• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Terrorists or not terrorists?

Originally posted by TOT:
Because unlike you I believe liberal democracies over Islamic Fascists.
Click to expand...
You didn't apparantly believe in the Palestinian's democracy. And it doesn't matter they elected a bunch of war-mongering psycho's. We did the same thing here.

Part of a democracy is the right to self-determination. Which means, you can't decide for them.
 
Billo_Really said:
You didn't apparantly believe in the Palestinian's democracy.
Click to expand...

They are not a liberal Democracy, they are a Democarcy in which the ruling party is made up of Islamic Fascists, they are a Fascist nation and besides in case you haven't been paying attention that government no longer exists Hamas has destroyed it.

And it doesn't matter they elected a bunch of war-mongering psycho's. We did the same thing here.
Click to expand...

Trying to compare Bush to Hamas, that's funny.

Part of a democracy is the right to self-determination. Which means, you can't decide for them.
Click to expand...

I never said they could but the point is just like the Germans the Palestinians voted for Fascism rather than liberalism.
 
I'm not going to hold your hand, go back and read it for yourself. It is not my fault you can't pay attention.
Click to expand...

So now you're telling me that you already told me, but won't tell me where. How about you just tell me where you said it so we can move on? Or is there some other reason you don't want to do that? Maybe because you didn't tell me anywhere?

Okay.............

....................I still don't get it! Maybe it is because you pre-suppose what I am "worried about", that I am hatemongering and I don't know the reality of the situation. What I do know, is you're still not making any sense.
Click to expand...

I'm making perfect sense. You just don't like what I'm saying.

What did I say about Bush that wasn't true?
Click to expand...

I never said you said anything about Bush that wasn't true. You claim that the 2002 bombing campaign was a terrorist act. This isn't true.
 
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
So now you're telling me that you already told me, but won't tell me where. How about you just tell me where you said it so we can move on? Or is there some other reason you don't want to do that? Maybe because you didn't tell me anywhere?
Click to expand...
I've already told you, I've already told you. Yet you keep asking the same question. I'm not going to do something you should have done when I first told you.


Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
I'm making perfect sense. You just don't like what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I can't determine that until I know what your saying. You don't seem to be willing to elaborate on your point.

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
I never said you said anything about Bush that wasn't true. You claim that the 2002 bombing campaign was a terrorist act. This isn't true.
Click to expand...
You might not have said it, but you inferred it. And as I told you before, I'm not going to argue semantics.
 
I've already told you, I've already told you. Yet you keep asking the same question. I'm not going to do something you should have done when I first told you.
Click to expand...

If you already told me then how about you show me where you told me so we can move this forward.

I can't determine that until I know what your saying. You don't seem to be willing to elaborate on your point.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to elaborate on. Everybody else here has understood with what I have said, and most have agreed with it. Why are you the only one that can't understand it?

You might not have said it, but you inferred it. And as I told you before, I'm not going to argue semantics.
Click to expand...

Oh please. This isn't simply a semantical issue; it goes much deeper than that. You're just unwilling to support your position.
 
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
If you already told me then how about you show me where you told me so we can move this forward.
Click to expand...
Go to post #435, where you answered your own question.

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
There's nothing to elaborate on. Everybody else here has understood with what I have said, and most have agreed with it. Why are you the only one that can't understand it?
Click to expand...
I just told you! Are you aware that "listening" is 75% of a conversation? Why do you repeat the question after the answer was already given? Maybe your one of "those people" (your term) that like to hear themselves talk and really don't care what others have to say.

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
Oh please. This isn't simply a semantical issue; it goes much deeper than that. You're just unwilling to support your position.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Why is my definition of terrorism so important to you? I really don't care whether my definition is politically correct or in concert with yours. Nor do I care about you making stuff up about my intentions or appeals to emotion. Those are your perceptions and your reactions to my posts and really have nothing to do with me.

You say, "I'm unwilling to support my position?" Are we now going to get into a trivial discussion on the definition of "support?"

But since you raised the issue, I will support my position this way.

In the context of the 2002 bombing campaign, I'll try to explain my definition of terrorism in terms of your definition of it.

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
Here is what I found in the dictionary:

"The unlawful use [no Congressional or UNSC authorization] or threatened use of force or violence [over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets] by a person or an organized group [US military] against people or property [Iraq] with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments [provoke a war] , often for ideological or political reasons." [gain popular support and justification to attack]
Click to expand...
Now can we move on to our next trivial and meaningless discussion,
"The Bond market and it's effect on third world nations?"

You start...
 
Billo_Really said:
Now can we move on to our next trivial and meaningless discussion,
"The Bond market and it's effect on third world nations?"

You start...
Click to expand...

Can I, pretty please? I want to start...

Since we can’t talk about these:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/20826-terrorists-not-terrorists-33.html#post574118

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/20826-terrorists-not-terrorists-37.html#post575496

And nobody wanted to talk about the Robert Byrd cupie doll statue:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/20826-terrorists-not-terrorists-9.html#post562692

*****

Instead of discussing the negative effects of capitalism in the global economy and the competition of poorer countries pulling down the living standards of emerging countries, we could discuss how the tyranny of terrorism supporters pulls down the developed countries. It would be closer to being on topic, in essence a discussion of whether it is terrorist or not terrorist for interests (oil) of developing countries to support tyranny (whose interests are not the social programs that the people would choose) to undermine emerging economies in an effort to suppress competition. Likewise, the effect of debt on national security, as a result of the effect of tyranny on our debt, and how easy it is for a tyranny (lacking a House or even a “Tribune of the Plebs“) to acquire a debt from those whose interests (Peace for Greed) are reluctant to relieve the debt, would also be an interesting discussion.

“BEIJING - China marked the start of a state visit by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Thursday with agreements to reduce Iraq’s debt by a large margin’ and expand economic cooperation.
The countries also were expected to discuss a 1997 deal for China’s National Petroleum Corp. to develop the billion-barrel Al Ahdab oil field. The US$1.2 billion contract was signed by the company, also known as PetroChina, and the government of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.” http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...e/focusoniraq_June104.xml&section=focusoniraq

Can you spell “Sudan?”

YOur turn...
 
DivineComedy said:
“Terrorism is an enemy” as I “use the word” enemy?

I would rather hear you say Zbigniew Brzezinski was wrong. ...
Click to expand...

Repetitive arguments. Nothing new added or to respond to.
 
Originally posted by Iriemon:
Repetitive arguments. Nothing new added or to respond to.
Click to expand...
Might as well get comfortable, because I think he's just getting warmed up!

As far as "repetition" goes, you haven't seen nuthin' yet!
 
Whore Mongols War Mongers

"Whore Mongols War Mongers"

Billo_Really said:
Might as well get comfortable, because I think he's just getting warmed up!
As far as "repetition" goes, you haven't seen nuthin' yet!
Click to expand...

What is your reply when Abu Dujana (video) giggles and states, "This is how it is. Islam has rules and everything is based upon sharia law. If you ask me if you are a legitimate target, if there is clear evidence that your country has attacked islam, then we are permitted to kill you."?

And what is your reply when Abu Dujana states, "Many lands owned by muslims have been taken away by our enemies, America is part of it, like in palestine and other places. We demand those governments return that land and let us put sharia law in place.", knowing that islam exclaims futuristic entitlement to govern all lands once dominated by islam?

Lastly, please explain this laundry list of islam land acquisitions by the west?

Isn't islam that is acquiring foreign territory?
After all, why are arabs dictating social practices in indonesia?

abu.jpg
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Monk-Eye:
What is your reply when Abu Dujana (video) giggles and states, "This is how it is. Islam has rules and everything is based upon sharia law. If you ask me if you are a legitimate target, if there is clear evidence that your country has attacked islam, then we are permitted to kill you."?

And what is your reply when Abu Dujana states, "Many lands owned by muslims have been taken away by our enemies, America is part of it, like in palestine and other places. We demand those governments return that land and let us put sharia law in place.", knowing that islam exclaims futuristic entitlement to govern all lands once dominated by islam?

Lastly, please explain this laundry list of islam land acquisitions by the west?

Isn't islam that is acquiring foreign territory?
After all, why are arabs dictating social practices in indonesia?
Click to expand...
I don't pay any attention to religious demands in the political arena.

And if they choose to attack us, we'll kick their a.s.s!
 
Billo_Really said:
But since you raised the issue, I will support my position this way.

In the context of the 2002 bombing campaign, I'll try to explain my definition of terrorism in terms of your definition of it.
Click to expand...

His definition is lacking A) He left out clandestine or non-state actors, and B) he left out specifically targetting Non-combatants.
 
Originally posted by TOT:
His definition is lacking A) He left out clandestine or non-state actors, and B) he left out specifically targetting Non-combatants.
Click to expand...
You gotta be shittin' me!

Because of him, you and I are on the SAME SIDE!

That's it!

He crossed the line...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom