More reason for you Terrorist Supporters to Cheer

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Are you really siding with the terrorists on these abominable attacks?.... Or perhaps maybe TL titled his thread correctly?

I am curious how exactly my question equates to siding with terrorists?

Regardless, you have made a perfect example of how the terror supporter label is used as a giant dodge, rather than face or consider a perspective or line of questioning that doesnt fit the cut n dry "with us or aginst us" veiw.

Rather than just actually answering the question (Is attacking military recruits a terror attack or a military attack?) You also seem to feign like you do not understand it and try to sling some mud in my eye.

I bet Timber Loftis is proud of your performance. It is nearly equal to the "terror supporter accusation" show he has been performing for a few months now.

[ 06-22-2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

versus the terrorists/insurgents

Are they terrorists or are they insurgents? Are some terrorists, some insurgents, and some both?


We have two distinctly different things here. Terrorists attack civilian, insurgents attack military. The similiarity is both use unconventional tactics.

Clarity is important, lest two or more different things get confused as one. Of course Iraq is a confusing place in the last year or so, still it doesnt excuse obfusicating what few facts are available. The anti-American, Anti-interm Iraqi government factions cannot factually all be lumped together under the general heading terrorists.

Some are terrorist. Some are insurgents- former regime loyalists, nationalists and tribalists who dont want a puppet governemnt or a foriegn occupation. It make sense for such insurgents to strike at military recruits who are percived as cooperating with what they percieve as an illegitimate puppet govenrment and an occupation force.

Of course I do not support their violent actions, insurgent or terrorist, just as I did not support invasion of Iraq. If you wish to beleive otherwise, be that fool then. I could care less at this point.


Of course I am just speculating in the hopes of challenging some ideas. Digging to get to the truth hidden behind the terror supporter accusations and it's related spin. Hopefully other pespectives will be considered and new ideas pondered.

If it makes you terror supporter accusers happy to call all those fighting against the coalition/interm government terrorists, fine with me. I am simply pointing out it is not accurate and may or may not be accurate in this instance as well.

If you can read "terror supporter" into my line of reasoning, questioning, and speculating. Well I pity you for being so wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-22-2004, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Black Baron]

Terrorists can be insurgents, and vice versa. I do not find any particular reason why these 2 terms will nullify each other.
Here the terrorists made an attack on recruits. The attack does not undo their terrorist status. They simply chose to attack a military target. To answer the question-are X,Y,Z terrorrists, or not, we must look at all their actions. The overwhelming majority of actions made by these people, clearly indicate that they are terrorists. They killed so many civilians on purpose that it is clear that they are terrorists. Here lies also the difference between Army and Terror Organization. An army does not seek death of enemy civilians, whereas TO does.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Or perhaps maybe TL titled his thread correctly?

I'm reminded of a Warner Bros. character falling down stairs....

*ouch*
*thump*
*ooch*
*crack*
*eech*
*ack*
*owwwww!*
*thump*
*eeek*
*owww*
*oooch*

Or maybe
"Spin, parry, thrust, dodge, *sproingngnngngngng*

Look, MagiK Man, you DON'T want to be on my side of this debacle, I promise you. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
As gratifying as it might have been TL, I did not weigh in to take your side...Im trying to understand how someone can consistently be against one group and for another when one is obviously killing more innocents than the other.....purposely.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Are you really siding with the terrorists on these abominable attacks?.... Or perhaps maybe TL titled his thread correctly?

I am curious how exactly my question equates to siding with terrorists?

Regardless, you have made a perfect example of how the terror supporter label is used as a giant dodge, rather than face or consider a perspective or line of questioning that doesnt fit the cut n dry "with us or aginst us" veiw.

Rather than just actually answering the question (Is attacking military recruits a terror attack or a military attack?) You also seem to feign like you do not understand it and try to sling some mud in my eye.

I bet Timber Loftis is proud of your performance. It is nearly equal to the "terror supporter accusation" show he has been performing for a few months now. [/QUOTE]


It is not merely your question that equates...It is your historical record over time that culminates in this thread that makes me ask...how you can seem to have your cake and eat it too...you want to condemn any action taken by any US force, while seemingly excusing the actions taken by non-US persons whatever semantic label you wish to put upon them. I am not dodging anything...I am asking you straight up...Do you Side with the US forces in this matter here or do you side with their opposition? I seek only clarity on the issue. I was not responding to your question, I was not responding to a question, I was asking one of my own. So where do you stand? With the US or against the US? It is a simple either or question really...sort of like a yes or no question. Hopefully unlike politicians you will be able to answer in two or three words either way.

Oh and on second thought I did answer your question with these words.

People who are lining up to BECOME recruits ARE still civilians BY definition....do you not see that? and oh by the way, the people who worked in the shops surrounding this line..they were civilians too...and the passers by on the street? Yep civilians too...

What portion of that do you not understand?

[ 06-22-2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: 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 [/QUOTE]You know, there's a rather hilarious side-note to this

http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1...henixHorn.html

it's a ways down there, but according to scholars that are going back to the original text (Arabic is based off of Aramaic, Hebrew and IIRC another language) the "virgins" they are due upon entering paradise are actually grapes.

[ 06-22-2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Chewbacca]

It is not merely your question that equates...It is your historical record over time that culminates in this thread that makes me ask...how you can seem to have your cake and eat it too...you want to condemn any action taken by any US force,

Bullpoop. Everytime you come around this forum- suddenly you are the 'god' of my posting history, making a bunch of baseless claims you cant back up by distorting my "historical record".


You can take your anti-US accusations and insinuations and shove them far up where the sun dont shine and keep em there til they rot.

Do you Side with the US forces here or do you side with their opposition?

What do you think, Mr. Expert on Chewys posting history?

Why dont you post proof in the form of my own words to back up your claims and answer your own question.

Last time you came around accusing me on the grounds of my 'posting history' you wouldnt offer any proof to back it up. lets see if history repeats itself.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: It is not merely your question that equates...It is your historical record over time that culminates in this thread that makes me ask...how you can seem to have your cake and eat it too...you want to condemn any action taken by any US force,

Bullpoop. Everytime you come around this forum- suddenly you are the 'god' of my posting history, making a bunch of baseless claims you cant back up by distorting my "historical record".


You can take your anti-US accusations and insinuations and shove them far up where the sun dont shine and keep em there til they rot.


So the answer is? Against??...and so much for who is dodging what issues. and just for the record, you Don't even know my EVERY visit to this forum [img]smile.gif[/img]

I asked a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

Do you Side with the US forces here or do you side with their opposition?

What do you think, Mr. Expert on Chewys posting history?

Why dont you post proof in the form of my own words to back up your claims and answer your own question.

Last time you came around accusing me on the grounds of my 'posting history' you wouldnt offer any proof to back it up. lets see if history repeats itself.

Answer the question please? Don't dodge like you claimed others do....and were proven wrong I might add. I answered your previous question, now before I turn myself into your research puppy, why don't you answer mine? It really isn't a hard question. No more than a single word is really required....FOR or AGAINST.

[/QUOTE]Edit: Chewie, if you reread my posts carefully, you won't see anywhere that I called you anything. I asked a question, pure and simple.

[ 06-22-2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Chewbacca]

I asked a simple question that you seem unable to answer.

Actually unwilling, not unable. First-I dont have to anwer to you. Second- The line of questioning (or should I say accusing) is based on my alleged posting history, which is still unprovided by the accuser (you). Show exactly which of my words that are what you claim to base your interrogation on. Otherwise the premise on which the question is asked is baseless and seems to me to be highly biased.


(I'll give you a hint though- I ain't for the terrorists)

PS you may want reread my earlier post:

from chewys earlier post: Rather than just actually answering the question...

I did acknowledge you answered my question, you also made some unsupported claims about my posting history and implied, based on this alleged history, that I would support the terrorists or insurgents instead of my fellow countrymen.

I must question your credibility in relation to asking questions based on my posting history if you can't even read a recent post of mine correctly much less offer any of this alleged posting history to support the premise behind your interrogation.

Good day,

I made no claims about your posting, I made claims about my impressions of your postings. And Im glad to see you admitted that you dodged the question.. Thank you.