apinagez

I think this whole page kinda proves your point.:shock: :lol: +1! Wait...nevermind. If you wanna see spam go here: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=3336578#3336578 :lol:

My mom listen to that guy's music. :P

Nothing wrong with the macro then?

Because he's lazy? :P

Cheating? What? :-s What? that's not what I said I've seen you editing that, baaaaad boy! :shame:

So you were using a macro, got banned and is dropping an F bomb on Blizzard? Way to suck, dude.

Nope, I've already searched for those :oops:

Well damn, I'm sure I could make 3 times as much off of that through slav..... nothing. :lol: Anyway, I'd still keep one by my Yoda statue. :P

I don't understand this argument. Seriously. Your point is the US army fights for freedom and justice, while terrorists fight for blood, because they are evil. My point is terrorists are equivalent to an army: they both use violence and have similar objectives, which are defend the interests of who they represent. Again, your definitions won't help, since I'm not saying they ARE the same, I'm saying they DO the same thing. Definitions tell us what things are. You're abstracting this idea that "EVERY soldier is a terrorist.". I do not agree with that, face soldiers (just like bomb-men) are merely the tools used to do war/terror. The real terrorists are people sending soldiers to war under false statements, not the soldiers. That work for both sides, the soldier and the suicider are influenced by the system to do their "job", they aren't the real criminals. Anyway, your entire point has came down to "You are contradicting yourself". If that's all you have to say and I prove I'm not contradicting myself by explaining calmly my entire point to you, again, I suppose this argument is over. Please read this at least twice before posting a reply, if you are going to do so.

That's Ride of the Valkyries, and it's by Wagner. That gets me in the mood for starting my own apocalypse. :mrgreen:

Bubsa....4 children *snort* yeah right! Try 5 :D He's got a lot of work to do in a night to get 5 children. :shock: :shock: Are you kidding? Bubsa's so cool, he can probably asexually reproduce! You mean like mini Bubsas randomly popping out his skin? :o May I have one?

How so? I'm saying again and again the same thing: the results of terrorist actions is the same result of military actions. Multilateralism means there is fear being produced and received on both sides (ie, USSR and USA). I never said the US army does terrorism, I said the US army does the same thing as the terrorists: defend interests by using violence, which leads to similar results. We have different opinions then. For me, it doesn't matter if it's an AK 47 or an M 16 that's pointed towards me. You finally got it. The fact we both eat pasta (defend interests by using violence) does not mean we are the same. \ And I'm not even getting down to the motives and means. I'm just saying they do similar things with the same results for people. Uhh.. riiight. How about when you said this: I am saying the same thing in both statements: They do the same thing = their motives and methods are the same, however, this doesn't make them be the same (remember the pasta? the fact me and you eat pasta, do the same thing, doesn't mean we are the same). I said they are the same, not they aren't... Anyway, my point is crystal clear, you just don't seem to want to understand it: There are two groups, one with law endorsement and one without it. Both use violence to achieve power/influence/wathever. What makes them different? You might say it is the army is retaliating, but then I'll say before that there had already been an attack, and you'll say they were already retaliating, and it gets endless, just like the Israel x Palestine issue. I'm not defending the terrorists here, hence I find any use of violence injustificable, however, I can't agree when you say the US army is fighting for justice and the terrorists for blood. Each people will think their forces are the Good and the enemy is the Evil. As I'm not in either side, I can say both sides are wrong and both sides are right. Both are trying to defend their interests. I'm not even judging which side has the reason. it's getting seriously boring to quote you over and over to say the same thing.

All you did was post definitions. I am not talking about definitions, I'm talking about results. Definitions give a narrow view of the concepts. If you think about it, instead of just reading wikis, you'll see both armies and terrorists defend interests by using violence. The main difference is armies have law endorsement while terrorism doesn't. And that's all your definitions tell me. But anyway, if you want to deal with concepts and definitions, lets go. Fear is the result, the name of the concept changes because arms race is multilateral fear and terrorism is unilateral fear. Again, I'm talking about the results. Do you think the name that's given to the offense matters? We're talking about what is generated. It's fear. Both military and terror generate fear. You may need to take some interpretation classes. I eat pasta, you eat pasta, does that mean we are the same? All you said there was that terrorists are monsters and the US army defends justice. Hmm, yes, that's my point, the fact they do the same thing (defend interests by using violence) doesn't make them the same. Too bad, I always thought it was Where's Wally. :'(

I have read his posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Israel > Gives the terrorists "motives", even though I think nothing justifyes violence (by neither side) Besides that, the killing and torturing of civilians by latin american armies during the period Dictatorships implanted by the USA governed these countries, in the second half of the twentieth century. Besides that, the fact Iraq has been invaded based on false statements. That proves armies do defend interests, which not necessarialy makes them defenders of justice. I am however, not saying they are the same. I would have to be really stupid to think the definition of terrorism is the same as the definition of army. I'm saying they do the same thing: defend interests of groups/people or countries through violence/propaganda or both.

IMHO, rose, moron, fool and telling me to look up words on a dictionary isn't much of an information. But that may be just me.

:anxious: What the hell is wrong with you? You're the one offending me in every reply instead of posting something worth my reading. We have different opinions on one subject... so what? I still think mine is right, but that's no reason for you to bug me.

Their motives and methods are exactly the same. :roll: Other than "US fights for justice and terrorists because they are mean", what is your opinion? I start to doubt you have one.

Hmmm, I'm saying they do the same thing? And I don't see how you proved me wrong, face all you said was "US army fights for freedom and justice" and "terrorists are monsters".

I never got the sp farming thing right, each person I asked would tell me a different thing. #-o

I'm not saying that means terrorism. I'm saying both army and terrorists are fear generators. You're extra arrogant today, Carlo.

I obviously understand terrorism. What I don't understand is why people are stupid enough to think the US Army "spreads justice", while terrorists "suicide bomb". What the US Army does is bomb without suicide. Both sides are looking foward to obtain power and influence, it's not Good x Evil as you say. You caricature the facts before looking at them, or somebody else does it before you.

Would an enlightened soul help me understand ShadowFax's point?

0 - Brazil influences the whole world, installs jews on a region that had been palestine for one thousand years, supplying them money and military resources. From this moment on, Israel invades other arab countries, Brazil continues supplying them with money and military resources. Muslims retaliate. 1 - A stadium is destroyed 2 - Brazil retaliates -------------------- Terrorists want to spread fear (just as Apple wants to spread iPods, by marketing), of course, but isn't the main motive of a huge army and nuclear weapons make the other countries fear and respect a more powerful and militaristic nation, in order for it to obtain more and more power? -------------------- Don't come with the good and evil version, elaborate it and I might discuss it with you.

That sounded really alternative living. :lol: