Terrorism

[jackalope14]

 

Except that you never hear those stories. All that makes the news anymore is how Iraqi citizcens killed 4 people with a carbomb. I don't listen to "harcore anti-war propaganda", I listen to every single thing I can find, and every single dam thing is showing that they hate us, we've helped them enough, they want us to go.

 

 

 

You obviously have a hard time distinguishing between iraqi civilians and iraqi's with affiliation to terrorist networks. :roll:

 

 

 

ON a side note, America is a country founded on violence (boston tea assault) (civil war) (killing off of indians)

 

So it didn't surprise me that after 8 years of peace with Bill Clinton the rest of the government was itching for a new war. After all they gained nothing in the gulf war, so why not try again ?

 

I'm not talking about american citiziens, but the american government, which suffers major issues.

 

 

 

What does the the Boston Tea Party, the Civil War or the inhumane acts against the Indians have anything to do with this? I mean sure, those things were bad and violent, but a lot of countries have a very violent history. You cant really blame what happens today on what happened 200 years ago. America is definitely not the only one with a violent past.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

and the only thing our presence is doing is enraging the citizcens and causing them to fight back against our troops.

 

 

 

before u write and post something do ur homework first. Most people fighting against our troops are not iraqi citizens, they are outsiders.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

 

America didn't invade Iraq because it's the location of terrorism, maybe because of Saddam Hussain but not for terrorism.

 

 

 

 

 

Supposedly the 2 BIG reasons Bush invaded Iraq is because

 

 

 

1) Iraq had WMD (a bogus claim)

 

 

 

2) he made a huge bogus claim Americans fell for that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda (i seem to think a lot of people forgot this one)

 

 

 

 

 

One of the underlying reasons people tend to love to argue with why bush went to war against iraq because he was "finishing what daddy started" which Bush senior made a mistake for not takin Saddam out in the first Gulf War. and in the meantime we get oil for doing this

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

9/11 started World War III.

 

Just slightly different then the previous ones.

 

 

 

Terrorisme is the new (illegal) form of combat.

 

 

 

 

 

9/11 is not the beginnin of world war iii. if anything its just a prelude to Gulf War II

[IGoddessI]

Yep, terrorism is an interesting topic. :)

 

I do not support the United States in their "War on Terror" -- I believe that it is making the situation much worse.

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some interesting articles you may want to check out...

 

 

 

The Iraq effects have increased terrorism sevenfold:

 

http://www.motherjones.org/news/feature ... ect_1.html

 

 

 

Noam Chomsky interview about the United States as a "terrorist state":

 

 

 

 

Pretty much sums my thoughts up 8-)

 

 

 

I try not to view the western society in rose coloured glasses though.

 

 

 

These people have been brain washed in to believing their god is the right one and so forth and that's all they know to be right.

[Shahrazad]

Nope, the war officially ended on 9th of April 2003. I knew that because I was there and I even went out in the street for exploring.

 

 

 

Your post contradicts itself. First you say the war ended, and then you say the war is still ongoing.

 

 

 

Not really. You're missing my point and ignoring it. I said it's on terrorists.

 

The actual war finished. I'm sure you don't know what is *WAR*, how is it like and how to live in it? so please no need to discuss it with me because you have no idea how the war is like. However, if you've ever been or lived in a country that was during the war then I'll discuss different issues with you.

 

 

 

Let me tell you something, during the war in 2003, there was no school, no pure water, no electricity & no food. Now, there's electricity, pure water, school and food :). The only missing part in Iraq is *SAFETY*.

 

 

 

The war may have ended for you on the 9th, but for the rest of the world the war in Iraq is still ongoing. Hell, the invasion itself continued right up until the 13th of April, when Tikrit was invaded. The invasion phase wasn't declared officially over until the 15th.

 

 

 

It's your choice to believe the media/sources/news/TV without any need to believe the person who was there and witnessed it :roll: :D.

 

 

 

If you have sources suggesting that the Iraq War has been OVER and FINISHED since 2003, and that warfare in Iraq stopped after that point, then please show these sources.

 

 

 

PS: Not all Iraqi insurgents are terrorists.

 

 

 

Excuse me? sources? I'm the source lol jk. I think there're some sources but they're in Arabic, can you read Arabic? :|

 

As what I said earlier the official war on Iraq by the US was ended on 9th of April 2003 (but you're not getting it) but the whole war hasn't been finished in Iraq. Iraq still isn't safe. Parts of Iraq have been destroyed, especially the capital city. It would take years so that everything would get back to normal.

 

 

 

By the way, the main topic was on terrorism not about the war in Iraq :XD:. I seriously don't wish to give any more details -.-.

[killaman_47]

Ok just to start i have to say

 

Terrorism is the new communism.

 

Thats wrong for a whole load of reasons. it implys that communism was the work of a group of religious zelots and warmongerers, which is quite obviously wrong if you look at communists like che guvera (i know the spelling is wrong)

 

 

 

You obviously missed my point completely. Way to fail at recognising allusion.

 

 

 

allusion to what? terrorism like comunism is americas current "big evil"? to my mind that shows communism as an evil wheras it was the best possible ideal but it was corrupted by greed. Comunism as an idea has or will never been evil in any way shape or form it is the fault of the people who misused it that it became what it did. Have you ever met a real comunist? and i dont mean someone who claims to be one i mean the real thing i know an old guy who still wants to see the revolution in this country but is now resinged to the fact that its never going to happen.

 

 

 

Perhaps the way to beat terrorists is not by military strength becase, lets face it, when has that ever really worked? but to apeall to the one thing we all share. A sence of humanity.

 

 

 

Terrorism in the modern sense is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence.

 

 

 

This is what makes a terrorist. To become one, one must forsake any sence of humanity first. So appealing to that side of human nature is futile anyway .

 

 

 

it could be argued that if get get to them before that happens we could solve it for good or that you never loose your humanity you just get driven into the "red mist" by misdirection if i gave you a gun and said "shoot me" would you? probably not but if i gave you the means to get revenge on an organisation that you hated would you? probably and thats what has to be solved terrorists wont see their targets as humans but insted as parts of a greater evil one that must be destroyed at all costs.

 

 

 

if the only way to stop invading aliens was to lose your life would you? (see independace day) but how often do you see the life upbrining and children of these evil aliens? never. so how can you justify killing them? "they are evil"? perhaps they appear like that to you and perhaps we appear like that to terrorists its all about human nature and understanding (or lack of it) when you break it down.

[Zonorhc]

allusion to what? terrorism like comunism is americas current "big evil"? to my mind that shows communism as an evil wheras it was the best possible ideal but it was corrupted by greed. Comunism as an idea has or will never been evil in any way shape or form it is the fault of the people who misused it that it became what it did. Have you ever met a real comunist? and i dont mean someone who claims to be one i mean the real thing i know an old guy who still wants to see the revolution in this country but is now resinged to the fact that its never going to happen.

 

 

 

It's the new source of public fright, and a new excuse for repressive policy. Way to miss that.

[killaman_47]

allusion to what? terrorism like comunism is americas current "big evil"? to my mind that shows communism as an evil wheras it was the best possible ideal but it was corrupted by greed. Comunism as an idea has or will never been evil in any way shape or form it is the fault of the people who misused it that it became what it did. Have you ever met a real comunist? and i dont mean someone who claims to be one i mean the real thing i know an old guy who still wants to see the revolution in this country but is now resinged to the fact that its never going to happen.

 

 

 

It's the new source of public fright, and a new excuse for repressive policy. Way to miss that.

 

 

 

its only a source of fear if you let it be. Are terrorists scared of terrorism? probably not. Also to be honest your original allusion was hardly clear yes communism was a source of fear for some people but it was also a sorce of hope and insperation for others. Terrorism on the other hand is hardly a source of hope for anyone. Even the most hard nosed fanatics must be able to see that the current situation cannot be maintained or made better for mankind in general. Your point about the repressive policy is valid though, but like i said above it was hardly clear.

[BlueTear]

Terrorism on the other hand is hardly a source of hope for anyone. Even the most hard nosed fanatics must be able to see that the current situation cannot be maintained or made better for mankind in general.

Yes, that's why recruitment numbers as well as terrorist action has shown a downward trend over the past, say, three years.

 

 

 

... or wait?

[l0l0lpur3]

terrorists only get to do it because of open borders/mass immigration means they can get into countrys easily.

 

 

 

also 9/11 wasn't anything to do with iraq, theres a reason why only 1 or 2 isrealis died in 9/11,i personally believe it was a setup of some type so the US would have a reason to attack israel's enemies.

[1_man_army]

terrorists only get to do it because of mass immigration means they can get into countrys easily.

 

 

 

The 21/7 attempted bombers were all born and raised in the UK.

 

 

 

Actually forget that lets just blame immigration for everything. Lets not blame Canada, lets blame immigrants, and foreigners! :roll:

[l0l0lpur3]

terrorists only get to do it because of mass immigration means they can get into countrys easily.

 

 

 

The 21/7 attempted bombers were all born and raised in the UK.

 

 

 

Actually forget that lets just blame immigration for everything. Lets not blame Canada, lets blame immigrants, and foreigners! :roll:

 

if their parents/grandparents or w/e where not allowed into the UK, it would not have happened, just because they where born in the UK doesn't mean they werent foreigners. if a couple from say the US went to africa and had a baby, the baby would be american, not african.

 

 

 

immigration is the problem for ALOT of things, like terrorism, overpopulation, strain on the NHS/other public services, diseases, rising house prices, crime, price of gas/electricity rising and more.

[1_man_army]

I'm sure if you look back in your own family tree there will be somebody who wasn't born in the UK - nobody is 100% anything.

 

 

 

 

 

What is your definition of a British person? You've already stated that it doesn't matter if somebody was born and raised here. Does that mean you have to be a white, westerner to be classed as British?

 

 

 

Edit - alot of those guys were the second and even third generations in the UK, some of their parents were also born and raised here.

[l0l0lpur3]

I'm sure if you look back in your own family tree there will be somebody who wasn't born in the UK - nobody is 100% anything.

 

 

 

 

 

What is your definition of a British person? You've already stated that it doesn't matter if somebody was born and raised here. Does that mean you have to be a white, westerner to be classed as British?

 

no.

 

 

 

if they or any of their ancestors where not born in the UK, they are foreigners.

[1_man_army]

Well then everyone on the planet is a foreigner of some kind because people have moved from country to country since people have inhabited the planet, maybe not to the same extent as now but thats rather irrelevant to the point.

[Ginger_Warrior]

no.

 

 

 

if they or any of their ancestors where not born in the UK, they are foreigners.

 

So we're all Iraqis then? OK.

[l0l0lpur3]

no.

 

 

 

if they or any of their ancestors where not born in the UK, they are foreigners.

 

So we're all Iraqis then? OK.

 

none of my family has ever being to iraq, idk about every1 elses tho

[Ginger_Warrior]

no.

 

 

 

if they or any of their ancestors where not born in the UK, they are foreigners.

 

So we're all Iraqis then? OK.

 

none of my family has ever being to iraq, idk about every1 elses tho

 

Actually, I think you'll find European culture has been found to have originated from Babylon, which is now where Iraq lies.

 

 

 

And most people in Northern America have ancestry in Europe, after we colonised it.

 

 

 

Since we're speaking of around 90% of the site's population in those two groups alone, it's pretty fair to say most of this site's ancestry stems from Babylon.

 

 

 

This is all however frankly irrelevant to your point. If we hadn't have allowed their "grandparents" in to the country, we wouldn't have a railways sytem, nor would we have as many doctors/nurses in our hospitals, or intellectuals in our universities. In fact, forget all that, we may have even lost WWII.

 

 

 

Instead of blaming our liberalism for terrorism, why not look at your own persecution of forgeigners?

[l0l0lpur3]

no.

 

 

 

if they or any of their ancestors where not born in the UK, they are foreigners.

 

So we're all Iraqis then? OK.

 

none of my family has ever being to iraq, idk about every1 elses tho

 

Actually, I think you'll find European culture has been found to have originated from Babylon, which is now where Iraq lies.

 

 

 

And most people in Northern America have ancestry in Europe, after we colonised it.

 

 

 

Since we're speaking of around 90% of the site's population in those two groups alone, it's pretty fair to say most of this site's ancestry stems from Babylon.

 

 

 

This is all however frankly irrelevant to your point. If we hadn't have allowed their "grandparents" in to the country, we wouldn't have a railways sytem, nor would we have as many doctors/nurses in our hospitals, or intellectuals in our universities. In fact, forget all that, we may have even lost WWII.

 

 

 

Instead of blaming our liberalism for terrorism, why not look at your own persecution of forgeigners?

 

notice the "which is now" bit.

 

 

 

if they didnt allow their "grandparents" here then the public services wouldnt be so strained, and we wouldnt be so overpopulated, and there would be no terrorism at all.

 

 

 

is "maybe even lost WWII" even a bad thing, all the immigrants from other countries would have had to stay in their own countries, rather than this "multiculturalism" bs.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Sorry, I'm dumbfounded by the stupidity of that last comment.

 

 

 

Own countries? What own countries? They'd have been destroyed by the Nazi regime! If we hadn't have stepped into WWII when we did, we'd also probably have lost.

 

 

 

Sure, we wouldn't have multiculturalism (which for the matter has contributed to our economic successes for the past 175 years and no one battered an eyelid); we'd just be attending HJ classes and swearing allegience to the Fuhrer instead. I can see how you envisage this alternative as a preference. :roll:

 

 

 

If we hadn't have allowed immigration for the last two centuries, we wouldn't have a public service - at least not one anywhere near as strong as we do today. Lots of our workforce in the NHS comes from immigration. Poles drive our buses and clean our rubbish. In other words, they do the jobs hardly any British person would do.

 

 

 

No terrorism at all? Terrorism has existed for thousands of years. In fact, you wanna talk about suicide bombers? The English Crusaders were possibly the first to use such tactics.

 

 

 

Your theory that terrorism was created in the past dozen years thanks only to immigration is frankly wrong.

[l0l0lpur3]

Sorry, I'm dumbfounded by the stupidity of that last comment.

 

 

 

Own countries? What own countries? They'd have been destroyed by the Nazi regime! If we hadn't have stepped into WWII when we did, we'd also probably have lost.

 

 

 

Sure, we wouldn't have multiculturalism (which for the matter has contributed to our economic successes for the past 175 years and no one battered an eyelid); we'd just be attending HJ classes and swearing allegience to the Fuhrer instead. I can see how you envisage this alternative as a preference. :roll:

 

 

 

If we hadn't have allowed immigration for the last two centuries, we wouldn't have a public service - at least not one anywhere near as strong as we do today. Lots of our workforce in the NHS comes from immigration. Poles drive our buses and clean our rubbish. In other words, they do the jobs hardly any British person would do.

 

 

 

No terrorism at all? Terrorism has existed for thousands of years. In fact, you wanna talk about suicide bombers? The English Crusaders were possibly the first to use such tactics.

 

 

 

Your theory that terrorism was created in the past dozen years thanks only to immigration is frankly wrong.

 

multiculturalism just creates crime etc... i cba saying it again. we would be "swearing alligence" rather than having our jobs stolen and being mugged by foreigners. there is a reason the wages for ALOT of jobs have went down, employers KNOW immigrants will do more work for less pay so they do it to get more money. its basically legal slavery, and also most of the immigrants send money to their home country so it hurts the economy. "multiculturalism" on the mass scale it is now IS new, in pictures from like 1950 and older there is rarely any foreign people

 

yesterday in town i saw someone who's only 3 words of english where "big issue please", can you honestly say people being allowed into the country just to be homeless helps the economy? the NHS is going downhill due to the mass immigration, and doctors from rubbish countries causing people to catch illnesses inside the actual hospital. islamic terrorists would be unable to enter the country.

[Ginger_Warrior]

multiculturalism just creates crime etc...

 

Proof? And even if you have it, how does this outweigh the benefits of multiculturalism?

 

 

 

we would be "swearing alligence" rather than having our jobs stolen and being mugged by foreigners. there is a reason the wages for ALOT of jobs have went down, employers KNOW immigrants will do more work for less pay so they do it to get more money. its basically legal slavery.

 

No, they're being paid, ergo it's not slavery.

 

 

 

That's capiltalism. If you're an employer, and you have a British man who wants more pay for working less hours and less motivated to work, as opposed to a migrant worker who will work harder with more enthusiasm and for less, it's fairly obvious which one (s)he'll choose.

 

 

 

I'm not entirely convinced wages have gone down either. In fact, last time I checked, they were going up due to inflation. The fact is this country is still 85% White British and therefore migrant workers have a limitied effect on our economy.

 

 

 

and also most of the immigrants send money to their home country so it hurts the economy.

 

Again, proof? The fact is many of them come over here with their families. Although you'd probably argue that one as well since that means they're taking up houses. :roll:

 

 

 

Even if they are sending it back home... it's their money they can do whatever they want with it. Everytime you buy an electrical good, you're likely sending your money to China or the US. Should we start persecuting you now?

 

 

 

the NHS is going downhill due to the mass immigration, and doctors from rubbish countries causing people to catch illnesses inside the actual hospital

 

What on Earth are you saying here? That migrant doctors or more likely to spread MRSA (a virus which lives harmlessly on every human's skin, by the way) than a British person?

 

 

 

The NHS is more at threat from an ageing population, rather than mass immigration anyway. Do you suggest we kill all old people to relieve pressure too? Or is it just foreigners you have a problem with?

 

 

 

islamic terrorists would be unable to enter the country.

 

And as we've already told you, the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers were born and bred in the UK. How would immigration stop that?

 

 

 

If your only purpose on this forum is to spread generally negative messages about forgeigners and blame immigraiton for all your problems, then I'd suggest you just stop now since it won't gain you much sympathy (not least with moderators, possibly). I've noticed your posts in the other threads too. :wink:

 

 

 

However, if you insist on doing so, there's already a thread for it: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=719 ... c&start=40

[l0l0lpur32]

..

[venomai]

Not really. You're missing my point and ignoring it. I said it's on terrorists.

 

And you're missing my point and ignoring it. I said the war in Iraq is not over, that warfare still exists.

 

 

 

1. The Coalition is at war in Iraq with the Iraqi Insurgency. Therefore, the war in Iraq, AKA the Iraq War, is still ongoing. The Iraqi police has joined forces with the Coalition to help the efforts but this does not mean that warfare has ended.

 

2. The Iraqi Insurgency is not made up entirely of terrorists.

 

 

 

The actual war finished. I'm sure you don't know what is *WAR*, how is it like and how to live in it? so please no need to discuss it with me because you have no idea how the war is like. However, if you've ever been or lived in a country that was during the war then I'll discuss different issues with you.

 

That's a really poor attitude. You say I am not allowed to discuss the war simply because I have never experienced it?

 

That would be comparable to refusing to discuss soft drugs with somebody simply because they have never tried them.

 

 

 

I appreciate the fact that you've had first-hand experience, but that does not give you the right to boast any sort of superiority to the rest of us, nor should you be using it as a valid argument in this matter.

 

 

 

Although I do not know what war feels like, I know exactly what it means. When I say "war is still ongoing" I am not referring to the feeling of war, as I have no idea, but rather I am referring to the conflict of war. The conflict between the Coalition and the Iraqi Insurgency is still very clearly ongoing, and they are very much at war.

 

 

 

It's your choice to believe the media/sources/news/TV without any need to believe the person who was there and witnessed it :roll: :D.

 

I can believe you, an individual online identity that I know nothing of, or I can believe the thousands of TV shows, news sources, internet articles and other media that still claim the war in Iraq is ongoing. Tough choice, but I choose the media.

 

 

 

As what I said earlier the official war on Iraq by the US was ended on 9th of April 2003 (but you're not getting it) but the whole war hasn't been finished in Iraq.

 

See that bolded part? Exactly what I've been trying to argue. :wall:

 

 

 

The "invasion phase" (or "official war" as you call it) ended in April 2003.

 

I go by the day that the Coalition officially declared it over, and you go by the day that you saw peace in your specific city. Either way, the invasion phase was only the beginning of the war and conflict in Iraq, and like you said, the "whole war" hasn't ended yet.

 

 

 

By the way, the main topic was on terrorism not about the war in Iraq :XD:. I seriously don't wish to give any more details -.-.

 

The war directly relates to Bush's "War on Terror" so I would say it is still relevant to the topic.