What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-04-23
In Reply to: So, we are no better than terrorists? That answer - is absolutely crazy...nonsense.. THINK!!.nm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Well you can *know* what ever about terrorist, but you can't
preach about and demand change in the corruption in other countries and then not even be interested in the corruption in your own country.
no, not a lie. He is not a terrorist
but he certainly has ties to, and support from, some very very questionable people, and yes from terrorists. That makes him lacking in judgment at best, and certainly of questionable motives and character.
They don't care how terrorist's think...
They'd have to read what Middle Eastern experts - you know, people who have lived in or are from the Middle East would have to say. That would involve critical THINKING. Bush flaunted repeatedly the fact that he never consulted anyone about the situation in the Middle East before going to war. The only folks he consulted were...you guessed it - Rummy, Wolfy and the gang.
Terrorist Bush
Bush Told Blair of 'Going beyond Iraq'
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK
Saturday 15 October 2005
George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Bush said he wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.
The note is quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, by the British international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office, according to Mr Sands.
It is not surprising that Mr Bush referred to Iran and North Korea, or even Pakistan - at the time suspected of spreading nuclear know-how, but now one of America's closest allies in the war on terror. What is significant is the mention of Saudi Arabia.
In Washington, the neo-cons in particular were hostile to the Saudi royal family and did not think they were doing enough to quell Islamist extremists - 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were Saudis. But the Bush administration did not in public express concern about any Saudi nuclear ambitions.
In September 2003, the Guardian reported that Saudi Arabia had embarked on a strategic review that included acquiring nuclear weapons. Until then, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella despite the worsening relationship between Riyadh and Washington.
It is not clear how Mr Blair responded to Mr Bush's remarks during the telephone conversation, which took place on the eve of a trip to Washington for talks with the US president.
In his book, Blair's Wars, John Kampfner says that at the meeting the two leaders agreed to concentrate not just on Iraq ... but also the Middle East. But that was taken to be a reference to Palestine. Mr Blair wanted Mr Bush to express concern about the plight of the Palestinians to appease the Labour party.
Mr Blair at the time was careful to avoid any suggestion that the Bush administration intended to target other countries after the invasion of Iraq. However, for the first time he suggested there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
After the invasion, Washington adopted a calmer approach towards Iran, leaving it to Britain, France, and Germany to pursue a diplomatic course.
Despite hard evidence that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting nuclear technology, the Bush administration embraced President Pervez Musharraf as an ally against al-Qaida. Washington's relations with Saudi Arabia remain cool. Mr Sands does not shed further light on the issue.
Bush the terrorist
I see the world and the majority of America realizing, finally, that Bush is incompetent, a fool, not to be trusted and as much a terrorist as Osama..OMG, even conservative republicans are speaking out against Bush..Time to stop defending a fool, if you ask me..these next months/years will show the reasons for war were all lies, this whole administration is corrupt..These are great times for honest law abiding hard working Americans who did not drink the Kool-Aid..
They obviously believe there's only one terrorist in the world
I just don't understand why they think Bin Laden is the only terrorists. There are several major terror cells in the world all bent on destroying Western culture and Israel. I personally think Bin Laden is dead anyway.
Terrorist links
Can you PROVE beyond a shadow of DOUBT that this is TRUE?? sheesh!!
How exactly is it that a terrorist dresses? n/m
x
Don't forget a son of a terrorist.
x
You must mean a terrorIST attack, because sm
We are attacked by people who call themselves terrorists. Unless of course, you have terror attacks like some people have panic attacks.
The terrorist's best friend.
Is the Taliban on your Christmas card list as well?
You seem to have swallowed the leftist lies hook, line, and sinker.
Let's not forget to honor those hard-working, industrious Nazis while we're at it.
And the Sudanese guerrilas.
And the lonely, struggling serial killers and child molesters and suicide bombers.
We have had plenty of terrorist
AND after 9/11.
- USS Cole.
- 2000 New Year attack attempt at Los Angeles Airport, but stopped at Port Angeles, WA ferry terminal during Clinton.
- New York Bomb Subway in 1997 with Clinton in office.
My gosh, there is a whole list of terrorist attack attempts.
Now I am known as a terrorist and an extremist?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/
The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.
That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.
Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings.
The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," released last week by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide tells FOX News that the Obama administration "should immediately retract the report and apologize," saying that according to the report, pro-lifers, anyone who lost their jobs or are one of the thousands of military veterans who have fought to prevent another 9/11 could be suspect.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.
"Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."
The report follows a similar report released in January by DHS that detailed left-wing threats, focusing on cyberattacks and radical "eco-terrorist" groups like Earth Liberation Front, accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.
"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights," said Smith. "That's like saying if you love puppies you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."
U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, told FOX News he was "offended" by the report's suggestion that returning troops could be potential targets for extremist groups.
"I am very offended and really disturbed that they would even say our military veterans, our returning war heroes would be capable of committing any terrorist acts," he said. "Where do they get off doing that? I demand an apology from [Napolitano] and even the President of the United States."
Veterans' groups are also taking issue with the report, which says disgruntled vets are considered coveted recruits for groups looking for "combat skills and experience."
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists," the report reads. "[DHS] is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."
Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members.
"It's amazing they would single out veterans as a threat to this country," said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq. "It underscores a pervasive belief that some are trying to spread that veterans are victims and we're coming home as damaged goods that need to be coddled instead of celebrated."
The report prompted a harsh and swift reaction for the American Legion on Tuesday. In a letter to Napolitano, American Legion National Commander David Rehbein blasted the report as incomplete and politically-biased.
"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," Rehbein wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."
Napolitano said in her statement on Wednesday that she was aware of the letter, and plans to meet with Rehbein sometime next week.
"I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary."
"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not nor will we ever monitor ideology or political beliefs," read Napolitano's statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."
Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not.
"I must say it's chilling, it worries me a great deal," London said. "I never have encountered a time in American life when condemnation of a president is not permitted. This really did strike me as odd, indeed."
London called on President Obama to repudiate the right-wing report.
"What is the message here? That conservative organizations are not permitted to engage in any language that might be described as unfavorable to the president," London said. "Keep in mind this is entirely subjective to begin with."
Or one might think you are an Islamofascist terrorist sympathizer. nm
The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm
That sums it up.
Occupation is the ultimate terrorist act.
Let's get something straight here. Israel is the occupier and Palestine is the occupied. Steal their land, blockade their supplies, invade them, kill and maim them, impose a police state, sabotage their economy and THEN call them the terrorists...self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one. You have not one leg to stand on here. Terrorism breeds terrorism. Israel has not only cornered the marked on chaos in Palestine, but throughout the region as well. Bloodshed is their middle name. They wrote the book on savagery.
No dear. Perhaps massacres turn you on, but they certainly do not make me giddy. Nobody twisted my arm when I formulated my opinions on this issue, since it is based on my own life experiences, just like yours are. Wanna talk monsters? From where I sit, those would be the Israeli population who sits idly by in their complicity and turn a blind eye to the moral outrage on which they base their nationalism. That's the only thing that burns me.
Israel kicks the holy heck out of itself every time it goes on another one of its bloody rampages. The whole rest of the world, with the exception of the US (whose motives are none too clean either) abhors this behavior and no amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that fact. My other post already addressed the sheer folly of your suicide bomber reference.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the objective of Hamas missile fire is to bring attention of the world back to Palestine, the long forgotten and ignored, but as long as they are occupied, it is not that difficult to understand why they would like to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Since you are not in charge of Hamas militia, you hardly can pretend to be able to predict their future operations, except to parrot the endless propaganda you hear on US mainstream media.
As far as the Stone Age is concerned, Israel would like to think of itself as being all modern and civilized, but they can never join those ranks as long as they remain the occupying war criminals they have been since day one.
HAMAS is a terrorist group
nm
Santa protecting children from a terrorist
what's wrong with that?
and just where is the terrorist going to put that TNT--in the manager?
I guess if you were Santa you'd just try to give the terrorist a big ole hug...
You know it's pretty darn sad that Christmas is so darn political this year. This is a neutral statement because it's happening on both sides, liberal and conservative
Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon. There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq. As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
In my opinion, McCain is just as bad as the terrorist people because he obviously just wants to get
x
Towel-headed terrorist? Is that how you see ALL Moslems
a young man visiting his Kenyan relatives in search of his roots who is paying respect to his family and his host nation by donning traditional Dashiki and head gear. I also see a sense of pride in his expression...something that he is entitled to have. When in Rome...
McCain? A soldier who served his country with honor, came home and dumped his crippled wife and mother of his children, traded her in for a younger model, then turned around years later and exploited his POW status for political gain.
Where do you see this domestic terrorist stuff? I'd be interested in sm
viewing your list of what "they" (and who are "they"?) are classifying as dom terrorists?
As for Reagan, there was a good-sized depression in the early 1980s (which you proby don't remember, being of the Iraqi war vet age) - his policies were good for the rich but nobody else.
What is your definition of..
winning the war, Iraq and Viet Nam. What exactly does that mean, that there will democracy, an industrialized, technologically adept population? that we will overthrow the **terrorists** (where will they go??) and peace will be restored to the kingdom? I don't get what you think is going to be achieved by staying in Iraq. There has never been peace in the region and there never will be, NEVER unless Himself comes down here and changes things. And another question Islamofascists, who on God's green earth came up with that moniker? It is really quite bizarre, and a mouthful.
Where did you copy the chickenhawk piece from, just curious.
Thanks for the definition!
That is me..liberal to the core and so proud of it. Watching the debate last night I was shaking my head watching those old men with old ideas, so out of touch. Made me so happy that Im a liberal democrat.
Okay but by your definition
His BROTHER is in need! And if not him, definitely his aunt who is living in public housing, illegally at that (unless it's been refuted and I missed that part)
All I'm saying is you have to start at home. Family should come first. I would believe him a lot more about taking care of others if I saw him doing that, instead of just trying to tax us to take care of others.
On a side note, why in the heck does someone who makes almost 1M in 2006 get to claim a child care credit? Like they need that.
By definition it is...
a servile (submissive) self-seeking flatterer
The longer this goes on, the bigger terrorist breading ground sm
Iraq becomes. This is getting past ridiculous. Now, I don't think we should just pull out, but I think we need to let them have it, and there will be more US casualties, and get out ASAP.
Are there any good books on *the radical terrorist mind*? sm
and whose the author?
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
Or disagreeing with Bush gets you labeled a terrorist sympathizer?
The most absurd label to date.
Great, Obama has "class" and a terrorist friend
nm
On terrorist ties, since topic is popular for the moment
McCain link to private group in Iran-Contra case.
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/sections/politics/ci_10655363
October 9 after Palin and McCain called him a terrorist
someone yelled out 'kill him' but of course McCain's people say they cannot be sure if it was towards Ayers (spelling?)or Obama.
"Traitor, terrorist, treason, liar, off with his head"
You think this happened only in one place?
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/16/missouri-voter-sues-over-mccain-campaign-hate-speech/
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Grandmother_sues_McCain_for_hate_speech_1017.html
You could try googling "hate speech McCain rallies" and sift through the 516,000 hits yourself.
And you think that terrorist attack was planned in just a few months during his presidency?
nm
Definition of NWO from wikipedia
The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.
If your definition is accurate
which I highly dobut then I guess I'm a liberal because I don't pledge blind loyalty to Bush. On the other hand I don't think every word he says is a lie either. I think he is a human capable of human mistakes, but I don't think every problem in the world at this moment is Bush's fault like many on this board do. I think many people are obsessed with the fact there's a conservative in office. It wouldn't matter what their name was Bush or Smith, the obsession would be the same. There are many wacko theories out there on all sorts of issues, but some I have read here take the cake. You don't talk about any other issues other than Bush is fault of everything wrong in this world. To me, liberal or conservative, is a little off the deep end no matter what political ideology you come from.
Do we have a different definition for the word lie?nm
z
If you want a definition of racism...
read the creed for Obama's church...and read some of his pastor mentor's sermons...and some of the speeches and quotes of their friend Louis Farrakhan. That, my friend, is the very definition of racism. When you read the creed of the church, substitute the word "white" everywhere the word "black" is used and tell me it is not racist. We do NOT need a racist in the White House.
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
What is the definition of "wind bag"?
Once again, I just skimmed your post. You are much too fond of your own words.
I am pretty succint in my posts. There is no flip flop. I am stating history in black and white. It doesn't come from Common Dreams. I am explicit in sending the links for those to read them if they wish. I don't quote it. I think you got the market cornered on that maneuver.
Not much of value has come out of the coservative sector, from my point of view. All the sustainable social movements have been on a liberal front. It just so happens that we are a small faction and can get very little leverage, but when we do, it is for the benefit of all not just a few. Can the conservative sector say that? I don't think so.
This is not childish. It's political fact. If you makes you feel better to place the blame everywhere, well that's your right.
If you don't like my liberal thoughts or progressive ideas, don't read my posts. Continue to be a sheep.
Thanks, but I did not want a dictionary definition....
I wanted a *liberal* to define what that means to them...what are their views...what is the *platform* so to speak...what makes a *liberal* different from a *leftist?* Why is Obama not a liberal? That is the information I am seeking...not a dictionary definition. In a liberal's own words, so to speak.
I think that might be a stretch in the definition of
socialism.
Definition of choice
Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.
You choose your path, I'll choose mine.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
FYI...Here is the definition of stalking.
Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.
The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.
Stalkers use a wide variety of methods to harass their targets. The inventiveness, persistence, and obsessive nature of stalkers is almost unimaginable, until you have experienced being the target.
Stalking is a serious, potentially life-threatening crime. Even in its less severe forms, it permanently changes the lives of the people who are victimized by this crime, as well as affecting their friends, families, and co-workers. Law enforcement is only beginning to understand how to deal with this relatively new crime.
What's the definition of pubic?
.
Quick definition..sm
Marxist-Socialist
A philosophy-turned-governmental-ideology, usually mistaken for Stalinist/Leninist-Communist. This philosophy, although greatly misunderstood, is nothing more that the belief that the strong, the capable, and the powerful should support those too weak to support themselves. This philosophy, created by Karl Marx, was meant to be the fundamental building block for a utopian society, but was later taken up by a man named Lenin, who twisted and warped the pure isea of Socialism and turned it into Leninist-Communism. Later adopted by Joseph Stalin, who made the idea of Socialism a cruel cycle of death, hatred, and intolerence.
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
the definition of Christian
would be one that "follows" Christ -- by his example, his commands, etc. these creeps are NOT Christians by any way of measure.
Definition of cult
All you have to do is read the Faith board to see the similarities.
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Definition of a TOOL, taken from the
TOOL (tewl):
(n.) Someone who is used for the benefit of others. A person who lacks any real quality of life, because they reduce themselves to arbitrary and meaningless activity which wastes their existence and entirely eliminates who they are as an individual.
____________________________
Face it. If we're MT's, then we're ALL pathetic 'tools'.
|
