Page 18 of 19
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:41 pm
by Freakaloin
we are the terrorists...
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:42 pm
by Nightshade
Shut up you fucking idiot.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:43 pm
by Freakaloin
well all the evidence points away from islamic terrorists..
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85555
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:44 pm
by seremtan
Freakaloin wrote:yeah and pizzas don't scream when u put em in the oven...
you know this because you do all the cooking for your wage-earning wife
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:48 pm
by Nightshade
Hey, thanks for that TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT comment.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:54 pm
by R00k
Nightshade wrote:USS Liberty anyone?
These three words speak volumes to me. Of course it's really nothing more than another conspiracy theory.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:21 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Nightshade wrote:HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
My point is that Israel's security is a prime concern for the US, which fucking irritates me.
100% agreed on this. The U.S. should cease all aid and support to Israel imo
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:00 pm
by GONNAFISTYA
This is from Goof's thread so I'll post it here since it's relevant:
Blair rules out bomb inquiry:
clicky
Mr Blair said at the weekend that "all the surveillance in the world" would not stop terrorists determined to attack Britain.
So I have a simple question...what's the point of the "War on Terror" if you know you can't win?
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:04 am
by Freakaloin
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:21 am
by Chupacabra
GONNAFISTYA wrote:This is from Goof's thread so I'll post it here since it's relevant:
Blair rules out bomb inquiry:
clicky
Mr Blair said at the weekend that "all the surveillance in the world" would not stop terrorists determined to attack Britain.
So I have a simple question...what's the point of the "War on Terror" if you know you can't win?
claiming that surveillance wouldnt stop terrorists is different than saying you can't win the war on terror.
though i must say...if all the surveillance in the world cant stop the terrorists, its going to be a tough war to fight. there is a difference between the two statements and i think its important to note that.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:04 am
by Freakaloin
terrorism is a tactic...how do u fight a war against a tactic? moronic...
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:51 am
by Chupacabra
hm...call me crazy but i think it might have something to do with fighting a war against people who use terrorism as a tactic.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:03 am
by Freakaloin
oh so thats what we are doing in iraq? fighting terrorists? rofl...moron... they don't have f18's...they use what they got...themselves and explosives....the us has killed many more civilians then the insurgency....accident? on purpose?...who knows... the end result is the same...dead ppl...now blow me...
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:20 am
by Chupacabra
hey man, i never disagree with you about that--the iraq situation is a disgrace
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:33 am
by [xeno]Julios
Freakaloin wrote:terrorism is a tactic...how do u fight a war against a tactic? moronic...
interesting comment.
It's sort of like saying:
"it is imperative that we fight the war on kamikazi tactics", or that we must fight the war on "machine gun fire from enemy lines"
yes we know what it means, but the use of words probably shapes people's thought around the issue in a powerful, and misleading, way.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:33 am
by Ryoki
Terrorism is violence by people without an airforce.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:43 pm
by Freakaloin
"witnesses describe "white" perpetrators, actual emergency response drill being conducted in same locations same day, CCTV system outage, camera on blown-up bus not operating, netanyahu's early warning, mobile phone system not immediately shut down despite lessons of Madrid, Al Qaeda website that traces back to an american IP, errors in the quranic quotes on said website, You really gotta start wondering at some point over the last five years just who is doing what to who and why..."
so fucking obvious...
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:59 pm
by Freakaloin
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:34 pm
by seremtan
GONNAFISTYA wrote:This is from Goof's thread so I'll post it here since it's relevant:
Blair rules out bomb inquiry:
clicky
Mr Blair said at the weekend that "all the surveillance in the world" would not stop terrorists determined to attack Britain.
So I have a simple question...what's the point of the "War on Terror" if you know you can't win?
that's why it's called a 'war' against terrorism and not a 'victory' against terrorism
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:46 pm
by Freakaloin
war on terror is dumber then the war on drugs...and just as unwinable...but i think thats what they want...
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:58 pm
by Ryoki
perpetual warfare is the health of the state
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:59 pm
by Freakaloin
especially a military state...
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:59 pm
by Freakaloin
lol...all 4 bombers die in attck...but the bombs were on timers and blew at foot level...wow...the dumbest bombers in the world...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050712/wl ... 0712154820
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:08 pm
by R00k
The police confirmed yesterday that the bombs were on timers, and announced publicly that they were going to undertake the biggest investigation in London's history to find the bombers because they were alive and at large. Now they're saying all the bombers are accounted for and were killed by the bombs?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I can't get enough of this shit.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:10 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
it's not surprising that they might be wrong about some of their initial deductions