....As a hypothetical question: What if the vast quantities of oil had never been discovered in the Middle East?? Where would that whole region of the world be in the grand scheme of things?? What would their major source of income be? What would their industry specialize in? Without the "look what I found" luck of having all that oil under their land, how different would the region be? The wealth that comes with the oil industry has allowed for families and dictators to rule with an iron fist and keep the people oppressed and in line. Without the oil would the middle east be a democracy? Would their be any terrorism coming from that region? Obviously the oil wealth is a huge source of funding for terrorism. Would the middle east still even exist really? I am curious to hear anyones take on my question.

It would be another Africa?

Terrorism isn't really a problem from "the middle east". It's a problem in small groups all over the world. It just so happens that the U.S has done alot more ****ing around their because of oil. If they didn't have oil OFCOURSE terrorism wouldn't be an issue because YOU wouldn't have anything to do with them. They would be an africa. It's funny the extent to which the brainwashing has worked.

Without oil, the Middle East would be even more underdeveloped. These countries are the richest countries in the world and they still have some of the worst education. Instead of teaching their children about reality, all they teach is anti-Western values, so IMO terrorism is not an American problem, it's a Middle Eastern cultural problem. Let's not forget that these terrorists kill SO MANY of their own people in attempts to kill foreigners and people who support foreigners.

I really don't think anti-western values are the root of the problem. Give an example of an anti-western value that is related to terrorism.

This is an excellent question, and actually a lot of Muslim scholars really regret the fact that so much oil was discovered on their lands, because it has allowed oil barons and dictators to flourish in the region.

You have to remember that in the Middle Ages the Middle east was much more advanced than Europe, and actually helped to preserve the learning of Ancient Greece and Rome. After the Ottomans moved in the area full under the grip of what was essentially a military dictatorship, albeit one that did not have as much control over its dominions as the dictatorships do today. After the Ottoman Empire fell these places were reeling, and could have gone in many directions. Unfortunately, partly because of oil (and because of the Western world's thirst for oil) things ended up not so well.

Like I said, a lot of people in the Muslim world wish that the oil wasn't there, because without it things might have been better.

Lol, it would be an Africa. Yeah, there's nothing of value to ever come out of Africa ... except damn near all the diamonds in the world, lots of other minerals and precious commodities, raw materials, civiliazation ...

What an asinine remark.

Anyway, terrorists and freedom fighters are only identified by perspective.

The precious oil discovered there isnt' the reason for their troubles. Oil is actually relatively obsolete but perpetuated as a commodity due to GREED. Both of the West and the westernized monarchs and other social climbers who are modelling them.

Without oil, the Middle East would be even more underdeveloped. These countries are the richest countries in the world and they still have some of the worst education. Instead of teaching their children about reality, all they teach is anti-Western values, so IMO terrorism is not an American problem, it's a Middle Eastern cultural problem. Let's not forget that these terrorists kill SO MANY of their own people in attempts to kill foreigners and people who support foreigners.

We claim that terrorism is not an American problem but fundamentalism is just as present in the United States as it is in any other country. Our fundamentalism is just not in the form of Islam, as there are not as many Muslims in the United States as there on the Middle East. But there are fundamentalists none-the-less, they just are in a different form. Timothy MacVeigh was a fundamentalist in his own right, and also was to blame for one of the most prolific acts of terrorism in recent memory. The KKK could be viewed as a fundamentalist group which terrorises its own population. The problem of terrorism is not an 'eastern problem', it is a fundamentalist problem. All of the abortion clinic bombings were orchestrated and carried out by Christian fundamentalists-- the point is that we have been conditioned to think of this as being a Middle Eastern phenomena, whereas I think the problem is much more basic and universal.

We claim that terrorism is not an American problem but fundamentalism is just as present in the United States as it is in any other country. Our fundamentalism is just not in the form of Islam, as there are not as many Muslims in the United States as there on the Middle East. But there are fundamentalists none-the-less, they just are in a different form. Timothy MacVeigh was a fundamentalist in his own right, and also was to blame for one of the most prolific acts of terrorism in recent memory. The KKK could be viewed as a fundamentalist group which terrorises its own population. The problem of terrorism is not an 'eastern problem', it is a fundamentalist problem. All of the abortion clinic bombings were orchestrated and carried out by Christian fundamentalists-- the point is that we have been conditioned to think of this as being a Middle Eastern phenomena, whereas I think the problem is much more basic and universal.


...Nige please!!!! The terrorism commited on a daily basis by the middle eastern religious zealouts "out shines" by far anything that the KKK or the Timothy McVey's of the world could accomplish in one year of persistent attacks. It's an entire mindset and anti west way of thinking. The McVey's and KKK wanna be's are few and far between in the civilized world. "Death to infidels"!!! How many virgins to you get for killing infedels again??? Is it 19?? I can never remember the exact number but I know they are gonna get alot of quality pootie tang when they die for Allah. They certainly won't just become badly charred worm food for 20 years.

We claim that terrorism is not an American problem but fundamentalism is just as present in the United States as it is in any other country. Our fundamentalism is just not in the form of Islam, as there are not as many Muslims in the United States as there on the Middle East. But there are fundamentalists none-the-less, they just are in a different form. Timothy MacVeigh was a fundamentalist in his own right, and also was to blame for one of the most prolific acts of terrorism in recent memory. The KKK could be viewed as a fundamentalist group which terrorises its own population. The problem of terrorism is not an 'eastern problem', it is a fundamentalist problem. All of the abortion clinic bombings were orchestrated and carried out by Christian fundamentalists-- the point is that we have been conditioned to think of this as being a Middle Eastern phenomena, whereas I think the problem is much more basic and universal.


This man knows what he's talking about.

...Nige please!!!! The terrorism commited on a daily basis by the middle eastern religious zealouts "out shines" by far anything that the KKK or the Timothy McVey's of the world could accomplish in one year of persistent attacks. It's an entire mindset and anti west way of thinking. The McVey's and KKK wanna be's are few and far between in the civilized world. "Death to infidels"!!! How many virgins to you get for killing infedels again??? Is it 19?? I can never remember the exact number but I know they are gonna get alot of quality pootie tang when they die for Allah. They certainly won't just become badly charred worm food for 20 years.


Rhetoric!!!!!


For one thing, terrorist attacks are more common in the east because they are a war torn region because of oil that the U.S needs as they consume 20 percent of the worlds energy. The U.S has pulled strings in the middle east that have directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. These people live in a totally different world where the "good guys"(the U.S) bomb civilians for their agenda's, so they do it to. It's just that the U.S makes them look evil.

...Nige please!!!! The terrorism commited on a daily basis by the middle eastern religious zealouts "out shines" by far anything that the KKK or the Timothy McVey's of the world could accomplish in one year of persistent attacks. It's an entire mindset and anti west way of thinking. The McVey's and KKK wanna be's are few and far between in the civilized world. "Death to infidels"!!! How many virgins to you get for killing infedels again??? Is it 19?? I can never remember the exact number but I know they are gonna get alot of quality pootie tang when they die for Allah. They certainly won't just become badly charred worm food for 20 years.

I understand where one could recieve that impression based on the perceptions which are readily spread, but alot of it is exaggerated by the people who I would describe as being fundamentalists. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say that you will be rewarded with paradise for these suicide bombings, and the fundamentalist Muslims that claim otherwise simply do not posses the facts to back up their claims. The fact is that the perception of a Muslim equalling a terrorists is simply fallacious. Most Muslim men and women are no more likely to commit an act of terror then any Christian or westerner. I suppose what you and I are talking about it two different definitions of terrorism. I am pointing to the fact that most of the terrorist incidents in the United States have been comitted by non-arabic and non Muslim people. The Oklahoma City bombing was a westerner, the abortion clinic bombings were westerners, all of the assassinations of major American politicians have been carried out by westerners. School shootings were not carried out by people from the Middle East or Muslims. I would define all of these things as being acts of terror. As for the occurance of these acts in our more 'civilized' country, this is largely due to the fact that in the Middle East there are a couple of high profile states of conflict that really bring these ideas to the fore-front. Israel-Palestine and Iraq are always on peoples minds, but those are situations where the people of those countries, who just so happen to be Muslim, are in situations of very extreme circumstance, be it the presence of a foreign force or an age old dispute over the control of lands. In the United States there is no such crisis, and a result of this there are fewer occurances of civil unrest, yes this is true. But most of the acts of what I would call terror that are commited on American soil a perpatrated by Westerners and are no more often perpatrated by Muslims then any other religion.

I understand where one could recieve that impression based on the perceptions which are readily spread, but alot of it is exaggerated by the people who I would describe as being fundamentalists. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say that you will be rewarded with paradise for these suicide bombings, and the fundamentalist Muslims that claim otherwise simply do not posses the facts to back up their claims. The fact is that the perception of a Muslim equalling a terrorists is simply fallacious. Most Muslim men and women are no more likely to commit an act of terror then any Christian or westerner. I suppose what you and I are talking about it two different definitions of terrorism. I am pointing to the fact that most of the terrorist incidents in the United States have been comitted by non-arabic and non Muslim people. The Oklahoma City bombing was a westerner, the abortion clinic bombings were westerners, all of the assassinations of major American politicians have been carried out by westerners. School shootings were not carried out by people from the Middle East or Muslims. I would define all of these things as being acts of terror. As for the occurance of these acts in our more 'civilized' country, this is largely due to the fact that in the Middle East there are a couple of high profile states of conflict that really bring these ideas to the fore-front. Israel-Palestine and Iraq are always on peoples minds, but those are situations where the people of those countries, who just so happen to be Muslim, are in situations of very extreme circumstance, be it the presence of a foreign force or an age old dispute over the control of lands. In the United States there is no such crisis, and a result of this there are fewer occurances of civil unrest, yes this is true. But most of the acts of what I would call terror that are commited on American soil a perpatrated by Westerners and are no more often perpatrated by Muslims then any other religion.


So true, it's sad that the current administration has twisted this truth.

I seriously consider George Bush a fundamentalist.

I really don't think anti-western values are the root of the problem. Give an example of an anti-western value that is related to terrorism.
It's not just schools, but it's also the media. Al-Jazeer television and radio or whatever is basically just an anti-western propaganda machine. If you haven't noticed, there are not many media outlets over there and what they hear is what they believe. They don't have a sense of reality like most of us do and cannot distinguish right from wrong. These suicide-bombers really do believe that they are doing a good deed by blowing up innocent civilians. Why don't you give me an example of how they aren't anti-western, that's a much harder question to answer IMO.

It's not just schools, but it's also the media. Al-Jazeer television and radio or whatever is basically just an anti-western propaganda machine. If you haven't noticed, there are not many media outlets over there and what they hear is what they believe. They don't have a sense of reality like most of us do and cannot distinguish right from wrong. These suicide-bombers really do believe that they are doing a good deed by blowing up innocent civilians. Why don't you give me an example of how they aren't anti-western, that's a much harder question to answer IMO.


...Exactly, and this idea that they are basically just acting this way because it's "all our fault" is a frickin crock. There is no excuse for the sub human acts of terror that the middle eastern scum perpetrate on a daily basis. They take out their own people just to make a point. Yeah, I got your point alright. "yur a nutjob". Case closed. Those people were way ****ed up before we ever entered the scene and will still be ****ed up after we are done punishing them. The funny part is that if they were such loving and caring people then they wouldn't espouse such hatred and put up with such bull**** values and the presence of brutal dictators that murder their own people. If it wasn't for them luckily discovering oil we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Their having the good fortune of finding oil under their land is just like the frickin clampetts from the beverly hillbillies. Backwards ass religious nut jobs suddenly Nuevo Rich. Watcha reckon we outa spend this here money on paw er um Ahkmed???

...Exactly, and this idea that they are basically just acting this way because it's "all our fault" is a frickin crock. There is no excuse for the sub human acts of terror that the middle eastern scum perpetrate on a daily basis. They take out their own people just to make a point. Yeah, I got your point alright. "yur a nutjob". Case closed. Those people were way ****ed up before we ever entered the scene and will still be ****ed up after we are done punishing them. The funny part is that if they were such loving and caring people then they wouldn't espouse such hatred and put up with such bull**** values and the presence of brutal dictators that murder their own people. If it wasn't for them luckily discovering oil we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Their having the good fortune of finding oil under their land is just like the frickin clampetts from the beverly hillbillies. Backwards ass religious nut jobs suddenly Nuevo Rich. Watcha reckon we outa spend this here money on paw er um Ahkmed???

****, you know what pdbs? If you had been born there instead of the States you would have been just as much of a "nutjob". All you people think that you're so much better than everyone else and soo informed but you're just a bunch of sheep that listen to your political leaders and your news pundits...just like the people over there do. What makes you so better? If you had been born in Damascus you would be on some message board praising Allah and talking about blowing up Americans. ****, man.

****, you know what pdbs? If you had been born there instead of the States you would have been just as much of a "nutjob". All you people think that you're so much better than everyone else and soo informed but you're just a bunch of sheep that listen to your political leaders and your news pundits...just like the people over there do. What makes you so better? If you had been born in Damascus you would be on some message board praising Allah and talking about blowing up Americans. ****, man.


....Yeah, that absolutely would not be the case!!! Even if it was, I would at least wash my ass more than twice a month. :)

It's not just schools, but it's also the media. Al-Jazeer television and radio or whatever is basically just an anti-western propaganda machine. If you haven't noticed, there are not many media outlets over there and what they hear is what they believe. They don't have a sense of reality like most of us do and cannot distinguish right from wrong. These suicide-bombers really do believe that they are doing a good deed by blowing up innocent civilians. Why don't you give me an example of how they aren't anti-western, that's a much harder question to answer IMO.

Change "Al-Jazeer" (sp) into "CNN" and "anti-western" into "anti-eastern" and recognize the other half of the truth.

I really dislike how arrogant and ****y some people talk about the eastern world and africa. Like people over there would be some kind of 2nd class humans, half monkeys, half terrorists.

As Bombardier already pointed out the Middle East Middle East has a history of human civilisation extending back 5,000 years.

Arab world, under the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, was the centre of cultural and economic activity in the western half of Eurasia. While Europe endured repeated invasions and saw its population and economic life fall back sharply from the days of the Roman Empire, the great Arab cities such as Cairo, Alexandria, Basra, Damascus and, above all Baghdad supported a large population, a prosperous trading economy and a rich cultural life. Arab literature, architecture, medicine and science were far in advance of anything surviving in western Europe. In all of Christendom, only the fading power of Constantinople was able to compete with the Arab world.

The Middle East was the birthplace and spiritual centre of Judaism, Christianity and Islam long before anyone even knew or cared about the USA.

America might be the worlds most powerful nation right now but were was it 300 years ago and were will it be in 300 years from now?

Change "Al-Jazeer" (sp) into "CNN" and "anti-western" into "anti-eastern" and recognize the other half of the truth.

I really dislike how arrogant and ****y some people talk about the eastern world and africa. Like people over there would be some kind of 2nd class humans, half monkeys, half terrorists.

As Bombardier already pointed out the Middle East Middle East has a history of human civilisation extending back 5,000 years.

Arab world, under the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, was the centre of cultural and economic activity in the western half of Eurasia. While Europe endured repeated invasions and saw its population and economic life fall back sharply from the days of the Roman Empire, the great Arab cities such as Cairo, Alexandria, Basra, Damascus and, above all Baghdad supported a large population, a prosperous trading economy and a rich cultural life. Arab literature, architecture, medicine and science were far in advance of anything surviving in western Europe. In all of Christendom, only the fading power of Constantinople was able to compete with the Arab world.

The Middle East was the birthplace and spiritual centre of Judaism, Christianity and Islam long before anyone even knew or cared about the USA.

America might be the worlds most powerful nation right now but were was it 300 years ago and were will it be in 300 years from now?


....Just comparing CNN to Al Jezeera shows just how ****ed up your views are. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen. That dark, warm, ****ty beer your drinking may be killing more braincells than you can reproduce my man.

....Just comparing CNN to Al Jezeera shows just how ****ed up your views are. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen. That dark, warm, ****ty beer your drinking may be killing more braincells than you can reproduce my man.

I like you pbds and you know it, it's just that you have to stop to think that the world is either black or white. Most of it is grey. And while Al Jezeera reports news that favour their point of view CNN does exactly the same. The problem is that most of the news you get these days always come with a personal opinion. It's a big diference between "10 people hurt in terroristic act" and "religious fanatics keep on terrorizing -10 people hurt". Would have loved to give you a better example but I think you understand my point.

And the dark, warm, ****ty beer you refer to is more like an english speciality. I don't like Guiness either. But I have to admit that I drink a lot of other **** that might affect the quality of my posts. ;)

....Yeah, that absolutely would not be the case!!! Even if it was, I would at least wash my ass more than twice a month. :)

Either way, sorry to go off on you like that. It's a nice spring night here and I've had a few too many. Anyway, I got a little hot-headed, but forget about it.

Either way, sorry to go off on you like that. It's a nice spring night here and I've had a few too many. Anyway, I got a little hot-headed, but forget about it.


....Hey man, I'm just trying to get the lounge exciting again. Too damn quiet lately with too many people agreeing. :)

I like you pbds and you know it, it's just that you have to stop to think that the world is either black or white. Most of it is grey. And while Al Jezeera reports news that favour their point of view CNN does exactly the same. The problem is that most of the news you get these days always come with a personal opinion. It's a big diference between "10 people hurt in terroristic act" and "religious fanatics keep on terrorizing -10 people hurt". Would have loved to give you a better example but I think you understand my point.

And the dark, warm, ****ty beer you refer to is more like an english speciality. I don't like Guiness either. But I have to admit that I drink a lot of other **** that might affect the quality of my posts. ;)


...Just ****in with ya about the beer thing bro. And yeah I like you too and didn't mean to offend. I just get carried away with the political **** and I often say things that I really don't mean to come across like they often sound.

....Hey man, I'm just trying to get the lounge exciting again. Too damn quiet lately with too many people agreeing. :)

Yeah, that's cool, I understand, problem is that I've become one of the agreers. Maybe McKay will jump in on this thread and things will get going again :) .

...Just ****in with ya about the beer thing bro. And yeah I like you too and didn't mean to offend. I just get carried away with the political **** and I often say things that I really don't mean to come across like they often sound.

Nah, it takes a lil more to offend me as we had some hot discussions before. ;)

The main reason for people not responding to these kinda topics is that they lead nowhere. I've engaged in several discussions and wasted minutes of typing on complete ignorance. Most of the time you know what a certain user would post anyway.

is it because i m drunk and back from a night of drinking and dancing or we actually had an civilized and polite politic debate ???????

is boxing scene lounge finally maturing ?

pdbs , youre not fooling me anymore . stop pretending you are a narrow minded right wing , i KNOW youre an educated and quite intelligent individual . admit youre french , or at least admit you like playin the non PC guy in the lounge . i m gonna post my point of view when i m sober.

....Just comparing CNN to Al Jezeera shows just how ****ed up your views are. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen. That dark, warm, ****ty beer your drinking may be killing more braincells than you can reproduce my man.

Pbds, your not a bad guy but your ****ed-up when it comes to your politics, listen to dude he's very ****ing right.


And about the beer there is a saying up here in Canada. American beer is like making love in a canoe.....it's ****in close to water. I wouldn't go insulting other country's beer because yours sucks. and I've been to a few different countrys tasting too.

Pbds, your not a bad guy but your ****ed-up when it comes to your politics, listen to dude he's very ****ing right.


And about the beer there is a saying up here in Canada. American beer is like making love in a canoe.....it's ****in close to water. I wouldn't go insulting other country's beer because yours sucks. and I've been to a few different countrys tasting too.



....Yeah the beer thing was a joke intended for Dude and he knows that. I think your politics are ****ed up so that makes us even. Carry on!!!

....As a hypothetical question: What if the vast quantities of oil had never been discovered in the Middle East?? Where would that whole region of the world be in the grand scheme of things?? What would their major source of income be? What would their industry specialize in? Without the "look what I found" luck of having all that oil under their land, how different would the region be? The wealth that comes with the oil industry has allowed for families and dictators to rule with an iron fist and keep the people oppressed and in line. Without the oil would the middle east be a democracy? Would their be any terrorism coming from that region? Obviously the oil wealth is a huge source of funding for terrorism. Would the middle east still even exist really? I am curious to hear anyones take on my question.

If there were no oil in the Middle east, I think their top exports would be sand and glass and probably lead the world in "BONG" exports.

africa would probably be rich if it wasnt for the EUROPEANS stealing all their diamonds gold rubber plastic etc and stealing 100 million plus ppl

Terrorism isn't really a problem from "the middle east". It's a problem in small groups all over the world. It just so happens that the U.S has done alot more ****ing around their because of oil. If they didn't have oil OFCOURSE terrorism wouldn't be an issue because YOU wouldn't have anything to do with them. They would be an africa. It's funny the extent to which the brainwashing has worked.


Terrorism has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with religion and territory.

I understand where one could recieve that impression based on the perceptions which are readily spread, but alot of it is exaggerated by the people who I would describe as being fundamentalists. Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say that you will be rewarded with paradise for these suicide bombings, and the fundamentalist Muslims that claim otherwise simply do not posses the facts to back up their claims. The fact is that the perception of a Muslim equalling a terrorists is simply fallacious. Most Muslim men and women are no more likely to commit an act of terror then any Christian or westerner. I suppose what you and I are talking about it two different definitions of terrorism. I am pointing to the fact that most of the terrorist incidents in the United States have been comitted by non-arabic and non Muslim people. The Oklahoma City bombing was a westerner, the abortion clinic bombings were westerners, all of the assassinations of major American politicians have been carried out by westerners. School shootings were not carried out by people from the Middle East or Muslims. I would define all of these things as being acts of terror. As for the occurance of these acts in our more 'civilized' country, this is largely due to the fact that in the Middle East there are a couple of high profile states of conflict that really bring these ideas to the fore-front. Israel-Palestine and Iraq are always on peoples minds, but those are situations where the people of those countries, who just so happen to be Muslim, are in situations of very extreme circumstance, be it the presence of a foreign force or an age old dispute over the control of lands. In the United States there is no such crisis, and a result of this there are fewer occurances of civil unrest, yes this is true. But most of the acts of what I would call terror that are commited on American soil a perpatrated by Westerners and are no more often perpatrated by Muslims then any other religion.


School shootings cannot be considered a terrorist act. They are random and serve no political purpose at all. I would question whether abortion clinic bombings terrorist acts as well. Reason being is because the bombing of abortion clinics are more of a moral issue based on religious beliefs.

According to the definition, a terrorist act Includes school shootings and abortion clinic bombings.

Terror = extreme fear: violent dread: one who or that which causes terror. -ize = to fill with terror: to rule by intimidation. -ism = Mass-organized ruthlessness. -ist = One who rules by terror.

IMO - A student with a gun or an abortion clinic bombing certainly fit into that category. Terrorism is not just political.

According to the definition, a terrorist act Includes school shootings and abortion clinic bombings.

Terror = extreme fear: violent dread: one who or that which causes terror. -ize = to fill with terror: to rule by intimidation. -ism = Mass-organized ruthlessness. -ist = One who rules by terror.

IMO - A student with a gun or an abortion clinic bombing certainly fit into that category.

What definition are you looking at? According to Webster's dictionary, terriorism is a systematic use of terror used as a means of gaining some political end.

What definition are you looking at? According to Webster's dictionary, terriorism is a systematic use of terror used as a means of gaining some political end.

Websters as well. What is the full definition of Terror from your source?

Websters as well. What is the full definition of Terror from your source?

Terror- 1: a state of intense fear 2a: a cause of fear or anxiety 3a: Reign of terror b: the deliberate use of violence and brutality as a political weapon.

Terrorize - 1: to fill with terror or anxiety 2: to coerce by threat of violence.

Terror- 1: a state of intense fear 2a: a cause of fear or anxiety 3a: Reign of terror b: the deliberate use of violence and brutality as a political weapon.

Terrorize - 1: to fill with terror or anxiety 2: to coerce by threat of violence.

IMO - I think that #1 covers school shootings and abortion clinic bombings. The definition includes "terriorism is a systematic use of terror used as a means of gaining some political end." but it doesn't exclude "school shootings and abortion clinic bombings."

IMO - I think that #1 covers school shootings and abortion clinic bombings. The definition includes "terriorism is a systematic use of terror used as a means of gaining some political end." but it doesn't exclude "school shootings and abortion clinic bombings."

Yeah but school shootings are not a means of achieving a political agenda and neither are abortion bombings. So it does fit the definition of terror, but not terrorism.

Terrorism has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with religion and territory.

You have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with rhetoric.

You have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with rhetoric.

I could say the same to you.

OK, answer me this.

Why did the U.S invade Iraq?

OK, answer me this.

Why did the U.S invade Iraq?

I believe it was to remove a brutal dictator from power and to enable the Iraqi people to govern themselves without persecution.

I believe it was to remove a brutal dictator from power and to enable the Iraqi people to govern themselves without persecution.


Spoken like a true drone.


Why is it that the Bush administration didn't just say that instead of fabricating a bunch of lies that never checked out. Other Countrys are in even worse situations like in africa. But this particular dictator posed a direct threat to your counrty. At the same time, there was a man in North Korea saying, "I'm gonna get a nuke".

Alpha Male, I think that you and I just have two seperate definitions of terrorism and this is primarily why we differ on the issue, and don't get me wrong that is okay. I do, however, certainly think that even under your definition of terrorism fueled by political motivation think that the abortion clinics fit in, as the ultimate goal behind those bombings is anti-abortion legislation.

PBDS (or something along those lines), why do you have to come with the 'wash themselves' comment man? Just because other people are stooping to that level, don't feel tempted to join them- just rise above it all.

Yeah but school shootings are not a means of achieving a political agenda and neither are abortion bombings. So it does fit the definition of terror, but not terrorism.
You originally said
School shootings cannot be considered a terrorist act. They are random and serve no political purpose at all. I would question whether abortion clinic bombings terrorist acts as well. Reason being is because the bombing of abortion clinics are more of a moral issue based on religious beliefs.
You said "Terrorist Act" not "terrorism", according to the definition, - a "Terrorist Act" Includes school shootings and abortion clinic bombings.

As for "Terrorism" My dictionary saysTerror -ism = Mass-organized ruthlessness.. That would still include "abortion clinic bombings" and in many cases "school shootings"
If you don't agree you are entitled to your opinion. However I would still like to see the definition of terrorism from your source?

I believe it was to remove a brutal dictator from power and to enable the Iraqi people to govern themselves without persecution.

I agree, and other reasons

Spoken like a true drone.


Why is it that the Bush administration didn't just say that instead of fabricating a bunch of lies that never checked out. Other Countrys are in even worse situations like in africa. But this particular dictator posed a direct threat to your counrty. At the same time, there was a man in North Korea saying, "I'm gonna get a nuke".


Actually the Bush Administration did say that. Were you even paying attention? WMD was part of the reason, but not the only reason. This guy was on the same level as Hilter and Stalin. He may not have posed a direct threat to the US, but he definitely posed a direct to the entire Middle East. Perhaps you should stay of the infowars website for a while and stop listening to Micheal Moore.

Spoken like a true drone.


Why is it that the Bush administration didn't just say that instead of fabricating a bunch of lies that never checked out. Other Countrys are in even worse situations like in africa. But this particular dictator posed a direct threat to your counrty. At the same time, there was a man in North Korea saying, "I'm gonna get a nuke".Maybe the Bush administration believed the intelligence reports and there wasn't any lies. WMD was just ONE reason to go to war.

Spoken like a true drone.


Why is it that the Bush administration didn't just say that instead of fabricating a bunch of lies that never checked out. Other Countrys are in even worse situations like in africa. But this particular dictator posed a direct threat to your counrty. At the same time, there was a man in North Korea saying, "I'm gonna get a nuke".


...Wizard, I have a question for both you and Nige. If what we did in Iraq turns out to be the turning point towards freedom in the middle east and say 5 years from now it has brought about the spread of Democracy, then what will be your take on our move? If our actions lead to a domino effect for freedom and democracy and lessens the threat of terror worldwide then I say that nobody could cry about it years from now. That whole region of the world has been ****ed up for years because they have been ruled by dictators and royal families with an iron fist. When Regan took his hard line stance against the Soviets during the cold war all the liberals cried their asses off and *****ed and moaned. He had to listen to ***** assed Europeans(who we saved twice by the way) ***** and complain about his actions. Thank god he didn't listen and went his own way and made the hard decisions. It directly lead to the fall of Communism and Berlin wall being demolished. When it's all said and done I believe history will look back on what Bush did very favorably. I could be wrong, but what if I'm right??

You originally said

You said "Terrorist Act" not "terrorism", according to the definition, - a "Terrorist Act" Includes school shootings and abortion clinic bombings.

As for "Terrorism" My dictionary saysTerror -ism = Mass-organized ruthlessness.. That would still include "abortion clinic bombings" and in many cases "school shootings"
If you don't agree you are entitled to your opinion. However I would still like to see the definition of terrorism from your source?

The key word in your definition is Mass-Organized. School shootings and abortion clinic bombings are not mass organized. They are usually perpetrated by 1 or 2 individuals.

Maybe the Bush administration believed the intelligence reports and there wasn't any lies. WMD was just ONE reason to go to war.


....Every intelligence agency in the world believed they had weapons and I still believe they had them. Syria has quite a stash of those weapons right now I suspect. There is quote after quote of all of the Democratic leaders of this country saying that Saddam indeed had weapons as well. You can find quotes form both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy's drunken ass that all state that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction. Now, I really don't give a rats ass is they had em or not. A brutal dictator is gone, a threat is gone, and the world will be a safer place for it.

The key word in your definition is Mass-Organized. School shootings and abortion clinic bombings are not mass organized. They are usually perpetrated by 1 or 2 individuals.As I said school shootings can be - and sometimes are mass oganized as W/Columbine not 1 or 2. And abortion clinic bombings are also often Mass Organized.

Again, you originally said "Terrorist
Act" not Terrorism.

And again, what's the definition of "Terrorism" from your source?

You don't have to agree W/me. That's OK.

....Every intelligence agency in the world believed they had weapons and I still believe they had them. Syria has quite a stash of those weapons right now I suspect. There is quote after quote of all of the Democratic leaders of this country saying that Saddam indeed had weapons as well. You can find quotes form both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy's drunken ass that all state that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction. Now, I really don't give a rats ass is they had em or not. A brutal dictator is gone, a threat is gone, and the world will be a safer place for it. I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I could give you some more Karma

...Wizard, I have a question for both you and Nige. If what we did in Iraq turns out to be the turning point towards freedom in the middle east and say 5 years from now it has brought about the spread of Democracy, then what will be your take on our move? If our actions lead to a domino effect for freedom and democracy and lessens the threat of terror worldwide then I say that nobody could cry about it years from now. That whole region of the world has been ****ed up for years because they have been ruled by dictators and royal families with an iron fist. When Regan took his hard line stance against the Soviets during the cold war all the liberals cried their asses off and *****ed and moaned. He had to listen to ***** assed Europeans(who we saved twice by the way) ***** and complain about his actions. Thank god he didn't listen and went his own way and made the hard decisions. It directly lead to the fall of Communism and Berlin wall being demolished. When it's all said and done I believe history will look back on what Bush did very favorably. I could be wrong, but what if I'm right??

I am not really talking about the war in Iraq, just the state of terrorism in the world. Here is my take on the Iraq war, I am not positive that the democratization efforts will work, but at least that is something I can sympathize with. I actually wrote an entire essay on the prospects of democratization in Iraq, if anybody would like to read it I would be more then happy to forward it. I don't like the fact that the government lied to get us there, but I have gotten over that to an extent and am hoping for the best. If this had been past administrations (namely Clinton) then he would have been absolutely fried for lying to get us into a war. But because we know live in a country that is all things republican Bush gets a free pass. But really I guess that is not what is important, if this war starts a brushfire of democracy in the Middle East it will protect us years down the road, and there can be no disagreement about that. I really hope, now that we are there, this is what occurs. And I really don't know how things in Iraq are going to turn out, I don't think that anybody does. But as I said, I hope for the best. Ok, that's my take on Iraq in a nutshell.

As I said school shootings can be - and sometimes are mass oganized as W/Columbine not 1 or 2. And abortion clinic bombings are also often Mass Organized.

Again, you originally said "Terrorist
Act" not Terrorism.

And again, what's the definition of "Terrorism" from your source?

You don't have to agree W/me. That's OK.

Columbine was not mass organized. It was carried out by 2 people. Mass organized means a large group of organized individuals. Anyway, my definition of terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of gaining a political end.

Columbine was not mass organized. It was carried out by 2 people. Mass organized means a large group of organized individuals. Anyway, my definition of terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of gaining a political end.

Good enough for me, I've seem discrepancies in Webster's before. I have my opinion and you have yours. I'm not going to argue about Columbine.

Secondly (and COMPLETELY UNRELATED) the idea that Reagan ended the cold war is just dated and fallacious. Anybody who says otherwise is sorely mistaken. What ended the cold war and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union was a turn away from socialism towards capitalism and a free market by Gorbachev. What Reagan's tax cut's and increase in defense spending created was a wealthy upper-class and a huge national deficit. The idea that Reagan somehow managed to break the will of the Soviet Union by 'out-spending' them is just wrong. The Soviet Union had been decreasing defense spending slowly since Khrushchev died. They were when Reagan came into power and they continued decreasing defense spending when Reagan increased ours. The billions of dollars that were pumped into the 'star wars' program were a waste and the program never was close to working as the Soviet Union knew. The turn away from socialism was a result of the system being able to provide the people with luxuries that were granted to most others in 'the first world' and a proletariat that finally became fed up with the oppression that had been placed on them in the Stalin and post-Stalin years.

Secondly (and COMPLETELY UNRELATED) the idea that Reagan ended the cold war is just dated and fallacious. Anybody who says otherwise is sorely mistaken. What ended the cold war and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union was a turn away from socialism towards capitalism and a free market by Gorbachev. What Reagan's tax cut's and increase in defense spending created was a wealthy upper-class and a huge national deficit. The idea that Reagan somehow managed to break the will of the Soviet Union by 'out-spending' them is just wrong. The Soviet Union had been decreasing defense spending slowly since Khrushchev died. They were when Reagan came into power and they continued decreasing defense spending when Reagan increased ours. The billions of dollars that were pumped into the 'star wars' program were a waste and the program never was close to working as the Soviet Union knew. The turn away from socialism was a result of the system being able to provide the people with luxuries that were granted to most others in 'the first world' and a proletariat that finally became fed up with the oppression that had been placed on them in the Stalin and post-Stalin years.


...Wrong!!!! Most historians give credit to that admin and rightfully so. Star Wars may not have come off like they planned but the technology that we discovered in the process has proved invaluable. Our precision laser bombing and our advanced satelite capabilites can be attributed in part to that whole program. Besides, who says it was a failure? Can you say for sure that the US does not have a defense shield plan in place? If we did we probably wouldn't let anyone else know about it. Soviet leaders of that time acknowledge a fear of Regan and they admitted that he put them in a no win situation. If you wanna re-write history to please the liberal left and take credit away from the US once again then feel free. I suppose we didn't lend more than a little help during those two world wars either. Let's here your spin on that as well.

...Wrong!!!! Most historians give credit to that admin and rightfully so. Star Wars may not have come off like they planned but the technology that we discovered in the process has proved invaluable. Our precision laser bombing and our advanced satelite capabilites can be attributed in part to that whole program. Besides, who says it was a failure? Can you say for sure that the US does not have a defense shield plan in place? If we did we probably wouldn't let anyone else know about it. Soviet leaders of that time acknowledge a fear of Regan and they admitted that he put them in a no win situation. If you wanna re-write history to please the liberal left and take credit away from the US once again then feel free. I suppose we didn't lend more than a little help during those two world wars either. Let's here your spin on that as well.

Hahaha, man I am not even going to get into it over this-- it's not even what the thread is about and I was asking for trouble when I got off topic. You have your interpretation and I have mine, and regardless of which is the correct one it is not going to affect society today. So I am fine with each of us having our own views.

Hahaha, man I am not even going to get into it over this-- it's not even what the thread is about and I was asking for trouble when I got off topic. You have your interpretation and I have mine, and regardless of which is the correct one it is not going to affect society today. So I am fine with each of us having our own views.


....I hear ya man, have a great rest of the weekend.

You too...

...Wizard, I have a question for both you and Nige. If what we did in Iraq turns out to be the turning point towards freedom in the middle east and say 5 years from now it has brought about the spread of Democracy, then what will be your take on our move? If our actions lead to a domino effect for freedom and democracy and lessens the threat of terror worldwide then I say that nobody could cry about it years from now. That whole region of the world has been ****ed up for years because they have been ruled by dictators and royal families with an iron fist. When Regan took his hard line stance against the Soviets during the cold war all the liberals cried their asses off and *****ed and moaned. He had to listen to ***** assed Europeans(who we saved twice by the way) ***** and complain about his actions. Thank god he didn't listen and went his own way and made the hard decisions. It directly lead to the fall of Communism and Berlin wall being demolished. When it's all said and done I believe history will look back on what Bush did very favorably. I could be wrong, but what if I'm right??


Lol, I think that's the biggest longshot. I don't see it happening. Iraq is only one country and things are looking pretty ****ty there. Your admin makes it look like progress, maybe there has been a little with regards to a new Iraqi Gov, but don't be so ****y as to think that your counrty can spread democracy through the middle east. I think it's almost impossible and would take 100 years. The Berlin wall? From what I know east and west Berlin are still very different. Communism was just another reason for the U.S to bend their constitution and thump their chests just like Drugs, terrorism, and a number of other things the U.S has used to forward their hidden agendas.

Lol, I think that's the biggest longshot. I don't see it happening. Iraq is only one country and things are looking pretty ****ty there. Your admin makes it look like progress, maybe there has been a little with regards to a new Iraqi Gov, but don't be so ****y as to think that your counrty can spread democracy through the middle east. I think it's almost impossible and would take 100 years. The Berlin wall? From what I know east and west Berlin are still very different. Communism was just another reason for the U.S to bend their constitution and thump their chests just like Drugs, terrorism, and a number of other things the U.S has used to forward their hidden agendas.


....Just answer the question and quit spinning. What if it brings about all the things I said?? Then what is your take?

....Just answer the question and quit spinning. What if it brings about all the things I said?? Then what is your take?


Dude it's not spin!


Ok, I'll say it. If it does happen, which it won't. I would bow ****ing down. I wouldn't question any of your twisted lies and logic, or call conspiracy on anything. would be a drone like you. But it's not going to happen ok. I tell you what, if I'm still a member here if it happens, I will direct every point I ever get to your account. Look at how much money it's taken just to create the image of a safe and democratic Iraq! The ammount of money to do it to the entire middle east would be so mammoth it's just unrealistic. And that's just to creat the image od democracy, which is all that matters to your admin.

Dude it's not spin!


Ok, I'll say it. If it does happen, which it won't. I would bow ****ing down. I wouldn't question any of your twisted lies and logic, or call conspiracy on anything. would be a drone like you. But it's not going to happen ok. I tell you what, if I'm still a member here if it happens, I will direct every point I ever get to your account. Look at how much money it's taken just to create the image of a safe and democratic Iraq! The ammount of money to do it to the entire middle east would be so mammoth it's just unrealistic. And that's just to creat the image od democracy, which is all that matters to your admin.

If pbds is a drone I wouldn't want to mess with any drones. Have you seen a pic of the guy?

Pbds, your not a bad guy but your ****ed-up when it comes to your politics, listen to dude he's very ****ing right.


And about the beer there is a saying up here in Canada. American beer is like making love in a canoe.....it's ****in close to water. I wouldn't go insulting other country's beer because yours sucks. and I've been to a few different countrys tasting too.
I have to jump in about the beer argument. Saying our beer sucks is a little narrow-minded. Imports are probably about as popular here as Budweiser, etc. So popular they they too could be called an "American" flovor of sorts. I personally don't drink Bud, Miller, Michelob, etc. Don't really know anyone who does. So when you say our beer sucks, you're saying most of the world's beer sucks, LMAO.

BTW, my life-long friend is from Toronto. Don't go bragging too much, I know what's up.

Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the middleast prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the sanctions. The thing is the United States and Isreal and other interests did not want Iraq to become a regional superpower by annexing Kuwait which is a historical part of Iraq.

After the Persian Gulf War Iraq went to complete **** because during the war all the critical infanstructure like Highways, water distribution, Power stations, water sanitation centers, were bombed to oblivion, deliterately of course. As of result of the destruction of Iraq's infanstrucre and the sanctoins over 1 million Iraqies died of **** like dissentary, the flue etc... between 1991 and the new war.

If Iraq would have successfully annexed Kuwait they would have defintely become a regional superpower, and been rich as hell controlling such a huge amount of oil resources. Iraq would have had as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and Iraq was not a backward ass country like Saudi Arabia is. In Iraq it was not a law that women had to wear veils etc... Christians and other religions were not persecuted etc... And it was a socialistic semi democratic country compared to the backward almost absolute Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, Where the Saud family controll absolutely everything. If you do anything in protest of the Saud's in Saudi Arabia you get whipped as punishment and sent to prison even. Saudi Arabia is more of an opressive country now than Iraq was in 1989, However Saudi Arabia did not have need to invade other countries to increase their share world crude oil resources.

By the way the United States does not even get most of its oil from the M-east, most of it comes from Venezuela, Canada, Saudi Arabia is 3rd on the list. But it changes year to year.

And to name the 2nd war operation Iraqi Freedom :rolleyes:

Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the middleast prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the sanctions. The thing is the United States and Isreal and other interests did not want Iraq to become a regional superpower by annexing Kuwait which is a historical part of Iraq.

After the Persian Gulf War Iraq went to complete **** because during the war all the critical infanstructure like Highways, water distribution, Power stations, water sanitation centers, were bombed to oblivion, deliterately of course. As of result of the destruction of Iraq's infanstrucre and the sanctoins over 1 million Iraqies died of **** like dissentary, the flue etc... between 1991 and the new war.

If Iraq would have successfully annexed Kuwait they would have defintely become a regional superpower, and been rich as hell controlling such a huge amount of oil resources. Iraq would have had as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and Iraq was not a backward ass country like Saudi Arabia is. In Iraq it was not a law that women had to wear veils etc... Christians and other religions were not persecuted etc... And it was a socialistic semi democratic country compared to the backward almost absolute Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, Where the Saud family controll absolutely everything. If you do anything in protest of the Saud's in Saudi Arabia you get whipped as punishment and sent to prison even. Saudi Arabia is more of an opressive country now than Iraq was in 1989, However Saudi Arabia did not have need to invade other countries to increase their share world crude oil resources.

By the way the United States does not even get most of its oil from the M-east, most of it comes from Venezuela, Canada, Saudi Arabia is 3rd on the list. But it changes year to year.

And to name the 2nd war operation Iraqi Freedom :rolleyes:


....Isn't this crap a cut and paste from another thread????

I have to jump in about the beer argument. Saying our beer sucks is a little narrow-minded. Imports are probably about as popular here as Budweiser, etc. So popular they they too could be called an "American" flovor of sorts. I personally don't drink Bud, Miller, Michelob, etc. Don't really know anyone who does. So when you say our beer sucks, you're saying most of the world's beer sucks, LMAO.

BTW, my life-long friend is from Toronto. Don't go bragging too much, I know what's up.


If you ask me you can't include imports because they simply weren't brewed in your country regardless of their popularity. Corona is very popular in Canada, I don't consider it a Canadian beer. That's just my opinion I guess.

If you ask me you can't include imports because they simply weren't brewed in your country regardless of their popularity. Corona is very popular in Canada, I don't consider it a Canadian beer. That's just my opinion I guess.

Corona is excellent when it is hot out. It is what I have been drinking lately but only if you put a lime in the top of the bottle and poor it into a glass. Corona=best hotweather beer.

Corona is excellent when it is hot out. It is what I have been drinking lately but only if you put a lime in the top of the bottle and poor it into a glass. Corona=best hotweather beer.

I would have to agree it is the best during hot weather. I find Bavaria pretty good in hot weather aswell.

....I drink about a case of Corona a week. It's always hot weather down here in sunny Florida.

Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the middleast prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the sanctions. The thing is the United States and Isreal and other interests did not want Iraq to become a regional superpower by annexing Kuwait which is a historical part of Iraq.

After the Persian Gulf War Iraq went to complete **** because during the war all the critical infanstructure like Highways, water distribution, Power stations, water sanitation centers, were bombed to oblivion, deliterately of course. As of result of the destruction of Iraq's infanstrucre and the sanctoins over 1 million Iraqies died of **** like dissentary, the flue etc... between 1991 and the new war.

If Iraq would have successfully annexed Kuwait they would have defintely become a regional superpower, and been rich as hell controlling such a huge amount of oil resources. Iraq would have had as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and Iraq was not a backward ass country like Saudi Arabia is. In Iraq it was not a law that women had to wear veils etc... Christians and other religions were not persecuted etc... And it was a socialistic semi democratic country compared to the backward almost absolute Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, Where the Saud family controll absolutely everything. If you do anything in protest of the Saud's in Saudi Arabia you get whipped as punishment and sent to prison even. Saudi Arabia is more of an opressive country now than Iraq was in 1989, However Saudi Arabia did not have need to invade other countries to increase their share world crude oil resources.

By the way the United States does not even get most of its oil from the M-east, most of it comes from Venezuela, Canada, Saudi Arabia is 3rd on the list. But it changes year to year.

And to name the 2nd war operation Iraqi Freedom :rolleyes:

I disagree entirely Sadamm Hussein was an insane murdering dictator. Its up to America to spread freedom in the world. If if 1 million Iraqi children have to die the in the cause its worth it because the cause is so valiant. Even Madeline Albright Bill Clinton's secretary of state said so. She said the cause of "regime change" in Iraq was so noble that if 1 million Iraqi children die because of the sanctions and because the United States bombed all Iraq's infanstructure to oblivion its worth it because the cause is just so valiant. Operation Iraqi Freedom Baby! yeah!

I disagree entirely Sadamm Hussein was an insane murdering dictator. Its up to America to spread freedom in the world. If if 1 million Iraqi children have to die the in the cause its worth it because the cause is so valiant. Even Madeline Albright Bill Clinton's secretary of state said so. She said the cause of "regime change" in Iraq was so noble that if 1 million Iraqi children die because of the sanctions and because the United States bombed all Iraq's infanstructure to oblivion its worth it because the cause is just so valiant. Operation Iraqi Freedom Baby! yeah!

*chanting*
George BUSH, George BUSH, George BUSH.

*vomiting*

“We don’t do body counts”
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command


Heres your body count ya arrogant son of a *****!!

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Considering all the trouble we HAVE gone through for the oil we know they actually have....

I hope that doesn't happen.

....As a hypothetical question: What if the vast quantities of oil had never been discovered in the Middle East?? Where would that whole region of the world be in the grand scheme of things?? What would their major source of income be? What would their industry specialize in? Without the "look what I found" luck of having all that oil under their land, how different would the region be? The wealth that comes with the oil industry has allowed for families and dictators to rule with an iron fist and keep the people oppressed and in line. Without the oil would the middle east be a democracy? Would their be any terrorism coming from that region? Obviously the oil wealth is a huge source of funding for terrorism. Would the middle east still even exist really? I am curious to hear anyones take on my question.

http://img66.echo.cx/img66/7806/pumped6ke.jpg