Disturbing..

[apinagez]

Carlo, terrorist groups do exactly the same thing as the army, which happens to be kill people.

 

 

 

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".

[Faux]

Fool.

 

 

 

What differ their motives and methods, in your opinion?

 

For me, those are exactly the same: They seek power (for themselves, for their group or for an specific organization/country/person) and their method is the elimination of specific targets, be them strategical for their economical, political or symbolical importance.

[apinagez]

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.

[Faux]

Are you seriously a moron or are you just trying to troll me?

[apinagez]

: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.

[Rose_2_Pure]

He has been posting information, you say posting something worth reading? Then read it. I support Shadow.

 

 

 

When you can back-up your idea with actual facts, then I might support you. But for now I agree with Shadow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

[apinagez]

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.

[Rose_2_Pure]

 

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands[1]. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.

 

 

 

 

 

Mmmkay. As I said, try reading his posts, as I said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

[apinagez]

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.

[apinagez]

I have read his posts.

[Faux]

With an eye closed, yes you did.

 

 

 

You said military was the same as terrorist because of this:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

I proved you wrong. That's not terrorism, that's arms race.

 

 

 

Then you said this:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I proved you wrong again. The US Army, when on the offense, is at war, not terrorizing.

 

 

 

Now you said this:

 

 

 

I'm not saying that means terrorism. I'm saying both army and terrorists are fear generators.

 

 

 

Fear generators = terrorism.

 

 

 

But then you said this as well:

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

Again, making your opinion military = terrorists.

 

 

 

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".

 

 

 

Last time I checked, "do the same thing" means that you're saying they are the same.

 

 

 

Hence your post:

 

 

 

Their motives and methods are exactly the same.

 

 

 

Then you have the nerve to say this to me:

 

 

 

what is your opinion? I start to doubt you have one.

 

 

 

When I posted this to explain.

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=3334636#3334636

 

 

 

Then you're gonna tell me this?

 

 

 

I am however, not saying they are the same.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't like playing Where's Waldo.

[apinagez]

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.

 

 

 

I proved you wrong. That's not terrorism, that's arms race.

 

Fear is the result, the name of the concept changes because arms race is multilateral fear and terrorism is unilateral fear.

 

 

 

I proved you wrong again. The US Army, when on the offense, is at war, not terrorizing.

 

Again, I'm talking about the results. Do you think the name that's given to the offense matters?

 

 

 

 

 

Fear generators = terrorism.

 

Again, making your opinion military = terrorists.

 

 

 

We're talking about what is generated. It's fear. Both military and terror generate fear.

 

 

 

Last time I checked, "do the same thing" means that you're saying they are the same.

 

 

 

You may need to take some interpretation classes. I eat pasta, you eat pasta, does that mean we are the same?

 

 

 

When I posted this to explain.

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=3334636#3334636

 

 

 

All you said there was that terrorists are monsters and the US army defends justice.

 

 

 

Then you're gonna tell me this?

 

Hmm, yes, that's my point, the fact they do the same thing (defend interests by using violence) doesn't make them the same.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't like playing Where's Waldo.

 

Too bad, I always thought it was Where's Wally. :'(

[Faux]

You do know that your posts have been contradicting each other, right?

 

 

 

Fear is the result, the name of the concept changes because arms race is multilateral fear and terrorism is unilateral fear.

 

 

 

 

Lol, first quote, first mistake. Thanks for supporting my opinion though.

 

 

 

This is what you said earlier:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Countries = multilateral. Hence, what you said was arms race, not terrorism.

 

 

 

Even then terrorism can cause multilateral fear as well. Canada was affected by the terrorism in the US. That means terrorism doesn't only affect one country. Hence, terrorism = multilateral fear as well.

 

 

 

Again, I'm talking about the results. Do you think the name that's given to the offense matters?

 

 

 

Yes, it matters because I was giving example how the US army doesn't do 'terrorism'. What the heck?

 

 

 

We're talking about what is generated. It's fear. Both military and terror generate fear.

 

 

 

I wasn't talking about fear generated by military actually. You did. I was just pointing out that you're saying they are the same. I'm saying they're not.

 

 

 

You may need to take some interpretation classes. I eat pasta, you eat pasta, does that mean we are the same?

 

 

 

Yes, you're saying we both like pastas. Perfect interpretation, no?

 

 

 

All you said there was that terrorists are monsters and the US army defends justice.

 

 

 

I was proving the differences of motives and means between terrorists and military. That's what I've been arguing for throughout.

 

 

 

Hmm, yes, that's my point, the fact they do the same thing (defend interests by using violence) doesn't make them the same.

 

 

 

Uhh.. riiight. How about when you said this:

 

 

 

Their motives and methods are exactly the same.

 

 

 

So by your posts, how are they not the same again?

[apinagez]

You do know that your posts have been contradicting each other, right?

 

 

 

How so? I'm saying again and again the same thing: the results of terrorist actions is the same result of military actions.

 

 

 

Lol, first quote, first mistake. Thanks for supporting my opinion though.

 

Countries = multilateral. Hence, what you said was arms race, not terrorism.

 

Even then terrorism can cause multilateral fear as well. Canada was affected by the terrorism in the US. That means terrorism doesn't only affect one country. Hence, terrorism = multilateral fear as well.

 

 

 

Multilateralism means there is fear being produced and received on both sides (ie, USSR and USA).

 

 

 

Yes, it matters because I was giving example how the US army doesn't do 'terrorism'. What the heck?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I wasn't talking about fear generated by military actually. You did. I was just pointing out that you're saying they are the same. I'm saying they're not.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes, you're saying we both like pastas. Perfect interpretation, no?

 

 

 

You finally got it. The fact we both eat pasta (defend interests by using violence) does not mean we are the same. \

 

 

 

I was proving the differences of motives and means between terrorists and military. That's what I've been arguing for throughout.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Hmm, yes, that's my point, the fact they do the same thing (defend interests by using violence) doesn't make them the same.

 

 

 

 

 

Uhh.. riiight. How about when you said this:

 

 

 

 

 

Their motives and methods are exactly the same.

 

 

 

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).

 

 

 

So by your posts, how are they not the same again?

 

 

 

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.

[Faux]

Stop going in circles.

 

 

 

This is what you say:

 

 

 

TERRORISTS = US MILITARY

 

 

 

Carlo, terrorist groups do exactly the same thing as the army, which happens to be kill people.

 

 

 

Anyway, my point is it's just as bad as any military organization.

 

 

 

For me, those are exactly the same: They seek power (for themselves, for their group or for an specific organization/country/person) and their method is the elimination of specific targets, be them strategical for their economical, political or symbolical importance.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I'm saying both army and terrorists are fear generators.

 

 

 

Hmmm, I'm saying they do the same thing?

 

 

 

Their motives and methods are exactly the same.

 

 

 

We're talking about what is generated. It's fear. Both military and terror generate fear.

 

 

 

How so? I'm saying again and again the same thing: the results of terrorist actions is the same result of military actions.

 

 

 

They do the same thing = their motives and methods are the same

 

 

 

Then you'll say something like this:

 

 

 

US MILTARY != TERRORISTS

 

 

 

I'm not saying that means terrorism.

 

I am however, not saying they are the same.

 

 

 

So which is it? Your posts contradict each other.

 

 

 

When you say that the US miltary (no, not even the US milary, every military in the world) uses the same means and motive as the terrorists, then you're saying the military is the same as terrorists.

 

 

 

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands[1]. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.

 

 

 

That is what terrorism means.

 

 

 

By YOUR definition, EVERY soldier is a terrorist.

 

 

 

As I already said, stop trying to change the definition of terrorism.

[apinagez]

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.

[Faux]

I'm not saying they ARE the same, I'm saying they DO the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you said that they use the same 'means and motives', that's saying they are one and the same.

 

 

 

Do you know what 'means' is? It's how they act to achieve their goal.

 

 

 

Do you know what their 'motive' is? It's their reason for acting so.

 

 

 

So yes, you are saying they are the same thing.

 

 

 

It's moronic to say that military and terrorists aren't the same and then say that they have the same motive and means. Heck, you didn't even counter the difference between the military's and the terrorists' means and motives that I posted.

 

 

 

Do you call policemen murderers because they kill people?

[apinagez]

I eat my burgers holding them with my hands, in the same way as you (with the same mean) and for the same reason: We are hungry. (our motive is the same).

 

Are we the same? No.

 

 

 

I don't understand why the hell you keep repeating that.

[Faux]

Yeah, because war and terrorism is as simple as eating. Their means or motives are as different as night and day.

[apinagez]

Night and day are both periods of time.

 

 

 

Both's motive and means are: defend interests of a group and use violence.

[Faux]

Are these the same?

 

 

 

----

 

1. al-Queda hijacking 3 planes and crashing them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon

 

 

 

2. The US is retaliating in terms of the terrorism they received during the 9/11.

 

 

 

Is one more justified than the other? Yes.

 

 

 

Motive

 

----

 

Military - seek and demand justice from the terrorist group

 

Terrorists - spread fear

 

 

 

Means

 

----

 

Miltary - asks for surrender and face justice, use force if denied.

 

Terrorists - suicide bombing.

 

 

 

Answer is no.

 

 

 

It isn't as bland as just 'defend interests' and 'violence' because even then, they have a conflict of interests.

 

 

 

With your logic, you might as well go to the police department and call them murderers because they kill people.

 

 

 

Heck, with your logic, I can kill an ant and you'd call me a murderer because a I killed a living creature.

 

 

 

Your logic is flawed.

[apinagez]

That in your humble opinion. If you go ask an arab, he'll say terrorism is more justificable than US army invading countries.

 

Just my two cents, though...

 

 

 

Anyway, my two cents are placed, there's no way you're changing my opinion, and I think there's no way I'm changing yours that the US army fights for freedom and justice while terrorists fight because they are evil.

 

 

 

I'm dropping it.

[kuud]

seen this clip before pretty wierd, talk about brainwash.

 

 

 

Can't we replace guns with flowers???