Statements like this really define the idiocy of terrorists

Impossible to answer? I think it's very straightforward to answer.

I don't think it is ever acceptable for the military to target or attack civilians. In fact, that would be the definition of terrorism. Political violence against civilians. - guerilla

Now what is so hard about saying that killing innocent people is wrong? That is unless you believe that killing innocent people is alright. In which case, what's the big deal? Just put it out there.

 

Like I said, bait... You're becoming quite the troll. ^

 

No, it's not bait. If you think killing innocent people is ok, then you think it is ok. Not too much more I can say about that.

It's the people who think that it's not ok for Americans to be attacked, but it's ok to bomb Iraq. Seems to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to valuing life.

But again, it's a straightforward question, I don't see why anyone would be afraid to answer it honestly.

 

Basically, to him, anything asian or with brown skin is worth killing

 

Since you've quoted Guerilla, I am going to assume you are referring to Guerilla.

I really do not think that he feels that way.

 

I don't think Mia is a bad guy, I think he has a lot invested in playing the bad guy, and is too stubborn to come around.

 

Bad guy? I can live with.

A nutty misguided wannbe inferring I'm racist. That's a bit over the top. I tolerate it because I know its only a matter of time before sweetsie hits the infraction limit.

 

Being belligerent and insulting, while reporting others is the cowards way out.

 

OMG, you do not seriously believe that?

In 60 years, the newly-trained by the USA, Iraq army will be killing Jews and Americans. I guarantee you!

You cannot use Japan and Germany as examples on this, trust me. Japan and Germany loved America BEFORE the war. They already liked us. They were not MUSLIMS. They were all PRO-WESTERN.

ALSO, in Germany and Japan we began a brainwashing program, in Germany called "de-nazification" where we forced them to renounce their old values, and similar programs in Japan.

THERE IS NO "re-education" program going on in Iraq. The army we are training now will be the same, if not MORE radical (as now they are shiite instead of sunni) as the old Iraqi Republican Guard.

Just as the USA armed Osama and Saddam, now we are arming a new generation of enemies.

It'd be like blowing up Germany in WW2, with NO de-nazification program, then letting them have a new modernized army. BAD IDEA. Problem is, there is no popular support for a "de-muslimification" program.

I guarantee you neocons, we WILL have to fight this new Iraqi army you are so foolishly training someday. They hate us more than before the war, and that will not change. We have taken rulership away from the moderate sunnis, and handed it to the radical shiites, who are only at peace with us for a time because we have GIVEN them power.

 

Sorry I just thought I would correct you on this, Shiites are almost as peaceful as buddhists lol, i think you got the two the wrong way round, though you can't really compare how groups or religious sects to how violent they are. Shias are a very small minority compared to Sunnis

 

Not in Iraq. The Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are not "buddhists".

 

Terrorism doesnt exist guys..

 

I meant worldwide, in numbers. The comparison was the only way I could put it, they are not buddhists I know, but their way of fighting wars and stuff like that is different to Sunnis

 

Actually, it does. Anytime violence is conducted against civilians, for political purposes, that is terrorism.

The military can conduct terrorism, but the military cannot be the subject of terrorism. The military is not civilian, and they are declared combatants.

 

Are Shais true Muslims following true Islam?

Are Shiites true Muslims following true Islam?

 

Shias are Shiites.........but if your question was who is following right Sunni or Shia, well it is a hard question to answer, there is only a very small difference between the two but it creates a big rift.

Unlike Sunnis, Shias believe Ali (Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law) was the divinely ordained successor to Muhammad, and thus Shi'as reject the legitimacy of Abu Bakr who succeeded him.

Sunni Muslims consider Abu-Bakr to be the first legitimate Caliph, Shi'a consider Ali to have been the first truly legitimate Caliph, although they concede that Ali accepted his predecessors, because he eventually sanctioned Abu-Bakr.

(From wikipedia)

 

Are you sure you checked in the first place?

 

Are you saying that it doesn't take a lot to get these people going? Because that would be huge news.

 

Move along troll...i answered his question the best i could.