More reason for you Terrorist Supporters to Cheer

[Melusine]

Christ... I know I have been avoiding this forum, since people on both sides have been astounding me in their rigidity to the point where I don't even want to bother any more, but when was it that YOU turned into a paranoid xenophobe Timber? "You Euros", "You terrorist supporters"? I thought you were a smart, discerning guy who usually refrained from generalisation and discrimination and who was capable of seeing both sides of an issue instead of adopting a blindly black-and-white viewpoint. If this is indicative of more widely spread feelings, then I am sickened and afraid. And really disappointed.

Sarah over and out.

Edit: grammar

[ 06-18-2004, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Lanesra]

You must realise Timber that somewhere else ,someone is posting the same sort of thing as you, only on behalf of the other side, they think they're right as well, then there's the others , the ones you call terrorist supporters, that can see that both sides have to take some blame, it dosn't mean they support terrorists, it just means they can see the middle ground, which is where we need to be if there's ever going to be any solution.

It would be easy for me to call America a supporter of terrorism, after all Noraid raised funds for years, whilst a blind eye was turned, Ira leaders took part in st patricks day parades, while us in the UK saw what good work the money was being put to , killing our Soldiers, kiliing innocent people, killing our politicians, planting their bombs in crowded pubs, then watching the carnage from afar.This dosn't happen so much these days, we had a meeting at a long forgotten place called Middle ground

It's easy to work out who you think these 'Supporters of terrorism' are, but if you looked deep enough, you'd know the title of this thread is Very wrong, and extremly offensive.

As donut said, name names, inform the authorites, it's your patriotic duty, but I don't think they'd find any Terrorist supporters here.

[Melusine]

Great post, Lanesra.

Personally I DO have trouble understanding the terrorists' side because I have trouble imagining the sort of things that would lead me personally to commit such atrocities (I think there are few of them, if any). But I do feel the middle ground should be sought, and that attempting to look into the enemy's head and try to understand what motivates him is preferable to just killing him because you can. Because as people have said countless times, with ONLY killing and nothing else, the cycle does NOT stop. Ever.
Anyway. Even this in my eyes pretty mild (i.e. non-extremist) stance would make me a terrorist supporter in Timber's eyes. In fact, "Just because someone claims to not be a terrorist supporter doesn't make it so. FACT is some argue in support of terrorists and/or against the US and Israel 100% of the time without fail." [my italics] - just arguing against the USA or Israel alone can get you labelled as a terrorist supporter.
It's not for nothing that I posted what I did above, I'm not normally the type of person to do that, but I am genuinely shocked by Timber's paranoia and... dislike.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Melusine: Personally I DO have trouble understanding the terrorists' side because I have trouble imagining the sort of things that would lead me personally to commit such atrocities (I think there are few of them, if any).

Thank you Mel! Despite the rhetoric of many who are trying to make a point, I think your's is the most realistic statement made in this forum regarding the overused 'understanding' argument.

Of course the middle ground should always be sought, but I'm not interested in what would make someone saw the head off a living human being because of his nationality.

I can understand the situation in the Middle East without having to understand the terrorists. I can understand what upsets those in the region without understanding what allows a person to say he is helping his fellow countrymen by killing them.

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Yet what is their Idea of paradise? 40 virgins waiting for them. And people want to say that some Christians are hung up these people are down right fruity. They don't want any lusting and skin shown here but wait until they get to paradise they got 40 virgins to play around with.

Why don't they just put '40 virgins' on their list of demands when they hijack the plane?

[Memnoch]

Settle down fellas...go and grab a coffee or something. Leave this thread for a while. Lots of pent-up aggression here. I realise you all have your points of view, and believe that each of you are right and the other is wrong, but you're not each others's enemies here. This is really petty, what you lot are doing here with all this pointscoring. What happened to the maturity and respect we're all supposed to display towards each other here?

If you want to continue discussing this, then leave your aggro at the door please and discuss it in a reasonable, civilised manner. If you can't do that then stay out of it, please.

[ 06-18-2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Dirty Meg: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Yet what is their Idea of paradise? 40 virgins waiting for them. And people want to say that some Christians are hung up these people are down right fruity. They don't want any lusting and skin shown here but wait until they get to paradise they got 40 virgins to play around with.

Why don't they just put '40 virgins' on their list of demands when they hijack the plane? [/QUOTE]You got me, I don't have a clue as to why they don't do that. Lordy I wouldn't stop at 40, that's only about a weeks worth

[John D Harris]

I'm going to defend TL on this one, just like I defended Skywalker before. TL wrote: "More reason for you terrorist supporters to cheer" If you don't support terrorists in the first place His comments don't apply to you, they only apply to those that support terrorists. It would be like if somebody wrote: "More reasons for you killers of innocents supporters to cheer" would not apply to me even though I support the war and innocents are killed in any war. The reasons for the war are not to kill innocents, thought that is an unitended consquence of war. Now if it was writen : "More reason for you war supporters to cheer it would apply to me". And once it applies to me then I have to ask myself what parts of it then apply, and why?

Just some thunks for people to thunk on.

[ 06-18-2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by John D Harris: I'm going to defend TL on this one, just like I defended Skywalker before. TL wrote: "More reason for you terrorist supporters to cheer" If you don't support terrorists in the first place His comments don't apply to you, they only apply to those that support terrorists.

Nice logic, but unfortunately it completely falls apart when you consider Timber's second post in this topic.

[ 06-18-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: I'm going to defend TL on this one, just like I defended Skywalker before. TL wrote: "More reason for you terrorist supporters to cheer" If you don't support terrorists in the first place His comments don't apply to you, they only apply to those that support terrorists.

Nice logic, but unfortunately it completely falls apart when you consider Timber's second post in this topic. [/QUOTE]Now did TL's second post come for no reason or was it in reply to something posted before? There are a couple of posts before TL infamous second post. You make the call for yourself I've allready made my call.