What do you know about terrorism?!

[TashaN]

I already have shown why, go back and read it. then try to respond to it with something of substance.

I asked you because i didn't understand what were trying to say earlier, isn't it obvious?

which is just a long winded way of saying you dodged the question. anyone noticing a pattern here?

I don't need to convince you, and if you think i dodged them so be it.

wow, how surprising. You are explaining why you can't respond...

From now on, i'll ignore any silly comment if you don't have a proper response. The "why don't you response and dodged questions" game is distasteful and silly and we are tired of seeing it all over and over in your posts. Following people and forcing them to answer your questions in your way is really an old fashion game of pushing your openent to the corner. I'll answer you and i don't care if you like my answers or not, and if you came again that i didn't answer your questions yet so i'll ignore, and sorry for that.

Not. That is war.

what was the example about Iraq, I didn't see it.

Really? so the Iraqis who are killing your fellow americans one by one in Iraq are not terrorists?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/11/wirq11.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/13/wgoogle13.xml

What do you call this then?

yes he does. That is the only way he could have sought to influence society or government.

Not according to the definition.

Insanity is not something you prove, it is something you determine. He was determined to be insane by a court of law a period of time before the shooting.

Can you give me any link for that? I'll be really thankful if you did, because it will clarify the misunderstanding we have about this issue. That's why i asked you to prove that it was determined to be insane by a court of law.

You can't simply assert that it didn't fail.

And you can't simply claim that it does.

I don't need to prove it.

As you wish.

uh... yes, you did change the rules of the thread. When you write an OP, it sets out certain guidelines , you left them open until I proved you were wrong. Then you changed the guidelines of the thread to rule out the way I proved you wrong.

You didn't prove me wrong, and i showed you clearly what i mean, and what i had in mind, and if you can't accept it then it's your right and no one will force you to discuss it with me anymore about it.

You don't seem to take it very well. Why not just accept that I gave a valid example showing your argument to be wrong. It isn't that difficult.

Valid is a way too far from your feeble arguments and boring tactics. I don't know how could you call it so.

Anytime Saudi Arabia takes out Al Qaida capabilities and personnel, they are helping in the war on terror. They are both fighting the same enemy.

The war on terror is not just about Al Qaida, it's about all countries who choose to say no to Mr. Bush.

Why wouldn't Bush say it if that is what is was? He is a Christian, if this were a war between Christians and muslims as you claim, then why would the christians be afraid to say it? Were the Christians afraid to say it in the past?

Those people in the past who share the same mentality like Bush today were brave enough in the past to admit it, but not today. Plus that, in the past the entire country was controlled by the Chruch but not today.

so you are saying that it necessarily has to mean a christian v. muslim crusade because Bush is a christian? I am sorry but I find that laughable.

I dismissed your quote because the very article you quoted it from dismissed the quote. I can't help it, the quote isn't reliable and the article itself said so.

What about these links?

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen ... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...075950,00.html

Also if someone claim that God speak through him so there is no secret he see everything from a religious point of veiw. For more information read these links below:

http://www.irregulartimes.com/godspeaksthroughme.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece

and guess what? They did.

Hmmm, let me see.

I didn't travel on that trip

He wasn't there.

You should have done your own research since you cited such a pathetic article in the first place.

You seem so angry, why is that? calm down man. I know it hurts but you have to be reasonable and face the truth when you see it, then admit it.

nope. I am saying: this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it.

I already did.

You hide from my questions and I answer all of yours. How is that fair?

You can't simply ask me to answer your questions in your way, that's so silly. I answered all your questions but you didn't like them, and you wanted specific answers in your mind to prove me wrong or guilty, and that tactic don't work on me, so get over it.

that in no way answers this:

1. In order for the use of the word "crusade" to constitute proof it could only have one meaning. If it has mulitple applicable meanings, you could not honestly say that the use of the word consitutes proof.

Unless the one who said such thing is religious by nature, through his words and actions.

2. You claimed it was "proof" that this war was about religion.

It was based on what Bush said "crusade war".

3. You have since admitted that you knew there was more than one understanding of the word.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Done.

 

[Comprehend]

I asked you because i didn't understand what were trying to say earlier, isn't it obvious?

ok. very simply. You said that the FBI was unable to provide a definition, I showed that they did provide a definition.

I don't need to convince you, and if you think i dodged them so be it.

From now on, i'll ignore any silly comment if you don't have a proper response. The "why don't you response and dodged questions" game is distasteful and silly and we are tired of seeing it all over and over in your posts. Following people and forcing them to answer your questions in your way is really an old fashion game of pushing your openent to the corner. I'll answer you and i don't care if you like my answers or not, and if you came again that i didn't answer your questions yet so i'll ignore, and sorry for that.

The only game that is being played is by you. You ignore or avoid many of the points I make that you can't address. That way I guess you hope that we only end up talking about issues that you think you can win while letting my arguments fall by the wayside.

You DO avoid responding to my questions and you DO dodge good points.

I can't help it, but I think it is unfair and rude to ignore half of my argument every time and focus on a few points that you think you can do well with.

What would you do if I simply didn't respond or gave nonsense answers to your good points? Wouldn't you point it out and try to get me to respond?

If you would simply respond to all of my posts with an actual answer, I wouldn't have to continue asking you to respond. Beleive me, it is terribly annoying to have to prod you to answer each issue.

Really? so the Iraqis who are killing your fellow americans one by one in Iraq are not terrorists?

What do you call this then?

in case you forgot, you asked for MY opinion: "What do you call..."

I gave you MY opinion. It is not terrorism, it is war. The US soldiers are not civilians.

Your links have nothing to do with your question, you asked what I called it, not what somebody else called it.

Not according to the definition.

yes, according to the definition. Without some outward evidence given by the shooter, you have no way to prove that he acted with "the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments..."

Can you give me any link for that? I'll be really thankful if you did, because it will clarify the misunderstanding we have about this issue. That's why i asked you to prove that it was determined to be insane by a court of law.

sure:

CNN also learned Wednesday that in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html

And you can't simply claim that it does.

cute. I didn't. What happened was I gave an actual reason why your analysis failed and then you responded with an assertion, then I repeated that you were wrong because I have given a reason and you have yet to refute it.

As you wish.

ok, but your analysis still fails.

You didn't prove me wrong, and i showed you clearly what i mean, and what i had in mind, and if you can't accept it then it's your right and no one will force you to discuss it with me anymore about it.

Of course I proved you wrong, you said:

"even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims."

What you are arguing here, is that you think that the only time anything is called terrorism is when it is done by a muslim. You said "NEVER". I proved you wrong with Eric rudolph.

Valid is a way too far from your feeble arguments and boring tactics. I don't know how could you call it so.

easy, Eric Rudolph was a perfect example proving you wrong. Insulting my argument won't change the fact that you are wrong.

The war on terror is not just about Al Qaida, it's about all countries who choose to say no to Mr. Bush.

really? do we fight France and Spain and Germany?

How is Saudi Arabia fighting for the Christians in this Christian crusade? LOL

Those people in the past who share the same mentality like Bush today were brave enough in the past to admit it, but not today. Plus that, in the past the entire country was controlled by the Chruch but not today.

maybe you don't know very much about a secular society. This country has never been controlled by a church.

What about these links?



Also if someone claim that God speak through him so there is no secret he see everything from a religious point of veiw. For more information read these links below:

http://www.irregulartimes.com/godspeaksthroughme.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece

They all are reporting the same thing from the same single article and as I have already shown you, the White House denied it and the only person saying it was a Palestinian.

Hmmm, let me see.

He wasn't there.

And?

He also said : MR. McCLELLAN: No, I checked into that report and I stand by what I just said.

sorry dude, didn't happen.

You seem so angry, why is that? calm down man. I know it hurts but you have to be reasonable and face the truth when you see it, then admit it.

please. You couldn't make me angry if you tried. You didn't do your research and you got caught.

I already did.

Really? care to show me this magnificent proof?

You can't simply ask me to answer your questions in your way, that's so silly. I answered all your questions but you didn't like them, and you wanted specific answers in your mind to prove me wrong or guilty, and that tactic don't work on me, so get over it.

I am only asking you to actually answer the questions. You keep hiding and dodging my posts. It is getting boring and annoying but I imagine that is what you want to happen, because you can't seem to respond to my points with any substance. It is always distraction and gamesmanship.

Unless the one who said such thing is religious by nature, through his words and actions.

It was based on what Bush said "crusade war".

Done.

I am not worried, everyone else saw what you did.




EDIT: Finally, I would like you to go back and answer all of the points in my posts that you ignored before we go on. I have made a number of arguments that you simply ignored and I guess hoped they would go away. I respond to your entire post, I think you could do the same. You can't just ignore my best points.

It is the only fair way to debate.

 

[Hema]

I'm sure you could find many sites around the internet where smearing members is much better appreciated than it is here. At the very least, you owe Truth an apology, Jay.

I second that! I'm sure Truth is not the person in the picture!

 

[TashaN]

ok. very simply. You said that the FBI was unable to provide a definition, I showed that they did provide a definition.

And they admit themselves that there is no universally accepted definition for terrorism. Go back and read what they said. Therefore, you can't claim that someone is a terrorist just because he is an enemy of your country, and the "i know terrorism and feel it when i see it" argument is invalid and i proved that for you already.

You ignore or avoid many of the points I make that ....

You DO avoid responding to my questions and you DO dodge .....

I can't help it, but I think it is unfair and rude to ignore half of my argument ...

What would you do if I simply didn't respond ....

If you would simply respond to all of my posts with an actual answer ....

Oh my, not again. I warned you already in my pervious post not to use this game again. :cover:

in case you forgot, you asked for MY opinion: "What do you call..."

I gave you MY opinion. It is not terrorism, it is war. The US soldiers are not civilians.

Your links have nothing to do with your question, you asked what I called it, not what somebody else called it.

You are denying a plain fact, that the media is calling those who defend their country terrorists and when i said in my pervious posts that the media is playing with incidents and use the word terrorism for their sole interest you denied it all over and over and thank you so much for showing people the double standard you hold. you deny in one hand that the media is using the word "terrorists" against it's enemies by default and now you said it was just your opinion, as your opinion would make these facts go away and vanish just because you said it's war, not terrorism.

So again, thank you for proving my points and showing people the double standard in using this word and how you turned it to a matter of opinion when you saw that the situation doesn't help you and your pervious arguments don't hold water.

yes, according to the definition. Without some outward evidence given by the shooter

The shooter is dead already. :biglaugh:

Dear Comp., does the definition state that the terrorist must leave behind a paper saying i will kill those because bla bla bla?

The definition doesn't say so. Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not fooling anyone here but yourself, because everybody can read the definition and there is no such thing as stating some demands in it.

sure:

CNN also learned Wednesday that in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html

Thank you so much, we are done about this incident by now.

cute. I didn't. What happened was I gave an actual reason why your analysis failed and then you responded with an assertion, then I repeated that you were wrong because I have given a reason and you have yet to refute it.

I did but you want a specific answer in your mind, and if i gave an answer you will go on and on with the "why don't you answer me and why are dodging questions" game and i'm really tired of it as everyone already is.

ok, but your analysis still fails.

lol. You wish.

Of course I proved you wrong, you said .... * $ # @

Sorry, lost in translation.

I proved you wrong

Opssss, ahh ahh ahhh not the same game again.

the fact that you are wrong.

Anddddddddddddd again.

really? do we fight France and Spain and Germany?

No, of course not, they are allies.

How is Saudi Arabia fighting for the Christians in this Christian crusade?

Ha? nonesense. Saudi Arabia fight for the Christians in a Christian crusade?

What are you talking about?

maybe you don't know very much about a secular society. This country has never been controlled by a church.

Of course, because there was no USA in the crusade war in the past.

Isn't that obvious? :areyoucra

Maaaaaaaaaaaaan. Do you really read what you post in here.

They all are reporting the same thing from the same single article and as I have already shown you, the White House denied it and the only person saying it was a Palestinian.

He wasn't there.

please. You couldn't make me angry if you tried.

I'm not trying to make you angry but i was checking on you because you were nervous a bit and i wanted to know if you were alright. Thank you that you showed me you are ok.

Really? care to show me this magnificent proof?

Go back and read, i don't like to repeat myself.

I am only asking you to actually answer the questions. You keep hiding and dodging my posts.

Catch you playing that game again. hahaha

you can't seem to respond to my points ...

I am not worried, everyone else saw what you did

Ok ok, i understand now. It seems that you have been terribly affected with this movie. I truely understand you fully by now. I know how you feel and it's ok.

I Know What You Did Last Summer

EDIT: Finally, I would like you to go back and answer all of the points in my posts that you ignored before we go on.

I answered to your so called points and the reamining is NOTHING but what i already highlited in this post in red for everyone to see your old fashion tactic. Do you really call that points?

I have made a number of arguments that you simply ignored

You can't just ignore my best points.

It is the only fair way to debate.

Yes, i can see that, and everyone can see your so called tactic to claim that you have unanswered points which is nothing but GREAT POINTS IN RED.




Well done.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Does anyone here feel that Iraqis are terrorists? If so why?

 

[Comprehend]

Does anyone here feel that Iraqis are terrorists? If so why?

only if they intentionally kill innocent civilians. So the folks who are blowing up truck bombs in crowded markets would be terrorists but I have no idea if they are Iraqi or not.

Whether you are a terrorist or not has nothing to do with who attacked who first if you were planning on saying that the Iraqi's were simply defending themselves. What makes one a terrorist is how they fight, not who started what.

Intentionally target civilians = terrorist.

I have no problem with Iraqi's who feel they have been invaded by America and want to defend themselves and their country as long as they fight other soldiers. I think the Iraqi's who do this have made a bad choice but they are honerable and I am sure they believe they are doing something good and right.

I have a hard time with those who drive a truck full of explosives into a market crowded with women and children and blow up fellow Arabs and think they have done something good.

 

[kadzbiz]

Does anyone here feel that Iraqis are terrorists? If so why?

I think this question is a little too inciteful FM, no offense. But one cannot group an entire nation of people into a single definition. Terrorists have a belief. They can be from any culture or country.......so I guess my answer is NO.

 

[Comprehend]

Truth,

All you do is delete until there is something you can respond to. LOL. Nice.

since all you did was throw a temper tantrum while dodging my entire argument. I will take that as an admission that you can't respond with anything of substance.

Your debating tactics seem to be limited to annoying the other person while deleting most of their posts in your replies until they get tired of you.

Why don't you go back and try responding to all the stuff you ignored or deleted from all of my posts in this thread?

oh yes, I know why, you have no actual answer.

All you are doing is trying to harrass me until the thread gets closed. Well sorry, forum terrorism isn't going to work this time.










lame buddy.





I thought you had something to back up your argument. My mistake.

 

[Comprehend]

I answered to your so called points and the reamining is NOTHING but what i already highlited in this post in red for everyone to see your old fashion tactic. Do you really call that points?

no, I call all the stuff you deleted and ignored my points.

I guess I shouldn't have expected too much as far as an actual argument goes, I know that it is a well established tactic in the middle east to run and hide when the real action starts. (not that I am saying YOU would do that of course because I'm not, nor am I saying you are from the middle east, the comment is purely theoretical). :sorry1:

 

[Sunstone]

***ADMIN POST***

Alright gang, quit pretending that your debate partners in this thread deserve to be called names or insulted. You're not going to solve a thing that way. Instead, remember there are people of good will on both sides of this debate. So, be civil.
​

 

[TashaN]

Well sorry, forum terrorism isn't going to work this time.

We are not done yet with the usage of this word.

I thought you had something to back up your argument. My mistake.

I did, but you didn't like my answers so i had no choice but to ignore your unfair demands to answer your points in your way.

I know that it is a well established tactic in the middle east to run and hide when the real action starts. (not that I am saying YOU would do that of course because I'm not, nor am I saying you are from the middle east, the comment is purely theoretical). :sorry1:

Smart move, you wanted to point out that i'm from the middle east and you represent USA for instance so like that you can make a comparison between what happen here in this thread and what happen today between USA and some countries in the middle east, but you tried to escape from any consquences as a result of what you said by claiming that it was just theoretical. Well done. :clap

Now, please if you really wants to debate this issue, stick to the real point in this thread which is the usage of the word terrorism and it's definition. I'll really respect that if you did, so all of us get benefit from the discussion, but if you are not satisfied with my answers or feel that i didn't answer your questions as you claim so i don't have anything to say but what i have said already before and i'll concentrate now on our topic because this is not one-to-one thread. I think you made your point that you believe i didn't answer your questions/points, and i stated my opinion for you so no need to repeat the same thing all over and over. If you kept folowing me to admit something which i don't believe in so that's not gonna happen. You made your point as i did. So, let's move on now.

Whether you are a terrorist or not has nothing to do with who attacked who first if you were planning on saying that the Iraqi's were simply defending themselves. What makes one a terrorist is how they fight, not who started what.

Intentionally target civilians = terrorist.

Now, according to the definition which i posted in the beginning of this thread:

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The USA is clearly a terrorist organization because she unlawfully used force and violence to intimidate and coerce the government, people of Iraq, and their properties for political reasons, and the Iraqi people are suffering from that until today.

I really feel sorry that a great nation like America fell a prey for Bush's dreams and wrong doing.

Carter: Bush 'worst president ever'

I have a hard time with those who drive a truck full of explosives into a market crowded with women and children and blow up fellow Arabs and think they have done something good.

USA and Britain are doing a good job in generating hate between brothers overthere.

Is Iraq Civil War By Design?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm

 

[Comprehend]

We are not done yet with the usage of this word.



I did, but you didn't like my answers so i had no choice but to ignore your unfair demands to answer your points in your way.



Smart move, you wanted to point out that i'm from the middle east and you represent USA for instance so like that you can make a comparison between what happen here in this thread and what happen today between USA and some countries in the middle east, but you tried to escape from any consquences as a result of what you said by claiming that it was just theoretical. Well done. :clap

Now, please if you really wants to debate this issue, stick to the real point in this thread which is the usage of the word terrorism and it's definition. I'll really respect that if you did, so all of us get benefit from the discussion, but if you are not satisfied with my answers or feel that i didn't answer your questions as you claim so i don't have anything to say but what i have said already before and i'll concentrate now on our topic because this is not one-to-one thread. I think you made your point that you believe i didn't answer your questions/points, and i stated my opinion for you so no need to repeat the same thing all over and over. If you kept folowing me to admit something which i don't believe in so that's not gonna happen. You made your point as i did. So, let's move on now.



Now, according to the definition which i posted in the beginning of this thread:



The USA is clearly a terrorist organization because she unlawfully used force and violence to intimidate and coerce the government, people of Iraq, and their properties for political reasons, and the Iraqi people are suffering from that until today.



USA and Britain are doing a good job in generating hate between brothers overthere.

Is Iraq Civil War By Design?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm

LOL. You went through all of that arguing to try to accuse the USA of being terrorists...

wake up alice... :slap:

If you refuse to answer my argument, I guess I won't answer yours either. I tried showing you by example how to answer posts. If you can't do it just say so and move on.

 

[TashaN]

I tried showing you by example how to answer posts. If you can't do it just say so and move on.

I'll not accept your claims that you are trying to teach me how to answer posts in here and i consider this to be so rude, because i'm not a child. So please, if you don't like to answer just leave and let others participate. Sorry to say this, and thank you for your participation.

 

[Comprehend]

USA and Britain are doing a good job in generating hate between brothers overthere.

Is Iraq Civil War By Design?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm

I have noticed you have quite a difficult time telling the difference between a legitimate website and a crack-pot website.

The website above is a crack-pot website. If you wan't anyone to take you seriously, you shouldn't quote from or read that website.

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw your link.

 

[Comprehend]

I'll not accept your claims that you are trying to teach me how to answer posts in here and i consider this to be so rude, because i'm not a child. So please, if you don't like to answer just leave and let others participate. Sorry to say this, and thank you for your participation.

how is that rude? I was answering all of your posts even though you ignored most of mine. I thought that you might follow my example and answer all of my posts. I also asked you to answer all of my posts and you mocked me. You also edited my posts to make them look dumb.

I thought I would try being a good example of how to respond. I am sorry if you get offended by that. If you don't want me to continually ask you to answer all of each post, then maybe you could just answer all of each post like everyone else does.

 

[TashaN]

I have noticed you have quite a difficult time telling the difference between a legitimate website and a crack-pot website.

Then stick to your CNN and FOX news and let others read my so called crackpot website. By the way, when you quoted my post, i don't know why you messed with the website letters and edited it. Anyway, for anyone who wants to read that link, the one in my original post work well, but not in Comp. posts when he quoted that link twice to mislead the reader giving him/her the impression that the link doesn't work. I hope he will fix that soon and requote the original link from my post # 51.

Thank you.

My original link (it works well): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/010306civilwar.htm

Comp. quoting my link (it doesn't work): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm

how is that rude? I was answering all of your posts even though you ignored most of mine. I thought that you might follow my example and answer all of my posts. I also asked you to answer all of my posts and you mocked me. You also edited my posts to make them look dumb.

I thought I would try being a good example of how to respond. I am sorry if you get offended by that. If you don't want me to continually ask you to answer all of each post, then maybe you could just answer all of each post like everyone else does.

Read post # 51. Your answer is there.

 

[Comprehend]

Then stick to your CNN and FOX news and let others read my so called crackpot website. By the way, when you quoted my post, i don't know why you messed with the website letters and edited it. Anyway, for anyone who wants to read that link, the one in my original post work well, but not in Comp. posts when he quoted that link twice to mislead the reader giving him/her the impression that the link doesn't work. I hope he will fix that soon and requote the original link from my post # 51.

Thank you.

My original link (it works well): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/010306civilwar.htm

Comp. quoting my link (it doesn't work): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm


Read post # 51. Your answer is there.

I didn't edit the link at all, I just clicked quote and the link didn't work. It's RF's software, I didn't do it. Thanks for trying to blame it on me though. I appreciate that.



You can take back your accusation now and apologize.

 

[Comprehend]

We are not done yet with the usage of this word.



I did, but you didn't like my answers so i had no choice but to ignore your unfair demands to answer your points in your way.



Smart move, you wanted to point out that i'm from the middle east and you represent USA for instance so like that you can make a comparison between what happen here in this thread and what happen today between USA and some countries in the middle east, but you tried to escape from any consquences as a result of what you said by claiming that it was just theoretical. Well done. :clap

Now, please if you really wants to debate this issue, stick to the real point in this thread which is the usage of the word terrorism and it's definition. I'll really respect that if you did, so all of us get benefit from the discussion, but if you are not satisfied with my answers or feel that i didn't answer your questions as you claim so i don't have anything to say but what i have said already before and i'll concentrate now on our topic because this is not one-to-one thread. I think you made your point that you believe i didn't answer your questions/points, and i stated my opinion for you so no need to repeat the same thing all over and over. If you kept folowing me to admit something which i don't believe in so that's not gonna happen. You made your point as i did. So, let's move on now.



Now, according to the definition which i posted in the beginning of this thread:



The USA is clearly a terrorist organization because she unlawfully used force and violence to intimidate and coerce the government, people of Iraq, and their properties for political reasons, and the Iraqi people are suffering from that until today.

I really feel sorry that a great nation like America fell a prey for Bush's dreams and wrong doing.

Carter: Bush 'worst president ever'



USA and Britain are doing a good job in generating hate between brothers overthere.

Is Iraq Civil War By Design?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm

link test




EDIT: it did it again. Why don't you try quoting your own original post and see what happens?


oh yes, and then apologize for the slander.

 

[TashaN]

My original link (it works well): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/010306civilwar.htm

Comp. quoting my link (it doesn't work): http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...06civilwar.htm

This is a test.

 

[TashaN]

Check it out now. There is nothing wrong with the software.