1 members appreciate this post.
So you really have no reading comprehension.
Originally Posted by MOTO13
The term terrorist is itself idiotic. The United States is a terrorist state in much of the world. It hasn't declared war on a large majority of the countries it has bombed. What, because a state did it, it's alright that some kids died?
That's my problem - not necessarily who was responsible for the Boston bombings. If it was Muslim extremists, it was Muslim extremists. Why would I bother saying otherwise?
But to honestly believe that 'terrorists' and 'Muslims' have been synonymous in the last decade because of an idiotic distinction made by idiots is... well, I think I've overused the word.
Who kills people for no reason, indeed, MOTO13? Why not US Marines, who murdered 24 people in Haditha in cold blood? Not combatants, not 'terrorists,' but the children and the elderly.
It's an event that's of note only because it wasn't ordered. Look at the Collateral Murder video. That was ordered - I suppose it must be alright. After all 'shit happens' in war. 2 dead Reuters journalists become acceptable casualties once we realize - 'wait, we're totally at war there, what were they thinking?' Look at the tens of thousands - 9/11 dozens of times over - that have died in foothills and in the fields because they needed to farm a poppy field and didn't realize judgment was coming from halfway around the world.
Holy shit - what if 'the terrorists' declared war on us? Wouldn't it be totally alright for them to do what they're doing? I think so! Shit, 'in war' things are totes my goats straight different broski.
Not possible, though. They're not a country. This shit doesn't make sense. MY HEAD HURTS
Congratulations on living in fear in the world's most terrifyingly aggressive police state. You must feel so good that we're finally getting 'them Muslims' good. What Muslims? Who cares, they're all the same. Surely not the ones armed and trained by the CIA. Surely we didn't invade a state who, under a brutal dictatorship, benefited from the 4th best equipped land army in the world in 1991 (based on weapons the US and Europe sold to them), then managed to replicate the exact same idiotic scenario twelve years later because 'we' couldn't stop ejaculating weapons all over the rest of the world?
But hey, let's 'invade' Iraq because they have a tie to al-Qaeda, which is all terrorists all the time, never mind Iraq's originally 35% Sunni population. Except that they didn't have a tie to al-Qaeda, shit shit shit, what do we do? Well, Saddam's a horrible human being, let's blame him for the Halabja massacre. What? We removed Iraq from the list of states not to sell weapons to and directly marketed to him, allowing this? That doesn't sound right. We should free that part of the world right the fuck up and set it right.
I think, like anything else, MOTO13, I have to congratulate you. You're clearly unwilling to read what I'm writing. Beyond that, you're very stupid and a fairly standard bigot. The world is much more complex than either of us could ever imagine, and the way that it plays itself out requires all of us to try as best we can to understand the causes of violent actions. But the media-saturated soup in which we find ourselves kills the impetus to think. It becomes easier not to. It should make you mad. It makes me mad.
It sounds like only one of us is willing to try. I'll let you and your painfully-sized penis attempt to figure it out.
Last edited by T-6005; 05-01-2013 at 11:51 PM.