NationStates Jolt Archive

How low have terrorists sunk. They kill children in Beslan, then they attack peaceful diplomats in Indonesia. This is sick. Where is this madness going to end? Terrorism be damned!!!

Thats why their called terrorists......they lack morals of decent people although in their sick twisted delusional minds they are doing the right & moral thing.

A psycho doesnt really know what hes doing, so that rules that excuse out for them, they are just a bunch of self centred evil fanatics who should be blown away.

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies. Every person who dares to suggest that terrorists are simply "terrorizing" people because they are psychotic must have been brainwashed by CNN or something. Can you for one time think for yourself. These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)

If I found the remaining bodyparts of my family in some rubble which some country bombed because of some reason I didn't know about, I'd probably go fucking ballistic aswell.

While the terrorists are clearly the worst type of war criminals for killing innocent civilians, especially children, we can't let the recent tragedies be used to mask other truths. For instance, it's often ignored that the terrorists in Beslan had a genuine greivance with the Russian government, which has carried out a brutal war in Chechnya, using death-squads to murder dissidents and taking away the Chechen people's right to self-determination. On the other hand, any moral superiority Chechen rebels might have is squandered when they decide to murder children and families who have nothing to do with Russian policy-making.

The way I see it, if you touch a close friend or family, and the legal system doesn't seem to be working in order to reprimand you, I in all likeliness would do anything in my power to get back at you, including murder if necessary.

Same thing for governments as far as i can see, and when you're in pain you don't care how many people you hurt.

Exactly, killing hundreds of infants in cold blood negates any sorrow or anger you had before now as worthless.
Personally I wouldnt care much if Putin dropped a nuke on Grosny if they did it again or something similar.

Children and families hurt the most, that's the reason. And thoose innocent russian children will eventually grow up to be their enemy anyway.

People only turn to terrorism when they do not see any other way to get what they believe to be fair.
I.e. ordinary Palestinians have no political influence and no military options, so they naturally turn to throwing stones (against tanks and Apache helicopters) or sending young folks with suicide belts. They are not necessarily aware that this does not lead anywhere. It's just despair.
The other thing of course is the fact that there are now rich and highly educated people who use this desperation of the oppressed to their own political or religious ends, like OBL.
The situation in Chechnya is again different. Those islamists now orchestrating the urge for separation from Russia are by no means the majority of the Chechnyans, but they manage to turn the general discontent with politics into violent actions against civilians, which of course does not bring them any closer to their aims.

Exactly, killing hundreds of infants in cold blood negates any sorrow or anger you had before now as worthless.
Personally I wouldnt care much if Putin dropped a nuke on Grosny if they did it again or something similar.What's the difference between Putin dropping nukes on millions of innocents and terrorists killing hundreds of infants in cold blood?

I think it depends on which terrorist we are talking about.
Many different terrorists for many different causes. They're not one group aimed at destroying the world under the rule of Ossama Ben Laden, like in some bad movies.
Terrorism helped ending the appartheid in South Africa, but it also helped the KKK's cause in the US. Those are completely different cases.

There can be no argument.

I've always love the example of palestine especially. They have no weapons so they throw stones at Isrealy tanks and helicopters and use suicide bombers on buses and buildings.
If the palestinians defended themselves by using the suicide bombers on military targets like the tanks and military building and threw stones at buses. etc.. well at least they would not longer been seen as terrrorists.

There can be no argument.

I've always love the example of palestine especially. They have no weapons so they throw stones at Isrealy tanks and helicopters and use suicide bombers on buses and buildings.
If the palestinians defended themselves by using the suicide bombers on military targets like the tanks and military building and threw stones at buses. etc.. well at least they would not longer been seen as terrrorists.
oh yes cuz of course we all know the military would let a palestinian get anywhere close enough to a tank or military building to blow themselves up and do damage to it. they already shoot and run over the people THROWING ROCKS at them, why dont you think before you post.

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies. Every person who dares to suggest that terrorists are simply "terrorizing" people because they are psychotic must have been brainwashed by CNN or something. Can you for one time think for yourself. These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)





Brainwashed by Islam. Have you noticed how young all the terrorists are? Where are all the middle-aged and old men? They are safely at home telling the stupid naive youngsters how to commit suicide for Islam!

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies.

Yes, all of these things could be true.
And all of these things would be legitimate reasons to fight back against those who have done you wrong. But NONE of these things could EVER justify things like what happened in Beslan. Attacking a school full of children has nothing to do with fighting.

I'm all for everyone to be treated fairly, and I do mean everyone. But once people resort to actions like this - for ANY reason - then quite frankly, I no longer care what happens to them. They can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.


These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)

Well, if they honestly believe that murdering a bunch of children in a school is going to make ANYTHING better for ANYONE, then they must be some of the STUPIDEST people that have EVER lived.

Brainwashed by Islam. Have you noticed how young all the terrorists are? Where are all the middle-aged and old men? They are safely at home telling the stupid naive youngsters how to commit suicide for Islam!
and your point being? you are probably a hypocrite without realizing it. do you support bush or anyone else without question or thought? congratulations you're a hypocrite

oh yes cuz of course we all know the military would let a palestinian get anywhere close enough to a tank or military building to blow themselves up and do damage to it. they already shoot and run over the people THROWING ROCKS at them, why dont you think before you post.

Oh so that's how the palestinians blew up those check points 2 years ago! and how the Tamale Tigers have managed to do it for yours in Sri Lanka.
Or how the IRA did it to the Brits.
So its better for a terrorist to blow up a bus full of kids.
Sorry your right was not thinking (sarcasm you dip)

Yes, all of these things could be true.
And all of these things would be legitimate reasons to fight back against those who have done you wrong. But NONE of these things could EVER justify things like what happened in Beslan. Attacking a school full of children has nothing to do with fighting.

I'm all for everyone to be treated fairly, and I do mean everyone. But once people resort to actions like this - for ANY reason - then quite frankly, I no longer care what happens to them. They can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.




Well, if they honestly believe that murdering a bunch of children in a school is going to make ANYTHING better for ANYONE, then they must be some of the STUPIDEST people that have EVER lived.

AMEN!

A psycho doesnt really know what hes doing.
Like Bush.

Oh so that's how the palestinians blew up those check points 2 years ago! and how the Tamale Tigers have managed to do it for yours in Sri Lanka.
Or how the IRA did it to the Brits.
So its better for a terrorist to blow up a bus full of kids.
Sorry your right was not thinking (sarcasm you dip)
let me break it down

tigers != palestines
IRA != palestine


im stating the FACT the bombers cannot get close enough to military vehicles or building, a check point is a check point, it stops your ass from getting somewhere, THINK. the tanks and army already gun down CHILDREN throwing rocks. the suicide bombers bomb whatever they can get to

its called an explanation not an excuse, bust out your dictionary

let me break it down

tigers != palestines
IRA != palestine


im stating the FACT the bombers cannot get close enough to military vehicles or building, a check point is a check point, it stops your ass from getting somewhere, THINK. the tanks and army already gun down CHILDREN throwing rocks. the suicide bombers bomb whatever they can get to

its called an explanation not an excuse, bust out your dictionary

My original point said to aim at military targets like buiilding and tanks.
Unless advocate the killing of innocents, which in that case you have no problem with the isrealies killing innocents.
A MILITARY CHECK POINT IS A MILITARY TARGET.
and don't you find it interesting that they can get passed these targets to get to the civilians, but are unable to reach a military target?
How about the generals at home? or bars that are frequented by large amounts of soldiers?
Myabe it would be harder for the palestians to reach, but what they've been trying so far has not helped them a bit. In fact they're more fucked now! Just look at the new wall the isrealies were kind enough to give them.

My original point said to aim at military targets like buiilding and tanks.
Unless advocate the killing of innocents, which in that case you have no problem with the isrealies killing innocents.
A MILITARY CHECK POINT IS A MILITARY TARGET.
and don't you find it interesting that they can get passed these targets to get to the civilians, but are unable to reach a military target?
How about the generals at home? or bars that are frequented by large amounts of soldiers?
Myabe it would be harder for the palestians to reach, but what they've been trying so far has not helped them a bit. In fact they're more fucked now! Just look at the new wall the isrealies were kind enough to give them.
AND THEY DO TRY TO BOMB CHECK POINTS TOO. they get fucking gunned down before getting close enough to do serious damage


and if you would fucking listen, i am trying to explain to your thick self WHY they dont try to just target military targets, ITS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. they have to target civilian targets to get their point across, not saying its right but thats a fact. and would you fucking care who you killed after your kid was gunned down by a tank for throwing rocks at it as it rolled through your town?

your not even fucking listening are you

Children and families hurt the most, that's the reason. And thoose innocent russian children will eventually grow up to be their enemy anyway.
Only if they have a reason to be. People don't just "grow up to be enemies". And the people of North Ossetia actually had a lot of sympathy for the Cechnyans. -Until now...


If I found the remaining bodyparts of my family in some rubble which some country bombed because of some reason I didn't know about, I'd probably go fucking ballistic aswell.
So would I, but now matter how "fucking ballistic" I went, I would NEVER turn to this. There are certain things I just wouldn't do, no matter what.

-And even if this had not been the case, I'm smart enough to realize that attacking children in the schools of the offending country would only convince a whole freaking lot of their people that their government was right to bomb us in the first place and that it's OK to keep doing so.


The way I see it, if you touch a close friend or family, and the legal system doesn't seem to be working in order to reprimand you, I in all likeliness would do anything in my power to get back at you, including murder if necessary.

Same thing for governments as far as i can see, and when you're in pain you don't care how many people you hurt.
Actually, I do. If you do me wrong, I'll seek to get even with YOU, not to hurt a bunch of people who have done me nothing wrong and who might not even know about my problems. When you stop fighting back against your tormentors and start taking it out on those random people in the street, just because they're the ones you can get to most easily, that's when you become a terrorist in my book.

And at that point, I don't mind the government bombing you to save the lives of the people in the streets.

Only if they have a reason to be. People don't just "grow up to be enemies". And the people of North Ossetia actually had a lot of sympathy for the Cechnyans. -Until now...


So would I, but now matter how "fucking ballistic" I went, I would NEVER turn to this. There are certain things I just wouldn't do, no matter what.

-And even if this had not been the case, I'm smart enough to realize that attacking children in the schools of the offending country would only convince a whole freaking lot of their people that their government was right to bomb us in the first place and that it's OK to keep doing so.


Actually, I do. If you do me wrong, I'll seek to get even with YOU, not to hurt a bunch of people who have done me nothing wrong and who might not even know about my problems. When you stop fighting back against your tormentors and start taking it out on those random people in the street, just because they're the ones you can get to most easily, that's when you become a terrorist in my book.

And at that point, I don't mind the government bombing you to save the lives of the people in the streets.

The problem is the people who would support the indiscriminate bombing of the entire region of chechnya (sp?).
played into the russians hands quite nicely didn't it?

AND THEY DO TRY TO BOMB CHECK POINTS TOO. they get fucking gunned down before getting close enough to do serious damage


and if you would fucking listen, i am trying to explain to your thick self WHY they dont try to just target military targets, ITS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. they have to target civilian targets to get their point across, not saying its right but thats a fact. and would you fucking care who you killed after your kid was gunned down by a tank for throwing rocks at it as it rolled through your town?

your not even fucking listening are you

First of I am listening.
Second I am not thick you ....(insult but don't want to annoy the mods).
third off, it is possible, and they do do it, they just choose to aim more for civilians.
Fourth, if my child was killed yes i would probably want to kill them.Most of the suicide bombers that I've heard about have been a bit too young to have children old enough to throw stones at tanks etc. And if my kid died in a bus that was blown up along with all his classmates, i'd want the governmet to bomb the shit out of an entire "ennemy village"

It's terrible whats happening. But who the fuck let's their kids throw rocks at tanks in the first place. also if they can hit the tanks with rocks, they can get them with molotovs.

I say terrorism wrong. and i'm willing to debate the topic, but its to easy to get insulting as we both have. Why don't we at least try to keep it polite, and stay away from the pointless emotive arguments.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, every single case is different.
For example, Spainish group ETA have a completely different cause to groups of islamic terrorists.

The solution is simple, clearer, more ethical, responsible and more open leadership from governments and teachers and other authorities.
This may take 100 years, but it needs a social climate change to end the terrorist culture amongst some groups that feel hard done by.....

There is always to sides to every story and this applies to acts of terrorism too. As much as the massacre in Beslan was awful, could people please stop going on about it like their sister was there? More Chechen children have been killed in the conflict there than this small-town siege. 100 000 Chechens have lost their lives due to Russian attacks and occupation. Isn't that terrorist too? Or what about in Iraq or Afghanistan? How can one describe the unreported genocide that has happened there? I am politically impartial, but if one is to look at international events from the same perspective our children will, ie a balanced one, then one will see we could be called terrorists too. When one nation, or a coalition decides to blitz a nation into the dust killings tens of thousands against the agreement of the United Nations, before occupying it against its peoples' wishes, and then selling its industry off to the highest bidder, one would call that terrorist from the eyes of a citizen.US and British citizens have no right to feign mourning and shock from the events at Beslan, because we're a terrorist nation too.
Just as we can now see the lies, the terror and the atrocities of Vietnam, so our children will see our Middle East intervention for what it is too.

Like Bush.

No

Try again.

To a brainwashed lefty look at this dot here



.



And repeat slowly and softly, Bush is good, Bush is my friend

First of I am listening.
Second I am not thick you ....(insult but don't want to annoy the mods).
third off, it is possible, and they do do it, they just choose to aim more for civilians.
Fourth, if my child was killed yes i would probably want to kill them.Most of the suicide bombers that I've heard about have been a bit too young to have children old enough to throw stones at tanks etc. And if my kid died in a bus that was blown up along with all his classmates, i'd want the governmet to bomb the shit out of an entire "ennemy village"

It's terrible whats happening. But who the fuck let's their kids throw rocks at tanks in the first place. also if they can hit the tanks with rocks, they can get them with molotovs.

I say terrorism wrong. and i'm willing to debate the topic, but its to easy to get insulting as we both have. Why don't we at least try to keep it polite, and stay away from the pointless emotive arguments.
go at least skim the conflict and come back, im tired of you not listening

and your point being? you are probably a hypocrite without realizing it. do you support bush or anyone else without question or thought? congratulations you're a hypocrite


If you have to communicate a load of uneducated waffle, please do so in correct English.

What's the difference between Putin dropping nukes on millions of innocents and terrorists killing hundreds of infants in cold blood?

Well how about Putin goes in with tanks and the rest(he is anyway) kills heaps of Checknyans guilty and innocent, rolls out a month later, then sends a televised message to them and the world, that if the Islamists attack Russia again like they did with the School or theatre, or blow up any civilian planes. that a nuke will fall on Grosny, whos fault will it be then if the Islamic terrorists from Checknya do another massacre in Russia in the name of Islam and freedom for Checknya in spite of the warning, and Putin follows through with his threat, and nukes not just Grosny, but the whole country just to make sure.

Will Chess Squares please write in proper English? Is this too much to ask?

Yes, all of these things could be true.
And all of these things would be legitimate reasons to fight back against those who have done you wrong. But NONE of these things could EVER justify things like what happened in Beslan. Attacking a school full of children has nothing to do with fighting.

I'm all for everyone to be treated fairly, and I do mean everyone. But once people resort to actions like this - for ANY reason - then quite frankly, I no longer care what happens to them. They can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.




Well, if they honestly believe that murdering a bunch of children in a school is going to make ANYTHING better for ANYONE, then they must be some of the STUPIDEST people that have EVER lived.


All true, but I believe that ones way of thinking changes when being at war for years and being constantly confronted with death (close relatives or enemies). I'm not trying to defend actions against children, but I'm trying to make some of the readers realise that terrorists are normal human beings pushed in an inhuman position. If they wouldn't have been attacked they would have never even considered hurting children any more than a person in a peace situation. Rest asure that you would be appaled by the amount of children and women Russian forces killed (willingly or unwillingly) in Chechnya or how many innocent children and women were killed in the bombings US forces conducted on so called terrorist gatherings. They are as dead as the ones in Beslan.

Will Chess Squares please write in proper English? Is this too much to ask?
making your font bigger doesnt make you look like any less of an asshat

Will Chess Squares please write in proper English? Is this too much to ask?

Actually, when posting in international forums, yes, I believe it is.

Many posters - myself included - have English as a second or third language and can not be expected to always know how to say things in "proper English". As long as you can understand their posts, I'd say let it rest.

-And you certainly don't need to post the same message twice.

go at least skim the conflict and come back, im tired of you not listening

I'm sorry that's not how it works in a debate.
You disagreed with me. You need to defend your point. If you think people are not listening, try being more concise with your points.
Simply saying "oh your not listening" is not really helping your argument is it?

Will Chess Squares please write in proper English? Is this too much to ask?

Writing in proper english, does not impede anyone.
As long as they can explain themselves, it no mater how u write!

Well how about Putin goes in with tanks and the rest(he is anyway) kills heaps of Checknyans guilty and innocent, rolls out a month later, then sends a televised message to them and the world, that if the Islamists attack Russia again like they did with the School or theatre, or blow up any civilian planes. that a nuke will fall on Grosny, whos fault will it be then if the Islamic terrorists from Checknya do another massacre in Russia in the name of Islam and freedom for Checknya in spite of the warning, and Putin follows through with his threat, and nukes not just Grosny, but the whole country just to make sure.

Does this also apply if the "terrorists" say if you don't leave chechnya we'll start taking schools hostage?

There can be no argument.

I've always love the example of palestine especially. They have no weapons so they throw stones at Isrealy tanks and helicopters and use suicide bombers on buses and buildings.
If the palestinians defended themselves by using the suicide bombers on military targets like the tanks and military building and threw stones at buses. etc.. well at least they would not longer been seen as terrrorists.

Bah "terrorism" the word makes me sick. First the enemies were "communists" or "pinko-commies" or something like that. Now all of a sudden every enemy of the US is called a "terrorist" or a "terrorist state" or a "terrorist supporting state" or a "terrorist harbouring state". FUCK EM ALL! :mad: :headbang:

Then all of a sudden Ariel Sharon starts talking about the "terrorist attacks of the Palestinians" not telling that he himself started the latest Entefada by provocing palestinians by desanctifying their most important mosk. And not to speak of the years of "terrorism" the israeli forces and colonists have conducted upon the Palestinian people. Even if the Palestinians stop throwing stones (like before the latest entefade about what 5 years ago, time goes by so fast i don't remember quite as well) the Israeli forces keep on harassing and random arrest Palestinians. Destroy their crops, destroy their homes to put some new colonist racist homes on and taking away their water suplies. FUCK EM TOO! And then of course Putin starts talking about the "terrorist" state of Chechnya when before 9/11 he spoke of the rebels... FUCK EM!

Terrorism, if a good brainwashed american hears that word together with a pointing finger, he or she immidiatly thinks of a bombthrowing, child molesting lunatic that wants to exterminate every american. FUCK EM! Just like one thought of a Communist earlier. "terrorist" the new enemy of the state, blown out of proportion to distract people of the poverty and problems inland.

The whole situation disgusts me. "terrorism" give it a fucking break. War is terrorism you are terrorising civilians by bombing their houses. Soldiers shooting civilians, this is also conducting terror upon people. Once a soldier kills a civilian he is a murderer and a terrorist.

Bah "terrorism" the word makes me sick. First the enemies were "communists" or "pinko-commies" or something like that. Now all of a sudden every enemy of the US is called a "terrorist" or a "terrorist state" or a "terrorist supporting state" or a "terrorist harbouring state". FUCK EM ALL! :mad: :headbang:

Then all of a sudden Ariel Sharon starts talking about the "terrorist attacks of the Palestinians" not telling that he himself started the latest Entefada by provocing palestinians by desanctifying their most important mosk. And not to speak of the years of "terrorism" the israeli forces and colonists have conducted upon the Palestinian people. Even if the Palestinians stop throwing stones (like before the latest entefade about what 5 years ago, time goes by so fast i don't remember quite as well) the Israeli forces keep on harassing and random arrest Palestinians. Destroy their crops, destroy their homes to put some new colonist racist homes on and taking away their water suplies. FUCK EM TOO! And then of course Putin starts talking about the "terrorist" state of Chechnya when before 9/11 he spoke of the rebels... FUCK EM!

Terrorism, if a good brainwashed american hears that word together with a pointing finger, he or she immidiatly thinks of a bombthrowing, child molesting lunatic that wants to exterminate every american. FUCK EM! Just like one thought of a Communist earlier. "terrorist" the new enemy of the state, blown out of proportion to distract people of the poverty and problems inland.

The whole situation disgusts me. "terrorism" give it a fucking break. War is terrorism you are terrorising civilians by bombing their houses. Soldiers shooting civilians, this is also conducting terror upon people. Once a soldier kills a civilian he is a murderer and a terrorist.

Very true!
Just look at this summer. Not a single "terrorist" attack in Isreal until just recently. (of course no-one seems to mention all the attacks of the Isrealy military against the palestians)

I'm sorry that's not how it works in a debate.
You disagreed with me. You need to defend your point. If you think people are not listening, try being more concise with your points.
Simply saying "oh your not listening" is not really helping your argument is it?
the point is it would be impossible to bomb actual military sites, check points are to keep people out of militaruy places, they dont really count as a target. but how do you propose they bomb military targets when kids are being shot for throwing rocks at tanks or being run over by tanks or bulldozers?

There are three sorst of terrorists (in my opinion).

1) Those who are told they should (for instance) blow themselves up in a bus full of kids so they can get to (their sort of) heaven. These are systematically kept out of contact from evryone so their masters can brainwash them until they believe nothing else.

2) Those who do it for the money. The really sick bastards. These often control the "type 1)"- terrorists. Osama would be a good example.

3) Those who fight for what they believe, but since the general idea of them is that they are bad, they're called terrorists (and not freedom fighters). They terrorize because they no longer see another way. These terrorists are willing to negotiate, since they fight for their direct cause (which they obviously believe is just). I have absolutly no problem with these "terrorists", since they are willing to negotiate, they're people with reason.

So would I, but now matter how "fucking ballistic" I went, I would NEVER turn to this. There are certain things I just wouldn't do, no matter what.



Did you know (heard it from a Russian) that some families ate their (died) children due to hunger in one of the less recent wars (round about WWII i guess). Some Russian told this on a documentary about torment during war in Russia. Everybody suffered immense hunger during the winter. He entered a poor home and smelled a soop with meat in it. He opene the pot and on the fork was a human hand. The hand of that families little daughter (that probably had died overnight).

It puts your statement "There are certain things I just wouldn't do, no matter what." a bit into perspective, doesn't it? (and don't dare say these people were animals or lunatics, that's war, that is war!)

the point is it would be impossible to bomb actual military sites, check points are to keep people out of militaruy places, they dont really count as a target. but how do you propose they bomb military targets when kids are being shot for throwing rocks at tanks or being run over by tanks or bulldozers?

That's better.....
I did point out that the check points could be considered military targets. Even that wall they are building could be considered one. (financial cost can be as damaging as anything else). Of course it would be extremely difficult, maybe next to impossible.
In terms of the kids and the rocks. First off, it should not be children doing this, but a more organised group. They should use molotov instead.
From what i've read, america has had alot of problems in Iraq with suicide bombers driving cars (full of explosives) through the metal barriers.

But even if none of this was possible, I will not condon the death of innocents on ever side. An innocent bystander killed is always terrible. But to particularly aim at innocents in the hope of create terror is just stupid.
Its too easy to get world opinion to turn against you

WHat the heck? The US cant make beer worth crap! Our alcohol levels in our beer is what Canada and European countries referr to as Near Beer. It doesnt have enough alcohol to be referred to as an alcoholic beverage. Did you know that Canada's alcohol limit on beer is about 9%... ours is 1.4%. Germany and England have no limit on their alcohol levels. US beer is a JOKE!

First off, it should not be children doing this, but a more organised group. They should use molotov instead.
that just proves your not worth responding to. THEY ARE DOING IT BECAUS THEY ARE FUCKING KIDS AND THEY ARE ANGRY. kids fucking throw stuff. if there is a tank rolling through your town for no reason and you hate the government it belongs to an you arel ike 8, you'd probably go throw rocks.

From what i've read, america has had alot of problems in Iraq with suicide bombers driving cars (full of explosives) through the metal barriers.
how many palestinians have cars. i doubt somewhere between slim and none. and i doubt they would get within 100 feet of the gate before being hit with an anti-vehicle weapon. these people fucking kill kids, they arnt going to let a car show them up.

Exactly, killing hundreds of infants in cold blood negates any sorrow or anger you had before now as worthless.
Personally I wouldnt care much if Putin dropped a nuke on Grosny if they did it again or something similar.Would the UK be justified in nuking New York as a response to years of Americans funding the IRA? The problem with your stance is it's naive and simplistic. Without looking at the causes behind terrorism you can never effectively counter it. Whether you mean it to or not, attitudes like yours are in practice pro terrorist, as they argue for policys that would be the best recruitment tactic Bin Laden could hope for.

Bah "terrorism" the word makes me sick. First the enemies were "communists" or "pinko-commies" or something like that. Now all of a sudden every enemy of the US is called a "terrorist" or a "terrorist state" or a "terrorist supporting state" or a "terrorist harbouring state". FUCK EM ALL! :mad: :headbang:

Then all of a sudden Ariel Sharon starts talking about the "terrorist attacks of the Palestinians" not telling that he himself started the latest Entefada by provocing palestinians by desanctifying their most important mosk. And not to speak of the years of "terrorism" the israeli forces and colonists have conducted upon the Palestinian people. Even if the Palestinians stop throwing stones (like before the latest entefade about what 5 years ago, time goes by so fast i don't remember quite as well) the Israeli forces keep on harassing and random arrest Palestinians. Destroy their crops, destroy their homes to put some new colonist racist homes on and taking away their water suplies. FUCK EM TOO! And then of course Putin starts talking about the "terrorist" state of Chechnya when before 9/11 he spoke of the rebels... FUCK EM!

Terrorism, if a good brainwashed american hears that word together with a pointing finger, he or she immidiatly thinks of a bombthrowing, child molesting lunatic that wants to exterminate every american. FUCK EM! Just like one thought of a Communist earlier. "terrorist" the new enemy of the state, blown out of proportion to distract people of the poverty and problems inland.

The whole situation disgusts me. "terrorism" give it a fucking break. War is terrorism you are terrorising civilians by bombing their houses. Soldiers shooting civilians, this is also conducting terror upon people. Once a soldier kills a civilian he is a murderer and a terrorist.


How true....
The term terrorist is being abused, just like they abused the term communist a few decades ago. Haven't they learned anything?

There are three sorst of terrorists (in my opinion).

1) Those who are told they should (for instance) blow themselves up in a bus full of kids so they can get to (their sort of) heaven. These are systematically kept out of contact from evryone so their masters can brainwash them until they believe nothing else.

2) Those who do it for the money. The really sick bastards. These often control the "type 1)"- terrorists. Osama would be a good example.

3) Those who fight for what they believe, but since the general idea of them is that they are bad, they're called terrorists (and not freedom fighters). They terrorize because they no longer see another way. These terrorists are willing to negotiate, since they fight for their direct cause (which they obviously believe is just). I have absolutly no problem with these "terrorists", since they are willing to negotiate, they're people with reason.


This is probably a fair sum up of the different types of terrorists. And Osama is an opportunistic type that uses religion for his own needs. Osama wasn't even religious. He was muslim only by name. Until he discovered the benefits of religion.

Only one thing to add. The type 1s you speak of, who are told and brainwashed what to do, are often recruited out of the workless and very poor people. They don't have much hope for their future. The type 2s give them a reason to live and die again. They won't have to hang themselves anymore or die of hunger, they will be praised and sit with f.e. Allah with 70 virgins and so on. (or how many virgins?, forgot) So terrorism can thrive thanks to conditions created by invading forces. (the Taliban was also an invading force into Afghanistan, but Afghanistan has always been at war. US supported them against Russia and then abandoned them after their country was practically leveled due to wars, then Opium fields came, the only source of income for the poor people and then the oportunistic Taliban came and used the Opium income to conduct a brutal theocracy and when the US started burning down their Opiumfields they also used the incom to conduct terror against the enemies of their "religion" and their reign.) You reap what you sow, isn't that in the bible?

How true....
The term terrorist is being abused, just like they abused the term communist a few decades ago. Haven't they learned anything?
learn? is that a type of breakfast cereal?

and they are still abusing communist

WHat the heck? The US cant make beer worth crap! Our alcohol levels in our beer is what Canada and European countries referr to as Near Beer. It doesnt have enough alcohol to be referred to as an alcoholic beverage. Did you know that Canada's alcohol limit on beer is about 9%... ours is 1.4%. Germany and England have no limit on their alcohol levels. US beer is a JOKE!

a bit off topic my friend, but o so true :D

that just proves your not worth responding to. THEY ARE DOING IT BECAUS THEY ARE FUCKING KIDS AND THEY ARE ANGRY. kids fucking throw stuff. if there is a tank rolling through your town for no reason and you hate the government it belongs to an you arel ike 8, you'd probably go throw rocks.


how many palestinians have cars. i doubt somewhere between slim and none. and i doubt they would get within 100 feet of the gate before being hit with an anti-vehicle weapon. these people fucking kill kids, they arnt going to let a car show them up.

As your arguments are simply emotive and not giving concrete points, except they are killing kids!!!! and such your right there is no point debating.
MAYBE THE PARENTS SHOULD KEEP THEM AWAY FROM THE FUCKING TANKS!!!

And they have cars. they can steal cars. Think. there are plenty of palestinians with isrealy citizenship. If someone like Bin Laden can get his hands on a couple of plane i think an palestinian terrorist can get his hands on a car.

But since i'm not listening, no need to respond as your not going to waste your time.
Any off too lunch!

All true, but I believe that ones way of thinking changes when being at war for years and being constantly confronted with death (close relatives or enemies). I'm not trying to defend actions against children, but I'm trying to make some of the readers realise that terrorists are normal human beings pushed in an inhuman position. If they wouldn't have been attacked they would have never even considered hurting children any more than a person in a peace situation. Rest asure that you would be appaled by the amount of children and women Russian forces killed (willingly or unwillingly) in Chechnya or how many innocent children and women were killed in the bombings US forces conducted on so called terrorist gatherings. They are as dead as the ones in Beslan.

I know.

Several years ago, I watched a Russian documentary where a TV crew went to Grosny to see what the war was doing to the people there. This was close to the end of the first Russian campaign there. The government had declared a "victory" and the troops were getting ready to pull out.

The city was a shambles - all smashed up and blasted apart. As the camera swept across the broken pieces and bombed out shells of literally hundreds of buildings that used to be people's homes, it showed a couple of tanks moving through the rubble, and then at the doorsteps of one of the blasted buildings, there was this old man just sitting there looking all sad and gloomy.

As the film crew approached this man, he looked up at them, shook his head and said something like, "I don't want to see this. I want to see cars going by in the street, children playing in the sunshine, happy people going about their business. I don't want to see this."

In a different part of the city, there had been shelling and bombing just that night. A lot of people had taken shelter in the basement of a large building, and that building had been hit - hard.

A group of women came running down the street screaming and sobbing. As they passed the film crew, they pointed back in the direction of the blasted building and screamed, "There are no bodies there. Just body PARTS!"

At the end of the day, the film crew returned to a Russian military compound on the outskirts of the city and spoke to one of the soldiers getting ready to leave town. They asked him how he felt now.

The soldier looked around himself, then looked back at the camera with a strange, empty look in his eyes, and he said, "What can you feel here? Look around. What can you feel here? There's nothing here. Everything's destroyed. What can you feel here?"

And the sun went down over the broken city, which was still home to hundreds of thousands of people.

Yes, all of these things could be true.
And all of these things would be legitimate reasons to fight back against those who have done you wrong. But NONE of these things could EVER justify things like what happened in Beslan.

...skipped a bit...

Well, if they honestly believe that murdering a bunch of children in a school is going to make ANYTHING better for ANYONE, then they must be some of the STUPIDEST people that have EVER lived.

Well actually it will make things better for everyone else cause there'll be 400 less people using up the world's resources.

There's a reason Malthus called war, famine and disease "positive" checks on human population growth.

We're using up too much of the world's resources anyways so it's good to see we get a few extra seconds before the "resource wars" begin, eg: fresh water, arable land, oil.... oh wait they already have...

As your arguments are simply emotive and not giving concrete points, except they are killing kids!!!! and such your right there is no point debating.
MAYBE THE PARENTS SHOULD KEEP THEM AWAY FROM THE FUCKING TANKS!!!

And they have cars. they can steal cars. Think. there are plenty of palestinians with isrealy citizenship. If someone like Bin Laden can get his hands on a couple of plane i think an palestinian terrorist can get his hands on a car.

But since i'm not listening, no need to respond as your not going to waste your time.
Any off too lunch!
bin laden is fucking rich...

i will give this to you, you dont use emotion, but sadly neither do you use fact. and you are ASSUMING im using it as an emotianl thing, im not, im trying to make it as a point. if they are killing kids throwing rocks, or just running over kids, what the fuck do you think they are going to do to people trying to walk up to them?

Did you know (heard it from a Russian) that some families ate their (died) children due to hunger in one of the less recent wars (round about WWII i guess). Some Russian told this on a documentary about torment during war in Russia. Everybody suffered immense hunger during the winter. He entered a poor home and smelled a soop with meat in it. He opene the pot and on the fork was a human hand. The hand of that families little daughter (that probably had died overnight).

It puts your statement "There are certain things I just wouldn't do, no matter what." a bit into perspective, doesn't it? (and don't dare say these people were animals or lunatics, that's war, that is war!)

Point taken on the perspective, but I don't see the link between deliberately murdering a child and eating the flesh of one that was already dead.

Well actually it will make things better for everyone else cause there'll be 400 less people using up the world's resources.

There's a reason Malthus called war, famine and disease "positive" checks on human population growth.


So, basically, we should just go ahead and nuke ourselves because that would make things better on those "lucky" few who survived?

Nobody does anything if he truly believes it's wrong. Though people are very good in making their own excuses ("I was being forced", "I would've lost my job if I didn't", "I really didn't have a choice" ). So do terrorists, they have a cause which they believe is bigger than the lives of their victims, or even their own lives. I think it's wrong what happened in Beslan, but I am sure the people who did it, thought they had every reason to do it.

Guardinia - again an extremely anthropocentric argument - Nuking doesn't just harm humans but everything in the world and the generations to come. I just believe that wasting your breath whining over wars isn't going to stop the world degenerating into a warzone. The only things that'll do it are severe population controls (such as the flawed but admirable laws in China) and a SUSTAINABLE lifestyle.

Basically stop living off the capital and start living off the interest.

And while you're at it maybe you could step down from your higher moral ground to see that children are dying every single day, and while I don't condone it I accept it as a natural offshoot from our unsustainable lifestyles.

If you want (in the very far flung future) these things to stop happening, attack the root of the problems not just the symptoms and the root cause of it all is over resources - to the Angolan mother of four who are all dying of malnutrition - her children are the only resource she'll be able to depend on when she's older hence she'll have a few because half won't live past infancy. To the Russians they are going to use this incident to hold on even tighter to Chechnya, not cause they give a damn about the people but because of the oil reserves it has.

Legitimate world armies have done much worse things in times past. At times killing virtually everybody within city walls. It didn’t matter if they put up a fight or not. Even during the crusades Christians killed fellow Christians that were seeking refuge in the church because they thought they had betrayed other Christians by living with the enemy.

In war, there is only one rule, and that is to achieve victory. And people will do that with whatever means that are at their disposal.

Legitimate world armies have done much worse things in times past. At times killing virtually everybody within city walls. It didn’t matter if they put up a fight or not. Even during the crusades Christians killed fellow Christians that were seeking refuge in the church because they thought they had betrayed other Christians by living with the enemy.

In war, there is only one rule, and that is to achieve victory. And people will do that with whatever means that are at their disposal.
the rule is: the winner writes the history

the rule is: the winner writes the history
That’s the post war rule.

The truth is, the world has always been the way it is now. Only there was less arrogance in the notion that we're all supposed to be civilized.

Would the UK be justified in nuking New York as a response to years of Americans funding the IRA?

More to the point, would the UK be justified in nuking Belfast?

the rule is: the winner writes the history

You assume that there can be both only one winner and only one history.

Thermidore: Point taken on the nuking, but what about another Holocaust or two? That would reduce the population without destroying the environment. Does this make it a good thing?

No, I have no intention of stepping down from my "higher moral ground" - I believe morality is a vital part of humanity.

Yes, children die every day - about 50 or so every minute. And most of them are not getting killed in wars or terrorist attacks or natural disasters. They are dying because we're buying new clothes and new cars and big, fat, juicy new computers with games and stuff to go with them while they're not even getting water and food - or vaccines that cost about 10 cents a piece to produce.

America has less than 5% of the world's population. They control more than 30% of the world's resources and they're willing to fight wars to keep things that way. Europe is about the same, as is practically every other "industrialized" nation in the world - to a lesser extent.

This is what is killing most children in the world today, and practically every one of us is guilty of it - at least to some extent.

I know this. And I know that I'm guilty of it too.

But I still think it's wrong to deliberately bomb children.

bin laden is fucking rich...

i will give this to you, you dont use emotion, but sadly neither do you use fact. and you are ASSUMING im using it as an emotianl thing, im not, im trying to make it as a point. if they are killing kids throwing rocks, or just running over kids, what the fuck do you think they are going to do to people trying to walk up to them?

You have written the sentences in an emotive way. No assumption.
Also I never specified I was using facts. Not 100% concrete ones anyway (different sides to every story and all that..).
Yes i am sure they a killing children throwing rocks at tanks. But if a child can get clsoe enough to a tank to throw a rock. An adult can get close enough to throw a molotov.

In regards to Bin Laden, though, he did not buy the planes did he. they hijacked them. These palestinians could quite easily steal car for their own means.

Legitimate world armies have done much worse things in times past. At times killing virtually everybody within city walls.

Who says these armies are/were legitimate?

as to that last post.

Not condoning terrorism in any form.

Terrorism is when the group in question subjects a population to terror tactics.
If they are fighting for their independence after an invasion, and attack legitimate targets they are freedom fighters

You have written the sentences in an emotive way. No assumption.
Also I never specified I was using facts. Not 100% concrete ones anyway (different sides to every story and all that..).
Yes i am sure they a killing children throwing rocks at tanks. But if a child can get clsoe enough to a tank to throw a rock. An adult can get close enough to throw a molotov.

In regards to Bin Laden, though, he did not buy the planes did he. they hijacked them. These palestinians could quite easily steal car for their own means.
you are missing the damned point with the molotov bullcrap, i am done talking to you.

you are missing the damned point with the molotov bullcrap, i am done talking to you.

ok then what should they do?
Kids can't throw stones at tanks. so what should they do. You keep on throwing that sentence at me about the kids and stones. I agree if you want, that it is a terrible thing! and......

tell me!

I say if the children are getting shot, then they should not do it. or change tactics.
But i don't see how suicide bombers versus innocents is going to help the palestinians one bit.

ok then what should they do?
Kids can't throw stones at tanks. so what should they do. You keep on throwing that sentence at me about the kids and stones. I agree if you want, that it is a terrible thing! and......

tell me!

I say if the children are getting shot, then they should not do it. or change tactics.
But i don't see how suicide bombers versus innocents is going to help the palestinians one bit.
stop arguing or im going to ignore you, you dont get the point after i outlined it word for word

you are missing the damned point with the molotov bullcrap, i am done talking to you.

You have a strange way of discussing things with other people.
In about 80 % of your posts, all you seem to say is "You're not listening" or "You're missing the point."

Well, what is your point then?

When you keep refusing to argue your point, I don't find it so strange that people miss it.

You have a strange way of discussing things with other people.
In about 80 % of your posts, all you seem to say is "You're not listening" or "You're missing the point."

Well, what is your point then?

When you keep refusing to argue your point, I don't find it so strange that people miss it.
i outlined it

the suicide bombers target what they can get to. they cant get to military targets because they are gunned down. hell even kids are gunned down or ran over for throwing rocks. he seems to think throwing rocks at tanks is some military strategy instead of kids being pissed off at the israelis, and somehow thinks they wont gun down a guy with a molotv before he can even light it

This terrorism is never justified. Murdering and slauthering children, bombing trains, throwing bombs into buses or cafes, crashing planes intot buildings. Those are barbaric acts of mass murder who are NEVER justified.
I do understand that in a dictatorship people may be forced to use force against a tyrannt. But that force has to go against the regime, against its infrastructure, againsts its forces and infrastructure. But violence against civilians, mass murder and other things are acts that are stabilizing a dictatorship. People who act that way are no better than the regimes and mostly even much worse than the regimes they are fighting against.
Those barbaric acts as we have seen in the school in Beslan are NEVER justified.
That is also the case for the series of terrorists attacks we have seen since 9/11. Djerba, Madrid, Beslan or the continuing series of palestinian terrorism in Israel. All those acts have no justification to the slightest degree and ought to be condemned.

Yes i am sure they a killing children throwing rocks at tanks. But if a child can get clsoe enough to a tank to throw a rock. An adult can get close enough to throw a molotov.


just to pitch in with my own two cents here...IMO at least:

1) an adult Palestinian would generally NOT get close enough to an Israeli tank to throw a molotov at it. he would either have to run toward the tank to get close enough to it while carrying a flaming bottle (might as well draw a bulls eye on his chest while he's at it), or get close to the tank while hiding the bottle, and then pull it out, light it, and throw it. in the first case, he gets gunned down long before he gets in throwing range, case two, he gets gunned down before he can light or throw it. the only possible way to be able to hit a tank with a molotov would be to hide behind a building or something and pop out as the tank passes by. of course, he may or may not actually HIT the tank because of the fact that he'll only have a split second to throw it before he gets gunned down. :sniper:

2) even IF he manages to hit the tank, how much damage do you think a molotov cocktail is going to do to a heavily armored tank? i've never made a molotov or seen one in action, and i'm not in the military, but i would bet money that it's not gonna do any significant damage at all.

Originally Posted by Daroth
There can be no argument.

I've always love the example of palestine especially. They have no weapons so they throw stones at Isrealy tanks and helicopters and use suicide bombers on buses and buildings.
If the palestinians defended themselves by using the suicide bombers on military targets like the tanks and military building and threw stones at buses. etc.. well at least they would not longer been seen as terrrorists.


oh yes cuz of course we all know the military would let a palestinian get anywhere close enough to a tank or military building to blow themselves up and do damage to it. they already shoot and run over the people THROWING ROCKS at them, why dont you think before you post.

this was your argument. sarcasm. where have you stated your points clearly.

Anyway i'm asking you what they should do? Everything I've said boils down to: they should not kill innocents threw suicide bombings and should aim more for military targets.
You've said its impossible. So I wish to understand. should they go for civilians then?

My dear Auntie Delia said it best...

"After the 50's, the world went to the crapper".

i outlined it

the suicide bombers target what they can get to.

Well, I'm not buying that argument.

Nobody's invincible. Not even the Israeli or US military. There are ways to get to them, it's just a bit harder.

just to pitch in with my own two cents here...IMO at least:

1) an adult Palestinian would generally NOT get close enough to an Israeli tank to throw a molotov at it. he would either have to run toward the tank to get close enough to it while carrying a flaming bottle (might as well draw a bulls eye on his chest while he's at it), or get close to the tank while hiding the bottle, and then pull it out, light it, and throw it. in the first case, he gets gunned down long before he gets in throwing range, case two, he gets gunned down before he can light or throw it. the only possible way to be able to hit a tank with a molotov would be to hide behind a building or something and pop out as the tank passes by. of course, he may or may not actually HIT the tank because of the fact that he'll only have a split second to throw it before he gets gunned down. :sniper:

2) even IF he manages to hit the tank, how much damage do you think a molotov cocktail is going to do to a heavily armored tank? i've never made a molotov or seen one in action, and i'm not in the military, but i would bet money that it's not gonna do any significant damage at all.

Fair enough I concede the point.

Not really familiar on the layout and design of tanks myself. I know it is very effective if it gets inside. Probably not possible now.

i outlined it

the suicide bombers target what they can get to. they cant get to military targets because they are gunned down. hell even kids are gunned down or ran over for throwing rocks. he seems to think throwing rocks at tanks is some military strategy instead of kids being pissed off at the israelis, and somehow thinks they wont gun down a guy with a molotv before he can even light it

I don't see throwing rocks as a military strategy. But as a political strategy, yes.
I think the people that get people to be suicide bombers could quite easily convince a few kids to throw stones. Would anyone really be that suprised???

Several months ago, the Israeli Army lost one of their tanks when driving into a Palestinian settlement on the Gaza strip. Someone had rigged a powerful explosive charge under the road which was detonated as the tank ran over it.

The tank was knocked out and the entire crew was killed.
It was supposedly one of their most powerful tanks too.

Originally Posted by Daroth
There can be no argument.

I've always love the example of palestine especially. They have no weapons so they throw stones at Isrealy tanks and helicopters and use suicide bombers on buses and buildings.
If the palestinians defended themselves by using the suicide bombers on military targets like the tanks and military building and threw stones at buses. etc.. well at least they would not longer been seen as terrrorists.




this was your argument. sarcasm. where have you stated your points clearly.

Anyway i'm asking you what they should do? Everything I've said boils down to: they should not kill innocents threw suicide bombings and should aim more for military targets.
You've said its impossible. So I wish to understand. should they go for civilians then?
you were and are too stupid to see the point i have now outlined twice, and since i have warned you, you are being ignored for being an ignorant git

One thing though Snowboarding Maniacs,
a molotov is a bottle with flamable liquid in it as i sure you know. A bottle with liquid is quite heavy and can be thrown a good distance. With an oily rag attached it could burn for a 1 or 2 before being dangerous to the user.
Also you would not need to be in the direct line with the tank.
Hiding behind and object, you could thrown several over a wall in less than a minute.

But i think the whole little conversation went a bit far onto a tangent

you were and are too stupid to see the point i have now outlined twice, and since i have warned you, you are being ignored for being an ignorant git

Well fuck off then. Had realised i'd missed a post and was replying you little shite.

Remember now your ignoring me so no answers dipshit

Well, I'm not buying that argument.

Nobody's invincible. Not even the Israeli or US military. There are ways to get to them, it's just a bit harder.
terrorists arnt a well trained army, in this case the terrorists are the general population pissed off at the israelis for treating them as second class people and breaking their own rules and regulations to downtrod them

they are not highly trained spec ops kind of terrorists, they are run of the mil depressed peoplew ith nothing left to live for and dont care who they take down with them. see the "sleepers" of homeworld: cataclysm, they ran the mimics, whose only attack was suiciding into the enemy craft

Well, I'm not buying that argument.

Nobody's invincible. Not even the Israeli or US military. There are ways to get to them, it's just a bit harder.

True. Considering all the other groups that have managed to bypass militaries to reach targets.

True. Considering all the other groups that have managed to bypass militaries to reach targets.
I´m actually quite concerned since the terrorists in Iraq are targeting the oil infrastructure. That is an attempt to take the world energy markets hostage.
That is outrageous and irresponsible.

I´m actually quite concerned since the terrorists in Iraq are targeting the oil infrastructure. That is an attempt to take the world energy markets hostage.
That is outrageous and irresponsible.

True it is worrying.

Are we talking about the iraqies or the coalition forces?

You cant just look at current examples of terrorism. Most countries were formed on terroristic ideas. The united States is an example, we terrorized england till they just gave up.

True it is worrying.

Are we talking about the iraqies or the coalition forces?
Neither of them: I´m taking about the Iraqi terrorists who try to sabotage the pipelines and the oil energy facilites threatening the development of the world economy and who are destabilizing the world. The same is the case for Al-Quaida in Saudi-Arabia - though they weren´t able yet to cause an interruption of the supplies from there.

My dear Auntie Delia said it best...

"After the 50's, the world went to the crapper".

Ah yes, the 30s and 40s were so much better.


Did your sweet Auntie Delia sleep through the entire Second World War or something?

You cant just look at current examples of terrorism. Most countries were formed on terroristic ideas. The united States is an example, we terrorized england till they just gave up.
You probably don´t see a difference on the ideas of the Taliban and the American ideas. I do see them. And I think you are terribly wrong.

You cant just look at current examples of terrorism. Most countries were formed on terroristic ideas. The united States is an example, we terrorized england till they just gave up.

curious, how were they terrorists?

I´m actually quite concerned since the terrorists in Iraq are targeting the oil infrastructure. That is an attempt to take the world energy markets hostage.
That is outrageous and irresponsible.

Its actually a pretty logical tactic (IMO) on their part. There are miles of pipeline, making it a tempting target and not easily defendable. It doesn't involve blowing women and children to pieces and will still gather global attention. I believe countries in Europe that were overrun by Nazi Germany used similar guerilla warfare tactics, attacking infrastructure and the like.

curious, how were they terrorists?

Boston Tea Party maybe? =O

You probably don´t see a difference on the ideas of the Taliban and the American ideas. I do see them. And I think you are terribly wrong.Are you acknowledging that it is the ideology that makes Al-Queda bad, rather then specifically the fact that they're "terrorists"?

Boston Tea Party maybe? =O

???????
how were those terrorism?
thought they threw tea in water.

Not arguing, just asking for more info on how it was TERRORism

I dunno why they do what they do what they do, and to be honest I don't really care. Because I know if the shoe was on the other foot, they wouldn't be bothered about me. Plus why should I worry about a load of people that would kill me as soon as look at me? They can go to hell for all I care.

There are no bigger terrorists than the govt. You think violence shouldn't be used in politics? Politics IS violence. Large scale systematic violence. If you don't agree try smoking dope or operating an unlicenced bar, nevermind not paying your taxes. Why shouldn't you fight against the govt? They started it.

Sadly, though, people rarely fight the govt. They take it out on office workers, plane passengers and school children. This is what is unacceptable.

Its actually a pretty logical tactic (IMO) on their part. There are miles of pipeline, making it a tempting target and not easily defendable. It doesn't involve blowing women and children to pieces and will still gather global attention. I believe countries in Europe that were overrun by Nazi Germany used similar guerilla warfare tactics, attacking infrastructure and the like.
Well: you could actually argut that this is rather guerilla warfare. Terrorism would than be definated as attacks on civilians, buses, cafes, trains, schools or whatever. I would differentiate between the two things. The earlier can NEVER be justified. The latter can be justified in a war of liberation against an occupying power.
However I don´t see the US as an force of evil trying to permanently occupy Iraq. It is a geostrategic move to free the Iraqi people and to push this idea into the region. The problem is whether the Iraqis understand that, if it wasn´t even possible to explain that to many allies.
But that is not so important. Important is the perception in Iraq and how that is developing.

Are you acknowledging that it is the ideology that makes Al-Queda bad, rather then specifically the fact that they're "terrorists"?
It is both.

???????
how were those terrorism?
thought they threw tea in water.

Not arguing, just asking for more info on how it was TERRORism

"On November 28 the Dartmouth arrived in Boston harbor with a cargo of Darjeeling tea. Samuel Adams and other radicals were determined that the cargo would not be landed in the city. His mobs roamed the streets in the evenings, threatening violence if challenged by the authorities. Governor Thomas Hutchinson was equally belligerent and vowed not to capitulate in the face of public opposition as had happened in other colonies."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h646.html

Definition of terrorism from American Heritage Dictionary: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Who says these armies are/were legitimate?
Alright, bad word choice. Replace legitimate with national.

Would the UK be justified in nuking New York as a response to years of Americans funding the IRA? The problem with your stance is it's naive and simplistic. Without looking at the causes behind terrorism you can never effectively counter it. Whether you mean it to or not, attitudes like yours are in practice pro terrorist, as they argue for policys that would be the best recruitment tactic Bin Laden could hope for.

In fact - to extend that example...

Should the UK nuke the US for all the terrorist actions that the Americans carried out before the American Revolution... which was, if you think about it ALSO a terrorist action...

And, one stage further: Should the Southern States of the US nuke the Northern States, for the acts of terrorism leading up to the American Civil War? (Like the occupying force at Fort Sumter).

If you are on the oppressed side.. they are Partisans, or Freedom Fighters.

If you are the fat-cats... they are rebels, revolutionaries and terrorists.

its men and women, lets not be sexist. :D

oh yes cuz of course we all know the military would let a palestinian get anywhere close enough to a tank or military building to blow themselves up and do damage to it. they already shoot and run over the people THROWING ROCKS at them, why dont you think before you post.

Oh that justifies it.

We can't fight you so we are going to kill your mothers.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your sisters.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your little sisters.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your little brothers.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your babies.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your grandparents.

The Afghans were outclassed by the Soviets and yet managed to fight them just fine. Considering the Soviets would shoot anything that moved and flatten anything they thought was a threat is saying a bunch.

the ways of gov't stay true to the Hegalian Dialectic of problem, reaction, solution.......911 was an inside job to get us into Iraq with public support and as we all know now it wasnt even a professional job but filled with an obviousness that does not bother the powers that be anymore........they control the voting machines...they own us as useless eater wage slaves overpopulators and they'd like nothing better than to get rid of a Lot of us.

The true powers that be are never front men in gov't but operate as the faceless illuminati cabal that they are.

the chechen rebels want independence and no doubt want to run their country in a dictatorship way that is not good.....yet nor do they want Russia to take profits from the oil line built through the Caspian Sea and the only way russia will get this is to deny sovereignty to them.

Terror starts at home. Dont forget this.

Oh that justifies it.

We can't fight you so we are going to kill your mothers.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your sisters.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your little sisters.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your little brothers.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your babies.
We can't fight you so we are going to kill your grandparents.

The Afghans were outclassed by the Soviets and yet managed to fight them just fine. Considering the Soviets would shoot anything that moved and flatten anything they thought was a threat is saying a bunch.
i also said this once "it's an explanation, not an excuse"

and i explained it again in the video game reference (homeworld: cataclysm)

Ah yes, the 30s and 40s were so much better.


Did your sweet Auntie Delia sleep through the entire Second World War or something?

Actually, that's when she felt most alive, people stuck together. Sometimes war brings out the best in people.

Actually, that's when she felt most alive, people stuck together. Sometimes war brings out the best in people.

Yeah, like shooting each other.

???

These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)

Oh, okay. Sure.

By that logic:

Rapists don't do things without a reason. They honestly believe that any woman, simply by virtue of having breasts, must be willing to have sex.

Thieves don't do things without a reason. They honestly believe that they are entitled to other people's possessions because they do not currently have them.

Murderers don't do things without a reason. They honestly believe that they have the right to remove someone's life.

You may think you have a really, really good reason to commit a certain atrocity -- but it is still an atrocity. The madness comes from thinking that your agenda overrides that fact.

Yeah, like shooting each other.

???

People stuck together and helped each other out. There was a stronger sense of community back then. She certainly seemed to think it was better.

While the young men went off to shoot each other...

On the U.S. history note:
Well, if the Boston Tea Party doesn't count as terrorism, does the HMS Gaspée incident? In 1772, the Sons of Liberty, a radical "Patriot" group led by people like Samuel Adams, boarded the Gaspée, a British customs vessel, when it ran aground in Rhode Island trying to pursue some peaceful coastal ships. Men with blackened faces boarded the ship, wounded the captain, and set the ship aflame. These Sons of Liberty also threatened to tar and feather captains of British tea ships operating under the Tea Act, once saying:
"What think you Captain, of a halter round your neck--ten gallons of liquid tar decanted on your pate--with the feathers of a dozen wild geese laid over that to enliven your appearance? Only think seriously of this--and fly to the place from whence you came--fly without hesitation--without the formality of a protest--and above all...let us adivse you to fly without the wild geese feathers."
Is this terrorism?


With the connection to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, we have to make the difference between motives and means. For both the Sons of Liberty and the Islamic terrorists, the means -- that is, terrorism -- were what we'd probably consider wrong. (There's probably a difference in magnitude, though; to the best of my knowledge, the Sons of Liberty didn't kill anyone except the intermittent British official who didn't survive tarring and feathering.) However, most people would agree that the motives of the Sons of Liberty, who were fighting for an end to opressive British rule (not necessarily independence, just an end to oppression), are much more justifiable than those of the Islamic terrorists, who want, alternatively, the downfall of the West or a state under strict Islamic rule.


I do not want to create the impression, however, that all of the American leaders were terrorists -- many Americans resisted more successfully and nonviolently through Non-Importation Agreements, which were effectively boycotts of British goods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a very interesting opinion piece in The Los Angeles Times on September 5 by Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Terrorism. The piece is titled "Once Upon a Time, Terrorists Had Some Standards: Now, unbound by rules of war or decency, they happily slaughter innocents." One of the insights it makes is how terrorists now target innocents almost exclusively, though, at the beginning of the twentieth century, they target officials like kings and presidents. As Laqueur points out, some Russian revolutionaries cancelled a 1904 mission to kill a grand duke because they did not want to harm his family. I thought that merited pointing out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crux of this is that terrorism, especially modern terrorism, is a political tool. Terrorists, especially self-styled freedom fighters, often turn to their tactics because they're desperate for attention to their cause, or they feel that they have no other way to make their voices heard.

Why do the Chechens fight? They are angry at the Russia actions in Chechnya. Now, I'm nowhere near as familiar with this as I should be, but I gather from the posts that the Chechens have a beef with Russia.

Why do the Iraqis fight? That's easy. They see the American presence as an imperialist occupation force. Couple this with Islamic fundamentalism and you have a powerful force indeed.

Why does Al-Qaeda fight? I'm not quite sure, but I do not believe that they "hate freedom" as President Bush so often insists. They also see America and the West as imperialistic. Again, linked with a holy war, it's a powder keg.

I do not mean to imply that terrorism, namely the murder of innocents, is justified. I just thought you might like some insight.

Does this also apply if the "terrorists" say if you don't leave chechnya we'll start taking schools hostage?
Well first you should have a better understanding of why the Russians are in Checknya in the first place, this region has always been a thorn in the paw of the Russian bear, did you know that in the fiftys Stalin had every person deported from Chechyna into gulags.
Twenty years later the survivors came back, no wonder their a tight bunch, even the Mafya are scared of the place.

And to answer your question blowing up targets in Russia and attacks on Schools isnt a really good way to get independance and world sympathy, where was the UN on this, very silent all these years arent they.
Unless its the US attacking someone right or wrong, their strangely silent about other countrys who do the same.

They have nothing left to live for anymore. All they have is Faith.

Would the UK be justified in nuking New York as a response to years of Americans funding the IRA? The problem with your stance is it's naive and simplistic. Without looking at the causes behind terrorism you can never effectively counter it. Whether you mean it to or not, attitudes like yours are in practice pro terrorist, as they argue for policys that would be the best recruitment tactic Bin Laden could hope for.

I could say the same about your analogy.

So whats your solution both sides get down together and chew the fat, have a big group hug at the end and alls forgiven?

Your policy on terrorism is one of giving into their demands known as appeasement, this you assure yourself will stop all the violence, and the world will be ahappy safe place for you to live in, until you die of natural causes.
Sorry but your attitude just helps create slavery, have you ever wondered what Bin Laden really wants?
Its alot more than just the US out of the middle east.
Whether hes right or wrong on how the world should be, or whether the western governments are right on how the world should and shouldnt be is irrelevant.
Islamic fundementalism and the West can no longer live in the same world together so one naturally must go.

They have nothing left to live for anymore. All they have is Faith.
Same for the village of Beslan, their next generation was wiped out.

Well first you should have a better understanding of why the Russians are in Checknya in the first place, this region has always been a thorn in the paw of the Russian bear, did you know that in the fiftys Stalin had every person deported from Chechyna into gulags.
Twenty years later the survivors came back, no wonder their a tight bunch, even the Mafya are scared of the place.

And to answer your question blowing up targets in Russia and attacks on Schools isnt a really good way to get independance and world sympathy, where was the UN on this, very silent all these years arent they.
Unless its the US attacking someone right or wrong, their strangely silent about other countrys who do the same.

By your argument, the Russians deserved it for their continued persecution of the Chechnyans.

Just by the way... how would YOU suggest that Chechnya rid themselves of Russian rule?

I could say the same about your analogy.

So whats your solution both sides get down together and chew the fat, have a big group hug at the end and alls forgiven?

Your policy on terrorism is one of giving into their demands known as appeasement, this you assure yourself will stop all the violence, and the world will be ahappy safe place for you to live in, until you die of natural causes.
Sorry but your attitude just helps create slavery, have you ever wondered what Bin Laden really wants?
Its alot more than just the US out of the middle east.
Whether hes right or wrong on how the world should be, or whether the western governments are right on how the world should and shouldnt be is irrelevant.
Islamic fundementalism and the West can no longer live in the same world together so one naturally must go.

Okay, a minute ago, it was Russia's fault for oppressing the Chechens.

Now, NOT wanting to kill people is 'appeasement'... you need to pick a side of the road, and stop arguing against everything.

Even if you were right, and Osama won't be happy till the flag of Islam rules over the globe... how is that different from the Christian church 600 years ago? (In fact, there are still religious fanatics in the christian church who would bring 'conversion by the sword' to the world today...)
How is that different from Bush spreading Democracy and Christianity by a policy of invasion?
How is that different from spreading nuclear proliferation ONLY to christian and christian-sympathetic countries?

Islam and 'the West' are not seperate entities, except in your head.

=Grave_n_idle]By your argument, the Russians deserved it for their continued persecution of the Chechnyans.

Well maybe the Russian military or government, not innocent kids but.

Just by the way... how would YOU suggest that Chechnya rid themselves of Russian rule?


They cant, there conquered by a nation superior in numbers and fire power.

If Russia allows Checkyna to go then other regions might be tempted to do the same, gradually weakening Russia.

Well maybe the Russian military or government, not innocent kids but.

They cant, there conquered by a nation superior in numbers and fire power.

If Russia allows Checkyna to go then other regions might be tempted to do the same, gradually weakening Russia.

The Chechens could argue that the citizens of Russia have been complicit in the oppression of Chechnya, though. They could argue that, since the people of Russia haven't opposed Russia's war on Chechnya, that they are, in fact, on the same side - and therefore ALL enemies of Chechnya.

So, you argue that the Chechens should, in fact, just suffer under Russian rule? Would you?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Okay, a minute ago, it was Russia's fault for oppressing the Chechens.

Im sorry but here you go yet again twisting an arguement around into something it isnt, not to mention just plain outright lying, how did I say it was Russias fault?

Now, NOT wanting to kill people is 'appeasement'... you need to pick a side of the road, and stop arguing against everything.

How am I argueing against everything, Im for Russia in this situation not Checknya therefore I am not argueing against Russia am I.
You need to stop arguing also purely for the sake of arguing, another sign of your incredible immaturity Grave.
Dont bother answering because I wont be reading it, your only on here to antagonise not debate.



Even if you were right, and Osama won't be happy till the flag of Islam rules over the globe... how is that different from the Christian church 600 years ago?


How is it different from the same Islamic faith that was doing the same thing 600 years ago, 1200 years ago and is still doing it now!

Christianity stopped.
Islam hasnt, when are you going to work it out.


(In fact, there are still religious fanatics in the christian church who would bring 'conversion by the sword' to the world today...)

Like who..


How is that different from Bush spreading Democracy and Christianity by a policy of invasion?

Sorry I didnt realise people were being forced on pain of death in non christian countrys to drop their religon and convert to Christianity by Bush.


How is that different from spreading nuclear proliferation ONLY to christian and christian-sympathetic countries?

Please drop the Christianity out of it, your only making yourself look like someone from the dark ages, most western countrys do not even really consider themselves Christian anymore.

Islam and 'the West' are not seperate entities, except in your head.

Funny that, because you seem pretty adamant yourself about Christian and non Christian countrys.

And sorry but Islam and the west are very seperate, except maybe in your head.

Also dont bother replying Grave like I said, I really wont be reading it, like I said before, Im interested mainly in debating people on here, not getting wound up in some pointless little neverending battle of words with someone who enjoys taking personal shots from the safety of the internet, Ive got better things to do.

=Grave_n_idle]The Chechens could argue that the citizens of Russia have been complicit in the oppression of Chechnya, though. They could argue that, since the people of Russia haven't opposed Russia's war on Chechnya, that they are, in fact, on the same side - and therefore ALL enemies of Chechnya.

Well the Checknyans wont be winning many friends with the Russian people by attacking them will they.

So, you argue that the Chechens should, in fact, just suffer under Russian rule? Would you?

Not suffer which they wouldnt if they accepted they cannot beat Russia, so why hurt their own people if they really care about Checkyna, its not bravery, its pointless and sheer stupidity.
If Russia gets attacked by a number of countrys andstarts to end, then fight.

I wont be reading your response, its just pointless talking to you.

Im sorry but here you go yet again twisting an arguement around into something it isnt, not to mention just plain outright lying, how did I say it was Russias fault?


You want me to post it? You could always just go read your own comment...


How am I argueing against everything, Im for Russia in this situation not Checknya therefore I am not argueing against Russia am I.
You need to stop arguing also purely for the sake of arguing, another sign of your incredible immaturity Grave.
Dont bother answering because I wont be reading it, your only on here to antagonise not debate.


"...did you know that in the fiftys Stalin had every person deported from Chechyna into gulags.... Twenty years later the survivors came back, no wonder their a tight bunch..." seems like an argument against Russia to me... unless you think that the enforced repatriation of invaded nations to prison work camps is a GOOD thing?

"Arguing for the sake of arguing"... isn't that what I just said? So, now you copy me?

Once again with your insults. I am not immature.

I really do hope you don't answer, to be honest. I would be happy to read your responses if they were not always attacks on me, or someone else.

But, you are wrong. I am here to debate. If my opinions 'antagonise' you, maybe you should think about WHY they upset you?


How is it different from the same Islamic faith that was doing the same thing 600 years ago, 1200 years ago and is still doing it now!

Christianity stopped.
Islam hasnt, when are you going to work it out.


Christians are still sending missions to 'heathen' nations with the express purpose of 'witnessing' to the heathens.

'Christian' nations displaced native religion to form the state of "Israel" - thereby starting more than half a century of conflict in the middle east.

Bush has said that he believes god 'selected him' to lead the US into the middle east - the president has made it a holy war.

Also - Islam, as a faith is 600 years YOUNGER than christianity... 600 years ago, christians were in the middle east barbecuing muslims. You can assume that 'moral highground' in another 600 years.


Sorry I didnt realise people were being forced on pain of death in non christian countrys to drop their religon and convert to Christianity by Bush.


see, that's the funny thing... you bomb the crap out of people, park tanks in the middle of their cities, and put a ground occupation force in their borders, then institute a puppet government... and some crazy people will always suspect that you are trying to further some kind of agenda.


Please drop the Christianity out of it, your only making yourself look like someone from the dark ages, most western countrys do not even really consider themselves Christian anymore.


How would that make me look like someone from the Dark Ages?


Funny that, because you seem pretty adamant yourself about Christian and non Christian countrys.

And sorry but Islam and the west are very seperate, except maybe in your head.

Also dont bother replying Grave like I said, I really wont be reading it, like I said before, Im interested mainly in debating people on here, not getting wound up in some pointless little neverending battle of words with someone who enjoys taking personal shots from the safety of the internet, Ive got better things to do.

How am I adamant? I, personally, said that I believe the delineation between the 'west' and Islam is a fabrication of your mind?

I am sorry if I 'wind you up'. If you have no recourse but anger to my attempts to debate, I would say that was less about me, and more about you.

And you are hardly in a moral vantage point to be talking about 'taking personal shots from the safety of the internet"... how have you insulted me? Let me count the ways...

If you cannot react in a mature fashion, then I agree, you shouldn't respond to my posts.

Well the Checknyans wont be winning many friends with the Russian people by attacking them will they.


Not friends, no. But they seem to have precious few friends among the Russians already. What the school-bombing DID achieve was ATTENTION. People all over the world became suddenly aware of the Russia/Chechnya situation.

I like to think that it isn't the way I would have done it - but it certainly got their story heard.


Not suffer which they wouldnt if they accepted they cannot beat Russia, so why hurt their own people if they really care about Checkyna, its not bravery, its pointless and sheer stupidity.
If Russia gets attacked by a number of countrys andstarts to end, then fight.

I wont be reading your response, its just pointless talking to you.

They have been suffering under Russian rule. You said so yourself... enforced displacements, a Russian military occupation.

Would you live in Chechnya, under those conditions? Honestly? You'd just sit back and let the Russians do as they pleased? Look back over some of the figures of Chechen deaths in the last decade, alone.

Reference: Bravery v's stupidity. When the German tanks began rolling into Poland, the last ditch gesture of the defiant resistance was the Pomeranian Light Cavalry charging the tanks on horseback. Stupid? Yes. But very brave.
A hopeless gesture, perhaps - but not a futile one?

Does anyone know if perhaps the Chechens who murdered those children had themselves had children murdered by the Russian army? I'll bet any money they had.

How low have terrorists sunk. They kill children in Beslan, then they attack peaceful diplomats in Indonesia. This is sick. Where is this madness going to end? Terrorism be damned!!!

Ya, those guys dismissed their code of morals because they think they have no other choice, on the other hand the russian army doesn't stop at bombing their schools too. So I guess its a tie...

If I found the remaining bodyparts of my family in some rubble which some country bombed because of some reason I didn't know about, I'd probably go fucking ballistic aswell.

Thats hard...

Does anyone know if perhaps the Chechens who murdered those children had themselves had children murdered by the Russian army? I'll bet any money they had.
Yeh so that would make it ok wouldn't it numpty! If it was wrong for your children to be killed what makes it correct for some one elses children to be killed?
So if Japan wants to drop a nuke on the US that's ok because the US did it to Japan once.
I also very much doubt that Russian soldiers went out and deliberatly targeted children. The acidental death of children in a war zone is terrible but the deliberate targeting of children is an act of barbarism, no not even that as it's sick.
The allied and axis forces killed thousands of children during WWII however it was as a consequence of area bombings not a deliberate strategy. The only peope who did that during WWII were the sub humans who ran the death camps. :headbang:

Exactly, killing hundreds of infants in cold blood negates any sorrow or anger you had before now as worthless.
Personally I wouldnt care much if Putin dropped a nuke on Grosny if they did it again or something similar.

We've got a problem there, the commanding officer in Beslan knew very well what would happen if they tried to resolve the situation by force, and yet he did resolve the situation by force. Now ask yourself would the children still be alive if the russians had tried to negotiate?

Yeh so that would make it ok wouldn't it numpty! If it was wrong for your children to be killed what makes it correct for some one elses children to be killed?
So if Japan wants to drop a nuke on the US that's ok because the US did it to Japan once.
I also very much doubt that Russian soldiers went out and deliberatly targeted children. The acidental death of children in a war zone is terrible but the deliberate targeting of children is an act of barbarism, no not even that as it's sick.
The allied and axis forces killed thousands of children during WWII however it was as a consequence of area bombings not a deliberate strategy. The only peope who did that during WWII were the sub humans who ran the death camps. :headbang:
I knew some moron would post something like this. Did I say it excuses it? No. I was just trying to show that agression breeds agression. The Russian govt started the fight and now Russian children are paying the price. That's sick. Wise up, asshat.

BTW, civilians were deliberately targeted by both sides in WW2. It's you who's trying to excuse the murdering of children.

I knew some moron would post something like this. Did I say it excuses it? No. I was just trying to show that agression breeds agression. The Russian govt started the fight and now Russian children are paying the price. That's sick. Wise up, asshat.

BTW, civilians were deliberately targeted by both sides in WW2. It's you who's trying to excuse the murdering of children.
Firstly agression can breed agression but as Gahndi showed freedom can be achieved through peacefull means (anyone who thinks that the riots etc were what brought about the liberation of India don't know much about the way the British empire was run).
Secondly I infered from your statement that the actions of the Russians justified the action of the terrorists. If that was not what you meant to imply it was not clear from the statement.
Thirdly The Russian Gov did not start this fight as you so simply put it, find out what these terrorist were up to before Russia stepped in. They were not farmers sitting about all nice and friendly. They were murdering thier neighbours that did not share thier religion.
And lastly I stated the during WWII children were not targeted specificaly, I never mentioned civilians. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

We've got a problem there, the commanding officer in Beslan knew very well what would happen if they tried to resolve the situation by force, and yet he did resolve the situation by force. Now ask yourself would the children still be alive if the russians had tried to negotiate?
You mean after and explosionand gun fire you expect the soldiers around to stand and wait for the bodies to be passed out?
When what really happened is established then may be the time to critisize the comander.

But NONE of these things could EVER justify things like what happened in Beslan. Attacking a school full of children has nothing to do with fighting.

Perhaps I'm just to good hearted, but I think they just couldn't believe the russians would try to resolve that situation by force, and therefore endanger their own children.

I really want to believe that...

AND THEY DO TRY TO BOMB CHECK POINTS TOO. they get fucking gunned down before getting close enough to do serious damage


and if you would fucking listen, i am trying to explain to your thick self WHY they dont try to just target military targets, ITS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. they have to target civilian targets to get their point across, not saying its right but thats a fact. and would you fucking care who you killed after your kid was gunned down by a tank for throwing rocks at it as it rolled through your town?

your not even fucking listening are you

lol, I've never read the word "f***ing" that often in one post... :)

Bah "terrorism" the word makes me sick. First the enemies were "communists" or "pinko-commies" or something like that. Now all of a sudden every enemy of the US is called a "terrorist" or a "terrorist state" or a "terrorist supporting state" or a "terrorist harbouring state". FUCK EM ALL! :mad: :headbang:

Then all of a sudden Ariel Sharon starts talking about the "terrorist attacks of the Palestinians" not telling that he himself started the latest Entefada by provocing palestinians by desanctifying their most important mosk. And not to speak of the years of "terrorism" the israeli forces and colonists have conducted upon the Palestinian people. Even if the Palestinians stop throwing stones (like before the latest entefade about what 5 years ago, time goes by so fast i don't remember quite as well) the Israeli forces keep on harassing and random arrest Palestinians. Destroy their crops, destroy their homes to put some new colonist racist homes on and taking away their water suplies. FUCK EM TOO! And then of course Putin starts talking about the "terrorist" state of Chechnya when before 9/11 he spoke of the rebels... FUCK EM!

Terrorism, if a good brainwashed american hears that word together with a pointing finger, he or she immidiatly thinks of a bombthrowing, child molesting lunatic that wants to exterminate every american. FUCK EM! Just like one thought of a Communist earlier. "terrorist" the new enemy of the state, blown out of proportion to distract people of the poverty and problems inland.

The whole situation disgusts me. "terrorism" give it a fucking break. War is terrorism you are terrorising civilians by bombing their houses. Soldiers shooting civilians, this is also conducting terror upon people. Once a soldier kills a civilian he is a murderer and a terrorist.

AT LAST! You're THE MAAAN! Thats what I always wanted to say but failed to express!

WHat the heck? The US cant make beer worth crap! Our alcohol levels in our beer is what Canada and European countries referr to as Near Beer. It doesnt have enough alcohol to be referred to as an alcoholic beverage. Did you know that Canada's alcohol limit on beer is about 9%... ours is 1.4%. Germany and England have no limit on their alcohol levels. US beer is a JOKE!

Why is this post even here? what does it have to do with the Beslan terroists/rebels?

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies. Every person who dares to suggest that terrorists are simply "terrorizing" people because they are psychotic must have been brainwashed by CNN or something. Can you for one time think for yourself. These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)

You've proven yourself on other posts to be curiously blind to evil committed by people claiming to be Muslims. I wonder how you'd feel if they were white Christian separatists from Texas who went to Mississippi and shot school children in the back. It is well known that the federal govt. killed Texan children at Waco.

You conviction, in light of an absence of evidence, leads me to wonder where your agenda is. I am beginning to suspect you are either a radical Muslim yourself, or a shallow person of immense ignorance who is mistakenly convinced that contrarianism is akin to intellectualism.

Does anyone know if perhaps the Chechens who murdered those children had themselves had children murdered by the Russian army? I'll bet any money they had.
Makes no matter. First off, two wrongs don't make a right. Under your logit it would be justified if Branch Davidians went to Nevada and killed school children as retribution to the FBI@Waco. Tim Mcvieh was their sympathiser and not many folks consider his act justified.

Quit trying to justify evil, it makes you look foolish.

Libertovania wasn't providing justification for the bombinb. They were merely stating that the probability of it being unprovoked is low.

I could say the same about your analogy.

So whats your solution both sides get down together and chew the fat, have a big group hug at the end and alls forgiven?You still haven't answered the analogy. Would the UK be justified in attacking the US? Yes or no.

Your policy on terrorism is one of giving into their demands known as appeasement, this you assure yourself will stop all the violence, and the world will be ahappy safe place for you to live in, until you die of natural causes.Where precisely did I say that. Direct quotation please.
Sorry but your attitude just helps create slavery, have you ever wondered what Bin Laden really wants?
Its alot more than just the US out of the middle east.
Whether hes right or wrong on how the world should be, or whether the western governments are right on how the world should and shouldnt be is irrelevant.
Islamic fundementalism and the West can no longer live in the same world together so one naturally must go.It's not about what Bin Laden wants. It's how best to stop creating fertile recruiting grounds for him. Why are you so determined that Al Queda should have more memebers?

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies. Every person who dares to suggest that terrorists are simply "terrorizing" people because they are psychotic must have been brainwashed by CNN or something. Can you for one time think for yourself. These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)


Uhmmmm, the histiry goes back to the 1800s where the Islamic nations have been trying to force a Muslim state there, that's where it started and that's teh main reason! So think about all the terroism currently happening and tie it all up, to what conclusion does it lead you?

Uhmmmm, the histiry goes back to the 1800s where the Islamic nations have been trying to force a Muslim state there, that's where it started and that's teh main reason! So think about all the terroism currently happening and tie it all up, to what conclusion does it lead you?

What conclusion are you drawing? That terrorism is the natural product of Islam?

I think most people would agree that the concept of "terrorism" itself, is in itself wrong and inhumane. These arguments only arise from certain groups of "terrorists" may have justification or no other option. Perhaps it would help if "terrorism" was defined. If you choose to define it as something along the lines of "unprovoked military attacks against civilians / civilian targets" then essentially most of the world's governments have commited this at some point in history.

And also, while I've tried to remain as a meditator, I'd like to point out that I hate the idea of older people forcing the younger generations to die for their ideals. Whether you see this as Islamic priests convincing 14 year old suicide bombers, or as George Bush using soliders as cannon fodder is your decision. I think Mark Twain said "Old men make war, and young men die" I might be wrong, correct me if so.

I know.

Several years ago, I watched a Russian documentary where a TV crew went to Grosny to see what the war was doing to the people there. This was close to the end of the first Russian campaign there. The government had declared a "victory" and the troops were getting ready to pull out.

The city was a shambles - all smashed up and blasted apart. As the camera swept across the broken pieces and bombed out shells of literally hundreds of buildings that used to be people's homes, it showed a couple of tanks moving through the rubble, and then at the doorsteps of one of the blasted buildings, there was this old man just sitting there looking all sad and gloomy.

As the film crew approached this man, he looked up at them, shook his head and said something like, "I don't want to see this. I want to see cars going by in the street, children playing in the sunshine, happy people going about their business. I don't want to see this."

In a different part of the city, there had been shelling and bombing just that night. A lot of people had taken shelter in the basement of a large building, and that building had been hit - hard.

A group of women came running down the street screaming and sobbing. As they passed the film crew, they pointed back in the direction of the blasted building and screamed, "There are no bodies there. Just body PARTS!"

At the end of the day, the film crew returned to a Russian military compound on the outskirts of the city and spoke to one of the soldiers getting ready to leave town. They asked him how he felt now.

The soldier looked around himself, then looked back at the camera with a strange, empty look in his eyes, and he said, "What can you feel here? Look around. What can you feel here? There's nothing here. Everything's destroyed. What can you feel here?"

And the sun went down over the broken city, which was still home to hundreds of thousands of people.

Yes, it is trribly sad that the Chechyn Terrorists chose to use their own people as human shields, hide in their homes churches and businesses.

as to that last post.

Not condoning terrorism in any form.

Terrorism is when the group in question subjects a population to terror tactics.
If they are fighting for their independence after an invasion, and attack legitimate targets they are freedom fighters


You leave out an important part - popular support. Without popular support they are not rebels or freedom fighters - they are criminals. (at best)

Consider what it would be like in the US if a small, homogenous group of people were to decide that they wanted Utah to be seperate from the US. Even if they attacked 'legitimate' targets they would not be justified.

Since americans are so ready to shoot any soul stepping on their lawn, I really can't see why they're so surprised about the terrorist attitude to take revenge by killing anyone is bombing their countries.

Makes no matter. First off, two wrongs don't make a right.
First off, read what I said and not what you think I'm saying.

Under your logit it would be justified if Branch Davidians went to Nevada and killed school children as retribution to the FBI@Waco.
No, that is not my "logit".

Tim Mcvieh was their sympathiser and not many folks consider his act justified.
If, however, he'd gone after the agents who shot the kids and those who authorised it he'd be a hero.


Quit trying to justify evil, it makes you look foolish.
Quit trying to put words in my mouth, it makes you look moronic.

You leave out an important part - popular support. Without popular support they are not rebels or freedom fighters - they are criminals. (at best)

Consider what it would be like in the US if a small, homogenous group of people were to decide that they wanted Utah to be seperate from the US. Even if they attacked 'legitimate' targets they would not be justified.
Of course they would. Why should they be forced into a political association they want no part of. The govt uses violence against them whenever they threaten them with jail for not paying taxes or for smoking pot, why shouldn't they attack the very military and police who are oppressing them? When you urge them not to attack the govt it is YOU who wants agressors to go unpunished.

We've got a problem there, the commanding officer in Beslan knew very well what would happen if they tried to resolve the situation by force, and yet he did resolve the situation by force. Now ask yourself would the children still be alive if the russians had tried to negotiate?

No I think the end result was planned from the beginning, the leader blew up two of his own female terrorists in front of the children and others to keep them docile, what did they hope to gain from such a no win situation?
Liberation for Chechyna, I doupt it.
It was pure revenge nothing else.

As long as politicians trample over human rights and murder masses of people for their own agendas, I think terrorism will exist and will be a valid way of fighting against overwhelming odds. They have just as much valid reasons to use such tactics as politicians have reasons to massmurder or oppress people all over the world. While I do not think that it is morally right to attack children or civilians, it is in most terrorist cases, a last resort to rebel against an overwhelmingly superior enemy.

=The Holy Word]You still haven't answered the analogy. Would the UK be justified in attacking the US? Yes or no.

No



Where precisely did I say that. Direct quotation please.

Please, a yes or no for you, do you support caving into terrorist demands no matter what.

yes or no.


It's not about what Bin Laden wants. It's how best to stop creating fertile recruiting grounds for him. Why are you so determined that Al Queda should have more memebers?

So your way of fighting terrorism is appeasement, and then it will stop, wrong it will just get worse.

Wipe them out.
Simple.

Wipe them out.
Simple.
Apparantly it isn't.

Of course they would. Why should they be forced into a political association they want no part of. The govt uses violence against them whenever they threaten them with jail for not paying taxes or for smoking pot, why shouldn't they attack the very military and police who are oppressing them? When you urge them not to attack the govt it is YOU who wants agressors to go unpunished.
Ah, your true colors now show. You just made it to my 'inconcenquential' list. You presume a group you could associate with. What if they were not - what if they were people who thought slavery should be legal?; what if they thought women should be property? What if they thought the church should run their country? Whould you be so supportive? If so then it would not be long before chaos would ensue as everyone was attacking everyone - the direct result of anarchy.

I suppose there are some who would think this to be good - in their own sick and twisted way.

Ah, your true colors now show. You just made it to my 'inconcenquential' list. You presume a group you could associate with. What if they were not - what if they were people who thought slavery should be legal?; what if they thought women should be property? What if they thought the church should run their country? Whould you be so supportive? If so then it would not be long before chaos would ensue as everyone was attacking everyone - the direct result of anarchy.

I suppose there are some who would think this to be good - in their own sick and twisted way.
You are an idiot. Do you misread my posts on purpose? Lie down for a while, have a cup of coffee, take a deep breath and read it again.

While you're at it, can you refute my contention that the govt intiates violence against peaceful people and thus may be legitimately attacked?

As long as politicians trample over human rights and murder masses of people for their own agendas, I think terrorism will exist and will be a valid way of fighting against overwhelming odds. They have just as much valid reasons to use such tactics as politicians have reasons to massmurder or oppress people all over the world. While I do not think that it is morally right to attack children or civilians, it is in most terrorist cases, a last resort to rebel against an overwhelmingly superior enemy.
Actually you are wrong - Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are the two world leaders for trampleing human rights and mass murder - however neither one faces or faced much, if any, terrorism.

You are an idiot. Do you misread my posts on purpose? Lie down for a while, have a cup of coffee, take a deep breath and read it again.
Don't flame me if you expect a reply.

I am drinking coffee (and Balieys!)

I did read it again,

The conclusion is the same.

You obviously need to expand your argument if you expect it to be taken any other way.

While you're at it, can you refute my contention that the govt intiates violence against peaceful people and thus may be legitimately attacked?
you make no distinction between law enforcement and violence against peaceful people. Your argument is nul.

you make no distinction between law enforcement and violence against peaceful people. Your argument is nul.
Yes I do. Laws against rape, theft, murder and fraud are defensive violence. All the rest is pure agression. Tax, victimless "crimes", anti-immigration, regulation of commerce, limitations on free speech etc.

you make no distinction between law enforcement and violence against peaceful people. Your argument is nul.

You keep misunderstanding Libertovania's argument. His position is quite clear and needs little rephrasing if any.

Ah, your true colors now show. You just made it to my 'inconcenquential' list. You presume a group you could associate with. What if they were not - what if they were people who thought slavery should be legal?;
That would be forcing slaves into an association they didn't want.

what if they thought women should be property?
That would be forcing women into an association they didn't want.
What if they thought the church should run their country?
That would be forcing non-fundamentalists into an association they didn't want.

Yes I do. Laws against rape, theft, murder and fraud are defensive violence. All the rest is pure agression. Tax, victimless "crimes", anti-immigration, regulation of commerce, limitations on free speech etc.
So, if tax is a victimless crime, how would you pay for the law enforcement of 'victimful' crimes?

Also, you draw a moral equivalent between imprisoning criminals and blowing up schools full of children (aka terrorism). Even if the criminal imprisonment were unjust (such as the case of many accused rapists found years later to be innocent) there is no equivalent or justification for terrorism or murder.


Afterall, murder and terrorism is just forcing people into an association they didn't want.

Apparantly it isn't.

Well thats because of the UN.

So, if tax is a victimless crime, how would you pay for the law enforcement of 'victimful' crimes?
That's a seperate issue, right now we're discussing the morality armed robbery. But see here....

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Also, you draw a moral equivalent between imprisoning criminals and blowing up schools full of children (aka terrorism). Even if the criminal imprisonment were unjust (such as the case of many accused rapists found years later to be innocent) there is no equivalent or justification for terrorism or murder.
No, again you're misreading it. Imprisoning rapists, murderers etc is fine. It's drug users, prostitutes and immigrants (for example) who never really committed any crime in the first place, other than what a bunch of pompous old men decided to label as "crimes". I'm not trying to justify terrorism or murder since fighting govt aggression is neither terrorism or murder, whereas killing innocent school children is, savvy?

Afterall, murder and terrorism is just forcing people into an association they didn't want.
Not really, it's more like killing them.

Well thats because of the UN.
The UN is hiding Bin Laden?

While the terrorists are clearly the worst type of war criminals for killing innocent civilians, especially children, we can't let the recent tragedies be used to mask other truths. For instance, it's often ignored that the terrorists in Beslan had a genuine greivance with the Russian government, which has carried out a brutal war in Chechnya, using death-squads to murder dissidents and taking away the Chechen people's right to self-determination. On the other hand, any moral superiority Chechen rebels might have is squandered when they decide to murder children and families who have nothing to do with Russian policy-making.

So what you're saying is that any one who uses the lives of innocents to fight wars is a terrorist? How are you going to vote in the upcoming presidential election, by the way?

Since I'm not American, I still have some free speech rights left. (And before you go slap-happy, screaming that I'm anti-American, my ex-fiancee is American, and my current girlfriend is American, and I have friends and family throughout the Midwest.)

1) 1,000 American citizens, military and otherwise, killed, just in Iraq. At least 11,000 Iraqi citizens killed; no firm numbers on the actual number of casulties, mind you. Nor on the casulties ties to resistance groups.
2) No one has any firm idea how many civilians were killed in Afghanistan, but the US barely has control of the towns and major transport links currently.
3) Various actions throuhout South America throughout the Reagan/Bush years has left countless civilians dead in country wracked by near civil war level fighting. And don't tell me that there were'nt American government groups helping out there... Ollie North and Iran-Contra anyone?
4) Handing guns to Iraq AND Iran throughout the 80's? And the biochemical weapons that Saddam used of all those innocent people? Gee, no problem, there.

Doesn't it scare you that the US government want to free Iraqis, and is talking about freeing Iranians, from brutal, fundamentalist regimes (except Iraq WAS a secular government)? Now, look just a little south from Iraq... Saudi Arabia... oil-rich, fundamentalist, and BRUTAL ABUSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS!

Nah, let's leave 'em... they might be bastards, and they might have helped funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamic terrorists thoughout the world, but they're still _OUR_ bastards.

Africans nations destroyed by religious wars, plagues, starvation and international business cartels (legal or not)? F#ck them; they don't have anything we can't just screw them out of, anyways. Same with Pacific nations...

Hey, wait a minute... a country, with a massive military, and a vocal religious fundamentalist minority? And the country poses a proven, immediate and overwhelming threat to other nations, and has proven ties to terrorist cabals? Shite, we better invade!!!!

We'll call it... ummm... how about 'Operation American Freedom'?

Feel free to email me about how wrong I am... master_baiter@shaw.ca

Oh yeah... have something to back up your logic, because using capitilazation to scream out "9/11!!!" and "Iraq backed the terrorists" doesn't cut it. I was as horrified by 9/11 as anyone else, but those 3,000 civilians may well have been knowingly sacrificed by the GOP... go check www.prisonplanet.com, and learn all about the NORAD 'hijacked plane interception' training exercises that had planes capable of intercepting the hijackers flying everywhere but after the real terrorists.

And Iraq never backed the terrorist, either. Rumsfeld back Saddam, and there's proof that the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations back Usama bin Laden during the first Afghan conflict; there's no proof of any other link than that tenuous little string.

So, if tax is a victimless crime, how would you pay for the law enforcement of 'victimful' crimes?

In regards to tax and crimes, maybe you should go back and read the posts made earlier about "terrorism" and the Boston Tea Party.

Here's a Libertarian site which shows the true face of the war on terror, amongst other things, for anyone who's interested. Check out the "face of war" and "future terrorist" links.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies. Every person who dares to suggest that terrorists are simply "terrorizing" people because they are psychotic must have been brainwashed by CNN or something. Can you for one time think for yourself. These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)

I totaly agree with your statement, but they shouldn't go and kill innocent children.. instead they should be aiming at the people who did this to them, like, in the case of beslan, Poetin, or any of his generals.

Exactly, killing hundreds of infants in cold blood negates any sorrow or anger you had before now as worthless.
Personally I wouldnt care much if Putin dropped a nuke on Grosny if they did it again or something similar.

You don't get it do you?! if they would do that, familymembers of those died in the attack would resort to terrorism because that would be the only way they could do something about it.

Actually you are wrong - Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are the two world leaders for trampleing human rights and mass murder - however neither one faces or faced much, if any, terrorism.

Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il?

Not Pol Pot? Not Josef Stalin? Not Adolf Hitler?

You just mean current ones?

Well, how about China's ongoing refusal of basic human rights?

How about Putin in Chechnya? Currently looks like a death toll of about 125,000 Chechens, because they want independence.

How about the Columbian governments consistent human rights abuses? Something along the lines of 50,000 dead there under the last 3 'regimes'.

How about the Sudanese government, which has racked up about 1.5 million dead, and a further 4.5 million displaced?

Or the Angolan governments war on UNITA, which has cost 350,000 lives so far?

The Afghan government which has accounted for more than a million dead?

Or our ally, Turkey, denying self determination and equality to Kurds for nearly 45 years now, and responsible for at least 120,000 Kurdish deaths.

How about another 'ally', in Israel, which had continuously expanded borders into surrounding nations, forcibly ousting them. Currently responsible for somewhere close to 125,000 Palestinian deaths.

Sierra Leone: President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah: at least 50,000 dead, and nearly 600,000 exiles.

You people have been brainwashed.

Terrorists aren't nutcases. Instead of saying they're psychotic, maybe you should ask yourself why they do the things they do. I believe these people have more reason to do such things then simply "being psychotic". For all we know they're being supressed for decades. For all we know half of they're families were murdered or bombt to death. For all we know they just lost their children and wife or were tortured by their enemies. Every person who dares to suggest that terrorists are simply "terrorizing" people because they are psychotic must have been brainwashed by CNN or something. Can you for one time think for yourself. These people don't do things without a reason. They do things because they honestly believe that it will help their childrens future, free their country or stop any bombing and terrorising going on in their own country (for instance stop bombings in Iraq, or stop Russia from destroying Chechnya and killing Chechens: Russia has been killing Chechens ever since they invaded Chechnya in '94, that's 10 years of living hell)
Then by your standards the KKK, particulary in the early 19th century, must have been terribly oppressed by blacks in order to do the horrendous things they did. (sarcasm intended here)

You don't get it do you?! if they would do that, familymembers of those died in the attack would resort to terrorism because that would be the only way they could do something about it.

No you dont get it, so what if family members seek and get revenge, the Russians will keep destroying them regardless, look at the firepower the Russians have compared to the Checkyans.
Its a no win situation for Checkyna.

waves coffee under sleeping Lucifirs nose.

The UN is hiding Bin Laden?

In a way.
By impeding the US's efforts to hunt him, they are assisting him.

For all of you who find excuses for terrorists, your basically idiots. If your logic rang true, then every dictator in the world would be overthrown. Sadam would have been toppled decades ago, like when he paraded his cabinet out and killed many of them right when he took over. They didn't do anything.

Castro would have been toppled decades ago, but instead his people flee in rafts made of cardboard just to get away, most of them die trying.

This can be said about dozens of countries, but when it involves the good old USA, they have the right and conviction to kill us, their liberators. Your retards, go and suck at the alter of your professors some more...

I know you're going to find this hard to believe, Perrien, but you'll be hard pressed to find a greater enemy of terrorists than Fidel Castro. He hates them too, because he's been fighting them to keep from being overthrown by them.

I'm not saying Fidel is a swell guy, although you will no doubt try to twist this post into exactly that. He's a bastard, and Cuba would likely be better off without him, but people in power hate those who threaten their power, and terrorists always threaten those in power. Ergo, Castro hates terrorism and terrorists, even though he was once in their position himself.

In a way.
By impeding the US's efforts to hunt him, they are assisting him.
not as much as our new century crusade is helping him

how do you help bin laden recruit people who hate us easier and faster? by killing their friends and family and other arabs and muslims

=Chess Squares]
not as much as our new century crusade is helping him
how do you help bin laden recruit people who hate us easier and faster? by killing their friends and family and other arabs and muslims


Oh right so your suggestion would be not to worry about him and let him do what ever he likes.
Whats your brilliant strategy if he keeps organising terrorism and recruiting members anyway?
The juicy prospect of a whole world not willing to fight back and appease out
of sheer cowardice, as Spain and Malaysia did, might give even more young impressionable muslim men a reason to go on a Jihad.

Terrorists - like their name, their whole goal is to cause terror; they don't care who dies for their ideal - they'd just twist the facts to suit themselves all over again!