Conquer Club

notyou2 wrote:WHAT!!??!! They are torturing potheads and junkies to death now too???

THORNHEART wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

hecter wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

But we declared war on it...

Just like you declared a war on drugs. Doesn't make every pot head and every junky a war criminal.

MeDeFe wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

Seconded.

pimpdave wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

Seconded.

Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

pimpdave wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

Seconded.

Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

Seconded.

Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

hecter wrote:No, it was an act of terrorism.

Seconded.

Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?
really?? 9-11 was a horrendous tragic attack, so terrorists win?
well, if all a terrorist has to do is complete an attack, and then the gov't tries to arrest/crackdown on the terrorists, they win?
you are making my top 5 dipshits list.

oh, and if you live in a cave in tora bora fondling Osamas nut-sack, then, your statements make sense. forgive me if that is the case

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?
really?? 9-11 was a horrendous tragic attack, so terrorists win?
well, if all a terrorist has to do is complete an attack, and then the gov't tries to arrest/crackdown on the terrorists, they win?
you are making my top 5 dipshits list.

oh, and if you live in a cave in tora bora fondling Osamas nut-sack, then, your statements make sense. forgive me if that is the case

Since your level of comprehension appears to be fairly low I will spell it out for you: The terrorists are winning because virtually every western nation has sacrificed civil and human rights for general surveillance and a "shoot first ask questions later" mentality. At the rate things are going, within a few decades we will lose all the liberties that were achieved during a painstaking process which lasted several hundred years. What you call a "crackdown on terrorists" is a crackdown on everyone, fundamental and inalienable rights for every individual, the rule of law and the presumption of innocence that have been essential to every western democracy are by many seen as less and less important (you're a prime example).

The terrorists are winning because we're discarding the core values of freedom and liberty that have defined our societies and set us apart from the rest of the world, and you're happily cheering and helping things along. I'm sure Bin-Ladin appreciates your support and I hope you enjoy the taste of his nut-sack.

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?
really?? 9-11 was a horrendous tragic attack, so terrorists win?
well, if all a terrorist has to do is complete an attack, and then the gov't tries to arrest/crackdown on the terrorists, they win?
you are making my top 5 dipshits list.

oh, and if you live in a cave in tora bora fondling Osamas nut-sack, then, your statements make sense. forgive me if that is the case

Since your level of comprehension appears to be fairly low I will spell it out for you: The terrorists are winning because virtually every western nation has sacrificed civil and human rights for general surveillance and a "shoot first ask questions later" mentality. At the rate things are going, within a few decades we will lose all the liberties that were achieved during a painstaking process which lasted several hundred years. What you call a "crackdown on terrorists" is a crackdown on everyone, fundamental and inalienable rights for every individual, the rule of law and the presumption of innocence that have been essential to every western democracy are by many seen as less and less important (you're a prime example).

The terrorists are winning because we're discarding the core values of freedom and liberty that have defined our societies and set us apart from the rest of the world, and you're happily cheering and helping things along. I'm sure Bin-Ladin appreciates your support and I hope you enjoy the taste of his nut-sack.

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Had it been carried out by a sovereign nation, it would have been an act of war (and a really shitty one at that -- most sovereign nations don't start wars by intentionally attacking civilians). That's where things get muddy. Unfortunately, somewhere in the 20th century, leaders in America decided it was a good idea to declare war on concepts, rather than definable entities.

This should be GWOAQ (Global War on al-Qaeda) not GWOT.

There is just way too much to gain for everybody by calling it the war on terror. the restraints were lifted on how governments were going to handle terror post 9-11, and I dare to say the USA is hardly the country where people are sent to be tortured.

9-11 turned the world for the worst. That is the world we live in today. whatever you claim pre 9-11 thinking to be, it's a real concept. WE MUST find the best way to stop terrorists/protect civilians. al qada doen't play by the rules. They call for something extra.

I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?

No, because the country has, in that facet, sold it's soul to the devil in order to try to survive. Ironically, it wasn't necessary to make such a move in order to survive...just expedient.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?

No, because the country has, in that facet, sold it's soul to the devil in order to try to survive. Ironically, it wasn't necessary to make such a move in order to survive...just expedient.

I hear you, and I am of a similar sentiment. I only disagree that we have went as far as you are suggesting.

Whether or not we do some things, we at least need to be vocal. even if we aren't torturing, we need to uphold the image that "you don't want to be caught by us". even if we arent or are tapping everyones phone, we need to uphold the concept that "we are listening, we are protecting" (i know that doesnt work perfect and is abused like all things, but thats a different argument) Even if we struggle as a country to try to find the best way to deal with insane terrorist attacks of mass destruction, we need to keep a strong face and spirit, and have a pair of balls while we do it.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I bolded a few parts of your post. Those parts describe how the terrorists won.

really?? because gov'ts got tough on terror, the terrorists win?

No, because the country has, in that facet, sold it's soul to the devil in order to try to survive. Ironically, it wasn't necessary to make such a move in order to survive...just expedient.

I hear you, and I am of a similar sentiment. I only disagree that we have went as far as you are suggesting.

Whether or not we do some things, we at least need to be vocal. even if we aren't torturing, we need to uphold the image that "you don't want to be caught by us". even if we arent or are tapping everyones phone, we need to uphold the concept that "we are listening, we are protecting" (i know that doesnt work perfect and is abused like all things, but thats a different argument) Even if we struggle as a country to try to find the best way to deal with insane terrorist attacks of mass destruction, we need to keep a strong face and spirit, and have a pair of balls while we do it.

I agree with most of this. The only part I'd disagree with would be the "fronting", as that could do as much damage to our national "belief in our government" as it does to making the terrorists hesitate. If that makes sense.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:WHAT!!??!! They are torturing potheads and junkies to death now too???

Yeah, they're all being sent to Military Tribunals that sentence them with a life of hard-labor at the American equivalent of the GULAG, which is located in New Jersey if I'm not mistaken.

Snorri1234 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

notyou2 wrote:WHAT!!??!! They are torturing potheads and junkies to death now too???

Yeah, they're all being sent to Military Tribunals that sentence them with a life of hard-labor at the American equivalent of the GULAG, which is located in New Jersey if I'm not mistaken.

Not "located in" New Jersey, "is" New Jersey.

(CNN) -- A new audio tape allegedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for an attempt to blow up a plane en route to Michigan on Christmas Day and warns the United States of more attacks.

Phatscotty wrote:

(CNN) -- A new audio tape allegedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for an attempt to blow up a plane en route to Michigan on Christmas Day and warns the United States of more attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/24/bin.la ... tml?hpt=T2

radiojake wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

(CNN) -- A new audio tape allegedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden claims responsibility for an attempt to blow up a plane en route to Michigan on Christmas Day and warns the United States of more attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/24/bin.la ... tml?hpt=T2

I highlighted a word for you to take note of - There is a much chance this tape is from Bin Ladin as it is from anyone who gains to profit from this never ending war of terror (they are both as likely as each other)

The whole concept of a war on a non physical entity is ridiculous - Bush told us that the terrorists hate us because apparently the west stands for 'freedom, liberty and democracy' - Are they still going to hate us when all of those things are taken from us under the guise of fighting terrorism? -

For a country who is instinctivly ultra paranoid about everything their government does (you don't want them taking healthcare, because it will give them too much power - you don't want them running social services, because it will give them too much power) you seem mighty quick to bend over and let your government ram a whole lot of bullshit rhetoric up your ass under the guise of 'protecting' you all from 'terrorism' - It's like you don't trust them unless they are blowing the crap out of another country

Phatscotty wrote:it is newsworthy. I made no comments

Phatscotty wrote:It seems, with strong bipartisan requests from Congress, as well as independant NY mayor, that the Obama admin. may reverse its decision on a civilian trial after all, considering KSM. Eric Holder and President Obama, meet reality. Yes, you actually were out of your fucking minds afterall...