Human Rights Watch Reporting New Incidents of Detainee Torture by American Soldiers

[Dino Scuderia]

Originally Posted by nota

Depends on your POV

Initially, didn't ±70% of Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Does than make them idiots, or just dangerously naive & gullible?

Similarly, regarding the majority who supported America's terror-inducing invasion, murder, mayhem and destruction of Iraq .. does this make those promoters of violence (and the coalition forces who delivered such terror) terrorists too?

If that 70% is from a poll, they can be made to get any outcome you want. I don't know anyone here who thinks Iraq was responsible, I'm sure there were some confused people who did.

My answer to your second question is no.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

How cliche...

It was meant to be as your initial statment was totally that.

Here, some evidence on OTHER terrorsits groups around the world to help "adjust" the programming

http://www.fastload.org/te/Terrorist_group.html

And are you saytin ghtat if a group IS Muslim then it is a Muslim terrorist group ? What abotu those who are trygin to free their homelands from "dictatorship/opression" but they happen also to be Muslim ??

[Dino Scuderia]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

It was meant to be as your initial statment was totally that.

Here, some evidence on OTHER terrorsits groups around the world to help "adjust" the programming

http://www.fastload.org/te/Terrorist_group.html

And are you saytin ghtat if a group IS Muslim then it is a Muslim terrorist group ? What abotu those who are trygin to free their homelands from "dictatorship/opression" but they happen also to be Muslim ??

Again I never said there were no terrorist groups that weren't Muslim, my point is there are millions and millions of Muslims which increase the odds tremendously. Sheesh.

[lithuanianmafia]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

The irony of this statement is....if you see a Muslim there's a 99.9% chance they aren't a terrorist....on the flip side if you see a terrorist there's a 99.9% chance they are Muslim.

as Matra said, u must be a FOX-ist

you hafta consider many other groups that aren't muslim, but are still big terrorist organizations. There are Christian based terrorist organizations such as the KKK, and Army of God which has been a big part in many abortion clinic bombings. Another group to consider would be FARC in Colombia, which has thrown the whole country into a civil war. FARC control billions of dollars through the cocaine (and related drugs, such as crack) trade.

[Dino Scuderia]

Originally Posted by lithuanianmafia

as Matra said, u must be a FOX-ist

you hafta consider many other groups that aren't muslim, but are still big terrorist organizations. There are Christian based terrorist organizations such as the KKK, and God's Army which has been a big part in many abortion clinic bombings. Another group to consider would be FARC in Colombia, which has thrown the whole country into a civil war. FARC control billions of dollars through the cocaine (and related drugs, such as crack) trade.

Please read my other posts above, thanks. You guys are putting me in a box when what I'm doing is giving Muslims the benefit of doubt.

[lithuanianmafia]

here is a more extensive list of terrorist organization

[werty]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Werty, some advice, we can see the posts even if you delete them

yes i realize you love to snoop, and omg, im shaking in the presence of your power. You are a joke, and FYI, eggnog and I already solved the problem, so why dont you just shut it

[my porsche]

egg nog:i stand corrected

[PininfarinaPIMP]

No, you statement isnt correct, 99.9% of terrorists ARENT Muslim and the only reason you are seeing more terrorist that ARE Muslim lashing out is because America, the bullshit country, has decided to unjustifiebly invade a soveriegn nation. Dont tell me Saddam was evil and it was saving the people because if that was the case then the US should have been in the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, or Sierra Leone a LONG time ago. DeBeers and other diamond companies import conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone and the government lets it slide, and thats supporting terrorism by the way, because its bringing revenue into the country...

[Dino Scuderia]

Originally Posted by lithuanianmafia

here is a more extensive list of terrorist organization

Your link clearly states:

This directory of para-states is not a list of terrorist organizations, and is not constructed to supplement or complement the list of terrorist organizations of the US Department of State. The guide intentionally casts a wide net, and includes both the nasty and nice.

Nice try.

[Dino Scuderia]

Originally Posted by PininfarinaPIMP

No, you statement isnt correct, 99.9% of terrorists ARENT Muslim and the only reason you are seeing more terrorist that ARE Muslim lashing out is because America, the bullshit country, has decided to unjustifiebly invade a soveriegn nation. Dont tell me Saddam was evil and it was saving the people because if that was the case then the US should have been in the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, or Sierra Leone a LONG time ago. DeBeers and other diamond companies import conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone and the government lets it slide, and thats supporting terrorism by the way, because its bringing revenue into the country...

Why would I say we invaded Iraq to save people? Are you going to start putting words into my mouth to make your arguments? Show mw where I was discussing Iraq please. You and Nota brought up Iraq not me.

But I'm interested in your assertion that "the US should have been in the congo, Sudan etc." Are you saying it's okay to invade a country as long as it's one you approve of?

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

But I'm interested in your assertion that "the US should have been in the congo, Sudan etc." Are you saying it's okay to invade a country as long as it's one you approve of?

Dino, the original poster DID SAY "if that's OK then" prefacing the part you snipped above.

Puts the whoel thing into a different context and your comment deliberately sounds provocative.

THat's why avoidgin reading and creativley snipping from posts causes discussions to spiral into abuse.

He was posing the rhetorical question if Iraq was OK then why wasnt' their "contribution" in the others ??

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by werty

yes i realize you love to snoop, and omg, im shaking in the presence of your power. You are a joke, and FYI, eggnog and I already solved the problem, so why dont you just shut it

Mark that calendar. it's Werty's time of the month. Expect PMS-response every 28 days from this

Spot the SMILEY in the original post ????

"joke" ? "shut it" ??

W@NKER !!!!!

Apologies by PM please

[Dino Scuderia]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Dino, the original poster DID SAY "if that's OK then" prefacing the part you snipped above.

Puts the whoel thing into a different context and your comment deliberately sounds provocative.

THat's why avoidgin reading and creativley snipping from posts causes discussions to spiral into abuse.

He was posing the rhetorical question if Iraq was OK then why wasnt' their "contribution" in the others ??

Rhetorical or not the question is silly because you can't compare Iraq and it's relations with America to those other mentioned countries. He's comparing actions taken in interest and defense re Iraq to saving people etc. He asserted the 'saving the people' context, who knows why. Completely different circumstances are at play.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

Rhetorical or not the question is silly because you can't compare Iraq and it's relations with America to those other mentioned countries. He's comparing actions taken in interest and defense re Iraq to saving people etc. He asserted the 'saving the people' context, who knows why. Completely different circumstances are at play.

and yet many of the SAME circumstances are also at play.
Selectively choosing the "circumstances" for intervention has been the biggest issue raised by GW2.
I would suggest that is precisely why the point was raised and is valid.
By exploring and ratinalising the DIFFERENCES gives greater insight than just seeing the justifications in each case and attempting to tag them as "different".

It's on a par with seeing the strengths of Ferrari and Corvette rather than just "fanboy" supporting each car.