Excellent quote from Congressman Jim Moran

Janus, but it seems like you were not that inflamed by his comments.

Just imagine i would replace the set “muslims” and the subset “terrorists” by “USamericans” and the subset “KKK”… then the thread would have looked like this:

• some comments on the KKK
  with the reply:
• USamericans? Kill the fuckers!

Maybe you now understand why i wrote the oterh lines in the other thread: These lines inflamed you quite a lot.
I ask myself: Is that chauvinism or nationalism on your part, that you get excited when someone is critical against your nation, while your countrymen can “cry havok” and your reaction at a maximum is a desinterested shrug? I bet you just want to honour your board-name.

dont presume to understand me because i refuse to engage ignorant people in ignorant discussions based on ignorant opinions. i dont support or approve of their opinions. tolerance. they are allowed to hold any opinion they want, no matter how ignorant or ridiculous it may be, as long as it is just an opinion, fine. i hate it, and i dont like it any more than you do. i choose to ignore the comments. dont sit there and tell me im as bad as them because i choose not to validate their opinion by engaging it, or loudly taking offense to it.

You cant compare Americans to wackos that hide grenades under their own babies Falk.

@M36:

You cant compare Americans to wackos that hide grenades under their own babies Falk.

And you can’t compare wackos to the US Armed Forces that turned entire cities into infernos; or gunned down every man, woman and child in a village because they were there.

The exception proves the rule Marine.  We have as much “wacko” blood on our own hands as we accuse others of.  The difference is, when we do it, we call it collateral damage, when others do it we call it terrorism.

Thanks NCS.

Switch, killing civilians is never our objective, it is usually an accident.

Oh, is that how it was at Mi Lei?  Or Dresden?  Just “an accident”?

And how do you pass off Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  The United States has ADMITTED that we DELIBERATELY hit CIVILIANS with 2 nuclear weapons (the only nation to ever use them, and we did it on civies!).  How do you call THAT an “accident”?

@Yanny:

And NCSC, we did a lot more city bombing in WWII (everyone did) besides the two big bombs. And those bombs probably saved both civilian and military lives on both sides of the war.

True, but Marine mis-stated as fact we only “accidentally” kill civilians, which flat out is not true.

He uses deliberate civilian deaths to distinguish the US from terrorists, yet we have deliberately killed more civilians than the terrorists ever did.

And even just looking in Iraq… Shock and Awe… how many civies did we kill that night?  Bush a few weeks ago admitted to 35,000 Iraqi’s dead.  VERY few of those were during the “war”  and the terrorists certainly have not killed that many.  So, the rest of them are OURS… we did it, dropping bombs, firing machine guns and artillery.  We knew civies were there, we fired anyway.

And um… just this thought also…

The terrorists only recently started heavy attacks on civies.  For a year, they were aimed at our troops and civilian casualties were an “accident”.

So again, how are the terrorists different from us in THAT regard?

No, I am not saying that WE are terrorists.  I am still trying to get Marine to actually DEFINE terrorist, because the methods he is using to identify them so far cut BOTH ways.

The actions by the terrorists indicate their narrow view of civilians:

Someone I can trust to actively support “my” side, but without the use of weapons.

I meant present times of course. Back in ww2 we didnt have to worry about the commie media freaking out if we killed some enemy civilians.

Linkon, i think M36 proves that his view is as narrow.

@M36:

I meant present times of course. Back in ww2 we didnt have to worry about the commie media freaking out if we killed some enemy civilians.

And of all the civilians we have killed in Iraq?  You negelected to mention those…
Or is 3 years ago ancient history too?

how do you define terrorist nc?

As a sociopath with no regard for life with a minority agenda who trades their life to kill others in order to scare the majority into giving others who share the sociopath’s view a victory of policy/leadership.

@ncscswitch:

As a sociopath with no regard for life with a minority agenda who trades their life to kill others in order to scare the majority into giving others who share the sociopath’s view a victory of policy/leadership.

So by your definition, the Nazis were not terrorists because they were the majority in Germany from 1933 to 1945?  Also they generally did not like to trade their life.  Perhaps the Nazis belong in a different catagory … what would you call them then?

There are many different varieties of evil, I suppose.

The Nazis certainly were not Terrororist.  They may be called many things, but terrorist is NOT applicable to Nazis.

The Nazis were Nationalists.  They had a fundamental view of Germany being the best nation in Europe, and they fed this ideal with the bile of the Versailes treaty and the desire of the German people to not live in adject misery imposed form outside.  They took over, LEGALLY, they stabilized the economy, then created such rapid and massive growth that almost every citizen benefitted.  Had they not gone to war with Russia, they probably would still be in power today.

Did they have some fracked up ideas?  Were they bigots and racists?  Yes on both counts.

But there were not terrorists.

@221B:

So by your definition, the Nazis were not terrorists because they were the majority in Germany from 1933 to 1945?

I am not sure they were the majority, as …

@Yanny:

The Nazis were a regime sustained through force. A police state.

you don’t need to have a police state if you are the majority.

Switch, you still dont get it do you???

When we kill civilians, it is an ACCIDENT
Terrorists deliberatly target civilians.

I cant make it any easier, but since when do commies care about facts? :roll:

I mainly wanted to point out that the definition of civilian is different for us than the terrorists as theirs allow them to kill anyone they want to.

These terrorists and the media supportive of them also apply a double standard to constrain the efforts of the Army and Marine units stationed there.  In their view, any unarmed person injured, or killed over there on our watch is our fault.  The villainous video beheadings are a recruiting tool for them, and its still our fault, even though some sword brotherhood or whatever claims responsibility.  Many of the beheaded are civilians to us, but not to them.

The media over there and here need a massive shakedown about what’s going on.