I would like to promote fear sometimes

and i am interested to spread sheer terror directed at a bunch of government officials each of whom demands outrageous bakshish for his individual approval required to remodel an old building which is protected by laws governing "national architectural inheritance". as these laws are in no way specific, clearly they will be winners and i will be the loser.

p.s. i don't oppose "tea money, bakshish, diri-dari, dash" or "useful/beneficial unspecified expenses". actually i appreciate "short cuts". but the demands of both sides should match!

Islamic terrorists kill more peaceful Muslims than "Infidels".

And the "infidels" do they kill more Muslims or do they kill more other "infidels"?

Naturally, a response would be heavy if the shoe is on the other foot.

Dear Chuck,

Please read your reply and consider reading the article I revered to.

Your reply:

I really think I can speak for the three of us that you seem to have indicted...we would probably concur that all such actions by our military are reprehensible. We would very likely applaud any prison sentence they receive if they are found guilty. Since their trial is ongoing as we speak I would probably wait until a verdict is rendered BEFORE I condemn them. You might consider doing the same.

The first one is convicted already. Yes technically speaking you are right mentioning "Them".

Last week Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock, 23, admitted his part in the twisted scheme and was jailed for 24 years.

Admitting his part in the scheme,means others were involved as well.

Are these act of terror or just murder?

Think about it....

ANC and Nelson Mandela - terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm

Mandella was a terrorist - no doubt about it.

In 1961, Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded.^[33] He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid.^[34] Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group.^[34]

Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kadesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela: "When we knew that we [sic] going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."^[35] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."^[12]

Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress.^[12][36]

Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid government in which many civilians became casualties.^[34] Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, sharply criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.^[37]

Mandella was a terrorist - no doubt about it.

But look at the history books in a hundred years time and there will be no mention of anything even slightly grey in his life. All will be whitewashed (sorry, blackwashed)

Such is history and man's memories.

ANC and Nelson Mandela - terrorists.

http://www.usatoday....watchlist_N.htm

YEP!

Guys, what has Mandela to do with this murder of some US soldiers in Germany?

The guy shooting these US soldiers might have been motivated by the atrocities committed by some of them US soldiers that are on the record..

Call it a pre emptive kill.

He would still face the court and be convicted as a murderer.

Guys, what has Mandela to do with this murder of some US soldiers in Germany?

The guy shooting these US soldiers might have been motivated by the atrocities committed by some of them US soldiers that are on the record..

Call it a pre emptive kill.

He would still face the court and be convicted as a murderer.

The Frankfurt shooter was not a terrorists.

Guys, what has Mandela to do with this murder of some US soldiers in Germany?

The guy shooting these US soldiers might have been motivated by the atrocities committed by some of them US soldiers that are on the record..

Call it a pre emptive kill.

He would still face the court and be convicted as a murderer.

The Frankfurt shooter was not a terrorists.

The Frankfurt shooter may be a terrorist...we don't know his history or ideology. The Frankfurt shooting incident was not a terrorist act.

AlexLah, bangkokeddy and Harcourt say that the Frankfurt shooter was not a terrorist.

Well that settles it for me. Judging by the rest of their posts, he must have been one.

AlexLah, bangkokeddy and Harcourt say that the Frankfurt shooter was not a terrorist.

Well that settles it for me. Judging by the rest of their posts, he must have been one.

Yep. This thread is done....at least for me.

AlexLah, bangkokeddy and Harcourt say that the Frankfurt shooter was not a terrorist.

Well that settles it for me. Judging by the rest of their posts, he must have been one.

I think you are a wise man.

AlexLah, bangkokeddy and Harcourt say that the Frankfurt shooter was not a terrorist.

Well that settles it for me. Judging by the rest of their posts, he must have been one.

I think you are a wise man.

Perhaps....within very minute circles. Personally, Not from my observations. Just saying like.

You guys, UG and Chuck D are walking away from the real question as most other people discussing this.

Why is the shooting and killing of some US civilians (dressed in army clothes) in your opinion a terrorist attack?

Why is the deliberate shooting and killing (by US soldiers) of an (Innocent) Afghan civilian not an act of terror?

Do you guys understand what act's of terror are, and how to define them?

Or do you just choose to walk away from the discussion when confronted with facts and some serious questions?

Facing reality, is apparently a hard thing to do for some.

Take care all!

Alex

You guys, UG and Chuck D are walking away from the real question as most other people discussing this.

Why is the shooting and killing of some US civilians (dressed in army clothes) in your opinion a terrorist attack?

Why is the deliberate shooting and killing (by US soldiers) of an (Innocent) Afghan civilian not an act of terror?

Do you guys understand what act's of terror are, and how to define them?

Or do you just choose to walk away from the discussion when confronted with facts and some serious questions?

Facing reality, is apparently a hard thing to do for some.

Take care all!

Alex

Alex:

I have answered your question to the best of my abilities. If you are unable to understand my response, it is your problem and no longer falls into an area that needs my further participation.

You can parse my sentences or rephrase your questions as many times as you like but please refrain from singling me out as one that is, in your words, not facing reality.

You many now start facing the reality that I will no longer respond to these inane questions any longer.

You guys, UG and Chuck D are walking away from the real question as most other people discussing this.

Why is the shooting and killing of some US civilians (dressed in army clothes) in your opinion a terrorist attack?

Why is the deliberate shooting and killing (by US soldiers) of an (Innocent) Afghan civilian not an act of terror?

Do you guys understand what act's of terror are, and how to define them?

Or do you just choose to walk away from the discussion when confronted with facts and some serious questions?

Facing reality, is apparently a hard thing to do for some.

Take care all!

Alex

Alex:

I have answered your question to the best of my abilities. If you are unable to understand my response, it is your problem and no longer falls into an area that needs my further participation.

You can parse my sentences or rephrase your questions as many times as you like but please refrain from singling me out as one that is, in your words, not facing reality.

You many now start facing the reality that I will no longer respond to these inane questions any longer.

The questions I asked are legitimate dear Chuck.

A perfect example of you not facing reality is when I pointed out the guy that was involved in killing some innocent Afghans and testified that he and his buddies did this just for the sake of killing someone. Him mentioning this was not an incident.

You said you did not know about this and asked me to provide a link, which I did.

Then you said to wait for a conviction and I showed you one of them was already convicted for this.

Who is in denial here dear Chuck?

Alex, the soldiers who killed civilians for fun aren't terrrorists. It was just plain murder. Nothing political about it. No trying to influence any country's policies. Just sick murder.

Alex, the soldiers who killed civilians for fun aren't terrrorists. It was just plain murder. Nothing political about it. No trying to influence any country's policies. Just sick murder.

So are you saying that killing civilians for political ideals or to try to influence a country's policies is terrorism?

Alex, the soldiers who killed civilians for fun aren't terrrorists. It was just plain murder. Nothing political about it. No trying to influence any country's policies. Just sick murder.

Of course it's political. Reflects the societal-political character of the individual. Defining terrorism and murder is a very fine line. How about SOCIOPATH?

Alex, the soldiers who killed civilians for fun aren't terrrorists. It was just plain murder. Nothing political about it. No trying to influence any country's policies. Just sick murder.

So are you saying that killing civilians for political ideals or to try to influence a country's policies is terrorism?

...some folks just don't get it, do they?

Alex, the soldiers who killed civilians for fun aren't terrrorists. It was just plain murder. Nothing political about it. No trying to influence any country's policies. Just sick murder.

So are you saying that killing civilians for political ideals or to try to influence a country's policies is terrorism?

...some folks just don't get it, do they?

No kidding. You guys have had it explained to you numerous times but you still don't understand.

Alex, the soldiers who killed civilians for fun aren't terrrorists. It was just plain murder. Nothing political about it. No trying to influence any country's policies. Just sick murder.

So are you saying that killing civilians for political ideals or to try to influence a country's policies is terrorism?

...some folks just don't get it, do they?

No kidding. You guys have had it explained to you numerous times but you still don't understand.

I understand very well. Putting the head of a murder victim in the freezer does not define terrorism, nor do politically motivated murders.

The word "terrorism" has taken on greater import in the last decade or so, and because it carries connotations worse than "mere" murder, and makes the perpetrator a "worse" criminal and thus justifying all sorts of radical violent reaction, placing the label on an enemy, or on a person who you want to kill (for political or economic reasons) is a very convenient way to get the ignorant masses behind you.

I want him dead, lets brand him a terrorist so the public will support/excuse my spending and efforts.

Aside from the above, the definition of terrorism would certainly include the wanton bombing of tens of thousands of civilians to make the enemy submit....Hiroshima for example.......just another reason certain people shy away from the real and actual definition and use silly, unrealistic, nonsensical defintions like "puts the head of the victim in the freezer"....because otherwise they would have to admit to their own government's terrorism.

I understand very well. Putting the head of a murder victim in the freezer does not define terrorism, nor do politically motivated murders.

The word "terrorism" has taken on greater import in the last decade or so, and because it carries connotations worse than "mere" murder, and makes the perpetrator a "worse" criminal and thus justifying all sorts of radical violent reaction, placing the label on an enemy, or on a person who you want to kill (for political or economic reasons) is a very convenient way to get the ignorant masses behind you.

I want him dead, lets brand him a terrorist so the public will support/excuse my spending and efforts.

Aside from the above, the definition of terrorism would certainly include the wanton bombing of tens of thousands of civilians to make the enemy submit....Hiroshima for example.......just another reason certain people shy away from the real and actual definition and use silly, unrealistic, nonsensical defintions like "puts the head of the victim in the freezer"....because otherwise they would have to admit to their own government's terrorism.

Well applied, Harcourt!

The funniest/sad part is that Chuck now replies in the topic about this kill team that he condemns these killings pretending he knows all about this.

I think I can say that we all think this kill team were a bunch of sick minded people and with their repeated actions, spread fear/terror amongst the Afghan population, which would classify them as terrorist.

The Frankfurt shooter killed a few US soldiers after acknowledging they were heading to Afghanistan.

As a result, US soldiers are now advised to travel in civilian clothes.

I wonder why, as the official reason to be in Afghanistan is to free the people and spread democracy and find Bin Laden, whatever comes first.

They should be welcomed right?

Free the people from what?

Privatizing the oil and banking industry instead of being state owned?

Just think about it.

Alex

As a result, US soldiers are now advised to travel in civilian clothes.

I wonder why, as the official reason to be in Afghanistan is to free the people and spread democracy and find Bin Laden, whatever comes first.

They should be welcomed right?

They aren't welcomed by the evil bastards who ran Afghanistan prior to Oct 2001 and their allies (including some posting on this thread) who don't want the people to be free or have democracy - or the children to get an education.

As a result, US soldiers are now advised to travel in civilian clothes.

I wonder why, as the official reason to be in Afghanistan is to free the people and spread democracy and find Bin Laden, whatever comes first.

They should be welcomed right?

They aren't welcomed by the evil bastards who ran Afghanistan prior to Oct 2001 and their allies (including some posting on this thread) who don't want the people to be free or have democracy - or the children to get an education.

Makes perfectly good sense that an uninvited invader wouldn't be welcomed.

As a result, US soldiers are now advised to travel in civilian clothes.

I wonder why, as the official reason to be in Afghanistan is to free the people and spread democracy and find Bin Laden, whatever comes first.

They should be welcomed right?

They aren't welcomed by the evil bastards who ran Afghanistan prior to Oct 2001 and their allies (including some posting on this thread) who don't want the people to be free or have democracy - or the children to get an education.

Makes perfectly good sense that an uninvited invader wouldn't be welcomed.

Of course it would make perfectly good sense to anyone who supports what the Taleban had been doing before and since.

As a result, US soldiers are now advised to travel in civilian clothes.

I wonder why, as the official reason to be in Afghanistan is to free the people and spread democracy and find Bin Laden, whatever comes first.

They should be welcomed right?

They aren't welcomed by the evil bastards who ran Afghanistan prior to Oct 2001 and their allies (including some posting on this thread) who don't want the people to be free or have democracy - or the children to get an education.

Makes perfectly good sense that an uninvited invader wouldn't be welcomed.

Of course it would make perfectly good sense to anyone who supports what the Taleban had been doing before and since.

It makes good sense to any person who resents foreign intervention on their sovreign land.

for the record: that Afghanistan was invaded because the Taleban ruled and Afghani women are oppressed is a blatant lie fairy tale concocted by apologists and war mongers. the country was invaded because the Taleban refused to hand over Osama bin-Laden.

similar fairy tales were (but not limited to) "Viet Nam and the domino theory, American citizens endangered in Grenada, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and presently the protection of rebels who fight for democracy in Libya".