NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this on a site. I fully agree with it. Wish I knew who wrote it. It also sounds applicable to all those America haters out there.

A Letter To A Terrorist

Well, you hit the World Trade Center,
but you missed America.
You hit the Pentagon,
but you missed America.

You used helpless American bodies,
to take out other American bodies,
but like a poor marksman,
you STILL missed America. Why?

Because of something
you guys will never understand.

America isn't about a building or two,
not about financial centers,
not about military centers,
America isn't about a place,
America isn't even about a bunch of bodies.

America is about an IDEA.

An idea, that you can go someplace
where you can earn as much
as you can figure out how to,
live for the most part,
like you envisioned living,
and pursue Happiness.

(No guarantees that you'll reach it,
but you can sure try!)

Go ahead and whine your terrorist whine,
and chant your terrorist litany:
"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain."

This concept is alien to Americans

We live in a country
where we don't have to see your point.
But you're free to have one.
We don't have to listen to your speech.
But you're free to say one.

Don't know where you got the strange idea
that everyone has to agree with you.
You guys seem to be incapable of understanding
that we don't live in America,
America lives in US!

American Spirit is what it's called.
And killing a few thousand of us,
or a few million of us,
won't change it.

Wait until you see what we do
with that Spirit, this time.

Sleep tight if you can.
WE'RE COMING!!!

LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!


sorry but the only thing I can see from such a letter, is all the Anti-American/Anti-Bush people sharpening their knives...

Anonymous poem writers like that do so people why know someone out there wants their head on a plate. ;)

Found this on a site. I fully agree with it. Wish I knew who wrote it. It also sounds applicable to all those America haters out there.

Well, I consider myself an equal opportunity hater. In any case posting pseudo-"uplifting" poetry-type things on the internet is just ASKING for flames. If I'd posted it I would have flamed myself. That aside, some things bugged me about this.


"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain."

This concept is alien to Americans

No it isn't. It's common throughout all humanity. And you need only have... opened your eyes or ears in the days and weeks and months - and still - following 9/11, with so many self-proclaimed patriots advocating nothing short of the nuclear destruction of the entire Middle East - with apparent seriousness - to have seen that "my way or the death highway" is something Americans, like terrorists, can and do enjoy chanting now and then.


WE'RE COMING!!!

OMG TEH GRODLODE11!1!1

No seriously, that whole poem was scarily reminiscent of a love letter with a sexually suggestive ending. Patriots need terrorists, in order to come up with sappy poems like that. Terrorists need victims too, so with both sides secretly realizing they need each other to thrive, they secretly love each other and this is the end result.

At least that's my take on it...

A cool song:

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

I read the first stanza. That's awful. Of course they hit America. Yeah they hit more then buildings, they hit people. Man this is more offensive than it is patriotic. I mean it's scary patriotic, like President punches you in the face and this person would still lick his ass.

"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain." Is alien to Americans...? No it's not, you proudly promote "With us or against us"


That's so nice of you to trivialise a "thousand of us or a few million of us"
I'm sure there families are comforted by that.

"We're coming"? God if you not already here...

Simpsons did it best "Let us not sing a hymn to war, but a fine song of peace and true patriotism.....OOOOO Caaanaadaaa!!!"

well, the poem was written before the falll of the Taliban... :rolleyes:

I read the first stanza. That's awful. Of course they hit America. Yeah they hit more then buildings, they hit people. Man this is more offensive than it is patriotic. I mean it's scary patriotic, like President punches you in the face and this person would still lick his ass.

"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain." Is alien to Americans...? No it's not, you proudly promote "With us or against us"


That's so nice of you to trivialise a "thousand of us or a few million of us"
I'm sure there families are comforted by that.

"We're coming"? God if you not already here...
If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States.

Make out to:

Al-Qaeda
(any region of the world)

at least the USA didnt have decades of being randomly bombed by the IRA (funded by some of those lovely people in the USA via NORAID)

the UK didnt declare war either because of the IRA - we made PEACE with them

thats the way forward not bombing the hell out of another country imo

at least the USA didnt have decades of being randomly bombed by the IRA (funded by some of those lovely people in the USA via NORAID)

the UK didnt declare war either because of the IRA - we made PEACE with them

thats the way forward not bombing the hell out of another country imowrong... the US had property bombed at least once a year by foreign entities (not just the IRA)... and when we do "make peace" with them... we're accused of funding/supporting them.

that... sucked balls. the author said that they didnt hit america? my ass! the only way america would have supported anything close to invading 2 nations IS because it hit america. everyone who supported it wanted revenge and that spirit IS that revenge.

If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States.



If the neo-cons are unable to see their hate-mogering ways and misunderstandings of society, then they obviously must be re-educated at special camps. So, in short, remove all neo-cons from power, then send them away. Ohh.. .make sure every one has to agree with you. They have free speech, but only if its for the party. If they're against you, kill them. :rolleyes:

*sigh* some people never learn.

If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States.
And yet you still claim America is about tolerance as it said in that poem?
:confused:

And yet you still claim America is about tolerance as it said in that poem?
:confused:We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.


I see that you like to talk about yourself from the third person.

I hope the writer isn't expecting a reply.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.

WTF? Mate, you have some serious issues that you need to deal with. Don't you see that you're opposing 'freedom' by saying that all Islamic's should be punished for what a few of them did? I'm ashamed that my country supports the crazy beliefs of your president and uber-patriotic idiots like you.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.

so what your saying is that your intolerant with intolerant people. How very tolerant you are :rolleyes:

WTF? Mate, you have some serious issues that you need to deal with. Don't you see that you're opposing 'freedom' by saying that all Islamic's should be punished for what a few of them did? I'm ashamed that my country supports the crazy beliefs of your president and uber-patriotic idiots like you.
I am not against all Islamists, only those who have declared war on freedom and those who support them.

I am not against all Islamists, only those who have declared war on freedom and those who support them.

and if you were to ask them their opinion their answer would probably be

'we are not against all of the west just those who oppose our chosen way of life and try to influence it in a way we feel is negative'

greater understanding is whats needed here NOT war and bombs

so what your saying is that your intolerant with intolerant people. How very tolerant you are :rolleyes:
When you seek to remove the freedoms of others or kill them just because they don't see your way or agree with your point of view, you forfeit your own rights. There is no way in hell I would ever show tolerance toward such people. Tolerance is only for those who accept the views of others without flaming or killing them.

and if you were to ask them their opinion their answer would probably be

'we are not against all of the west just those who oppose our chosen way of life and try to influence it in a way we feel is negative'

greater understanding is whats needed here NOT war and bombs
Al Qaeda is not about "greater understanding". If you believe they are, then you are a fool. The only thing they understand is death and destruction. If the people of Iraq were supportive of Al Qaeda, then why aren't they rejecting their own government, why aren't they supporting Al Zuraqawi? Because they aren't.
That is why the muslim world supports what America is doing. Because we are freeing them from a threat to their soveringty and from the terrorists.
The reason the Europeans are opposed to us so vehemently is because:
1. We are fixing what they fucked up.
2. By bringing democracy to the middle east, we are destroying Europe's zones of influence.

Al Qaeda is not about "greater understanding". If you believe they are, then you are a fool. The only thing they understand is death and destruction. If the people of Iraq were supportive of Al Qaeda, then why aren't they rejecting their own government, why aren't they supporting Al Zuraqawi? Because they aren't.
That is why the muslim world supports what America is doing. Because we are freeing them from a threat to their soveringty and from the terrorists.
The reason the Europeans are opposed to us so vehemently is because:
1. We are fixing what they fucked up.
2. By bringing democracy to the middle east, we are destroying Europe's zones of influence.


how little you know of Europe

most Europeans arent against what the USA is doing just the way they are doing it (that and the fact that is alot of peoples opinions your president is a muppet of the first degree)

also my comment was directed at BOTH sides - maybe if Islamic extremeists opened thier minds a little to at least try to see the western methodology and maybe if the rest of the world tried to understand why these people feel so vehemently about their beliefs there could be some sort of compromise reached without thousands of people on both sides dying needlessly

also why does America feel the need to police the world?

these nations are capable in alot of cases of sorting themselves out but no the good ole USA feels the need to march in with the big guns blazing and try to claim they are freeing the world - lets face it if 9/11 hadnt happened and if the target countries werent so oil rich the USA wouldnt give a stuff they would just sit there like they are with the indo asian states that are nuclear testing etc

I apologise to those millions of Americans who dont feel that way I dont mean to generalise

oh and lastly destroying Europes zone of influence????

your the fool if you believe that, Europe has no more influence in the Arab nations than the USA has (less as we dont like to storm in with a full arsenal of weapons)

Al Qaeda is not about "greater understanding". If you believe they are, then you are a fool. The only thing they understand is death and destruction.

Compared to what was posted in the poem, it seems that the only thing the creator of the poem understands, and you since you agreed with it, is about the same. Death and destruction. Wonderful. So tell me, what does Iraq have to do with the Al Qaeda?

If the people of Iraq were supportive of Al Qaeda, then why aren't they rejecting their own government, why aren't they supporting Al Zuraqawi? Because they aren't.

They don't exactly want the American troops in their land either.

That is why the muslim world supports what America is doing. Because we are freeing them from a threat to their soveringty and from the terrorists.

Funny, aside from very close allies, read people who profit fiscally from being buddies with the US, I don't see much support in the muslim world.

The reason the Europeans are opposed to us so vehemently is because:
1. We are fixing what they fucked up.

I might be over-assuming things here, but it seems that by this sentence, we can infer that you believe America can't fuck up at all. Belief of non-fallibility is arrogance of the highest order.

2. By bringing democracy to the middle east, we are destroying Europe's zones of influence.

Already pointed out the sheer lack of credibility of this statement by others on the board. You might want to check out political situations before saying things like that first.

:p what bull$hit (the poem)

how little you know of Europe

most Europeans arent against what the USA is doing just the way they are doing it (that and the fact that is alot of peoples opinions your president is a muppet of the first degree)

also my comment was directed at BOTH sides - maybe if Islamic extremeists opened thier minds a little to at least try to see the western methodology and maybe if the rest of the world tried to understand why these people feel so vehemently about their beliefs there could be some sort of compromise reached without thousands of people on both sides dying needlessly

also why does America feel the need to police the world?

these nations are capable in alot of cases of sorting themselves out but no the good ole USA feels the need to march in with the big guns blazing and try to claim they are freeing the world - lets face it if 9/11 hadnt happened and if the target countries werent so oil rich the USA wouldnt give a stuff they would just sit there like they are with the indo asian states that are nuclear testing etc

I apologise to those millions of Americans who dont feel that way I dont mean to generalise

oh and lastly destroying Europes zone of influence????

your the fool if you believe that, Europe has no more influence in the Arab nations than the USA has (less as we dont like to storm in with a full arsenal of weapons)

1. I agree with that. Recently published polls show that most Europeans support the US policy in Iraq. Its the extremists that oppose and hate us.

2. Your heart is in the right place but you'd be wasting your time as far the islamic terrorists are concerned. They'd sooner shoot you than listen to you.
They don't want understanding, only death and destruction of innocents.

3. America must police the world for the reason outlined in 2.

4. No they can't always sort themselves out. Sometimes the people need help from an outside power. This is the way it has been since time immemorial. The superpower of every time period has always had to intervene in other nation's affairs for some just reason or other. Fact is that India and Pakistan already had nuclear weapons. Once they have them, there is nothing we can do.

5. That's because in America you have freedom of speech which is not contingent on other people agreeing with it or not being offended by it.

6. That's why Europe threatened recently to invade Russia because Russia was crushing muslim terrorists in Chechnya? And they were upset because the US said it would not support Europe if Europe did such a thing.

Compared to what was posted in the poem, it seems that the only thing the creator of the poem understands, and you since you agreed with it, is about the same. Death and destruction. Wonderful. So tell me, what does Iraq have to do with the Al Qaeda?



They don't exactly want the American troops in their land either.



Funny, aside from very close allies, read people who profit fiscally from being buddies with the US, I don't see much support in the muslim world.



I might be over-assuming things here, but it seems that by this sentence, we can infer that you believe America can't fuck up at all. Belief of non-fallibility is arrogance of the highest order.



Already pointed out the sheer lack of credibility of this statement by others on the board. You might want to check out political situations before saying things like that first.
And you have been to Iraq? No? What makes you think you are in a position to speak on there behalf? Nothing.

can i ask whats the difference between freedom fighting and terrism? america is saying stuff about them killing many of the american peoples but what about there smart bombs that are sposed to hit there target every time but seemed to miss to many times. what about the thousands of cilvillians that these "smart bombs" have killed. And as for terrism it the only way small countries without millions of dollars to spend on nukes can try and voice there opinions. Seriously there is no terrism only a fear that the media is trying to put out so george bush can keep in presidency for another 4 years.

And you have been to Iraq? No? What makes you think you are in a position to speak on there behalf? Nothing.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it can be applied in reverse. Have YOU been to Iraq? Some form of proof would be nice if you have please. If not, what makes you think they support the continued American presence? Or for that matter, the continued presence of any armed foreigner?

And an interesting point has been raised. What makes the insurgents AKA 'terrorists' in Iraq any different from the freedom fighters in the 1st American civil war? Weapons of choice aside, wasn't the primary principal to kill as many of the opposing side and their supporters as possible while minimizing yours?

Try to see things from both sides. A one sided view with bald statements like that is just that. One sided. Cause and effect. People don't decide to hate someone one day for no reason. No matter how misguided the reason, there is still one. There always is.

can i ask whats the difference between freedom fighting and terrism? america is saying stuff about them killing many of the american peoples but what about there smart bombs that are sposed to hit there target every time but seemed to miss to many times. what about the thousands of cilvillians that these "smart bombs" have killed. And as for terrism it the only way small countries without millions of dollars to spend on nukes can try and voice there opinions. Seriously there is no terrism only a fear that the media is trying to put out so george bush can keep in presidency for another 4 years.
Freedom fighting is when you are fighting to liberate your nation or to bring freedom to the people of another nation.
The reason the smart bombs appeared to hit there targets is becuase of 2 reasons:
1. the use of human shields. This is when the regime we are fighting forces women and children to stand in front of something they know we just launched a missile at.
2. Human error. All targets are picked by human beings who have and do make mistakes. Such persons are dealt with if it turns out their mistake caused civilans deaths. You don't hear about it, but they are punished.
3. If that was true, then you would be seeing terrorists supported by the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others. The fact is they don't. Becuase they don't believe in killing people in the name of religion or just because they "don't see things" the way the terrorists or their supporters see them.
4. The fact is that the media is very anti Bush. Remember they tried to use lies to defeat him in the election.

1. the use of human shields. This is when the regime we are fighting forces women and children to stand in front of something they know we just launched a missile at.
2. Human error. All targets are picked by human beings who have and do make mistakes. Such persons are dealt with if it turns out their mistake caused civilans deaths. You don't hear about it, but they are punished.
3. If that was true, then you would be seeing terrorists supported by the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others. The fact is they don't. Becuase they don't believe in killing people in the name of religion or just because they "don't see things" the way the terrorists or their supporters see them.
4. The fact is that the media is very anti Bush. Remember they tried to use lies to defeat him in the election.

1: Interesting that they should know exactly WHICH target the missile was launched at beforehand. I smell a conspiracy [/sarcasm]

2: Proof of punishment please. Otherwise it has as much possibility of being baseless statement as it has of being reality.

3: True, but we did see so-called freedom fighters supported by the US, the Taliban comes to mind, before they were later reclassified as a terrorist affiliated government. A prime example of US fuckups I should think.

4: Odd. The media is split between favoring AND hating Bush. Your statement lacks a solid base. That is unless you are ignoring the existence of news networks that seem to portray him in a positive light.

Found this on a site. I fully agree with it. Wish I knew who wrote it. It also sounds applicable to all those America haters out there.

A Letter To A Terrorist

Well, you hit the World Trade Center,
but you missed America.
You hit the Pentagon,
but you missed America.

You used helpless American bodies,
to take out other American bodies,
but like a poor marksman,
you STILL missed America. Why?

Because of something
you guys will never understand.

America isn't about a building or two,
not about financial centers,
not about military centers,
America isn't about a place,
America isn't even about a bunch of bodies.

America is about an IDEA.

An idea, that you can go someplace
where you can earn as much
as you can figure out how to,
live for the most part,
like you envisioned living,
and pursue Happiness.

(No guarantees that you'll reach it,
but you can sure try!)

Go ahead and whine your terrorist whine,
and chant your terrorist litany:
"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain."

This concept is alien to Americans

Not just Americans.

We live in a country
where we don't have to see your point.
But you're free to have one.
We don't have to listen to your speech.
But you're free to say one.

Then how come there are all of these stories at the moment about people being detained because of simply what they have said?

Don't know where you got the strange idea
that everyone has to agree with you.
You guys seem to be incapable of understanding
that we don't live in America,
America lives in US!

American Spirit is what it's called.
And killing a few thousand of us,
or a few million of us,
won't change it.

Wait until you see what we do
with that Spirit, this time.

Sleep tight if you can.
WE'RE COMING!!!

Yep, you use that spirit to force 'America' into these other countries which you have "COME!!!" to. Wait - isn't that against the other morals of this poem, being that you don't have to have your point seen, but you can have one? Because you have your point, and you're making other countries "see" it, forcing them to take in "America", have a democracy....and if they don't take in "America" and do what you say, then you will make them feel pain. Not your pain, just pain. Pain of invasion. But isn't that just like the "terrorist whine" that the author complains about?

This letter is really just contradictory patriotism....

That's why Europe threatened recently to invade Russia because Russia was crushing muslim terrorists in Chechnya? And they were upset because the US said it would not support Europe if Europe did such a thing.
Ahh. I DO love your work dude.

That's why Europe threatened recently to invade Russia because Russia was crushing muslim terrorists in Chechnya? And they were upset because the US said it would not support Europe if Europe did such a thing.


get your facts right - a minority of European countries threatened to invade Chechnya not the whole of Europe - in case you hadnt noticed Europe is made up of a large number of independant countries not a single country made up of a number of semi autonomous sates run by the same central government - europe is a geographical contient NOT a country in its own right (thank god)

dont lump my country in with others that have nothing in common with my country (apart from geographical location) or even common policies thanks

get your facts right - a minority of European countries threatened to invade Chechnya not the whole of Europe
And when did this happen? I have missed it completely, and couldn't find anything on google either.

And when did this happen? I have missed it completely, and couldn't find anything on google either.

a couple of years ago now and it was only about 3 or 4 eastern block european countries - hardly news worthy :)

Aha. Thanks.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.

Errrrr....theres a word forming in my head and that word is


Hypocrisy


strange that...

Personally, I think the poem was good...

LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!


sorry but the only thing I can see from such a letter, is all the Anti-American/Anti-Bush people sharpening their knives...

if i was a few months younger i would. but i hve grown since then
...shit.....i cant let flaqsh see this or he is going to cause offence

Mmmm, jingosm. But then what did I expect? And that poem sucked arse. I must go read some Browning (Robert or Elizabeth Barrett) to purify mine eyes.

Fuck patriotism, we're all human.

Typically American poem. And you wonder why so much of the world hates the US. *shakes head* :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Typically American poem. And you wonder why so much of the world hates the US. *shakes head* :rolleyes:

i am afraid i have to agree to a certain extent

americas bad. everyones bad. that letter is hypocritical. you contradict yourself a lot. so stop it. just. . .stop. now. put it down. stop. . . .stop!! yes. good. no. . . .stop. *slaps face* STOP IT!!! .. . .. . . :) thankyou that is all.

First, Saddam hated Osama, and attempted to kill him. Too. It's just that all the terrorist camps in Iraq are under No Fly Zones.

Anyways

What would happen if Osama hit the superbowl? I'm predicting oh....Free guns and free rides to the Middle East.

Believe it or not, the US was founded by terrorists. They used terrorist tactics like the destruction of private property, and often refused to fight the British "fairly" by using the accepted practice of war--they were "cowards."

However, the colonists did have many legitimate complaints against Britain. What it all comes down to, I suppose, is that you are unwilling to look at things from the terrorist's side. Yes, the manner in which some American reporters have been killed is terrible. But so is tarring and feathering a British tax collector before killing him. It is too early to see what American intervention will bring in Iraq, but it is a good idea to remember that few people enjoy having their country occupied.

Forget the subject matter for a moment. It's just a TERRIBLE piece of poetry. It really, really sucks quite badly. It sounds like it was written by a twelve year-old, judging by its style, lack of meter, rhythm, evocative power etc. A D-, I would say.

And it's no good pretending that it's free verse. Even that has to have some kind of poetic element.

Believe it or not, the US was founded by terrorists. They used terrorist tactics like the destruction of private property, and often refused to fight the British "fairly" by using the accepted practice of war--they were "cowards."

Yeah, you must remember. John Hancock was the best smuggler. You wanted to get something in? He'll get it in for you.

One third of the US actually wanted to break off from Britan. And they were the gang leaders, smugglers, arms dealers, etc. The other third didn't care, and the last liked being British.

Forget the subject matter for a moment. It's just a TERRIBLE piece of poetry. It really, really sucks quite badly. It sounds like it was written by a twelve year-old, judging by its style, lack of meter, rhythm, evocative power etc. A D-, I would say.

And it's no good pretending that it's free verse. Even that has to have some kind of poetic element.

That's another reason why I had to go read Browning. :D

And I was writing better than that when I was twelve! :p

Edit: The poem metions that you can "earn as much as you figure out how to" or some shit. I'll assume that includes by exploiting others? Or being denied an education because you can't afford it? :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, the US was founded by terrorists. They used terrorist tactics like the destruction of private property, and often refused to fight the British "fairly" by using the accepted practice of war--they were "cowards."

However, the colonists did have many legitimate complaints against Britain. What it all comes down to, I suppose, is that you are unwilling to look at things from the terrorist's side. Yes, the manner in which some American reporters have been killed is terrible. But so is tarring and feathering a British tax collector before killing him. It is too early to see what American intervention will bring in Iraq, but it is a good idea to remember that few people enjoy having their country occupied.


i am british but i would still tar and feather the british tax collector....no only joking :D

americas bad. everyones bad. that letter is hypocritical. you contradict yourself a lot. so stop it. just. . .stop. now. put it down. stop. . . .stop!! yes. good. no. . . .stop. *slaps face* STOP IT!!! .. . .. . . :) thankyou that is all.

Not all of america is bad!!! Sure I don't always agree with the government, but were not all like that! :)

That's another reason why I had to go read Browning. :D

And I was writing better than that when I was twelve! :p

Well, I either had the choice of being overly cruel to some poor soul who is clearly utterly without talent by relegating him to kindergarten, or offending a few twelve year-olds (and ex-twelve year-olds), who have written far better verse than that. I plumped for the latter. :p

Forget the subject matter for a moment. It's just a TERRIBLE piece of poetry. It really, really sucks quite badly. It sounds like it was written by a twelve year-old, judging by its style, lack of meter, rhythm, evocative power etc. A D-, I would say.

And it's no good pretending that it's free verse. Even that has to have some kind of poetic element.

Well, the poem might need some serious work, but the idea is good, except fro the last line, which is horrible! :rolleyes:

Well, I either had the choice of being overly cruel to some poor soul who is clearly utterly without talent by relegating him to kindergarten, or offending a few twelve year-olds (and ex-twelve year-olds), who have written far better verse than that. I plumped for the latter. :p
Oh, I see. You were trying to be kind. ;) My bad. :D

Wow. That's bad.

Why are you treating it as a poem? It says 'a letter' in it. It's not much of a letter either, but it isn't pretending to be a poem...

Why are you treating it as a poem? It says 'a letter' in it. It's not much of a letter either, but it isn't pretending to be a poem...

Because it's set out like one. Letters usually have "Dear so and so" at the begining, with a "Yours faithfully" or something at the end, are are composed of actual paragraphs. But, if you think of it as a letter, it still sucks.

yes. If it is indeed meant as a poem, it's a sad day for poetry.

Even if it isn't a poem it's still a sad day for elegance, style and sophistication. I am simply appalled.

be nice... after all... even Professional Poets started as amatures...

sorry but the only thing I can see from such a letter, is all the Anti-American/Anti-Bush people sharpening their knives...

Anti-American and Anti-Bush are synonymous?

Anti-American and Anti-Bush are synonymous?

Apparently so. If you're not with Bush, you're with the terroists, he says. Utter crap, says I.

Apparently so. If you're not with Bush, you're with the terroists, he says. Utter crap, says I.
I'm just amazed that people buy into the bullshit though.

I'm just amazed that people buy into the bullshit though.

Yeah. I guess it's just a conveniant way to villify everyone who disagrees with you or your actions though.

If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States.
Because you don't agree with something doesn't make it "evil" it just means you disagree.

The poem quite frankly sucked.

I don't say that because I don't like americans or some stupid shit like that, I say that because it was poorly written. Like, I have a book of poems that I wrote that I have deemed unfit for viewing by anyone else due to what I perceive as crappiness, and they're better than this.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.
Liberals are intolerant?

I'm sorry, but who goes about beating gay boys to death for being gay? Sure as shit isn't a pack of liberals.

Errrrr....theres a word forming in my head and that word is


Hypocrisy


strange that...

Apparently, this person and others are unaware of the fact that tolerance has a right, even a duty, to defend itself. Being tolerant a good paradigm, but if people are trying to bring it down, strength has to step in, because either it defends itself and some tolerance is destroyed, it it is tolerant and all of it is destroyed.

just in case nobody else has pointed it out...

the US isnt the only place that has problems with terrorism, yet the original post makes it sound like you have a monopoly on it...

Apparently, this person and others are unaware of the fact that tolerance has a right, even a duty, to defend itself. Being tolerant a good paradigm, but if people are trying to bring it down, strength has to step in, because either it defends itself and some tolerance is destroyed, it it is tolerant and all of it is destroyed.

Defending against terrorism is one thing. Kicking out 'Islamists' and 'liberals' is something else entirely, even if they sympathise with Al-Qaeda (and there are very, very few who do, I hardly need to say). Deal with terrorists, but not those who merely express views. That way tolerance will be preserved in both senses.

A cool song:

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


Worst. Song. Ever.

http://www.3e.org/nota/archives/pix/cbguy.jpg

Go ahead and whine your terrorist whine,
and chant your terrorist litany:
"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain."

This concept is alien to Americans

We live in a country
where we don't have to see your point.
But you're free to have one.
We don't have to listen to your speech.
But you're free to say one.

This is the big problem with America, and indeed many other countries. Terrorists and people fighting for any number of causes deserve to be listened to and on occations they deserve to have something done about what they are saying. Particulally if people are dieing as a result. America feels like it can stomp round the world without regard for what anyone else thinks. Why? What right does America have to attempt to enforce it's will on everyone else. American politics should frankly get back inside America, and leave the world alone. Hav'nt they got unemployment and a record deficit to sort out?

Liberals are intolerant?

I'm sorry, but who goes about beating gay boys to death for being gay? Sure as shit isn't a pack of liberals.

Liberals are intollerant because if they see anything even remotely not agreeing with their views they will cry one of the following

"Racist"
"Biggot"
"Homophobe"
"Neo-Con"
"Caveman/women"

etc, etc...

have any of you actually thought that by invading a country without the peoples permission, imposing a different cultural belief system on them without them asking for it and destroying their socioeconomic foundations without consulting them might just be considered by the occupants of that country to be a terrorist act?

If so surely that makes the US and the UK terrorists at least in the eyes of some living souls

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - its all a matter of where your viewpoint comes from

Defending against terrorism is one thing. Kicking out 'Islamists' and 'liberals' is something else entirely, even if they sympathise with Al-Qaeda (and there are very, very few who do, I hardly need to say). Deal with terrorists, but not those who merely express views. That way tolerance will be preserved in both senses.

Wow, hey, when'd I say I support that? The point I was responding to was that there is never any justification for a 'tolerant' society to defend itself against intolerant forces.

have any of you actually thought that by invading a country without the peoples permission, imposing a different cultural belief system on them without them asking for it and destroying their socioeconomic foundations without consulting them might just be considered by the occupants of that country to be a terrorist act?

If so surely that makes the US and the UK terrorists at least in the eyes of some living souls

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - its all a matter of where your viewpoint comes from

If they didn't want it, why the hell were so many Iraqis so damned happy about Saddam going? And how were we meant to check that they wanted it? "Oh, Excuse me Uday, you and the boys mind if we see how many people like you and your old man? You know, just to make sure that they don't want us to kick you out."

And it seems rather scary that so many people are so naive as to think we can just go in, kill the regime, and get out again. Erm, no, what we need to do is stay there and stabalize things, and make sure things are going ok, and THEN we leave.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - its all a matter of where your viewpoint comes from

No no no! Im sorry, I get fed up with this "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" lark. Terrorists kill civilians with intent. You might countor by saying that American and British forces kill civilians. But the big diffrence is that they dont intend to. You might not think intent counts for much but it does. Had the terrorists had their way, every single Iraqi who wanted to be free of Saddam would be dead. If the UK and the US have there way, it would just be terrorists who are dead. And if you think its bad that the UK and US are killing civilians by accident then blame the terrorists. They are the ones who are so intent on blurring the line between soldier and civilian so that they can move about and kill more people. The UK/US forces and terrorists are not morraly equivlent.

No no no! Im sorry, I get fed up with this "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" lark.

Why? Yes, you might see differences, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. The western militaries don't exactly have a good history of being altuistic. When people fight back, the people that they support will see them as freedom fighters. Even if/though they carry out 'terrorist' actions.

Terrorists kill civilians with intent. You might countor by saying that American and British forces kill civilians. But the big diffrence is that they dont intend to. You might not think intent counts for much but it does.

Though it is possible to say that they do intend to.

The military know that when they plan an operation on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan the know there will be civilian deaths (collateral damage). Yet they go ahead anyway, knowing that they will kill civilians.

A better word then intent might be target. They don't intentionally target civilians.

Had the terrorists had their way, every single Iraqi who wanted to be free of Saddam would be dead. If the UK and the US have there way, it would just be terrorists who are dead. And if you think its bad that the UK and US are killing civilians by accident then blame the terrorists. They are the ones who are so intent on blurring the line between soldier and civilian so that they can move about and kill more people. The UK/US forces and terrorists are not morraly equivlent.

What, Muslim Fundementalist terrorist want everyone that doesn't want to live under a secularist dictator dead? Shum mishtake shurely?

Is Whittier an ignorant child?

What, Muslim Fundementalist terrorist want everyone that doesn't want to live under a secularist dictator dead? Shum mishtake shurely?

Appologies, I wasnt making myself clear. My point is that the terrorsits had no particular individual gripe with Mr Smith who worked on the 42nd floor of the World Trade Centre. Yet they killed him anyway. Why? Because he was American and there. The Muslim terrorists want civilians dead for no other reason other than to make their point. The UK/US forces killed Mrs Khan in a Bagdad street when she was walking home. Why? Because across the street there were people with guns attempting to kill the American forces there. She got in the crossfire. Now I'm not blaming Mrs Kahn here but my point is is that the terrorists have not got the same kind of respect for life that the Americans and the British have. The UK and US only want to kill the active enemy and try to minimise other casulties. The terrorists will try and kill whoever they can to accieve their aims.

Though it is possible to say that they do intend to.

The military know that when they plan an operation on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan the know there will be civilian deaths (collateral damage). Yet they go ahead anyway, knowing that they will kill civilians.

A better word then intent might be target. They don't intentionally target civilians.


They know it is "likely" that civilians will die, but they dont intend to kill civilians. There is a significent diffrence. Would you rather not have removed Saddamm and have left the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. While I dont agree that the US shold be stomping around telling the world what to do, I do agree that people have a right to Democracy. The diffrence being is that it should not be imposed.

Recently published polls show that most Europeans support the US policy in Iraq.

:confused:

If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States.

Yes because we clearly can see that all Muslims are terrorists plotting to destroy our freedom. And everyone knows that Liberalism is a disease that aims to destroy the freedom to abuse minorities, attack the rights of the working man, and fight wars against the innocent. Very dangerous....

Oh grow up. Seriously. Islam is not your enemy, terrorists are, they are no more Muslims than is Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter a true christian. Liberalism is not your enemy, lying, manipulating, machiavellian, fat cat, facists are your enemy, and yet you still seem to be supporting them. Don't throw around baseless, hate mongering, bullshit until you can find a generalization that actually applies to the entire group it represents.

Whittier you are a fucking idiot.

If they didn't want it, why the hell were so many Iraqis so damned happy about Saddam going? And how were we meant to check that they wanted it? "Oh, Excuse me Uday, you and the boys mind if we see how many people like you and your old man? You know, just to make sure that they don't want us to kick you out."

And it seems rather scary that so many people are so naive as to think we can just go in, kill the regime, and get out again. Erm, no, what we need to do is stay there and stabalize things, and make sure things are going ok, and THEN we leave.


please dont call me naive I am far from it :p

I just find it facinating that people are arguing about a poem written after 9/11 but before the fall of the taliban and are using it to argue Iraq.

and now, it's devolving into name calling and flame baiting...

another interesting thread down the sewers...

Wow, hey, when'd I say I support that? The point I was responding to was that there is never any justification for a 'tolerant' society to defend itself against intolerant forces.

You didn't say that, but someone else did, more or less.

On the other hand I don't remember anyone actually saying that there was never a justification for a tolerant society to defend itself against intolerant forces. However, if the 'intolerant forces' are merely people with intolerant opinions then I don't think that there could be any justification for the state to suppress those opinions for any reason. I think that only where violence or incitement to violence is involved should intolerance be prohibited by a tolerant society. It should be criticised, but not prohibited.

Found this on a site. I fully agree with it. Wish I knew who wrote it. It also sounds applicable to all those America haters out there.

A Letter To A Terrorist

Well, you hit the World Trade Center,
but you missed America.
You hit the Pentagon,
but you missed America.

You used helpless American bodies,
to take out other American bodies,
but like a poor marksman,
you STILL missed America. Why?

Because of something
you guys will never understand.

America isn't about a building or two,
not about financial centers,
not about military centers,
America isn't about a place,
America isn't even about a bunch of bodies.

America is about an IDEA.

An idea, that you can go someplace
where you can earn as much
as you can figure out how to,
live for the most part,
like you envisioned living,
and pursue Happiness.

(No guarantees that you'll reach it,
but you can sure try!)

Go ahead and whine your terrorist whine,
and chant your terrorist litany:
"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain."

This concept is alien to Americans

We live in a country
where we don't have to see your point.
But you're free to have one.
We don't have to listen to your speech.
But you're free to say one.

Don't know where you got the strange idea
that everyone has to agree with you.
You guys seem to be incapable of understanding
that we don't live in America,
America lives in US!

American Spirit is what it's called.
And killing a few thousand of us,
or a few million of us,
won't change it.

Wait until you see what we do
with that Spirit, this time.

Sleep tight if you can.
WE'RE COMING!!!

Best laugh all day! Who knew that bad prose would be part of the bad guys arsenal?

No no no! Im sorry, I get fed up with this "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" lark. Terrorists kill civilians with intent. You might countor by saying that American and British forces kill civilians. But the big diffrence is that they dont intend to. You might not think intent counts for much but it does. Had the terrorists had their way, every single Iraqi who wanted to be free of Saddam would be dead. If the UK and the US have there way, it would just be terrorists who are dead. And if you think its bad that the UK and US are killing civilians by accident then blame the terrorists. They are the ones who are so intent on blurring the line between soldier and civilian so that they can move about and kill more people. The UK/US forces and terrorists are not morraly equivlent.

Does that makes the insurgents, who kill police, military and political figures, not terrorists then?

Believe it or not, the US was founded by terrorists. They used terrorist tactics like the destruction of private property, and often refused to fight the British "fairly" by using the accepted practice of war--they were "cowards."

However, the colonists did have many legitimate complaints against Britain. What it all comes down to, I suppose, is that you are unwilling to look at things from the terrorist's side. Yes, the manner in which some American reporters have been killed is terrible. But so is tarring and feathering a British tax collector before killing him. It is too early to see what American intervention will bring in Iraq, but it is a good idea to remember that few people enjoy having their country occupied.
I see some Brits are bitter from the loss of their American territories.

I see some Brits are bitter from the loss of their American territories.
:rolleyes:

Is that the best you can come up with?

Surely you can troll better then that.

1: Interesting that they should know exactly WHICH target the missile was launched at beforehand. I smell a conspiracy [/sarcasm]

2: Proof of punishment please. Otherwise it has as much possibility of being baseless statement as it has of being reality.

3: True, but we did see so-called freedom fighters supported by the US, the Taliban comes to mind, before they were later reclassified as a terrorist affiliated government. A prime example of US fuckups I should think.

4: Odd. The media is split between favoring AND hating Bush. Your statement lacks a solid base. That is unless you are ignoring the existence of news networks that seem to portray him in a positive light.


1. Before the missile was launched there was no one there. After the airraid sirens go off, women and children are herded at gunpoint to the places the govt. knows would be targeted.

2. You can't have that proof since its top secret due to being a matter of national security.

3. The US supported the Mujahadeen, not the Taliban. The Taliban were and are a product of Pakistani intervention in Afghan internal affairs.

4. There are media networks that betray him in positive light? Funny, I haven't seen any. That's why most of the nation's most famous newsanchors had to resign recently. Cause they were so biased against Bush that all the reports on the election and the war this year were based on lies.

First, Saddam hated Osama, and attempted to kill him. Too. It's just that all the terrorist camps in Iraq are under No Fly Zones.

Anyways

What would happen if Osama hit the superbowl? I'm predicting oh....Free guns and free rides to the Middle East.
That's false. Sadam and Osama never met. Nor did they try to kill each other. They only disliked each other.

4. There are media networks that betray him in positive light? Funny, I haven't seen any. That's why most of the nation's most famous newsanchors had to resign recently. Cause they were so biased against Bush that all the reports on the election and the war this year were based on lies.


Which isnt a big deal seeing as how the entire republican party is run on lies, now is it? The media is biased in both directions. After all, you cant call Faux News anything other than a right-wing bullshit machine.

Why? Yes, you might see differences, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. The western militaries don't exactly have a good history of being altuistic. When people fight back, the people that they support will see them as freedom fighters. Even if/though they carry out 'terrorist' actions.



Though it is possible to say that they do intend to.

The military know that when they plan an operation on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan the know there will be civilian deaths (collateral damage). Yet they go ahead anyway, knowing that they will kill civilians.

A better word then intent might be target. They don't intentionally target civilians.



What, Muslim Fundementalist terrorist want everyone that doesn't want to live under a secularist dictator dead? Shum mishtake shurely?

1. You can't compare the west of medieval times with the west of modern times.

2. That is blatantly false. And greatly offensive to troops of the US and its allies.

3. There's a thing called collateral damage. You will always have it because you will always have wars. Listening to rap music, smoking pop and hiding on a university campus and throwing temper tantrums (anti american protests) is not going to stop war. That's why when you have to go to war, you always weigh to costs and benefits. In the case of afghanistan and Iraq, the dangers posed from those nations were so great that they outweighed the negative publicity that would have been gotten from the collateral damage. If someone was taking a torch to your house and shooting everyone who came and went, would you just sit by and let him get away with it, just because you thought some innocent bystander would get hurt? If you would, then you are a pansy. And the terrorists love people like you.

:rolleyes:

Is that the best you can come up with?

Surely you can troll better then that.
Well, I don't think the views he expressed are very representative of those of the British people at large.

Which isnt a big deal seeing as how the entire republican party is run on lies, now is it? The media is biased in both directions. After all, you cant call Faux News anything other than a right-wing bullshit machine.
And the democratic party and its allied antiamerican hate groups aren't?

I think the poem was quite nice. Thank you for posting it.

Actually, Whittier-, I'm from the United States. However, I felt that I had to point out that, depending on how you look at it, the US was founded by terrorists. It may interest you to know that many of the original 13 colonies were not owned by the crown of Britain. By rebelling, the colonists were commiting theft, by depriving the holding companies of their property.

Actually, Whittier-, I'm from the United States. However, I felt that I had to point out that, depending on how you look at it, the US was founded by terrorists. It may interest you to know that many of the original 13 colonies were not owned by the crown of Britain. By rebelling, the colonists were commiting theft, by depriving the holding companies of their property.
No corporation has a right to own a people, nation, or the land on which they live. Lets not forget that the companies were owned by people related to King George.

Well, you hit the World Trade Center,
but you missed America.
You hit the Pentagon,
but you missed America.

You used helpless American bodies,
to take out other American bodies,
but like a poor marksman,
you STILL missed America. Why?


See - this is pretty much the problem, right here.

The passengers were not all 'Americans', and MANY of the people in the World Trade Centre were not 'Americans'. And yet - the poet 'claims' the pain, as though it ONLY applies to the USA.

This poem ignores decades of terrorism OUTSIDE of American borders... why is it not ALSO discussing the Brighton Bombing by the IRA? Why is ETA not even getting a mention?

So - it is selective about it's victims - ONLY mentioning those draped in the stars-and-stripes - and ALSO selevtive about it's terrorist acts - again, ONLY mentioning those draped in the stars-and-stripes.

So - all those other nations that suffered losses, on 9/11, and over the last few decades - are written away completely.

What has happened to the US policy exhibited a decade or more ago, where the US foreign policy to England was to try to make peace with the IRA?


Oh - one other thing that probably annoys SOME people... not all 'Americans' live in the 'good ol' US of A'... but SOME US residents manage to blind themselves to the fact that their poorer southern allies (like Mexico, for example) live in 'America', too.

And the democratic party and its allied antiamerican hate groups aren't?


1 point to the facist slugs! EVERYONE knows that all democrats really hate America!

Like I said earlier, take your head out of your ass. You can love something and still feel it can be improved. Democrats don't hate America and more than Republicans are truly facist... Sure there are some of you that are, and there are some Democrats that hate America, but your generalizations get real old, real fast.

1 point to the facist slugs! EVERYONE knows that all democrats really hate America!

Like I said earlier, take your head out of your ass. You can love something and still feel it can be improved. Democrats don't hate America and more than Republicans are truly facist... Sure there are some of you that are, and there are some Democrats that hate America, but your generalizations get real old, real fast.be nice... after all, he's responding to the same generalization made against Republicans. so everyone has to remove their cranium from their posterior...

No corporation has a right to own a people, nation, or the land on which they live. Lets not forget that the companies were owned by people related to King George.


Someone supporting the colonization of Iraq (while dressing it up in big pretty words) shouldn't be critisizing the British colonisism of any countries....

See - this is pretty much the problem, right here.

The passengers were not all 'Americans', and MANY of the people in the World Trade Centre were not 'Americans'. And yet - the poet 'claims' the pain, as though it ONLY applies to the USA.

This poem ignores decades of terrorism OUTSIDE of American borders... why is it not ALSO discussing the Brighton Bombing by the IRA? Why is ETA not even getting a mention?

So - it is selective about it's victims - ONLY mentioning those draped in the stars-and-stripes - and ALSO selevtive about it's terrorist acts - again, ONLY mentioning those draped in the stars-and-stripes.

So - all those other nations that suffered losses, on 9/11, and over the last few decades - are written away completely.

What has happened to the US policy exhibited a decade or more ago, where the US foreign policy to England was to try to make peace with the IRA?


Oh - one other thing that probably annoys SOME people... not all 'Americans' live in the 'good ol' US of A'... but SOME US residents manage to blind themselves to the fact that their poorer southern allies (like Mexico, for example) live in 'America', too.right... and their outrage at such an act was clearly visible when they joined America in the hunt for Osama Bin Lauden and the Governments that support him... their outcry at how terrorists groups are now going into a whole new area of combat..

I see some Brits are bitter from the loss of their American territories.


Just the crappy ones south of Canada, west of Bermuda, north of St. Kitts, east of New Zealand. . .

Hmm.. I'm just making an assumption, but none of you have ever been to Iraq recently. Well I have; during the very beginnings of the war and a second time until a few months ago when my Reserves unit came back. Wanna know what's really interesting about this thread, particularly Whittier? I'll list them:

1.) It's the typical "I blindly support anything America does because it makes more mini-Americas" vs the "America is becoming a Hegimony and should back off" arguments.

2.) This is more to Whittier. Just shut up. No, honestly, this "It's offensive to the troops fighting now" crap you pull and the whole "America knows best" bull is what's offensive to the troops. And yes I can speak for them, or a large part. You can't, and therefore shouldn't. We know damn well that our bombs kill civillians because of the fact that the terrorist hide out in cities. This crap of yours saying that "They herd women and children at gunpoint to where the government knows the bombs will hit" is bull. In every city bombed or targeted there were no air-raid sirens available. Electricity was cut during the first bombardment and there very few had it to begin with. Added to the fact that terrorist rarely if ever outnumber the masses of innocents enough to get them into one area at gunpoint, and the men, being themselves armed with AK-47s, would fight the terrorists themselves to the death to protect their women and children, so that's also a load of bull as well. :rolleyes:

That's pretty much it for the interesting parts. Really, one thing people should know is that, first off, the Military does NOT support Bush. Reguardless if every officer put on camera is gungho about a muppet with a wireless radio attatched to his back, they're a tiny amount of ranking officials that literally don't matter in the long run. The biggest slap in the face, second to being sent overthere and told to say such crap as "I believe in what we're fighting for" in front of the cameras, is having an ROTC idiot speak for thousands of soldiers whom think otherwise, no offence to ROTC in general.

Whittier, get your facts strait. You've contradicted yourself time and again by saying that anyone whomn doesn't do anything to fight the "Evils of Islam" and liberals and such should be removed from power. That's right in there with communism and totalitarianism, and if you believe in this should you should leave America. There's enough "wanna-be" patriots to take your place still here that would even disagree with you on those two points. :sniper:

THat's it for my post. THere's nothing much else to say.

:mp5: Specialist Ramirez. :gundge:

right... and their outrage at such an act was clearly visible when they joined America in the hunt for Osama Bin Lauden and the Governments that support him... their outcry at how terrorists groups are now going into a whole new area of combat..

Two thoughts occur here.

One: governments that support Osama bin Laden... well, the US has one, for a start. Bush owns companies with the ibn Ladin family - which means the US president is directly funding Osama.

Two: The 'terrorists' haven't gone into a whole new area of combat. September 11th was far from being the first time that 'terrorists' have hijacked planes, and/or tried to fly them into things. There have been dozens of like incidents.

Hmm.. I'm just making an assumption, but none of you have ever been to Iraq recently. Well I have; during the very beginnings of the war and a second time until a few months ago when my Reserves unit came back. Wanna know what's really interesting about this thread, particularly Whittier? I'll list them:

1.) It's the typical "I blindly support anything America does because it makes more mini-Americas" vs the "America is becoming a Hegimony and should back off" arguments.

2.) This is more to Whittier. Just shut up. No, honestly, this "It's offensive to the troops fighting now" crap you pull and the whole "America knows best" bull is what's offensive to the troops. And yes I can speak for them, or a large part. You can't, and therefore shouldn't. We know damn well that our bombs kill civillians because of the fact that the terrorist hide out in cities. This crap of yours saying that "They herd women and children at gunpoint to where the government knows the bombs will hit" is bull. In every city bombed or targeted there were no air-raid sirens available. Electricity was cut during the first bombardment and there very few had it to begin with. Added to the fact that terrorist rarely if ever outnumber the masses of innocents enough to get them into one area at gunpoint, and the men, being themselves armed with AK-47s, would fight the terrorists themselves to the death to protect their women and children, so that's also a load of bull as well. :rolleyes:

That's pretty much it for the interesting parts. Really, one thing people should know is that, first off, the Military does NOT support Bush. Reguardless if every officer put on camera is gungho about a muppet with a wireless radio attatched to his back, they're a tiny amount of ranking officials that literally don't matter in the long run. The biggest slap in the face, second to being sent overthere and told to say such crap as "I believe in what we're fighting for" in front of the cameras, is having an ROTC idiot speak for thousands of soldiers whom think otherwise, no offence to ROTC in general.

Whittier, get your facts strait. You've contradicted yourself time and again by saying that anyone whomn doesn't do anything to fight the "Evils of Islam" and liberals and such should be removed from power. That's right in there with communism and totalitarianism, and if you believe in this should you should leave America. There's enough "wanna-be" patriots to take your place still here that would even disagree with you on those two points. :sniper:

THat's it for my post. THere's nothing much else to say.

:mp5: Specialist Ramirez. :gundge:

i agree i have coisens in basra and they find this kind of crap offensive
i dont know wtehr it has anything to do with this though because they are british :confused:

LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!


sorry but the only thing I can see from such a letter, is all the Anti-American/Anti-Bush people sharpening their knives...

IDK, I'm anti-Bush, but I like the poem. It symbolizes the Libertarian ideals of our forefathers that so many people are beginning to forget. Homosexuality, abortions, military registration, etc has no place in government. Why is it there? Are we so detatched from the horrors of war and the tyranny of dictatorship while we hide on our couches eating junk food, that we forget why the US was formed in the first place?

Another thing we should recognize, is that our "fearless leader" is aiming at the wrong targets. Iraq didn't hit the WTC, but Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't put Usama at its head. Maybe a small ammount of the army's attention should be put towards Saudi Arabia, the people who teach their children to hate us.

Someone supporting the colonization of Iraq (while dressing it up in big pretty words) shouldn't be critisizing the British colonisism of any countries....
the fact is you are comparing apples and oranges. The british rule of the colonies was nothing more than ruthless bloodthirsty dictatorships against which the AMerican people rose up and overthrew their ties to Britain.Britain sought to own America.
On the other hand, America does not seek to conquer Iraq nor do we claim sovereignty over it. In fact, we gave it back just months after we ousted Saddam.

at least the USA didnt have decades of being randomly bombed by the IRA (funded by some of those lovely people in the USA via NORAID)

the UK didnt declare war either because of the IRA - we made PEACE with them

thats the way forward not bombing the hell out of another country imo
How many hundreds of years did it take the seat in London to come to the table? Would they have come if they weren't forced to? C'mon, tell the whole story - not just the happy ending where they all live happily ever after.

Actually, Whittier-, I'm from the United States. However, I felt that I had to point out that, depending on how you look at it, the US was founded by terrorists. It may interest you to know that many of the original 13 colonies were not owned by the crown of Britain. By rebelling, the colonists were commiting theft, by depriving the holding companies of their property.yes, and America rebelled after all forms of talks failed. England refused to see America as nothing but less than servants. If England needed money, hey tax the Americans... if England needed supplies, well America can do without that for a while... we sent statesmen to England to find a solution and they were sent home packing. we tried every means possible before declaring our independance... and even then, it had to be ALL or NOTHING... if one, just one. colony did not want to break away from England... then all the colonies were to be still under the British flag. and you are also wrong... the other colonies were ceeded to England because of the conflicts between England and France and Spain. The British had the naval power at the time. so, by way of spoils... England stole the colonies from their previous owners, and they sat back and watched America gain their independance from Brittan with their help.

IDK, I'm anti-Bush, but I like the poem. It symbolizes the Libertarian ideals of our forefathers that so many people are beginning to forget. Homosexuality, abortions, military registration, etc has no place in government. Why is it there? Are we so detatched from the horrors of war and the tyranny of dictatorship while we hide on our couches eating junk food, that we forget why the US was formed in the first place?

Another thing we should recognize, is that our "fearless leader" is aiming at the wrong targets. Iraq didn't hit the WTC, but Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't put Usama at its head. Maybe a small ammount of the army's attention should be put towards Saudi Arabia, the people who teach their children to hate us.ahh... but perhaps the reason we are hitting Iraq is not because of the WTC...

remember, this poem was written after 9/11 and before the fall of the Taliban... how can anyone use this to argue pro/con Iraq War.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.
You consider this tolerance? "If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States."

the fact is you are comparing apples and oranges. The british rule of the colonies was nothing more than ruthless bloodthirsty dictatorships against which the AMerican people rose up and overthrew their ties to Britain.Britain sought to own America.
On the other hand, America does not seek to conquer Iraq nor do we claim sovereignty over it. In fact, we gave it back just months after we ousted Saddam.

there is nothing rong with a little collonialism :D
dont take me seriously i just had a week of humanities lessons on the british empire and i am feeling a bit to patriotic :D

yes, and America rebelled after all forms of talks failed. England refused to see America as nothing but less than servants. If England needed money, hey tax the Americans... if England needed supplies, well America can do without that for a while... we sent statesmen to England to find a solution and they were sent home packing. we tried every means possible before declaring our independance... and even then, it had to be ALL or NOTHING... if one, just one. colony did not want to break away from England... then all the colonies were to be still under the British flag. and you are also wrong... the other colonies were ceeded to England because of the conflicts between England and France and Spain. The British had the naval power at the time. so, by way of spoils... England stole the colonies from their previous owners, and they sat back and watched America gain their independance from Brittan with their help.

Just a note: some people will get offended if you use "Britain" and "England" interchangably. They are not the same. It doesn't bother me that much, but it will bother some people.

If the world and the libs are unable or unwilling to confront the evils of Islam and liberalism then we must do so on our own whether they are with us or they are against us. Either way, we will prevail over all who condone evil. And Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi and their followers shall be removed from positions of trust in the United States.

the evils of islam?

are you on crack?

Just a note: some people will get offended if you use "Britain" and "England" interchangably. They are not the same. It doesn't bother me that much, but it will bother some people.OOPS... sorry, my mistake... Apologies for those whom I offended.

Hmm.. I'm just making an assumption, but none of you have ever been to Iraq recently. Well I have; during the very beginnings of the war and a second time until a few months ago when my Reserves unit came back. Wanna know what's really interesting about this thread, particularly Whittier? I'll list them:

1.) It's the typical "I blindly support anything America does because it makes more mini-Americas" vs the "America is becoming a Hegimony and should back off" arguments.

2.) This is more to Whittier. Just shut up. No, honestly, this "It's offensive to the troops fighting now" crap you pull and the whole "America knows best" bull is what's offensive to the troops. And yes I can speak for them, or a large part. You can't, and therefore shouldn't. We know damn well that our bombs kill civillians because of the fact that the terrorist hide out in cities. This crap of yours saying that "They herd women and children at gunpoint to where the government knows the bombs will hit" is bull. In every city bombed or targeted there were no air-raid sirens available. Electricity was cut during the first bombardment and there very few had it to begin with. Added to the fact that terrorist rarely if ever outnumber the masses of innocents enough to get them into one area at gunpoint, and the men, being themselves armed with AK-47s, would fight the terrorists themselves to the death to protect their women and children, so that's also a load of bull as well. :rolleyes:

That's pretty much it for the interesting parts. Really, one thing people should know is that, first off, the Military does NOT support Bush. Reguardless if every officer put on camera is gungho about a muppet with a wireless radio attatched to his back, they're a tiny amount of ranking officials that literally don't matter in the long run. The biggest slap in the face, second to being sent overthere and told to say such crap as "I believe in what we're fighting for" in front of the cameras, is having an ROTC idiot speak for thousands of soldiers whom think otherwise, no offence to ROTC in general.

Whittier, get your facts strait. You've contradicted yourself time and again by saying that anyone whomn doesn't do anything to fight the "Evils of Islam" and liberals and such should be removed from power. That's right in there with communism and totalitarianism, and if you believe in this should you should leave America. There's enough "wanna-be" patriots to take your place still here that would even disagree with you on those two points. :sniper:

THat's it for my post. THere's nothing much else to say.

:mp5: Specialist Ramirez. :gundge:

eh. You are only a part timer. I on the other hand am a full timer.

First off, the military does support Bush. The reservists don't but that's to be expected as many of them expected free rides.Not every officer went through ROTC. Many officers rose up through the ranks, having been privates before going to OCS. The fact is that in the active army, even the privates support Bush.
We've all seen the reservists, on the other hand, always whining bout having to defend their nation.

the fact is you are comparing apples and oranges. The british rule of the colonies was nothing more than ruthless bloodthirsty dictatorships against which the AMerican people rose up and overthrew their ties to Britain.Britain sought to own America.

Please. I'm not trying to justify colonialism or anything. But the US should hardly be used as a case study of the evils of colonialism. Americans had it good.

yes, and America rebelled after all forms of talks failed..

One of my ancestores was a soldier at this time and he wrote a book on america and the native americans :)

ahh... but perhaps the reason we are hitting Iraq is not because of the WTC...

remember, this poem was written after 9/11 and before the fall of the Taliban... how can anyone use this to argue pro/con Iraq War.

I know. We're hitting Iraq because of (and I quote) "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Sorry, but I really don't see us dragging 20 kiloton warheads out of there.

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.

wow. uh. flamewars, anyone?

but i'll take the bait all the same.

Being tolerant includes tolerating intolerance. We don't expect every person in this country to be tolerant of everything or be unbiased in every way, but we respect their beliefs no matter what they are. If they believe that the white man is evil, that only black people cause crime, that the New York Times is run by the same seven communist black jews that control the world's economy, we allow them to say what they want. The only behavior the United States outlaws (for the most part) is behavior that is harmful to others. For instance, believing that all whites would be better off dead is allowable, while trying to kill all whites is not.

Islam is far more tolerant than many, many religions out there, including (IMO) Christianity. In any case, your intolerance of their alleged intolerance isn't justified. At all.

When you seek to remove the freedoms of others or kill them just because they don't see your way or agree with your point of view, you forfeit your own rights. There is no way in hell I would ever show tolerance toward such people. Tolerance is only for those who accept the views of others without flaming or killing them.

What about abortion clinic bombers?

What about Ann Coulter, who infamously said after 9/11 that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity."??

What about the white christians on these boards who believe that the world would be better off if the entire middle east were blown up???

GET BACK ON YOUR MEDS.

I know. We're hitting Iraq because of (and I quote) "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Sorry, but I really don't see us dragging 20 kiloton warheads out of there.
The fact is that the Iraq war was based on mistaken intelligence. That's not debateable, unless you ignore what we've learned since then. But still, the people of Iraq are better off now that Saddam is gone.
The Iraq war is not at debate. Its history. You people need to stop whining about it. You can't go back and change history. You can only learn from it.

wow. uh. flamewars, anyone?

but i'll take the bait all the same.

Being tolerant includes tolerating intolerance. We don't expect every person in this country to be tolerant of everything or be unbiased in every way, but we respect their beliefs no matter what they are. If they believe that the white man is evil, that only black people cause crime, that the New York Times is run by the same seven communist black jews that control the world's economy, we allow them to say what they want. The only behavior the United States outlaws (for the most part) is behavior that is harmful to others. For instance, believing that all whites would be better off dead is allowable, while trying to kill all whites is not.

Islam is far more tolerant than many, many religions out there, including (IMO) Christianity. In any case, your intolerance of their alleged intolerance isn't justified. At all.
Yeah right. That's why the muslims invented this little thing called holy war where you go and kill anyone who doesn't share your religious views.

The Iraq war is not at debate. Its history. You people need to stop whining about it. You can't go back and change history. You can only learn from it.

If you don't talk about and debate and remember the past, how can you learn from it?

6. That's why Europe threatened recently to invade Russia because Russia was crushing muslim terrorists in Chechnya? And they were upset because the US said it would not support Europe if Europe did such a thing.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU ???x10^9999

Each religion is only as tolerant as each practitioner makes it for themselves. I don't think you can say THIS religion is more tolerant than THAT religion. Unfortunately, intolerant fanatics seem to crop up in all (or most) religions. THOSE are the people that cause problems for all of the rest of us. NOT Muslims OR Christians OR Jews OR any other singular religion collectively.

Yeah right. That's why the muslims invented this little thing called holy war where you go and kill anyone who doesn't share your religious views.

just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of the crusades?

Akkid, while I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, I'd appreciate you editing out some of those ???s.

Yeah right. That's why the muslims invented this little thing called holy war where you go and kill anyone who doesn't share your religious views.

what about the crusades?
or the roman campaigns in germania?

What about abortion clinic bombers?

What about Ann Coulter, who infamously said after 9/11 that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity."??

What about the white christians on these boards who believe that the world would be better off if the entire middle east were blown up???

GET BACK ON YOUR MEDS.
1. People who bomb abortion clinics with the intent of killing people who might be in them, are terrorists.

2. So you are saying that just because someone says something, that we should do it?

3. Those aren't just "white" christians. And no not all true christians believe that, just the uneducated minority. A true christian being someone who goes to church every week and follows christian laws to the letter.

If you don't talk about and debate and remember the past, how can you learn from it?
Its not the debate I oppose, its all this "lets destroy America for everything that happened in the past" bullshit that I take issue with.

A true christian being someone who goes to church every week and follows christian laws to the letter.

I think you may have missed the main point of Christianity there.

Hmm.. I'm just making an assumption, but none of you have ever been to Iraq recently. Well I have; during the very beginnings of the war and a second time until a few months ago when my Reserves unit came back. Wanna know what's really interesting about this thread, particularly Whittier? I'll list them:

1.) It's the typical "I blindly support anything America does because it makes more mini-Americas" vs the "America is becoming a Hegimony and should back off" arguments.

2.) This is more to Whittier. Just shut up. No, honestly, this "It's offensive to the troops fighting now" crap you pull and the whole "America knows best" bull is what's offensive to the troops. And yes I can speak for them, or a large part. You can't, and therefore shouldn't. We know damn well that our bombs kill civillians because of the fact that the terrorist hide out in cities. This crap of yours saying that "They herd women and children at gunpoint to where the government knows the bombs will hit" is bull. In every city bombed or targeted there were no air-raid sirens available. Electricity was cut during the first bombardment and there very few had it to begin with. Added to the fact that terrorist rarely if ever outnumber the masses of innocents enough to get them into one area at gunpoint, and the men, being themselves armed with AK-47s, would fight the terrorists themselves to the death to protect their women and children, so that's also a load of bull as well. :rolleyes:

That's pretty much it for the interesting parts. Really, one thing people should know is that, first off, the Military does NOT support Bush. Reguardless if every officer put on camera is gungho about a muppet with a wireless radio attatched to his back, they're a tiny amount of ranking officials that literally don't matter in the long run. The biggest slap in the face, second to being sent overthere and told to say such crap as "I believe in what we're fighting for" in front of the cameras, is having an ROTC idiot speak for thousands of soldiers whom think otherwise, no offence to ROTC in general.

Whittier, get your facts strait. You've contradicted yourself time and again by saying that anyone whomn doesn't do anything to fight the "Evils of Islam" and liberals and such should be removed from power. That's right in there with communism and totalitarianism, and if you believe in this should you should leave America. There's enough "wanna-be" patriots to take your place still here that would even disagree with you on those two points. :sniper:

THat's it for my post. THere's nothing much else to say.

:mp5: Specialist Ramirez. :gundge:


<3 <3 <3

Akkid, while I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, I'd appreciate you editing out some of those ???s.

sorry about that; all the bile that flew out of my throat kinda weighed down my ? key.

Each religion is only as tolerant as each practitioner makes it for themselves. I don't think you can say THIS religion is more tolerant than THAT religion. Unfortunately, intolerant fanatics seem to crop up in all (or most) religions. THOSE are the people that cause problems for all of the rest of us. NOT Muslims OR Christians OR Jews OR any other singular religion collectively.
I would agree but you have to admit we probably wouldn't have all these religiuos conflicts if the muslims hadn't launched their bloodthirsty jihads in the 500's AD and the christians hadn't launched their retaliatory Crusades a couple of centuries later. Remember the Hindus and Buddhists didn't do holy wars until the muslims waged jihad against them to force them to convert to islam.
The European colonization of India and the rest of Asia only made the situation worse.

Its not the debate I oppose, its all this "lets destroy America for everything that happened in the past" bullshit that I take issue with.

I don't think anyone was advocating destroying America. But a lot of people are still quite angry about Iraq, and seeing as it's pretty recent, I think they have a right to say what they think about it, because it's ongoing and relevent.

"I would agree but you have to admit we probably wouldn't have all these religiuos conflicts if the muslims hadn't launched their bloodthirsty jihads in the 500's AD and the christians hadn't launched their retaliatory Crusades a couple of centuries later." <--- that... is simply... wrong, historically. It only proves that the PISA study was right. America is basically the toilet of education in the west.

The "holy war" is not an Islamic invention. If you look at history it was the pope who called for a holy war to free Jerusalem from the heretic occupation, which led to the crusades. And if you believe the christian historians from the time when they took Jerusalem, the oh-so-holy-christian knights killed moslems, jews and christians alike. If you'd know history you'd know that moslems, jews and christians lived peacefully in Jerusalem before the first crusade. The arabs back then were far superior than Europe (for example they found the blood circulation a few centuries before Harvey).

Besides, none of those nuts down there could technically start a jihad anyway. Saladin could, but none of them now has the rank he used to have.



Ah, the white superiority... rofl, yeah right...


You know, I'm glad I'm not American, if I was I'd have to share the country with someone like this witless Whitey guy. That'd be scary.

Luckily not all Americans have the stars & stripes up their ass. I actually think such people are quite entertaining at times. Not to mention that the concept of patriotism is completely strange anyway.

what about the crusades?
or the roman campaigns in germania?
the roman campaigns in germania were bout expanding roman lands not about forcing people to convert.
Holy wars launched by any religious group are just plain wrong.

sorry about that; all the bile that flew out of my throat kinda weighed down my ? key.

Hehe, it's ok. I could do with a laughing smilie at this point.

1. People who bomb abortion clinics with the intent of killing people who might be in them, are terrorists.

2. So you are saying that just because someone says something, that we should do it?

3. Those aren't just "white" christians. And no not all true christians believe that, just the uneducated minority. A true christian being someone who goes to church every week and follows christian laws to the letter.

are you looking at my comments in the context of my responding to your earlier post? i'm pretty sure i quoted you.

1. no shit.

2. LOOK AT MY COMMENT IN CONTEXT.

3. terrorists aren't just "arab" muslims. and no not all true muslims believe that terrorism is justified, just the uneducated minority. a true muslim being someone who follows the 5 pillars and follows muslim laws as they were meant to be interpretted.

the roman campaigns in germania were bout expanding roman lands not about forcing people to convert.
Holy wars launched by any religious group are just plain wrong.

yes but the muzlims did not create holly wars

I would agree but you have to admit we probably wouldn't have all these religiuos conflicts if the muslims hadn't launched their bloodthirsty jihads in the 500's AD and the christians hadn't launched their retaliatory Crusades a couple of centuries later. Remember the Hindus and Buddhists didn't do holy wars until the muslims waged jihad against them to force them to convert to islam.
The European colonization of India and the rest of Asia only made the situation worse.

the muslims did not launch jihads of any kind in the 500's AD. the crusades were not justified or retaliatory in any way, having the stated goal of ' "recovering" the holy land from the "heathens." ' Hindus and Buddhists NEVER undertook holy wars because the muslims never waged jihad against them or tried to force them to convert to Islam. The Mughal Empire in India and the Ottomans in and around Turkey are perfect examples of tolerance as practiced by Muslims.

Specialist Ramirez.

Thank you for your service and sacrafices.

"I would agree but you have to admit we probably wouldn't have all these religiuos conflicts if the muslims hadn't launched their bloodthirsty jihads in the 500's AD and the christians hadn't launched their retaliatory Crusades a couple of centuries later." <--- that... is simply... wrong, historically. It only proves that the PISA study was right. America is basically the toilet of education in the west.

Luckily not all Americans have the stars & stripes up their ass. I actually think such people are quite entertaining at times. Not to mention that the concept of patriotism is completely strange anyway.

Point one: I did not in a full 14 years of education learn one thing about the Crusades, or the Middle East, except a brief look at the Gulf War when we were covering the Cold War. I don't exactly how see that is a shining example of my British, distinctly not American education. And I would submit that your attempt to claim a single case of jumping to conclusions or innacuracy (hich may or may not be the case, I don't know. This place never taught me.) hardly 'proves' anything. Most of the Americans I know would say either "I'm not sure, but from what I know..." or "I don't know, anything about that.".

Point two: I agree entirely. Patriotism is strange - but not to some people. Americans have always had the sense of idealism, and what they have fought for, drilled into them. Nations are only a legal extension of tribes, but loyalty to one's tribe would be quite strong.

the muslims did not launch jihads of any kind in the 500's AD. the crusades were not justified or retaliatory in any way, having the stated goal of ' "recovering" the holy land from the "heathens." ' Hindus and Buddhists NEVER undertook holy wars because the muslims never waged jihad against them or tried to force them to convert to Islam. The Mughal Empire in India and the Ottomans in and around Turkey are perfect examples of tolerance as practiced by Muslims.

i agree. the crusades were a christian doing...the acounts i read of are quite grusome in what they did to inocent muzlim people..you know the usual christian "witch" crap

September 11th was far from being the first time that 'terrorists' have hijacked planes, and/or tried to fly them into things. There have been dozens of like incidents.

Would you mind giving us some references to the dozens of times terrorist hijacked planes and tried to fly them into things? Hijacked planes, yes. Tried to fly them into things questionabel.

Point one: I did not in a full 14 years of education learn one thing about the Crusades, or the Middle East, except a brief look at the Gulf War when we were covering the Cold War. I don't exactly how see that is a shining example of my British, distinctly not American education. And I would submit that your attempt to claim a single case of jumping to conclusions or innacuracy (hich may or may not be the case, I don't know. This place never taught me.) hardly 'proves' anything. Most of the Americans I know would say either "I'm not sure, but from what I know..." or "I don't know, anything about that.".

Point two: I agree entirely. Patriotism is strange - but not to some people. Americans have always had the sense of idealism, and what they have fought for, drilled into them. Nations are only a legal extension of tribes, but loyalty to one's tribe would be quite strong.


leicester or leicester shire? i live in pork pie land :D (melton mowbray)

"I would agree but you have to admit we probably wouldn't have all these religiuos conflicts if the muslims hadn't launched their bloodthirsty jihads in the 500's AD and the christians hadn't launched their retaliatory Crusades a couple of centuries later." <--- that... is simply... wrong, historically. It only proves that the PISA study was right. America is basically the toilet of education in the west.

The "holy war" is not an Islamic invention. If you look at history it was the pope who called for a holy war to free Jerusalem from the heretic occupation, which led to the crusades. And if you believe the christian historians from the time when they took Jerusalem, the oh-so-holy-christian knights killed moslems, jews and christians alike. If you'd know history you'd know that moslems, jews and christians lived peacefully in Jerusalem before the first crusade. The arabs back then were far superior than Europe (for example they found the blood circulation a few centuries before Harvey).

Besides, none of those nuts down there could technically start a jihad anyway. Saladin could, but none of them now has the rank he used to have.



Ah, the white superiority... rofl, yeah right...


You know, I'm glad I'm not American, if I was I'd have to share the country with someone like this witless Whitey guy. That'd be scary.

Luckily not all Americans have the stars & stripes up their ass. I actually think such people are quite entertaining at times. Not to mention that the concept of patriotism is completely strange anyway.

that's total bullshit. the muslims were waging war in the name of religion centuries before the pope called for crusades. Your first couple of paragraphs are nothing more than typical christian bashing based on lies and half truths.
If they lived peacefully, then why did the moslems ban other religions?
Saladin, you must remember was the atypical muslim. Richard was the christian version of Saladin and that's why the two got along well, while their countrymen hated each other.

Ah, more racist anti white statements.

Basically your post has proven three things:
You are xenophobic because you hate America.
You hate christians.
You are a racist because you hate whites.

i agree. the crusades were a christian doing...the acounts i read of are quite grusome in what they did to inocent muzlim people..you know the usual christian "witch" crap

the christians undertaking the crusades also undertook the slaughter of any Jews they could find while crossing Europe towards the Middle East. Rape, killing of men, women and children, the whole deal.

the muslims did not launch jihads of any kind in the 500's AD. No. And there is a reason for it. Muhammad was born about 570 A.D, and he was about 40 years old when God began to speak to him. So it would be rather difficult to fight a Jihad in the 500's A.D.

yes but the muzlims did not create holly wars
the fact is that they did.

the muslims did not launch jihads of any kind in the 500's AD. the crusades were not justified or retaliatory in any way, having the stated goal of ' "recovering" the holy land from the "heathens." ' Hindus and Buddhists NEVER undertook holy wars because the muslims never waged jihad against them or tried to force them to convert to Islam. The Mughal Empire in India and the Ottomans in and around Turkey are perfect examples of tolerance as practiced by Muslims.Nice to know you can recite the typical antichristian falsehoods.

the fact is that they did.

sorry i missed out neciserally in there (sory about the apalling spelling)

the fact is that they did.

sorry i missed out neciserally in there (sory about the apalling spelling)

the fact is that they did.

sorry i missed out neciserally in there (sory about the apalling spelling)

Freedom fighting is when you are fighting to liberate your nation or to bring freedom to the people of another nation.
The reason the smart bombs appeared to hit there targets is becuase of 2 reasons:
1. the use of human shields. This is when the regime we are fighting forces women and children to stand in front of something they know we just launched a missile at.
2. Human error. All targets are picked by human beings who have and do make mistakes. Such persons are dealt with if it turns out their mistake caused civilans deaths. You don't hear about it, but they are punished.
3. If that was true, then you would be seeing terrorists supported by the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others. The fact is they don't. Becuase they don't believe in killing people in the name of religion or just because they "don't see things" the way the terrorists or their supporters see them.
4. The fact is that the media is very anti Bush. Remember they tried to use lies to defeat him in the election.

Imaginative answers are no substitute for fact.

1. Human shields are used at likely targets as deterrents - not shifted according to immediate attacks. That statement is juvenile at best.

2. If there was an error or failure in intelligence no one is punished. It is a given that best guess estimates are used. The rest is PR ass covering which you swallow wholeheartedly because you are thinking based on a premise rather than dispassionately examining the facts.

3. What are you going on about? "... the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others." Does The Vatican support the US war? What the hell do tiny countries have to do with supporting terrorism? As another poster pointed out, much of the IRA's income came from NORAID, an American (wink, wink) "charity" group.

4. "The Media" is a straw boogie man. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. are as much "The Media" as the discredited Dan Rather or even Al Franken. You have the internet at your fingers as do we. What makes you think "The Media" is so damn pervasive or for that matter listened to?

Freedom fighting is when you are fighting to liberate your nation or to bring freedom to the people of another nation.
The reason the smart bombs appeared to hit there targets is becuase of 2 reasons:
1. the use of human shields. This is when the regime we are fighting forces women and children to stand in front of something they know we just launched a missile at.
2. Human error. All targets are picked by human beings who have and do make mistakes. Such persons are dealt with if it turns out their mistake caused civilans deaths. You don't hear about it, but they are punished.
3. If that was true, then you would be seeing terrorists supported by the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others. The fact is they don't. Becuase they don't believe in killing people in the name of religion or just because they "don't see things" the way the terrorists or their supporters see them.
4. The fact is that the media is very anti Bush. Remember they tried to use lies to defeat him in the election.

Imaginative answers are no substitute for fact.

1. Human shields are used at likely targets as deterrents - not shifted according to immediate attacks. That statement is juvenile at best.

2. If there was an error or failure in intelligence no one is punished. It is a given that best guess estimates are used. The rest is PR ass covering which you swallow wholeheartedly because you are thinking based on a premise rather than dispassionately examining the facts.

3. What are you going on about? "... the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others." Does The Vatican support the US war? What the hell do tiny countries have to do with supporting terrorism? As another poster pointed out, much of the IRA's income came from NORAID, an American (wink, wink) "charity" group.

4. "The Media" is a straw boogie man. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. are as much "The Media" as the discredited Dan Rather or even Al Franken. You have the internet at your fingers as do we. What makes you think "The Media" is so damn pervasive or for that matter listened to?

I would agree but you have to admit we probably wouldn't have all these religiuos conflicts if the muslims hadn't launched their bloodthirsty jihads in the 500's AD and the christians hadn't launched their retaliatory Crusades a couple of centuries later. Remember the Hindus and Buddhists didn't do holy wars until the muslims waged jihad against them to force them to convert to islam.
The European colonization of India and the rest of Asia only made the situation worse.

Man, are you this misinformed on EVERY topic?

First - Mohammed wasn't even BORN until about 570 AD.

Second - Mohammed didn't claim to have been visited by Djibril (Gabriel) until he was about 40 - so... about 610 AD.

It wasn't until the 'hejira' (Flight) to Medina, about a decade later, that Mohammed was recognised as a prophet of God... meaning that the EARLIEST there could have been an 'Islamic' movement... let alone a 'jihad', would have been about 620 AD.

Also - if you ACTUALLY cared to research the matter - you'd have seen that Early Islam actually allowed Jews and Christians to dwell within 'Muslim' cities... since they considered those religions to be of the same 'god'.

that's total bullshit. the muslims were waging war in the name of religion centuries before the pope called for crusades. Your first couple of paragraphs are nothing more than typical christian bashing based on lies and half truths.
If they lived peacefully, then why did the moslems ban other religions?
Saladin, you must remember was the atypical muslim. Richard was the christian version of Saladin and that's why the two got along well, while their countrymen hated each other.

Ah, more racist anti white statements.

Basically your post has proven three things:
You are xenophobic because you hate America.
You hate christians.
You are a racist because you hate whites.

1. No. The muslims did not invent the concept of the Holy War. Learn your history and don't sprout shit just because you've been told it and it agrees with your already-in-place prejudices.

2. We are telling you the truth, which you reject and refer to as lies not because you have researched your own statements and proven them true, but rather because you don't like the idea that you might not know what you're talking about.

3. THE MUSLIMS DID NOT BAN OTHER MOTHER FUCKING RELIGIONS. THE MUGHALS, THE OTTOMANS, NONE OF THEM BANNED OTHER FUCKING RELIGIONS. THE MUGHALS HAD NO PROBLEM GOVERNING A NATION FILLED WITH HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLERANT. THE OTTOMANS HAD NO PROBLEM RULING AN EMPIRE WITH SIZEABLE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MINORITIES BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLERANT.

i am white, i am christian, and i live in america. you are white, you are christian, and you are fucking stupid.

Freedom fighting is when you are fighting to liberate your nation or to bring freedom to the people of another nation.
The reason the smart bombs appeared to hit there targets is becuase of 2 reasons:
1. the use of human shields. This is when the regime we are fighting forces women and children to stand in front of something they know we just launched a missile at.
2. Human error. All targets are picked by human beings who have and do make mistakes. Such persons are dealt with if it turns out their mistake caused civilans deaths. You don't hear about it, but they are punished.
3. If that was true, then you would be seeing terrorists supported by the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others. The fact is they don't. Becuase they don't believe in killing people in the name of religion or just because they "don't see things" the way the terrorists or their supporters see them.
4. The fact is that the media is very anti Bush. Remember they tried to use lies to defeat him in the election.

Imaginative answers are no substitute for fact.

1. Human shields are used at likely targets as deterrents - not shifted according to immediate attacks. That statement is juvenile at best.

2. If there was an error or failure in intelligence no one is punished. It is a given that best guess estimates are used. The rest is PR ass covering which you swallow wholeheartedly because you are thinking based on a premise rather than dispassionately examining the facts.

3. What are you going on about? "... the vatican, leichtenstien, andorra and grenada and others." Does The Vatican support the US war? What the hell do tiny countries have to do with supporting terrorism? As another poster pointed out, much of the IRA's income came from NORAID, an American (wink, wink) "charity" group.

4. "The Media" is a straw boogie man. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. are as much "The Media" as the discredited Dan Rather or even Al Franken. You have the internet at your fingers as do we. What makes you think "The Media" is so damn pervasive or for that matter listened to?

I on the other hand am a full timer.

Thank you for your sacrifice and your service.

First off, the military does support Bush.

I'm very happy to hear this in light of the other post. I know that there are differences of opinion among military members just as there is among the civilian population.

1. .

:D class man..class :cool:

Ein Deutscher']Typically American poem. And you wonder why so much of the world hates the US. *shakes head* :rolleyes:
i am afraid i have to agree to a certain extent

Now, now. Don't let yourself fall into the same trap he is in. You know full well this is not representative of all Americans. ;)

Basically your post has proven three things:
You are xenophobic because you hate America.
You hate christians.
You are a racist because you hate whites.

His post proved none of those things. You're making things up.

The fact is that the Iraq war was based on mistaken intelligence. That's not debateable, unless you ignore what we've learned since then. But still, the people of Iraq are better off now that Saddam is gone.
The Iraq war is not at debate. Its history. You people need to stop whining about it. You can't go back and change history. You can only learn from it.

AMEN. And the US were not the only ones who had that mistaken intelligence.

1. No. The muslims did not invent the concept of the Holy War. Learn your history and don't sprout shit just because you've been told it and it agrees with your already-in-place prejudices.

2. We are telling you the truth, which you reject and refer to as lies not because you have researched your own statements and proven them true, but rather because you don't like the idea that you might not know what you're talking about.

3. THE MUSLIMS DID NOT BAN OTHER MOTHER FUCKING RELIGIONS. THE MUGHALS, THE OTTOMANS, NONE OF THEM BANNED OTHER FUCKING RELIGIONS. THE MUGHALS HAD NO PROBLEM GOVERNING A NATION FILLED WITH HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLERANT. THE OTTOMANS HAD NO PROBLEM RULING AN EMPIRE WITH SIZEABLE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MINORITIES BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLERANT.

i am white, i am christian, and i live in america. you are white, you are christian, and you are fucking stupid.
You may be white, but you are not a christian.

Found this on a site. I fully agree with it. Wish I knew who wrote it. It also sounds applicable to all those America haters out there.

A Letter To A Terrorist

Well, you hit the World Trade Center,
but you missed America.
You hit the Pentagon,
but you missed America.

You used helpless American bodies,
to take out other American bodies,
but like a poor marksman,
you STILL missed America. Why?

Because of something
you guys will never understand.

America isn't about a building or two,
not about financial centers,
not about military centers,
America isn't about a place,
America isn't even about a bunch of bodies.

America is about an IDEA.

An idea, that you can go someplace
where you can earn as much
as you can figure out how to,
live for the most part,
like you envisioned living,
and pursue Happiness.

(No guarantees that you'll reach it,
but you can sure try!)

Go ahead and whine your terrorist whine,
and chant your terrorist litany:
"if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain."

This concept is alien to Americans

We live in a country
where we don't have to see your point.
But you're free to have one.
We don't have to listen to your speech.
But you're free to say one.

Don't know where you got the strange idea
that everyone has to agree with you.
You guys seem to be incapable of understanding
that we don't live in America,
America lives in US!

American Spirit is what it's called.
And killing a few thousand of us,
or a few million of us,
won't change it.

Wait until you see what we do
with that Spirit, this time.

Sleep tight if you can.
WE'RE COMING!!!

Sir you have earned a response:

Oh really now... thanks for the thought
But really now, I'd rather not
Agree with you.

Learn history a little bit
The next time that you throw a fit
America, no great idea grand -
A nation built by slaves on stolen land
And founded not on liberty
But on greed and Theocracy.

I can earn what I want*, you say
*unless I'm black female or gay
And if one can't, how is their life?
Poor and hungry, full of strife
You'd have me think my rights abound
Well buddy just take a look around
Censorship, Patriot Act,
Our basic rights have been attacked
Oh, and on democracy, you forget
America's not the only one with it
And I'll bet our foreign posters can attest
That often their democracies are best

But back to your letter...

You say of the "terrorists," my man
That "if you cannot see my point, then feel my pain." is their master plan
In addendum you also say
Americans would never act that way!
Well how soon we all forget.....
But the parents of children killed when the bombs hit,
Shall not be soon to omit
The fact that each and every bomb came from the good ol' U.S. of A.
Americans ARE the terrorists when they don't get thier way.

Thank you sir, I shall sleep tight
Even though you are apparently coming to silence me tonight
But know that I will NEVER stop standing up for what is good and right.

Now, now. Don't let yourself fall into the same trap he is in. You know full well this is not representative of all Americans. ;)

you are quite right sir..i can only apologies.as my uncle use to say "thousands of yanks died in the sands of places they had never heard of for people they had never met" he was refering to the american operations in the ww2 pacific theater

that's total bullshit. the muslims were waging war in the name of religion centuries before the pope called for crusades. Your first couple of paragraphs are nothing more than typical christian bashing based on lies and half truths.


Curious - I could point you to a catholic website that explains that Mohammed didn't even make his first converts until long after 600 AD, which makes a lie of your claims that Islam was waging holy wars in the 500s.

Or - are Catholics perpetrating 'typical christian bashing', too?

Thank you for your sacrifice and your service.



I'm very happy to hear this in light of the other post. I know that there are differences of opinion among military members just as there is among the civilian population.
Yes, there are differences in opinion. But overall, most military personnel support Bush. The ones that don't tend to have personal problems or tend to be people who got in trouble (ie. they got article 15s or have court martials pending, or they got chewed by high ranking NCO's or officers for doing something stupid.) Now I'm not saying those describe all soldiers who don't agree with Bush, but particularly those who would betray their own country.

You may be white, but you are not a christian.

you have no right to say what his religeon is

Yes, there are differences in opinion. But overall, most military personnel support Bush. The ones that don't tend to have personal problems or tend to be people who got in trouble (ie. they got article 15s or have court martials pending, or they got chewed by high ranking NCO's or officers for doing something stupid.) Now I'm not saying those describe all soldiers who don't agree with Bush, but particularly those who would betray their own country.

You don't have any proof of those statistics, do you?

(Of course not - you've yet to 'prove' anything...)

Liberals are intolerant?

I'm sorry, but who goes about beating gay boys to death for being gay? Sure as shit isn't a pack of liberals.
First - love the quote!

Next, no group, liberals included, are exempt from their form of intolerance. Eh?

Defending against terrorism is one thing. Kicking out 'Islamists' and 'liberals' is something else entirely, even if they sympathise with Al-Qaeda (and there are very, very few who do, I hardly need to say). Deal with terrorists, but not those who merely express views. That way tolerance will be preserved in both senses.
Ah! The clear light of reason at last!

Well put.

I have just realised that this thread is slowly and torturously murdering thousands of innocent little grey cells, and there is absolutely no point in arguing with someone who is making up his own version of history and shoving it down everyone else’s throat in a vain attempt to prove a point not worth proving.

Good night/day to you all. :D

We are about tolerance. That is why we must rid our society of those people cause they oppose tolerance of any one who disagrees with them and they oppose freedom and they hate America.

LAughed my arse off there. You have provided me with a new MSN name. Thank you. ;)
*snigger*

In a more general sense, religion fucks everything up. How plain do they have to make it?:

Thou shalt not kill

I have just realised that this thread is slowly and torturously murdering thousands of innocent little grey cells, and there is absolutely no point in arguing with someone who is making up his own version of history and shoving it down everyone else’s throat in a vain attempt to prove a point not worth proving.

Good night/day to you all. :D

i agree pal.
good night mr Slap Happy Lunatics :)

you have no right to say what his religeon is
a christian is not someone who claims to be, but someone who obeys the laws of christianity and attends church every week. And is very active in the christian community.

the fact is that they did.

"Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq, Chapter 9 titled, "The Arab Conquests and the Position of Non-Muslim Subjects" supports the fact that they did start Holy Wars before the Crusades and forced people to convert to Islam or be put to death.

You don't have any proof of those statistics, do you?

(Of course not - you've yet to 'prove' anything...)
You mean other than the fact that I happen to be active duty and I see it everyday?

Ah! The clear light of reason at last!

Well put.but difficult to operate.. how can one shift through those "just expressing their opinions" to get to those "activily recruiting for terrorist acts"

Wait for another 9/11? you willing to take the blame for that with the exscuse 'To protect free speech we needed clear evidence as to who are the terrorists are... to that end, we have to wait till the action is completed otherwise, we'll need to pick up all apiring writers, producers, radicals, free thinkers...'

perhaps what might be easier is if all persons not invovled in terrorist acts refrain from spouting anti-american/anti-bush/anti-establishment until all the terrorists are caught. or toss more money to the intelligence community so that they can follow each lead (Millions of em) to determine who is or isn't a serious threat to America and her citizens.

a christian is not someone who claims to be, but someone who obeys the laws of christianity and attends church every week. And is very active in the christian community.

bolloks.
if the church is as open as it says it is then i could declare myself a christian tomorrow and they would accept me..or at least at my local church..maybe not yours they might be a little busy lynching muzlims..

You mean other than the fact that I happen to be active duty and I see it everyday?

You SEE Mohammed flee to Medina every day!!! That's pretty unusual, no?

Or did you just mean this ONE fact, leaving the rest still unsupported?

Just by the way - you think that most of the people you serve with are Republicans, or Christians, or support Bush, or whatever.

That isn't 'proof'. And, you could just be wrong.

bolloks.
if the church is as open as it says it is then i could declare myself a christian tomorrow and they would accept me..or at least at my local church..maybe not yours they might be a little busy lynching muzlims..
if you continue in sin, no christian congregation can accept you unless you stop sinning. Those that do, aren't true christians.

Nice to know you can recite the typical antichristian falsehoods.

These are facts! They're in textbooks! I've been studying this stuff in my AP World History class for the last 7 months!

if you continue in sin, no christian congregation can accept you unless you stop sinning. Those that do, aren't true christians.
And this last sentence should stop any discussion about this topic.

a christian is not someone who claims to be, but someone who obeys the laws of christianity and attends church every week. And is very active in the christian community.

Attending church has nothing to do with Christianity.

if you continue in sin, no christian congregation can accept you unless you stop sinning. Those that do, aren't true christians.

yep i am a regular sinner. the other day i commited adultery and murder AND stealing alll in the same 5 minutes ;)

"Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq, Chapter 9 titled, "The Arab Conquests and the Position of Non-Muslim Subjects" supports the fact that they did start Holy Wars before the Crusades and forced people to convert to Islam or be put to death.

And if you look into emperor Theodosianus of the roman empire, you'll see christians were persecuting pagans well before the muslims were around.

You may be white, but you are not a christian.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN? IF ONE CAN BE DISCOUNTED FROM RELIGION FOR HOW THEY APPLY THEIR BELIEFS, YOU'RE A FUCKING DEVIL WORSHIPPER. YOU ARE INTOLERANT OF OTHER RELIGIONS, YOU USE YOUR IGNORANCE AS A WEAPON, AND YOU DENY OTHER PEOPLE THE RESPECT THAT THEY DESERVE AS INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED, NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS. YOU SUPPORT A PRESIDENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UP TO 100,000 CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ ALONE AND YOU TELL ME THAT YOU FOLLOW CHRISTIAN LAW TO THE LETTER? THOU SHALT NOT KILL, REMEMBER? JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR HAND THAT KILLS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SUPPORT IT, DOESN'T MAKE YOU A MORAL FUCKING PERSON.

if you continue in sin, no christian congregation can accept you unless you stop sinning. Those that do, aren't true christians.huh... Whittier... I think you need to take a break... Jesus preaches to love the sinner and hate the sin. there is only one person that does not sin... and unfortunatly you are not HIM. therefore, you are sinning (as is proof of confessions and prayers for forgiveness) thus by your own argument, you are not a true christian.

The crusades happened because of a Christian sense of duty... so did the Inquisition, so did all the Jihads called. the one thing that everyone has to realize is that is "man's" interpretation of Gods word. Horrible things have been done and other horrible things will be done in the name of religion (and I am including all religions in this statement.) I suggest a break for all parties... people are getting heated and are speaking without getting their facts in order.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN? IF ONE CAN BE DISCOUNTED FROM RELIGION FOR HOW THEY APPLY THEIR BELIEFS, YOU'RE A FUCKING DEVIL WORSHIPPER. YOU ARE INTOLERANT OF OTHER RELIGIONS, YOU USE YOUR IGNORANCE AS A WEAPON, AND YOU DENY OTHER PEOPLE THE RESPECT THAT THEY DESERVE AS INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED, NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS. YOU SUPPORT A PRESIDENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UP TO 100,000 CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ ALONE AND YOU TELL ME THAT YOU FOLLOW CHRISTIAN LAW TO THE LETTER? THOU SHALT NOT KILL, REMEMBER? JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR HAND THAT KILLS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SUPPORT IT, DOESN'T MAKE YOU A MORAL FUCKING PERSON.

:) someone needed to say it..i am glad it was you

And if you look into emperor Theodosianus of the roman empire, you'll see christians were persecuting pagans well before the muslims were around.
As were pagans persecuting christians before that. Religious war is hardly a thing invented in the 600's A.D.

if you continue in sin, no christian congregation can accept you unless you stop sinning. Those that do, aren't true christians.

and is wishing the world to be destroyed a sin?

if you continue in sin, no christian congregation can accept you unless you stop sinning. Those that do, aren't true christians.

So - YOU must be a Conscientious Objector, then?

You SEE Mohammed flee to Medina every day!!! That's pretty unusual, no?

Or did you just mean this ONE fact, leaving the rest still unsupported?

Just by the way - you think that most of the people you serve with are Republicans, or Christians, or support Bush, or whatever.

That isn't 'proof'. And, you could just be wrong.
Fact is, since I actually talk to them, most of them are republicans, christians and support Bush.

And if you look into emperor Theodosianus of the roman empire, you'll see christians were persecuting pagans well before the muslims were around.
those weren't true christians.

those weren't true christians.

who says?

you? who prayed for the world to be destroyed?

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN? IF ONE CAN BE DISCOUNTED FROM RELIGION FOR HOW THEY APPLY THEIR BELIEFS, YOU'RE A FUCKING DEVIL WORSHIPPER. YOU ARE INTOLERANT OF OTHER RELIGIONS, YOU USE YOUR IGNORANCE AS A WEAPON, AND YOU DENY OTHER PEOPLE THE RESPECT THAT THEY DESERVE AS INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED, NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS. YOU SUPPORT A PRESIDENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UP TO 100,000 CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ ALONE AND YOU TELL ME THAT YOU FOLLOW CHRISTIAN LAW TO THE LETTER? THOU SHALT NOT KILL, REMEMBER? JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T YOUR HAND THAT KILLS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SUPPORT IT, DOESN'T MAKE YOU A MORAL FUCKING PERSON.
I am an active christian.

Fact is, since I actually talk to them, most of them are republicans, christians and support Bush.

You seem to be having a problem with two concepts here...

1) I am not willing to take 'your opinion' as evidence. You have nothing to back up your claim.

2) It IS just 'your opinion'. You have no idea if any of the claims you just made are 'true' for any given individual. You ASSUME that they are republicans, or christians, or bush-supporters.... maybe they even TELL you they are. That STILL doesn't make it true.

those weren't true christians.

well what the fuck were they?

I am an active christian.

You say.

I have seen no evidence of any of what I consider Christian 'virtues' in any of your posts.

You have obviously decided that you know better than Jesus - since you appear to have opted for a policy OTHER THAN 'turn the other cheek'.

huh... Whittier... I think you need to take a break... Jesus preaches to love the sinner and hate the sin. there is only one person that does not sin... and unfortunatly you are not HIM. therefore, you are sinning (as is proof of confessions and prayers for forgiveness) thus by your own argument, you are not a true christian.

The crusades happened because of a Christian sense of duty... so did the Inquisition, so did all the Jihads called. the one thing that everyone has to realize is that is "man's" interpretation of Gods word. Horrible things have been done and other horrible things will be done in the name of religion (and I am including all religions in this statement.) I suggest a break for all parties... people are getting heated and are speaking without getting their facts in order.
It is written in scripture that if any one fails to live according to the words of Jesus or the apostles, kick them out from among you. Anyone who continues to live in sin even after having declared themselves in christian must be booted from the church and christians are to have nothing to do with them.
Jesus himself stated, "not everyone who calls me lord is christian, but only those who follow my commandments."
The crusades had nothing to do with christian duty, they had everything to do with politics and sending people to fight forigners so they wouldn't rebel at home.

It is written in scripture that if any one fails to live according to the words of Jesus or the apostles, kick them out from among you. Anyone who continues to live in sin even after having declared themselves in christian must be booted from the church and christians are to have nothing to do with them.
Jesus himself stated, "not everyone who calls me lord is christian, but only those who follow my commandments."
The crusades had nothing to do with christian duty, they had everything to do with politics and sending people to fight forigners so they wouldn't rebel at home.

So what are praying for the world to be destroyed and slagging off some woman?

Sins or not?

So - YOU must be a Conscientious Objector, then?
it written that the coward shall burn in hell.

a christian is not someone who claims to be, but someone who obeys the laws of christianity and attends church every week. And is very active in the christian community.

Your definition is your own matter, but I believe a Christian to be one who tries to lead the best, most honorable life they can, is good to all humans regardless of color or creed, and lives with the wellbeing of others constantly on their mind. Though you follow the bible, you have exhibetted none of those traits, but I do not tell you that you are not a Christian because i believe that Faith is something that no one can define. My restraint and understanding of your stance on your religion should be reason enough for you to curb your habit of venturing opinions and statements on things that you are not qualified to judge.

You seem to be having a problem with two concepts here...

1) I am not willing to take 'your opinion' as evidence. You have nothing to back up your claim.

2) It IS just 'your opinion'. You have no idea if any of the claims you just made are 'true' for any given individual. You ASSUME that they are republicans, or christians, or bush-supporters.... maybe they even TELL you they are. That STILL doesn't make it true.
they should know what they are. who are you to question them. I think they would know themselves better than you would.

I don't see why the whole world must tumble down because an American or two speaks out. Its like " Oh look, some American said something to do with the world. I have a splendid plan, lets go flame them because our gf's dumped us for someone else, and we really have nothing to do and our lifes just suck...SO LETS GO FLAME THEM FOR SPEAKING OUT! "

So what are praying for the world to be destroyed and slagging off some woman?

Sins or not?
Being a virgin, I have never slept with any woman.

Being a virgin, I have never slept with any woman.

Did I say you had?

I have read your past threads.

You are a hypocrite and habitual troll.

Fact is, since I actually talk to them, most of them are republicans, christians and support Bush.

I apologise, I didn't know you'd spoken to all 1.4 million people in the Armed Forces. I now retract all statements I have ever made against you. You are right, I am wrong, and Muslims are really, really gay.

Your definition is your own matter, but I believe a Christian to be one who tries to lead the best, most honorable life they can, is good to all humans regardless of color or creed, and lives with the wellbeing of others constantly on their mind. Though you follow the bible, you have exhibetted none of those traits, but I do not tell you that you are not a Christian because i believe that Faith is something that no one can define. My restraint and understanding of your stance on your religion should be reason enough for you to curb your habit of venturing opinions and statements on things that you are not qualified to judge.
Faith without works is dead. IF you continue in sin, you have no faith.

Being a virgin, I have never slept with any woman.

i hope to god you are under 25 or you lead a sad existence

It is written in scripture that if any one fails to live according to the words of Jesus or the apostles, kick them out from among you. Anyone who continues to live in sin even after having declared themselves in christian must be booted from the church and christians are to have nothing to do with them.
Jesus himself stated, "not everyone who calls me lord is christian, but only those who follow my commandments."
The crusades had nothing to do with christian duty, they had everything to do with politics and sending people to fight forigners so they wouldn't rebel at home.but you are a sinner... thus are failing to live by The Word of Jesus... so by your own arguments, you are not a True Christian.

the Crusades were ordered by Church officials... the poor Illiterate soldiers followed the commands given by their Lords who feared Excommunication by their Church Leaders. Now, as I said. THE CHURCH LEADERS ARE HUMAN AND NOT INFALLABLE. What ever the real reason, the poor soldier going on the crusade believed in his heart that he was doing his christian duty. Now you're agruments are getting disjointed and spiteful... I really suggest taking a break. before the mods look in here and start handing out warnings and lockdowns.

those weren't true christians.

Just as Usama bin Ladin isn't a true muslim.

i hope to god you are under 25 or you lead a sad existenceI'm over thirty five and my reason is I never found a woman I could offer my heart to.

Faith without works is dead. IF you continue in sin, you have no faith.so are you saying you don't sin?

I am an active christian.

No, you're an active tool.

i hope to god you are under 25 or you lead a sad existence
gee, you must be one of those people that think the only purpose in life is sex.

I'm over thirty five and my reason is I never found a woman I could offer my heart to.

sorry pal...its just in england people are always trying to have a shag...sorry
i hope you took no offence

it written that the coward shall burn in hell.

It is also written that thou shalt not kill.

but you are a sinner... thus are failing to live by The Word of Jesus... so by your own arguments, you are not a True Christian.

the Crusades were ordered by Church officials... the poor Illiterate soldiers followed the commands given by their Lords who feared Excommunication by their Church Leaders. Now, as I said. THE CHURCH LEADERS ARE HUMAN AND NOT INFALLABLE. What ever the real reason, the poor soldier going on the crusade believed in his heart that he was doing his christian duty. Now you're agruments are getting disjointed and spiteful... I really suggest taking a break. before the mods look in here and start handing out warnings and lockdowns.
you are ignoring the fact that the secular leaders often conflicted with church leaders of this time.

Faith without works is dead. IF you continue in sin, you have no faith.

How am I a sinner?

gee, you must be one of those people that think the only purpose in life is sex.

gee god darn it i guess i must be considering the age of consent is 16 and the media does nothing but thrust sex down your throat all day long

Just as Usama bin Ladin isn't a true muslim.
I agree with that.

sorry pal...its just in england people are always trying to have a shag...sorry
i hope you took no offencenah... I think it's a joke myself... :p

so are you saying you don't sin?
nope

nah... I think it's a joke myself... :p

good as long as you dont hate me :D

it written that the coward shall burn in hell.

Well, you claimed to be a christian - so shouldn't Jesus' word be sufficient?

Matthew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy SWORD into his place: for all they that take the SWORD shall perish with the SWORD".

And Matthew 5: 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God".

Jesus actually taught that dying at the hands of an enemy was GOOD: Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".

Also - Romans 8:35 says it is GOOD to die under persecution: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword"?

I find it curious that you consider Jesus' own words so lightly estimable.

you are ignoring the fact that the secular leaders often conflicted with church leaders of this time.

Every single person who ordered, took part in, or helped to lead the Crusades was a Christian. The concept of 'secular' was completely nonexistant at this time.

sorry pal...its just in england people are always trying to have a shag...sorry
i hope you took no offence
I don't think that can be applied to everyone in England. There are what millions of british and you claim to know all of them personally?

nope

then how can you class youe self as a christian?
earlier you said that It is written in scripture that if any one fails to live according to the words of Jesus or the apostles, kick them out from among you. Anyone who continues to live in sin even after having declared themselves in christian must be booted from the church and christians are to have nothing to do with them.
Jesus himself stated, "not everyone who calls me lord is christian, but only those who follow my commandments.

It is also written that thou shalt not kill.
If any man shall break any of these laws, thou shalt stone them.


Those who kill shall be killed- Jesus

I don't think that can be applied to everyone in England. There are what millions of british and you claim to know all of them personally?

just as there are over a million people in the U.S. Armed Forces and you claim to be speaking for all of them...

I don't think that can be applied to everyone in England. There are what millions of british and you claim to know all of them personally?

just like you know every one in the us millitary

nah just the majority of people in my school

you are ignoring the fact that the secular leaders often conflicted with church leaders of this time.but the church held the power... Kings got their power though the church.

you are ignoring the fact that what ever the truth, the crusades will forever be labled a christian thing... so will the inquisitions... just as Jihads will be forever connotated with Mulsims as well as the person Osama Bin Lauden.

so instead of calling everyone a heathen... and also yourself. take a break... shut down the monitor and take a breather... when you are rested... look back and see... I mean really see what you are saying.

I'm trying to help you...

Being a virgin, I have never slept with any woman.

how about a man?? :p

How am I a sinner?
because you are human and all humans are sinners.

gee god darn it i guess i must be considering the age of consent is 16 and the media does nothing but thrust sex down your throat all day long
so you always do what the media tell you to do? You seek sex just because you are 16?

Quote:


Originally Posted by JuNii

so are you saying you don't sin?



nope

think this disagrees with your last post.. that is unless your not human :)

Well, you claimed to be a christian - so shouldn't Jesus' word be sufficient?

Matthew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy SWORD into his place: for all they that take the SWORD shall perish with the SWORD".

And Matthew 5: 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God".

Jesus actually taught that dying at the hands of an enemy was GOOD: Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".

Also - Romans 8:35 says it is GOOD to die under persecution: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword"?

I find it curious that you consider Jesus' own words so lightly estimable.

It is also written that we are not to tolerate persecution for those who stand by and allow it to happen are just as guilty as the perpetrators.

If any man shall break any of these laws, thou shalt stone them.


Those who kill shall be killed- Jesus

I do not believe that someone else's evil deed justifies your own. Just because someone else kills does not justify the killing of them. In the end, what GOD said was "thou shalt not kill." He didn't say "thou shalt not kill... unless they are sinners, criminals, or just kinda gay."

the statement "those who kill shall be killed" does not say, in any way shape or form, that "those who kill SHOULD be killed." Jesus was simply trying to say that those who commit evil will find themselves facing the same evil that they practiced. Basically the same concept as Karma.

because you are human and all humans are sinners.and by your own argurments, you are not a true christian. so are you one of those who spout bible verses to make himself sound christian?

last warning Whittier... step away from the keyboard... Please.

god people are stupid you all came on here originally to say something about the first post right. and then you slam it like speaking out against terrorism is a bad thing then you all compleltly loose sight of your arguements and start bashing each other. its disgraceful. not just as an american as what you all claim is the supiorier race. Homo saipean. HA! some difference even the people that say they oppose violence use violence to get their way. you know who the real tools are. the people who follow someone who says they mean to stop Bush or some other country, would you like to know why? because you follow someone who lies to you only to get themselves some attention

so you always do what the media tell you to do? You seek sex just because you are 16?

god no i am 16 and often get into dead end debates on weather the media is controlling people.now considering i have no reason for abstinence and there is a world of fit women out there i would have to be crazy or gay not to have a few urges

just like you know every one in the us millitary

nah just the majority of people in my school
Just like I only know the thousands of people on the installation I am on now, and the thousands that were on the 4 installations I was stationed on before this one.