SternFanNetwork Archive - Another terrorist attack on American soil.

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Another terrorist attack on American soil. - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Pages: [1] 2

Another terrorist attack on American soil. - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

NoName

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...s_man_cops.html

We have to STOP terrorism!!

Billyfromsphily

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...s_man_cops.html

We have to STOP terrorism!!

Thats right . We have to subtrovert the Constitution. This man was a known TERRORIST with 7 previous occurences of TERROR!

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Thats right . We have to subtrovert the Constitution. This man was a known TERRORIST with 7 previous occurences of TERROR!

He caused TERROR in the heart of NYC. Why is this man not at GITMO getting the best torture money can buy?

NoName

Where are the right-wingers? Don't they care about terrorism?

DUDE-HERE

DUMB THREAD

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
DUMB THREAD

Not really DUDE, I'm making a point that you are smart enough to decipher. The fact that you find it dumb means you have an IQ over 70. This thread is designed for our right-wing friends to hang themselves. Please sit back and enjoy the fun.

flamslam64

I do not get your point? Are you saying that random violence against innocent people is the reason you define this as terrorism, the charge of attempted murder is not enough?

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by flamslam64
I do not get your point? Are you saying that random violence against innocent people is the reason you define this as terrorism, the charge of attempted murder is not enough?

Did the person create terror?

jigzaw

He's arguing that there's no such thing as "terrorism" because he doesn't like George Bush. This may help clear the confusion. From the American Heritage Dictionary-

"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."

CrackHead_Fan

I can see how the Libs confuse some guy stabbing another with terrorism. After all, terrorism is just a criminal justice issue, right? Not a military issue. We should make it our goal/policy to prosecute them. They'll fear our jails and court system so much, they'll stop in their tracks.

Nah, I'd rather we hunt them down and kill them.

fastfingersfunk

his point is that we should disregard international terrorism because we have murderers here lol. although they took action and found this guy. and if this guy was part of a network they would go after the network too. so really, noname doesn't have a point. he somehow thinks he's being clever but it's clear for eveyone to see, he is not.

JackAstor

NoName

So if this guy was named Muhammad Atta and had a turban on then it would be terrorism?

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
He's arguing that there's no such thing as "terrorism" because he doesn't like George Bush. This may help clear the confusion. From the American Heritage Dictionary-

"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."

My hate or love of anyone has nothing to do with the facts and the truth of your obvious fear of nonsense. Terror is terror. Now answer the question.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
I can see how the Libs confuse some guy stabbing another with terrorism. After all, terrorism is just a criminal justice issue, right? Not a military issue. We should make it our goal/policy to prosecute them. They'll fear our jails and court system so much, they'll stop in their tracks.

Nah, I'd rather we hunt them down and kill them.

First of all, you know nothing about me. Pat Buchanan thinks GWB has done a terrible job and I wouldn't call him a liberal. YES!! Terror is a criminal justice issue. Anybody that would die for their cause isn't scared of a Stealth bomber. You should take a sociology class. Simple people making simple statements.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
his point is that we should disregard international terrorism because we have murderers here lol. although they took action and found this guy. and if this guy was part of a network they would go after the network too. so really, noname doesn't have a point. he somehow thinks he's being clever but it's clear for eveyone to see, he is not.

Still walking around in a circle looking for an answer that is staring you in the face? Silly rabbit! I'm not that clever, I'm just stating the obvious.

zimmie

a violent act by someone mentally ill is a piss poor example of whatever point your confusing with terrorism...

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
a violent act by someone mentally ill is a piss poor example of whatever point your confusing with terrorism...

Define mentally ill? I think someone that would die to meet 70 virgins, mentally ill.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Still walking around in a circle looking for an answer that is staring you in the face? Silly rabbit! I'm not that clever, I'm just stating the obvious.

so tell us what you are stating, since it's staring us in the face and we can't see it lol.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Define mentally ill? I think someone that would die to meet 70 virgins, mentally ill.

define terrorist.

NoName

Terrorism: Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so tell us what you are stating, since it's staring us in the face and I can't see it lol.

not WE, YOU

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
define terrorist.

someone who creates terror.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Terrorism: Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.

ok so the guy is a terrorist in your article. now what is your point?

he was hunted, caught and prosecuted just like the bombers of WTC in 93.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
ok so the guy is a terrorist in your article. now what is your point?

he was hunted, caught and prosecuted just like the bombers of WTC in 93.

This happened yesterday so I don't think he was prosecuted yet.

CrackHead_Fan

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
First of all, you know nothing about me. Pat Buchanan thinks GWB has done a terrible job and I wouldn't call him a liberal. YES!! Terror is a criminal justice issue. Anybody that would die for their cause isn't scared of a Stealth bomber. You should take a sociology class. Simple people making simple statements.

Well, at least we've identified a real difference of opinion here. I think terrorism is a national security/defense issue, NOT a law enforcement matter. And that is a huge difference. But you have hit on one thing: anyone that would die for their cause isn't scared of the U.S. court system either. But my Stealth Bomber can kill him BEFORE he kills Americans. Your courts can't do anything until after.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
ok so the guy is a terrorist in your article. now what is your point?

he was hunted, caught and prosecuted just like the bombers of WTC in 93.

I wouldn't exactly say he was hunted.

mingmen

look at the liberal reaching across the aisle :p

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
This happened yesterday so I don't think he was prosecuted yet.

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
I wouldn't exactly say he was hunted.

so you don't have a point is what you are saying?

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Well, at least we've identified a real difference of opinion here. I think terrorism is a national security/defense issue, NOT a law enforcement matter. And that is a huge difference. But you have hit on one thing: anyone that would die for their cause isn't scared of the U.S. court system either. But my Stealth Bomber can kill him BEFORE he kills Americans. Your courts can't do anything until after.

So you think we should just bomb places just in case there is someone there that MIGHT hurt us one day. I think there is approx 6 billion people in the world, how many do you think want to hurt us?

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
look at the liberal reaching across the aisle :p

I love watching them try to define terror without inserting a foot into their mouths

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so you don't have a point is what you are saying?

Is that what you think? You are thick.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Is that what you think? You are thick.

then tell us what your point it. simple as that.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so you don't have a point is what you are saying?

he never said that you said that he said that you said that I said he said that you said...:zzz:

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
I love watching them try to define terror without inserting a foot into their mouths

there is no official definition of terrorism.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
he never said that you said that he said that you said that I said he said that you said...:zzz:

so you don't get his point either? or do you wish to relay it to us lol.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
there is no official definition of terrorism.

You should look it up, I see definitions everywhere. Is the guy who shot up Virginia Tech a terrorist?

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so you don't get his point either? or do you wish to relay it to us lol.

I am making fun of you and your idiotic arguing method, genius. your shit is ponderous :)

but nothing will slow you down: "there is no official definition of terrorism." :stretch:

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
then tell us what your point it. simple as that.

If you don't know my point then I have to be honest with you, you are an idiot. If you don't want to understand my point that makes you ignorant. If you don't agree with my point, then either make one of your own or leave the thread.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
You should look it up, I see definitions everywhere. Is the guy who shot up Virginia Tech a terrorist?

waiting for your point STILL.

There is no official definition of terrorism agreed on throughout the world, and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.

We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence.

But this doesn't mean that no one has tried to define terrorism! In order to prosecute terrorist acts, or distinguish them from war and other violence that is condoned, national and international institutions, as well as others, have sought to define the term. Here are some of the most frequently cited definitions.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I am making fun of you and your idiotic arguing method, genius. your shit is ponderous :)

but nothing will slow you down: "there is no official definition of terrorism." :stretch:

so no, you don't know what his point is.

and btw, these people define terrorism as having a political objective, of which this guy did not.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

—Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.

—Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.

—James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.

—Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

—FBI Definition

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so no, you don't know what his point is.

and btw, these people define terrorism as having a political objective, of which this guy did not.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

—Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.

—Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.

—James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.

—Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

—FBI Definition

what are babbling about mult? you said there was no official definition and now you give us a bunch of official definitions? but it is at least a half-step up from your usual "I never said that you said that I said that you said that he said...ad nauseum" garbage :bigup:

jigzaw

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
look at the liberal reaching across the aisle :p

I don't agree that the existence of terrorism depends on which Party you belong to. People of all political persuasions died on 9/11. Enjoy your black and white world.

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
I don't agree that the existence of terrorism depends on which Party you belong to. People of all political persuasions died on 9/11. Enjoy your black and white world.

I wasn't saying anything about terrorism, stupid

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
what are babbling about mult? you said there was no official definition and now you give us a bunch of official definitions? but it is at least a half-step up from your usual "I never said that you said that I said that you said that he said...ad nauseum" garbage :bigup:

i was giving an alternate view to his definition to show that there is no definitive defintion. i didn't say theirs were official you kook.

now about his point??? lol.

jigzaw

SAT question for the ostrich-heads:

If some murderers are terrorists, and all terrorists are murders, are all murderers terrorists?

mingmen

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i was giving an alternate view to his definition to show that there is no definitive defintion.

you mean that you really have no point? :ce:

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you mean that you really have no point? :ce:

my point is that his definition differs from others. STILL you don't know what his point is though.

four pages and nobody can figure out what he's trying to convey.

see how i stated my point above. that's how you do it.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE). LMAO

NoName

Post # 39

its-just-a-ride

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
waiting for your point STILL.

There is no official definition of terrorism agreed on throughout the world, and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.

We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," or agents of the government or the government themselves .). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence.

But this doesn't mean that no one has tried to define terrorism! In order to prosecute terrorist acts, or distinguish them from war and other violence that is condoned, national and international institutions, as well as others, have sought to define the term. Here are some of the most frequently cited definitions.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Post # 39

Post # 39:

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
If you don't know my point then I have to be honest with you, you are an idiot. If you don't want to understand my point that makes you ignorant. If you don't agree with my point, then either make one of your own or leave the thread.

how can i agree or not agree with your point if you haven't made one yet? and btw, i am making a point, and that is that you don't have one.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE). that's all you have to do.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by its-just-a-ride

He is the king of talking in circles. He takes both sides of the debate and doesn't even realize it. I think he might be a dum dum.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
He is the king of talking in circles. He takes both sides of the debate and doesn't even realize it. I think he might be a dum dum.

You can take my word for it ....he never gets the " point " ( he's too stupid )

fastfingersfunk

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE).

that's all you have to do.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
Post # 39:

how can i agree or not agree with your point if you haven't made one yet? and btw, i am making a point, and that is that you don't have one.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE). that's all you have to do.

You don't understand my point about terror being a tactic and not an enemy? You choose not to understand because you feel you will be proven wrong. You're ego does not allow you to learn because you are unwilling too. The fact that you think that I think I'm clever or smart for stating the obvious is sad.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
He is the king of talking in circles. He takes both sides of the debate and doesn't even realize it. I think he might be a dum dum.

you are almost right, i haven't taken a side yet, because you have yet to make a point.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE).

that's all you have to do.

harley-davidson

So the Crips, Bloods ,MS13 etc are all terrorists ?

I find it entertaining the righties want a society full of people scared of the big brown boogie man from the desert and there is barely a city street in the country safe after dark ....

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
So the Crips, Bloods ,MS13 etc are all terrorists ?

I find it entertaining the righties want a society full of people scared of the big brown boogie man from the desert and there is barely a city street in the country safe after dark ....

Exactly! It's hilarious. GWB says somebody's a terrorist and people just believe a habitual liar.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
You don't understand my point about terror being a tactic and not an enemy? You choose not to understand because you feel you will be proven wrong. You're ego does not allow you to learn because you are unwilling too. The fact that you think that I think I'm clever or smart for stating the obvious is sad.

ok, so terror is a tactic and not an enemy. profound point! lol.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
ok, so terror is a tactic and not an enemy. profound point! lol.

It's obviously VERY profound to you because it's taken 4 pages to state the obvious. Thanks for stopping by and don't forget to tip your waitress.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
So the Crips, Bloods ,MS13 etc are all terrorists ?

they are domestic terrorists since they terrorize people. i don't think anyone disagrees. did you have a point beyond that or is that it?

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
they are domestic terrorists since they terrorize people. i don't think anyone disagrees. did you have a point beyond that or is that it?

How do you think we should get rid of domestic terrorists?

zimmie

according to NN, a six year old who takes your five year old kid's lunch money is a terrorist...

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
according to NN, a six year old who takes your five year old kid's lunch money is a terrorist...

To that 5 year old, YES!

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
How do you think we should get rid of domestic terrorists?

the same way we should get rid of any terrorist or terror orginization, catch them and prosecute them.

NoName

I am leaving my office now. Would anyone else like to state the obvious before I leave?

zimmie

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
To that 5 year old, YES!

no he's not, he's just mean kid....

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the same way we should get rid of any terrorist or terror orginization, catch them and prosecute them.

Agreed. Should we bomb Compton?

MLBoros72s

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
How do you think we should get rid of domestic terrorists?

Bomb everywhere they might be with our stealth bombers! Or we can racially discriminate against them. That will do the trick, it won't feed into their extremism, give credence to their propaganda or cause them to be more vehement in their hatred.

NoName

Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
no he's not, he's just mean kid....

He is terrorizing a younger kid, which would make him...................Come on Zimmie, you can say it?

NoName

Alright kids, it's been a lot of fun. Please continue to post, I'll be at my desk at 10:30 am. Have a great night.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
they are domestic terrorists since they terrorize people. i don't think anyone disagrees. did you have a point beyond that or is that it?

Not sure where you're from, at any rate, you walk down a city street in north west Baltimore at 11:00 pm with a 6 pack in each hand and 5k watch on your arm....your chances of being killed are greater pick 1

A) A terrorists attack planed and plotted by Osama Bin Ladin and or a member of Al Quadea because he hates your freedom

or

B) American street thugs that care as much about your life or family as the example above

its-just-a-ride

Its an interesting philosophical debate but i'm happy to go with what i believe our governments roughly define terrorism by as Zimmie said...

"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."

Whats more interesting is if we judge ourselves and our allies by this standard you will find that the US, UK and Israel have committed state sponsored terrorism many times for a very long time.

CrackHead_Fan

Ha ha. I heard Belzer spewing this crap yesterday, saying "you can have a war on a tactic." Unfortunately, you shot yourself in the foot in the original post by using a criminal as your definition of a terrorist. You're suggesting he caused his victim to feel terror, which is surely true. But that isn't terrorism. Obama being elected President fills me with terror, but does that make him a terrorist? My girlfriend is afraid of spiders...are they terrorists? You see, your original point is flawed.

Now you and Belzer can say you believe there is no such thing as the War on Terror all you want, but its just semantics. The War on Terror is shorthand for a policy of preemptive strikes against hostile forces and the nations that support/protect them. And that DOES exist in the post 9/11 world. Furthermore, it is a "global" war, meaning the theatre of operations is not limited to a certain region.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the same way we should get rid of any terrorist or terror orginization, catch them and prosecute them.

Really ? we have the highest incarceration rate in the world...why does the problem continue ?

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by NoName
Agreed. Should we bomb Compton?

if the the perpetrators and affiliates had mortars, IEDs and heavey machinery, yes.

its-just-a-ride

Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan
Ha ha. I heard Belzer spewing this crap yesterday, saying "you can have a war on a tactic." Unfortunately, you shot yourself in the foot in the original post by using a criminal as your definition of a terrorist. You're suggesting he caused his victim to feel terror, which is surely true. But that isn't terrorism. Obama being elected President fills me with terror, but does that make him a terrorist? My girlfriend is afraid of spiders...are they terrorists? You see, your original point is flawed.

Now you and Belzer can say you believe there is no such thing as the War on Terror all you want, but its just semantics. The War on Terror is shorthand for a policy of preemptive strikes against hostile forces and the nations that support/protect them. And that DOES exist in the post 9/11 world. Furthermore, it is a "global" war, meaning the theatre of operations is not limited to a certain region.

"It's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counter-terrorism. That's a historical universal. Go back to Nazi propaganda. The most extreme mass murderers ever. If you look at Nazi propaganda, that's exactly what they said. They said they're defending the populations and the legitimate governments of Europe like Vichy from the terrorist partisans who are directed from London. That's the basic propaganda line. And like all propaganda, no matter how vulgar, it has an element of truth. The partisans did carry out terror, they were directed from London. "

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
Not sure where you're from, at any rate, you walk down a city street in north west Baltimore at 11:00 pm with a 6 pack in each hand and 5k watch on your arm....your chances of being killed are greater pick 1

A) A terrorists attack planed and plotted by Osama Bin Ladin and or a member of Al Quadea because he hates your freedom

or

B) American street thugs that care as much about your life or family as the example above

so the fact that you have a greater chance of being killed by a street thug means that we should ignore osama binladen and the threat of international terrorism to us and our allies? yes or no?

we don't ignore street thugs. when they commit a crime, we hunt them down. make up your mind.

fastfingersfunk

i was wondering if somebody would be stupid enough to convey noname's point, even he wouldn't do it. but step right up harley, you are the winner.

you think we should not hunt binladen because we have violent offenders here. and that IS the point you are trying to make. that's RIDICULOUS.

GREAT POINT! LMFAO!!!!

hey you know what, we have street gangs, so fuck binladen. fuck khalid mohammed. fuck the people that want to destory america!!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE!!! LOL!!!

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
so the fact that you have a greater chance of being killed by a street thug means that we should ignore osama binladen and the threat of international terrorism to us and our allies? yes or no?

we don't ignore street thugs. when they commit a crime, we hunt them down. make up your mind.

Again he misses the point :rolleyes: not only that but you just aren't very smart

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
Again he misses the point :rolleyes: not only that but you just aren't very smart

if you have a point other than that, go ahead and make it.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE). SIMPLE AS THAT.

MLBoros72s

Fix your problems before fixing the problems of others, basically. I would personally throw in the caveat that America must defend itself from imminent threats by stepping up intelligence worldwide while eliminating needless military bases.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i was wondering if somebody would be stupid enough to convey noname's point, even he wouldn't do it. but step right up harley, you are the winner.

you think we should not hunt binladen because we have violent offenders here. and that IS the point you are trying to make. that's RIDICULOUS.

GREAT POINT! LMFAO!!!!

hey you know what, we have street gangs, so fuck binladen. fuck khalid mohammed. fuck the people that want to destory america!!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE!!! LOL!!!

You are just absolutely one of the dumbest fucks that has ever posted here, you are 100% incapable of understanding.........................> Anything

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
You are just absolutely one of the dumbest fucks that has ever posted here, you are 100% incapable of understanding.........................> Anything

if you have a point other than that, go ahead and make it.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HERE). SIMPLE AS THAT.

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s
Fix your problems before fixing the problems of others, basically. I would personally throw in the caveat that America must defend itself from imminent threats by stepping up intelligence worldwide while eliminating needless military bases.

the thing is, just like street violence and people like the VA tech shooter, no matter how good your intelligence is, you aren't going to always be successful in stopping it. so while we do our best with law enforcement, that has NOTHING to do with an "imminent threat" from international terrorists. just because the LAPD or VA campus security didn't catch these crimes in the act, doesn't mean that we should ignore international terrorists. which i'm certain you agree on.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
if you have a point other than that, go ahead and make it.

MY POINT IS (INSERT POINT HEREFastfgggotfuck, ironpussy ,Holy Elvis ,sixsix666 is a brainless, pussy ,dumb fuck, fraud ). SIMPLE AS THAT.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the thing is, just like street violence and people like the VA tech shooter, no matter how good your intelligence is, you aren't going to always be successful in stopping it. so while we do our best with law enforcement, that has NOTHING to do with an "imminent threat" from international terrorists. just because the LAPD or VA campus security didn't catch these crimes in the act, doesn't mean that we should ignore international terrorists. which i'm certain you agree on.

Exxon/Mobile will now be allowed to let their no-bid contractors service the oil fields in Iraq, now I really feel safe from terror :rolleyes:

fastfingersfunk

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
Exxon/Mobile will now be allowed to let their no-bid contractors service the oil fields in Iraq, now I really feel safe from terror. and btw, I STILL HAVE NO POINT TO MAKE. :rolleyes:

harley-davidson

I refuse to hold your fucking hand like a God dam 10 year old and explain the basic principals of understanding a conversation, I bet your mother wishes everyday she swallowed you, I know the rest of the board @ SFN does .

jigzaw

People act like in New York, 3000 people weren't killed in just an hour by 19 guys. That's terrorism, assholes.

What do you guys suggest? We should just let them do it again but with more devastating effects next time? Should we invite them to nuke our cities? They're working on it. Shouldn't we work to stop them?

Oh that's right, as soon as a Democrat says "terrorism" then it'll exist.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
People act like in New York, 3000 people weren't killed in just an hour by 19 guys. That's terrorism, assholes.

What do you guys suggest? We should just let them do it again but with more devastating effects next time? Should we invite them to nuke our cities? They're working on it. Shouldn't we work to stop them?

Oh that's right, as soon as a Democrat says "terrorism" then it'll exist.

When Japan attacked Pearle Harbor we should have retaliated by bombing Africa

fastfingersfunk

what are you trying so say here exactly? can you tell me what your point is?

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
arm....your chances of being killed are greater pick 1

A) A terrorists attack planed and plotted by Osama Bin Ladin and or a member of Al Quadea because he hates your freedom

or

B) American street thugs that care as much about your life or family as the example above

jigzaw

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
When Japan attacked Pearle Harbor we should have retaliated by bombing Africa

We did react by bombing Europe.

harley-davidson

And by the way , Bush ignored specific warnings about terrorist using planes to attack the U S which he completely ignored for 9 fucking months, so your beef with " letting them do it " goes right to that fucking ranch in Crawford Texas where he was on " Vacation " too busy for such Nonsense as terror warnings

jigzaw

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
And by the way , Bush ignored specific warnings about terrorist using planes to attack the U S which he completely ignored for 9 fucking months, so your beef with " letting them do it " goes right to that fucking ranch in Crawford Texas where he was on " Vacation " to busy for such Nonsense as terror warnings

No doubt.
You're advocating going back to that state of ignorance.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
We did react by bombing Europe.

So Iraq attacked us and declared war on us....I missed that

:rolleyes:

Fdubya247

Who doesn't hate jigzaw at this point?

:rolleyes:

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
No doubt.
You're advocating going back to that state of ignorance.

No I am not

jigzaw

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
So Iraq attacked us and declared war on us....I missed that

:rolleyes:

Did Germany? I missed that.

In any case, I was and remain OPPOSED to the Iraq war. But pretending there's no such thing as Islamic radicals who are working to attack us and have already attacked us just because the president sucks is an exercise in suicidal stupidity.

jigzaw

Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Who doesn't hate jigzaw at this point?

:rolleyes:

You don't. You love me.

Your Ad Here

Powered by: Search Engine Indexer and vBulletin v2.3.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2002, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
All code and concepts property of iMonkey Inc.

This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans.
We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.

All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.