The terrorism theory President Bush refuses to hear (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

Thanks. As long as I strike fear into the hearts of people I can be happy. Whilst your argument as to why the election wasn't a fraud is not convincing in the slightest, I did like your points on why Bush won.

I don't know why I care, it's America. As far as I'm concerned we should go back to pre WW1 conditions with them, they stay out of the world, out of the UN, just sit back and stew in their Christian, capatilist bigotry.

Is there a difference between 'left-wing' and openminded? Because I would not have classified myself as either right or left wing.

That would be massively more beneficial to them than the rest of the world. We'd be wishing for them to come back in no time.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

quote:That would be massively more beneficial to them than the rest of the world. We'd be wishing for them to come back in no time. endquote

If only they'd gfive us the chance to want them back,

 

[bshoc]

no they dont

Says who? Any country should take whatever action necessary and within its own power to ensure the absolute safety of its citizenry and the integrity of its borders - that's the whole purpose of a state, thats why it exists.

 

[bshoc]

see attached..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004US_election_map.jpg

You don't have a case, seriously just admit there are more people in the West that care about their own safety and opinions rather than those of muslims and terrorists.

 

[bshoc]

yeah, if they did i think that would defeat the purpose of the UN - if every country had the right to defend itself in that manner.

Then perhaps it's time you were let in on a little secret about the UN, and who better to reveal it than current US ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg3pgF5EjiA

In any case, outside the Security Council the UN is a corrupt, festering pile of left wing, anti-western, pro-world govenment agenda causes that really make you wonder whether its worth paying for it at all.

 

[onebytwo]

Says who? Any country should take whatever action necessary and within its own power to ensure the absolute safety of its citizenry and the integrity of its borders - that's the whole purpose of a state, thats why it exists.

so if some american retard decided to blow up some building in China, that would give China the right to invade the US?

 

[bshoc]

so if some american retard decided to blow up some building in China, that would give China the right to invade the US?

Sure. Ofcourse China would be a nuclear wasteland approx. 5 minutes after the first chinaman stepped on US soil, which is why I want you to re-read the statement you replied to.

Also the only retards blowing themselves up anywhere are muslims.

 

[HotShot]

Sure. Ofcourse China would be a nuclear wasteland approx. 5 minutes after the first chinaman stepped on US soil, which is why I want you to re-read the statement you replied to.

my ass it would.. america would be blown to bits.. if a terrorist could blow the twin towers and still remain alive for 4-5 (i cant remember how long)... and america struggle to maintain control in iraq and afghanistan- then i think china wouldnt have any problems blowing up the whitehouse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...ection_map.jpg

You don't have a case, seriously just admit there are more people in the West that care about their own safety and opinions rather than those of muslims and terrorists.

i dont know what u mean.. but by looking at the map:
there are 10-12 (cant count lol) sad faces which mean less than 55% which is quite significant. most people in america feel whoever leads them.. they will still be safe:

I mean look at bush and look at the series of events that have taken place when he became president. it was under his rule that the twin towers were blown up.

 

[bshoc]

my ass it would.. america would be blown to bits.. if a terrorist could blow the twin towers and still remain alive for 4-5 (i cant remember how long)... and america struggle to maintain control in iraq and afghanistan- then i think china wouldnt have any problems blowing up the whitehouse.

9/11 was a typical cowardly muslim way of fighting, the US is the worlds only superpower and could blow away the militaries of next four or five combined with ease, its the only nuclear power with technology advanced enough to have a one sided nuke exchange (ie. before the other side can fire back) and has been so since the mid 90's. Don't conflate peacekeeping and nationbuilding with war (the US is only good at the the second one). Afghanistan is actually under 90% NATO admin. btw.

i dont know what u mean.. but by looking at the map:
there are 10-12 (cant count lol) sad faces which mean less than 55% which is quite significant. most people in america feel whoever leads them.. they will still be safe:

I mean look at bush and look at the series of events that have taken place when he became president. it was under his rule that the twin towers were blown up.

Actually Bush was the guy who had to take the slack for Clinton's shambled foreign policy where Sudan was literaly ready to hand over Bin Laden on a silver platter.

 

[HotShot]

9/11 was a typical cowardly muslim way of fighting

it may have been cowardly , but unfortunately it was pretty damn effective. USA may be able to defend against missiles, but i doubt it can handle sucide bombings, and terrorist attacks.

small attacks can be surprisingly have very large effects. at least the terrorist have some kind of motivation to attack, unlike the us making false claims.. and scaring the general public to get support and pressuring the un in order to attempt a war.

by the way that was a rascist remark.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

it may have been cowardly , but unfortunately it was pretty damn effective. USA may be able to defend against missiles, but i doubt it can handle sucide bombings, and terrorist attacks.

small attacks can be surprisingly have very large effects. at least the terrorist have some kind of motivation to attack, unlike the us making false claims.. and scaring the general public to get support and pressuring the un in order to attempt a war.

by the way that was a rascist remark.

Actually there hasnt been any terrorist acts inside USA for 5 years, it means they can handle pretty well, considering the amount of energy, lives and times spent by muslim terrorists world wide. Bush policy at works. He said we will fight in enemies in foreign lands not in home soils.


at least the terrorist have some kind of motivation to attack, unlike the us making false claims.. and scaring the general public to get support and pressuring the un in order to attempt a war.

Motivation to kill innocent people to submit them into fear in their quest to dominate the world with their narrow minded interpretation of stoneage islamic laws. However, as long as USA and Israel exist, they will never succeed. With every American and israeli citizens killed I am pretty sure that close to 50-100 muslims are killed or will be killed.

then i think china wouldnt have any problems blowing up the whitehouse.

China is not the saviour of Muslims nor Europe. In fact chinese hate muslims just like every other westerners. However Chinese knew how to deal with extremist muslims in Sinkiang province, they just execute them without trial. It is actually funny whenever US supremacy is debated Europeans or other anti americans will mention how powerful china has become and how china will fight with America. Chances of China going to war with USA is nil to zero. Chinese military spending estimated at most US $ 100billion have to increase 4 times to get even with US military spending. If they increase to 400-500 billion then half of their GDP is spent on military meaning their economy will collapse just like USSR. Like it or not the supremacy of USA is here to stay for at least another century!

 

[HotShot]

Actually there hasnt been any terrorist acts inside USA for 5 years, it means they can handle pretty well, considering the amount of energy, lives and times spent by muslim terrorists world wide. Bush policy at works. He said we will fight in enemies in foreign lands not in home soils. [\quote]

yes, meanwhile elsewhere london, bali and india have bombed to bits because of americas actions.. yeah the world is a safer place now...

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

it may have been cowardly , but unfortunately it was pretty damn effective. USA may be able to defend against missiles, but i doubt it can handle sucide bombings, and terrorist attacks.

small attacks can be surprisingly have very large effects. at least the terrorist have some kind of motivation to attack, unlike the us making false claims.. and scaring the general public to get support and pressuring the un in order to attempt a war.

by the way that was a rascist remark.

From Wikipedia: Racism has many different definitions. Historically, it has been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation. Sometimes racism means beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race.

Muslim is not a race.

Terrorism/guerilla fighting is very effective against large coutries. Vietnam and Iraq show this.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

yes, meanwhile elsewhere london, bali and india have bombed to bits because of americas actions.. yeah the world is a safer place now...

First, his promise to keep america safe works.

Second, other countries needs to do their job in securing their own country. It is not always americas fault that London and Bali are bombed, it is terrorists fault. Stop blaming america for everything terrorists does. People like you who failed to condemn and provide moral support to terrorists are the real reason they still exist today.India has been terrorised by muslims since it gained independece in 1947. Which has nothing to do with American policy. In fact, America has always been pro muslim- pro pakistan in all of India's wars with Pakistan.

 

[HotShot]

Muslim is not a race.

it need not be, calling someone a muslim by their race is racism.

first, his promise to keep america safe works.

Second, other countries needs to do their job in securing their own country. It is not always americas fault that London and Bali are bombed, it is terrorists fault. Stop blaming america for everything terrorists does. People like you who failed to condemn and provide moral support to terrorists are the real reason they still exist today.India has been terrorised by muslims since it gained independece in 1947. Which has nothing to do with American policy. In fact, America has always been pro muslim- pro pakistan in all of India's wars with Pakistan.

There are two countries in this world that this to blame for every single conflict that has occured in the world.

1. England
2. America
dont get me started on them lol - u need a new thread for that.

simply, if america had not invaded afghanistan or iraq, there would not have been terrorist attacks elsewhere. this is true, since most of the terrorist that have occured are because of the america's involvement in iraq and afghanistan.

India has been terrorised by muslims, thanks to the brits and ghandi for splitting the country in the first place. prior to english colonisation there were no such problems on religion in India in the first place.

There is cause and effect: The effect are the terrorists and the cause are the americans and pommies.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Gandhi wanted a united India it was Muslims under Muhammad Ali Jinnah who demanded separate country for Muslims. Gandhi mourned the independence while Jinnah celebrated his new found power of Governor General post in Pakistan.

There were hundreds of terrorists acts by Islamic extremist before invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, notably 9/11, bombing of US embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, bombing of USS Cole, WTC bombing of 1993, countless terrorists acts in India and Pakistan, hijacking of hundreds of Airlines, numerous terrorists acts in Algeria,Israel, Jordan,Philippines, Argentina and Egypt, all done by islamic terrorists before 2001. 9/11 just brought US at the forefront.

 

[ZabZu]

I blame both America (and its close allies) and Islamic extremists.

The foreign policy of the US is helping to radicalise Muslims. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are significant in recent years. People have said that September 11 happened before these events and therefore terrorism is not due to American policies. However, prior to 2001 the US was; very biased towards Israel, supported corrupt (and moderate) middle eastern regimes, had troops in Saudi Arabia, etc, etc.

Islamic extremists are racist, crazy people who have no tolerance of other religions and cultures. They aim to destroy Israel and the US, and many groups want to establish Islamic states without approval of the majority of the population. We hear about preachers saying that a Muslim cannot have a non-Muslim friends. Islamic extremists in recent years have targeted civilians (London, Bali, Madrid, 9/11).

 

[HotShot]

poms:

The agitation unleashed by the acts culminated on 13 April 1919, in the Amritsar Massacre (also known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre) in Amritsar, Punjab. The British military commander, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, ordered his soldiers to fire into an unarmed and unsuspecting crowd of some 10,000 people. They had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh, a walled garden, to celebrate Baisakhi, a Sikh festival, without prior knowledge of the imposition of martial law. A total of 1,650 rounds were fired, killing 379 people and wounding 1,137 in the episode, which dispelled wartime hopes of home rule and goodwill in a frenzy of post-war reaction.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

it need not be, calling someone a muslim by their race is racism.

.

I don’t think so. Referring to someone as Muslim because of their race is just ignorant, not racist. Even it was true, the original comment, in context, was not racist, because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim.

 

[HotShot]

I don’t think so. Referring to someone as Muslim because of their race is just ignorant, not racist. Even it was true, the original comment, in context, was not racist, because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim.

ur calling someone a muslim because of their race - tats racism.