A typical American stance. Terrorists are people who engage in terrorism, a broad and controversial category of acts, usually involving the use of fear tactics against a population. Race has got nothing to do with terrorists.
The post I was responding to implied that being less racist means being more tolerant and accepting of terrorism.
No, it was a typical observation of a failed immigration policy, which Canada has. No offense intended.
europe is far less racist than here in certain areas, but racism is worldwide and cannot go away. We all live in a time when the human species is divided by evolutionary classes. Each race, developed to a specific climate and environment. In seeing all of eachothers differences, there is a natural tendency for competition, lack of trust, and even anger and hate. Its just your evolution. Animals, when faced with similar yet different animals feel threatened, based on resources and needs. Racism cannot go away, until all races have inter bred and there is one worldwide homo sapien.
Actually I support what they are doing greatly. I believe America should adapt a similar policy. When you have people from a certain number of nations entering your country to cause harm, and, or build bases to network malicious activity you have a problem. At that point you ban everyone, YES, EVERYONE from entering from those countries because it's too much of a risk. While not everyone from those countries has bad intentions a few do - and that is a good enough reason to not let any of those people in. Especially when you are dealing with human life. Terrorists are coming from the Middle East... It is much easier to deal with a dieses if it is in one place, rather then 1,000. Terrorism is dieses; it is not only terrorism. Look at the immigration from Mexico to the US. People coming over from Mexico to make a quick buck then going back without paying their taxes, while also reaping the benefits of welfare, public housing, and our schools. Not to mention the amount of drug dealers, killers, and gang members coming in from that country. What Germany and the Netherlands have done is protected their own society - I support that. No body is targeting the Middle East or Mexico because of what they look like, how they speak, what they eat, or what they believe in. They are targeting them because they cause harm in one way or another.
who is the one that cause such fear and unrest throughout the entire globe..........the USA...so the terrorists are your neighbors and your police and especially your regime
Made it extremly hard for any foreigners to enter the country. They have also made it very hard for any foreigners to work in the country. They have also made a good effort to remove any illegal aliens from their land as wel.
I wouldnt say they forgive terrorist. The cops in UK shot dead a guy in the subway because they thought he was a terrorist, which he wasnt. I wouldnt call that forgiving.
Head - In - Sand The US just calls them allies, gives them money and calls them freedom fighters before they decide that they're their enemy a-la the IRA and Bin-Laden when he fought the Russians.
Before 1990 in my country Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist because of the bad light the media, and the government in particular, put on him while he was in prison and unable to defend himself. I sometimes wonder who exactly classifies these people as terrorists or freedom fighters. We're so busy in our lives today that it's hard to spend the time making our own opinions, so we just catch the news and except what they say as truth- sometimes it is nessesary to resort to violence if you aren't getting heard, and if that is the case then you're going to be called a terrorist by your enemies and on the news. ~ kiddo
Exactly, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Though I'd class deliberately attacking civilians without a defined miliatry or strategic target being as one of the defining characteristics of a terrorist. Though of course it's a lot more complex than that. I'd hope that people who run a country though make their decisions based on more than watching the news though
He was also in the country illegally having stayed after his Visa ran out, but HEY let's not mention that eh. IF we are talking about IF's. Then IF he had adhered to the laws of the UK he would not have been in the country and as such would not have been shot. OK it was a bad mistake to shoot him, BUT the instant these suicide murderers came to Britain they made it an essential policy to shoot to kill. If someone has a gun, you can bring him down, if they are prepared to give their own life, then instant death by a shot to the head is the ONLY course of action to take. I am glad you brought this up, because it highlights PERFECTLY the case I was making. Illegal terrorist activity, put innocent people at risk. 2 years earlier before the Muslim extremists brought suicide missions to the UK, he would have been brought down with a shot to the legs. NOW who is at fault? NOTHING in all this is as black and white as it appears is it? As Newton said, 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' Muslims started suicide bombings in Britain, the security forces HAVE to introduce shoot to kill policies with suspected terrorist. He was shot 8 times in the head (shot by 8 armed officers at the same time). What would have been the alternative here? Challenge him in the hope he decides not to explode the bomb he might have been carrying? He was sat in a tube train when they shot him. Had he been carrying a bomb, hundreds would have died. Anyone who is at all streetwise, knows full well that arms escalate violence. If you carry a knife, they carry a sword, you get a sword, they get a gun..... Shooting to bring down a suspect is no longer an option. As sad as it makes me feel to admit that, there really is no other way.
That would be because he WAS a terrorist. It was only as the world woke up that they decided that he was carrying out terrorism for a just cause that he was pardoned. Try telling anyone who was necklaced that they have not been the victims of racial terrorism. Of course there is no point as they will not hear you as they are DEAD! Fighting for freedom does NOT negate your actions as terrorist. Bin Laden was a freedom fighter who became a terrorist. Saddam the same. The means can not justify the ends unfortunately no matter how just!
I haven't heard such a great comeback since I heard a couple of 8 year olds argueing at lunchtime. No, though I would expect someone to know their nations history as a major supporter and source of funding to one of the worlds largest and most successful terrorist groups. I doubt they talk about that on FOX though
I've looked and I cannot even find that in the Urban Dictionary. Must be a UK spelling. When in doubt, resort to the Foxs News Card.
LOL, if it works then why fix it? So no denial that the US funded terrorism up until you guys got attacked yourselves? Taken your head of the the sand?