.
Supporting these acts is another thing
Even though I know you didn't mean to sound like that, you sticked too much to the title and actually sounded just like that.
Shovel Ready
Of course there is something we can do about it.Originally posted by sabbath@7 September 2003 - 15:55
When a superpower, you are bound to be ruled by such an administration. You can do nothing to change that, that's why I was not attacking the American people here.
We have an election coming up and with luck Bush and his greedhead cronies will be ready to retire to the private sector and roll in the nests they've been feathering for the past 3 years.
Unfortunately for whoever comes next, they will have the incredible legacy of bad will inherited from Bush to deal with.
ILW-"Sweet!"
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
whats marklar? you lost me
Shovel Ready
See Starvin Marvin in Space- South Park.Originally posted by noname12@7 September 2003 - 16:15
Marklar.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
ever since the iraq war alot of people have re-aranged the way they use the word "terrorist", these days i here more people call the brit and US army a terrorist group or oppresors then hamas,
whats marklar? you lost me 
Bookmarks