Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2952520 - 08/01/04 05:43 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
Very well said.

Zahid, what the fuck are you talking about? Terrorist attack?




Bombing cities = terrorism.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Zahid]
    #2952774 - 08/01/04 06:24 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

First of all the world needs to stop labeling every attack done by militants as a terrorist action. Second of all the bombing of cities was mandatory for both sides in world war 2. It was used to destroy industrial areas and force the leaders to surrender.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2952851 - 08/01/04 06:37 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Morrowind said:
Civilians have been massacred only in about the last 300 years or so


  :lol: :lol: I suggest you read a history book....


As far as the bomb goes,  most of the people didnt "deserve" it...but it did save lives and infrastructure on both sides.  Id like to point out that in the thread about if the US and the victims deserved 9/11, many people wrote that the victims wernt really innocent because they were part of the great satan that has murderous policies... thats the view i have towards Japan.  The majority of the civilians did support the rape of nanking...the majority of civilians did support the genocide they perpetrated across china and the pacific.  Theres was a whole society that was driven by racism (much like Germany).  They were not like Iraq or even Stalin's Russia where they people didnt support the ruler's fanatic ideas. 

The mistake America made was we left Hirohito....would we have left Hitler in power if he didnt kill himself? Hell no!


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2952877 - 08/01/04 06:43 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Just because an action was thought to be a strategic neccessity for victory in war does not mean that all those who were victims of the action deserved it. To say that the bombing of cities was mandatory for both sides in world war 2 is highly debateable, as not all bombings concentrated on industrial targets nor were all undertaken out of strategic necessity. Tell us, why was it necessary for the Germans to bomb Rotterdam?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2953039 - 08/01/04 07:28 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
Genghis Khan killed every civilian in one battle because of TACTICAL reasons. I did a research paper on him and there were times when both sides had large amounts of troops and the only way to win was to massacre the civilian population.





vlad tepes did the same to 40,000 to 100,00 people, many of which he disemboweled and hung from pikes along roads... most of the people that he did this to were his own countrymen this was somethign that aided him in winning several battles as the people attacking would become quite ill and be unable to fight... was this simply looking for a tactical advantage or was it done for the amusement of this man...

Quote:

Vlad usually had a horse attached to each of the victim?s legs and a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth. However, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other body orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother?s chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake.

Vlad Tepes often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that was his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The decaying corpses were often left up for months. It was once reported that an invading Turkish army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. In 1461 Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of twenty thousand impaled Turkish prisoners outside of the city of Tirgoviste. This gruesome sight is remembered in history as "the Forest of the Impaled."

Thousands were often impaled at a single time. Ten thousand were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu in 1460. In 1459, on St. Bartholomew?s Day, Vlad III had thirty thousand of the merchants and boyars of the Transylvanian city of Brasov impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad Dracula feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Brasov while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.

Although impalement was Vlad Dracula?s favorite method of torture, it was by no means his only method. The list of tortures employed by this cruel prince reads like an inventory of hell?s tools: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to wild animals, and burning alive.

No one was immune to Vlad?s attentions. His victims included women and children, peasants and great lords, ambassadors from foreign powers and merchants. However, the vast majority of his victims came from the merchants and boyars of Transylvania and his own Wallachia.

Many have attempted to justify Vlad Dracula?s actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity. Many of the merchants in Transylvania and Wallachia were German Saxons who were seen as parasites, preying upon Romanian natives of Wallachia. The wealthy land owning boyars exerted their own often capricious and unfaithful influence over the reigning princes. Vlad?s own father and older brother were murdered by unfaithful boyars. However, many of Vlad Dracula?s victims were also Wallachians, and few deny that he derived a perverted pleasure from his actions.

Vlad Dracula began his reign of terror almost as soon as he came to power. His first significant act of cruelty may have been motivated by a desire for revenge as well as a need to solidify his power. Early in his main reign he gave a feast for his boyars and their families to celebrate Easter. Vlad was well aware that many of these same nobles were part of the conspiracy that led to his father?s assassination and the burying alive of his elder brother, Mircea. Many had also played a role in the overthrow of numerous Wallachian princes. During the feast Vlad asked his noble guests how many princes had ruled during their lifetimes. All of the nobles present had outlived several princes. None had seen less then seven reigns. Vlad immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Tirgoviste to the ruins of his castle in the mountains above the Arges River. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months rebuilding the old castle with materials from a nearby ruin. According to the reports they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. Very few survived this ordeal.

Throughout his reign Vlad continued to systematically eradicate the old boyar class of Wallachia. Apparently Vlad was determined that his own power be on a modern and thoroughly secure footing. In the place of the executed boyars Vlad promoted new men from among the free peasantry and middle class; men who would be loyal only to their prince.

Vlad Tepes? atrocities against the people of Wallachia were usually attempts to enforce his own moral code upon his country. He appears to have been particularly concerned with female chastity. Maidens who lost their virginity, adulterous wives and unchaste widows were all targets of Vlad?s cruelty. Such women often had their sexual organs cut out or their breasts cut off, and were often impaled through the vagina on red-hot stakes. One report tells of the execution of an unfaithful wife. Vlad had the woman?s breasts cut off, then she was skinned and impaled in a square in Tirgoviste with her skin lying on a nearby table. Vlad also insisted that his people be honest and hard working. Merchants who cheated their customers were likely to find themselves mounted on a stake beside common thieves.




Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Zahid]
    #2953053 - 08/01/04 07:34 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Zahid said:
Quote:

downforpot said:
Very well said.

Zahid, what the fuck are you talking about? Terrorist attack?




Bombing cities = terrorism.




the US cavalry attacked villages of many indian nations slaughtering thousands of people, men, women, children, dogs and ponies... this was brough about by the Hitler of america, Andrew Jackson, a total of 6 million people died at his hands some are entire nations of people, the Biloxi people being one of them... this equates to terrorism as well but instead of being tried for the crimes even in a posthumus manor he it celebrated by having his face printed on US currency.

America = Terrorism... its the way of this government and it always has been.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2954500 - 08/02/04 01:57 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

We fought in Vietnam, but we didn't fight to win.

You sure napalmed and bombed millions of people to death. A helluva lot more Vietnamese died than US soldiers. People are still dying horrendous deaths in Vietnam thanks to the US chemical warfare.

We fought the first Gulf War against Sadaam, but we didn't fight to win. He then gassed his own people

Go read a history book man. You've got everything ass backwards. The gassing at Halabja was in 1988.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: JesusChrist]
    #2954664 - 08/02/04 02:39 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

We fought in Vietnam, but we didn't fight to win. We lost that war and we lost international credibility.




We lost credibility because we went in in the first place. Did you notice all the protests and the cultural revolution? The drafts? The killing of thousands of US soldiers, and many more Vietnamese innocents? Pulling out was the smartest decision we made in that war, because we shouldn't have even gone in

Quote:

We fought the first Gulf War against Sadaam, but we didn't fight to win. He then gassed his own people, and then systematically starved them while he built palace after palace. We ended up having to go back in a decade later.





We didn't have to go in at all. We now learn we didn't have a valid reason for going in, as many of us suspected all along, and still many other countries far worse than Iraq, some with actual nuclear weapons, are completely free from the US. Sudan has much more atrocities right now than Iraq has had a decade ago, and yet we don't deal with them, and it's doubtful we're going to either. The US shouldn't be the police of the world, and when we try with Iraq (if you call it trying) we get one of the smallest bullies on the playground, who already has a broken arm, while other ones walk behind our backs with guns drawn

Quote:

And just on the face of it, I don't like the principle of letting the other guy off the hook. If some nation makes us deploy our kids half way accross the world, they should know out front that they have an ass kicking coming to them when we get there. No way we should have let the Japanese go when we had them on the defensive. The only time you take your hand off of the throat of your opponent is when you go to get a better grip.




The leaders still in position after the war don't suffer from this sort of behavior. It's the lower and middle classes who are always historically the springs, and they receive the blows and casualities from sanctions, bombings, all the other "kicking the ass" that we do. Usually the leaders are either dead, captured or left alone by then

Quote:

I think some of the fellow travelers on this board are most bothered by the fact that we might actually win the war in Iraq. George Bush has gone on record that the only acceptable outcome is victory. That is the way I see it as well.




Haha, win! Depends on your definition of win I guess. We now learn we haven't even got a valid reason for going into Iraq, every reason we say is either false or is refuted simply because one of Iraq's neighbors in the region is much much worse for that reason, yet we've lost over a thousand US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians' lives. While before Iraq didn't have much noticeable terrorism, now it's a haven for terrorists wanting to get a shot at the US military and slaughter some soldiers, and we create more every day with our actions in the region

Though Bush was right about one thing. Iraq is a front of the War on Terror. The sad part about it, though, is that that's because we've made it one


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2955475 - 08/02/04 11:04 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Personally I think trying to moralise war is a big problem. Like this current melee - remember it was to be the first war without civillian casualties etc? A morally high war fought out of the sphere of the innocent downtrodden Iraqi. That made the gulliable folks back home feel a little better. So far how many Iraqi civillians have died?

The events of war are by definition immoral. War means suspension of human rights and normal law.

After wars there is always this thing where the winning side hauls up a load of the enemy for 'war crimes'. I don't get it, how can one side say the other has broken the rules of war. War means anything goes: War means rape, kill, torture, destroy, overwhelm in any way possible by any means possible. How can one side bomb the living hell out of the other, then pull the other side up for doing the same thing except somehow they did it illegally?

Sure we may be disgusted by their behaviour, but what massacres have we committed?

This is why when we knew there was a war starting out in the desert a couple of years ago we knew these things were to be necessary ingredients.

We didn't want this for the sake of a sham.

The Japanese definitely didn't deserve it, but then how many people caught in a war ever did deserve it? The poor and the innocent are sent as troops (or can only wait as civillians) to die, while the paranoid megolamaniacs sit in their safe citadels punching the air with glee as they move their toysoldiers across the map in front of them. The megolamaniacs probably don't even equate their toy soldiers with real people.

Generally speaking, they are a club - the ruling elite of the globe. That's why the Allies agreed not to bomb the Reichstag, and the Germans not to bomb the British Houses of Parliament, while the poor of those nations lost everything. The further you are from the hub of the club, the worse your treatment gets.

These people make everything into a war - drugs, crime, terror etc. Then we need them to fight it for us....wars with no end that fortify the position of the leaders.

And yes, the nukes dropped on Japan were a massive terrorist attack.

What was going to happen was going to happen, if however the USA and UK had acted differently in the 1920s, helping Germany recover it's honour and rebuilding the country, then Hitler would most probably never have been and WW2 would not have happened.

It was avoidable, just like this war.

Stop the war


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: downforpot]
    #2955520 - 08/02/04 11:15 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

for those of you out there that do not understand the word terrorism:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford English dictionary definition:

"Terrorism - the use of violence for political aims or to force a government to act, esp because of the fear it causes among the people."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The nukes dropped on Japan accurately fit that definition.


Pick up a dictionary, it's there.....or have Orwellian antics in your neighbourhood already changed the word's definition to suit the rulers? I'm sure they couldn't have changed all the dictionaries that quick....have they just brainwashed you into accepting their definition?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2955597 - 08/02/04 11:43 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

What was the purpose of bombing Berlin?


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2956250 - 08/02/04 02:42 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Re-defining "Terrorism" to include acts of war in the past sounds Orwellian to me. By that definition every act of war since the begining of civilization has been "terrorism". I dont buy it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956276 - 08/02/04 02:46 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I you've ever lived as a civilian through a war you might not say this. My wife's aunt is coming in a couple of weeks, she was a little girl in Rotterdam when the Germans bombed it, I'll ask her opinion.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Evolving]
    #2956392 - 08/02/04 03:10 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Hey everyone has there own definition and variation of meanings, on many words...

To me Terrorism and War are too very different things. Terrorism is usually aggression by non-uniformed people vs civilians and War is aggression by uniformed people vs civilians or soldiers. Of course any definition is going to have ambiguity...

Consider the definition of war - A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, cities, or parties.

So by that definition acts of "terrorists" could very well be interpreted as "war".


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956518 - 08/02/04 03:40 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Terrorism is usually aggression by non-uniformed people vs civilians...



The Bush administration seems think that those who target the U.S. military are terrorists...

Quote:

... and War is aggression by uniformed people vs civilians or soldiers.



I've seen the qualification of 'uniformed' before used to exclude perpetrators of organized violence from the definition of 'terrorists.' Why should uniforms make a difference? If a gang all wears blue bandanas, baggy jeans, blue plaid Pendleton shirts and white under shirts I guess they couldn't be considered terrorists regardless of their actions because of their uniforms...

and if jihadists all start wearing the same uniforms?

Similarly, I've seen the organized violent actions of states excluded from the definition of terrorism, merely because the actors were operating under the auspices of a government as official government agents. Minus the uniforms and being employed by an established state, what is the qualitative difference? What is the moral difference? Why does dressing alike and following the orders of a government provide legitimacy to barbarism?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956715 - 08/02/04 04:22 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I like Peter Ustinovs definition best - "War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Evolving]
    #2956747 - 08/02/04 04:34 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

I understand all of your points. I should clarify that just because there is a clear difference between terrorism and war neither is inherently legitimate or barbaric. There have been legitimate and barbaric acts of each. There is no inherent moral difference between terrorism and war, im sorry if i gave that impression off... Each act needs to be viewed and analyzed according to its own situation and your/my own interpretation.

Labeling the atomic bombing is "terrorism" or "war" isnt a good way to defend or denounce either. Whatever it was, many of the Japanese did not deserve it so i voted no. But I do think it was the proper thing to do.

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I like Peter Ustinovs definition best - "War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".


That makes some sense, and then by this definition all of the major players in WW2 were waging war not terrorism.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: DieCommie]
    #2956785 - 08/02/04 04:47 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Not sure. You'd surely have to call the germans behaviour in Poland and the Eastern Front terrorism. Things like the bombings of Dresden and London were pure terrorism too.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: CJay]
    #2956801 - 08/02/04 04:51 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Oxford English dictionary definition:

"Terrorism - the use of violence for political aims or to force a government to act, esp because of the fear it causes among the people."


the use of violence for political aims = terrorism?

i don't think so. that would make every action in every war (including even defensive violence) an act of terrorism. just because a definition is in the dictionary doesn't mean that the writer thought it through 100%. hell, there are over 200,000 words in the oxford english dictionary.

i would define terrorism as such:

an act of terrorism is an attack on civilians intended to cause most of its damage indirectly through instilling fear in members of the populace.

for example: terrorists did not attack the world trade center because this alone would damage our economy and cause chaos. it was intended to cause fear with the idea that that fear was far more powerful than the actual attack. were it destroyed by an earthquake, the effect of its destruction would be much less significant.

terrorists did not bomb trains in spain because a couple lost trains would damage spain in any significant way. the goal was not to kill people and destroy trains. it was to cause fear. the fear was the force behind of most of the attack's affect. if the trains had been destroyed by an accident, the effect wouldn't have been nearly as significant.

not all intentional attacks on civilians are terrorist acts. what makes a terrorist attack a terrorist attack is not only its intended recipients, but the extent to which fear is intended to be a factor in the damaging affects of the attack. if the act is intended to cause its real damage indirectly through intilling fear, it is a terrorist attack. if civilians are intentionally targetted for other purposes (such as everything ranging from purely genocidal intentions to "practical military necessity"), it is not.

before anyone jumps on me for defending the practice of intentionally harming civilians, let me say that i am not. i am only stating that not all instances of this can be correctly labelled as "terrorism". this doesn't reduce their moral severity.


Edited by mushmaster (08/03/04 03:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in W [Re: Xlea321]
    #2956809 - 08/02/04 04:52 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

"War is the rich mans terrorism, terrorism is the poor mans war".

so whether an attack is an act of terrorism or not depends not on the act, its recipients, and intended affects, but rather on how much money the aggressor has?  :smirk:

ok then.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How to handle terrorists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Phred 5,493 63 02/20/04 08:21 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* USA HAS GONE CRAZY - TERRORIST ATACKS!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
MAIA 13,480 143 09/12/11 01:34 PM
by wood_stones
* Can Terrorists Build the Bomb? trendalM 936 1 02/18/05 11:28 PM
by automan
* Arab states condemn decapitation, support nuking Florida afoaf 895 7 05/13/04 05:57 PM
by afoaf
* Nuke Mecca
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Great_Satan 5,891 142 01/16/05 02:29 AM
by SoopaX
* Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
spacedragon 8,306 148 06/21/04 08:26 AM
by st0nedphucker
* U.S. will use NUKES!
( 1 2 all )
Humidity 1,958 27 12/26/02 11:40 AM
by djamor
* Japan: A model for foreign policy?
( 1 2 all )
Tao 1,880 27 10/02/04 06:47 AM
by mr crisper

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,214 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.