Who should be labled a terrorist?

[wakeup2nwo]

We all know who the real terrorists are. the banksters who hold the world to Ransom and the governments who allow them to.. our governments who invade others for material gain. killing anyone who gets in their way.

WHO SHOULD BE LABLED A TERRORIST?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkxzmsvxLE



TERRORIST?

LOWKEY - TERRORIST? (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO) - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU

[zerkaa]

The Following... - YouTube
there is no nwo. Honest

[ragnarok]

Don't tell Alex Jones that; it'll break his heart.

[babybumasylum]

How to work out who is a terrorist and who isn't.

Do you feel terrorised is a good place to start, I think thats the big one, who scares you most?

Osama bin lid
or
The powers that be

[wakeup2nwo]

How to work out who is a terrorist and who isn't.

Do you feel terrorised is a good place to start, I think thats the big one, who scares you most?

Osama bin lid
or
The powers that be

People are afraid to spend money not knowing if the economy is going to get worse, and it will.

They are terrifying the public every day with the propaganda they spew on the MSM.. they rule with fear.. that's a fact.. fear is stronger than love. they use this to control the people.

There is no doubt how the real terrorists are..

[wakeup2nwo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ekG8K8YBp0&feature=related
there is no nwo. Honest

whats that relevant to?

[mrerisian]

I find this argument so fucking retarded it's infuriating.

I'm sick to death of smug fuckwits sneering "aah - but who's the real terrorist eh? George Bush or Osama Bin Laden?" as they sit back in their chair with a self satisfied smile, looking across the table at you like they've just dropped the biggest mindfuck you've ever encountered. It's as lame as one of those half arsed sixth form conversations you have with some dozy cunt who can't work out "which came first eh, the chicken or the egg? Woo!"*.

The assumption is that if you can get people to simplify the world in such a way that they start to see bankers/politicians/military as the same as a suicide bomber you'll have made some sort of progress.

Simplifying the world around you IS NOT progress it's retardation.

The truth is that by trying to reduce people like Bush/Blair/insert-authority-figure-here to the status of terrorists you elevate the likes of the IRA and Osama etc. Neither deserve this treatment.

Rogue politicians like Blair are in actuality far more dangerous than terrorists. Furthermore they can and should be held accountable for their actions.

Terrorists like Bin Laden WOULD be worse than Blair if they had the power. If he had a nuke we'd all be cunted. Furthermore he is not elected and does not represent symptoms of the major problems which are highlighted by Blair who never lost an election, in his life, ever. He was popular - the reasons why that is the case in my opinion are down to the fact we live in a world where people like the OP thrive with stupid reductive visions of a simplistic world where everything is black and white. Teflon Tony and his banker mates are exactly the sort of twats who put forward equally vapid arguments in favour of their own world views - Four legs Goood ... two legs Baa baad etc.

Rant over.

*Answer = Egg. Google dinosaurs. They laid eggs and pre-date chickens.

[wakeup2nwo]

I find this argument so fucking retarded it's infuriating.

I'm sick to death of smug fuckwits sneering "aah - but who's the real terrorist eh? George Bush or Osama Bin Laden?" as they sit back in their chair with a self satisfied smile, looking across the table at you like they've just dropped the biggest mindfuck you've ever encountered. It's as lame as one of those half arsed sixth form conversations you have with some dozy cunt who can't work out "which came first eh, the chicken or the egg? Woo!"*.

The assumption is that if you can get people to simplify the world in such a way that they start to see bankers/politicians/military as the same as a suicide bomber you'll have made some sort of progress.

Simplifying the world around you IS NOT progress it's retardation.

The truth is that by trying to reduce people like Bush/Blair/insert-authority-figure-here to the status of terrorists you elevate the likes of the IRA and Osama etc. Neither deserve this treatment.

Rogue politicians like Blair are in actuality far more dangerous than terrorists. Furthermore they can and should be held accountable for their actions.

Terrorists like Bin Laden WOULD be worse than Blair if they had the power. If he had a nuke we'd all be cunted. Furthermore he is not elected and does not represent symptoms of the major problems which are highlighted by Blair who never lost an election, in his life, ever. He was popular - the reasons why that is the case in my opinion are down to the fact we live in a world where people like the OP thrive with stupid reductive visions of a simplistic world where everything is black and white. Teflon Tony and his banker mates are exactly the sort of twats who put forward equally vapid arguments in favour of their own world views - Four legs Goood ... two legs Baa baad etc.

Rant over.

*Answer = Egg. Google dinosaurs. They laid eggs and pre-date chickens.

Look up the definition of terrorist.. and try to calm down :)

[mrerisian]

Look up the definition of terrorist.. and try to calm down :)

We'll use this one: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon".

Ooo - who's the real terrorist? Osama Bin Laden or wakeup2nwo? The latter posts scary topics all the fucking time onto an internet forum. He lives off the fear he creates in others and attempts to direct their thoughts towards his own political aims. Woo!

It's a bullshit argument mate.

Look up "reductio ad absurdum" and try to break out of your own simplistic world view.

There ... calm now. ;)

[wakeup2nwo]

We'll use this one: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon".

Ooo - who's the real terrorist? Osama Bin Laden or wakeup2nwo? The latter posts scary topics all the fucking time onto an internet forum. He lives off the fear he creates in others and attempts to direct their thoughts towards his own political aims. Woo!

It's a bullshit argument mate.

Look up "reductio ad absurdum" and try to break out of your own simplistic world view.

There ... calm now. ;)

Try Terrorism ;)

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.

Seems like the government falls into both definitions.. ;)

[nimbus]

OK

Lets look at the American military definition of terrorism

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.



Noam Chomskys view. Long video but worth watching to help define who are the worst terrorists.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4054523048548733881#

[mrerisian]

Try Terrorism ;)

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.

Seems like the government falls into both definitions.. ;)

The above quote is of course lifted from wikipedia. Unfortunately for you it is qualified by a second paragraph which you've conviniently missed out:

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

The point you are making is empty and flimsy at best.

FACT: We have rulers who thrive on lies and war.

Why do you need to "spin" that with this absurd sloppy logic regarding terrorists?

[meksar]

The intelligence agencies and the global power brokers are the real terrorists as 95% of the terrorist attacks are inside jobs, done by mind controlled pasty's or disguised people to frame innocent people to justify mass genocide. They want to label the citizens who disagree with the imposition we are facing as terrorists, they have gone to great lengths to make sure people who know first hand who the real terrorists are dying in very convenient circumstances like airplane crashes, so called suicides, arson attacks and being mistaken for terrorists.

[wakeup2nwo]

OK

Lets look at the American military definition of terrorism

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.



Noam Chomskys view. Long video but worth watching to help define who are the worst terrorists.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4054523048548733881#

Great post! ill watch that later, it looks interesting!

[wakeup2nwo]

The intelligence agencies and the global power brokers are the real terrorists as 95% of the terrorist attacks are inside jobs, done by mind controlled pasty's or disguised people to frame innocent people to justify mass genocide. They want to label the citizens who disagree with the imposition we are facing as terrorists, they have gone to great lengths to make sure people who know first hand who the real terrorists are dying in very convenient circumstances like airplane crashes, so called suicides, arson attacks and being mistaken for terrorists.

Indeed!

[zerkaa]

whats that relevant to?

It was my opinion.Simples
Z

[wakeup2nwo]

It was my opinion.Simples
Z

Ok, so why do you hang around a forum that's about the NWO? Illuminati?

[dreamscope]

they rule with fear.. that's a fact.. fear is stronger than love. they use this to control the people.

There is no doubt how the real terrorists are..

Fear can only be strong where there is no love, because love is the strongest of the two feelings; if you have love, there is little to fear. Which leads me to suspect a lot of people on this forum don't know the meaning of love.

Let's bring a little balance to this.

Agenda-infiltrated western governments will use murder to eliminate obstacles and perceived threats. For example David Kelly here in the UK.

Or the 102 people in the US murdered due to them having some knowledge of some part of the real plot behind the Kennedy assassination. And then the same pattern areound some 9/11 witnesses; suicide, heart attacks, car crashes, cancer...nope, murder.

Now then Osama Bin Laden may not be a terrorist, but if you think there aren't people on the 'other' side who believe in him as a legend of sorts and who are prepared to intimidate and kill in the name of their god, then you're mistaken.

A little example, one of many: a guy I know was in Afghanistan last year with the UK forces. They had a local fella working for them as an interpreter, he had been working for them for about two months when he went missing, some time later his severed head turned in a box on the base's doorstep with a message along the lines of this is what happens when you help the foreigners.

Lots of things like that, including using children and making death threats to women and children.

So yes our gov's are murdering scumbags, but at least you have a choice in how their behaviour affects you. Maybe you should make the most of that choice.

[wakeup2nwo]

Fear can only be strong where there is no love, because love is the strongest of the two feelings; if you have love, there is little to fear. Which leads me to suspect a lot of people on this forum don't know the meaning of love.

Let's bring a little balance to this.

Agenda-infiltrated western governments will use murder to eliminate obstacles and perceived threats. For example David Kelly here in the UK.

Or the 102 people in the US murdered due to them having some knowledge of some part of the real plot behind the Kennedy assassination. And then the same pattern areound some 9/11 witnesses; suicide, heart attacks, car crashes, cancer...nope, murder.

Now then Osama Bin Laden may not be a terrorist, but if you think there aren't people on the 'other' side who believe in him as a legend of sorts and who are prepared to intimidate and kill in the name of their god, then you're mistaken.

A little example, one of many: a guy I know was in Afghanistan last year with the UK forces. They had a local fella working for them as an interpreter, he had been working for them for about two months when he went missing, some time later his severed head turned in a box on the base's doorstep with a message along the lines of this is what happens when you help the foreigners.

Lots of things like that, including using children and making death threats to women and children.

So yes our gov's are murdering scumbags, but at least you have a choice in how their behaviour affects you. Maybe you should make the most of that choice.

Do you understand that the war on terror is bases on lies?

That's all you need to know

"Saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction" remember that lie?

"ties to Al-CIA-DA" another lie..

"911" another lie.

They dont just kill innocent Arabs but English and American personal with their lies..

kids are killed daily from drone strikes targeting "suspected" terrorists.

There is no defending this action. and if it was Iran invading the UK or USA you would be quick to pick up a gun and defend yourself.. for your freedom.. you would become a freedom fighter, no?

[zerkaa]

Ok, so why do you hang around a forum that's about the NWO? Illuminati?

So in your opinion, everyone here has to belive in the nwo?,reptillions etc.Get over yourself.
Z

[wakeup2nwo]

So in your opinion, everyone here has to belive in the nwo?,reptillions etc.Get over yourself.
Z

No, im saying that if i didn't, then i wouldn't waist my time on a forum that's dedicated exposing the NWO, Illuminati..

Try not to speculate so much :)

[zerkaa]

No, im saying that if i didn't, then i wouldn't waist my time on a forum that's dedicated exposing the NWO, Illuminati..

Try not to speculate so much :)

For your info, an interest in symbols and the work of michale tsarion brought me here,i imagine that a lot of diffearnt people came here for differant reasons.
peace. z

[dreamscope]

Do you understand that the war on terror is bases on lies?

That's all you need to know

"Saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction" remember that lie?

"ties to Al-CIA-DA" another lie..

"911" another lie.

They dont just kill innocent Arabs but English and American personal with their lies..

kids are killed daily from drone strikes targeting "suspected" terrorists.

There is no defending this action. and if it was Iran invading the UK or USA you would be quick to pick up a gun and defend yourself.. for your freedom.. you would become a freedom fighter, no?

You're completely and utterly missing my point, although I was half expecting that.

Did you not read what I said about David Kelly? Google David Kelly UN Iraq.

Did you not read what I said about JFK and 9/11?

Did you not read the example of an Afghan national being beheaded by the Taliban? This man was no foreigner.

The fact that the US has exaggerated the threat from Islamic fundamentalists doesn't mean these guys don't exist. I can tell you they are all too real. When you are standing in a crowded public place and someone starts shooting and makes to let their bomb off, it makes no difference to you what that person's motives are, trust me.

If you think they don't you truly have no experience of the world and maybe you should consider re-titling your thread.

[wakeup2nwo]

You're completely and utterly missing my point, although I was half expecting that.

Did you not read what I said about David Kelly? Google David Kelly UN Iraq.

Did you not read what I said about JFK and 9/11?

Did you not read the example of an Afghan national being beheaded by the Taliban? This man was no foreigner.

The fact that the US has exaggerated the threat from Islamic fundamentalists doesn't mean these guys don't exist. I can tell you they are all too real. When you are standing in a crowded public place and someone starts shooting and makes to let their bomb off, it makes no difference to you what that person's motives are, trust me.

If you think they don't you truly have no experience of the world and maybe you should consider re-titling your thread.

Yes they exist, due to having to fight for freedom. the weapons they use are often funded by the real terrorists, the UK, USA and Israel.

If we wasn't bombing the hell out of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq they wouldn't exist, if we wasn't occupying there countries, they wouldn't have to fight for freedom.

and the occupation and drone attacks are all based on lies..

Its that simple really

[dreamscope]

Yes they exist, due to having to fight for freedom. the weapons they use are often funded by the real terrorists, the UK, USA and Israel.

If we wasn't bombing the hell out of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq they wouldn't exist, if we wasn't occupying there countries, they wouldn't have to fight for freedom.

and the occupation and drone attacks are all based on lies..

Its that simple really

That's total gonads I'm afraid.

You can tell where you get your information: all on the internet, mostly conspiracy sites I imagine.

So you class intimidation, beating and beheading of your own people as 'fighting for freedom'...that's disgusting.

Here's another one: your Islam fundamentalist friends have been around and active a long time before Iraq and Afghan. Google Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. Notice how they were killing their own people, not foreigners? What does that say about you glorifying them?

More recent example that I can testify to, and it was pre-911: 254 people murdered and more than 5000 wounded in one single act by your 'freedom fighters'...only thing is, this was done in a neutral country and less than 0.05% of those killed were American, less than 0.001 of those wounded were American.

Freedom fighters? You justify that and you're a sick, screwed up individual.

[wakeup2nwo]

That's total gonads I'm afraid.

You can tell where you get your information: all on the internet, mostly conspiracy sites I imagine.

So you class intimidation, beating and beheading of your own people as 'fighting for freedom'...that's disgusting.

Here's another one: your Islam fundamentalist friends have been around and active a long time before Iraq and Afghan. Google Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. Notice how they were killing their own people, not foreigners? What does that say about you glorifying them?

More recent example that I can testify to, and it was pre-911: 254 people murdered and more than 5000 wounded in one single act by your 'freedom fighters'...only thing is, this was done in a neutral country and less than 0.05% of those killed were American, less than 0.001 of those wounded were American.

Freedom fighters? You justify that and you're a sick, screwed up individual.

No one is glorifying anyone, the USA have no right to tell others how to live.. or anyone else. you have obviously been indoctrinated by the military. :(

If i come and invaded your house, what would you do.. nothing? LMAO..

Then your a cowered.. :)

[dreamscope]

Agenda-infiltrated western governments will use murder to eliminate obstacles and perceived threats. For example David Kelly here in the UK.

Or the 102 people in the US murdered due to them having some knowledge of some part of the real plot behind the Kennedy assassination. And then the same pattern areound some 9/11 witnesses; suicide, heart attacks, car crashes, cancer...nope, murder.

So yes our gov's are murdering scumbags, but at least you have a choice in how their behaviour affects you. Maybe you should make the most of that choice.

. you have obviously been indoctrinated by the military. :(


LOL :D :D :D


If i come and invaded your house, what would you do.. nothing? LMAO..

Then your a cowered.. :)

Um, what does chopping your neighbour's head off have anything to do with me invading your house?

And what does killing your own people and those from a neutral country have anything to do with someone invading your house?

You don't just disagree that those things are terrorism, you go further by justifying it. Sick man.

[wakeup2nwo]

LOL :D :D :D



Um, what does chopping your neighbour's head off have anything to do with me invading your house?

And what does killing your own people and those from a neutral country have anything to do with someone invading your house?

You don't just disagree that those things are terrorism, you go further by justifying it. Sick man.

so you avoid the question, If i come and invaded your house, what would you do.. nothing? LMAO..

Then your a cowered..

you think no one ever kills another in the UK right. SMH

Or the USA. SMH

according to you, People only kill each other in the Arab world :rolleyes:

well, if your not going to answer my question to you (in bold) then i guess this isnt what you call a debate.

BYE :)

[nimbus]

...Google Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. Notice how they were killing their own people, not foreigners? What does that say about you glorifying them?...

Main article: History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (1928-1938)

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a schoolteacher, to promote implementing of traditional Islamic sharia law and a social renewal based on an Islamic ethos of altruism and civic duty, in opposition to political and social injustice and to British imperial rule. The organisation initially focused on educational and charitable work, but quickly grew to become a major political force as well, by championing the cause of disenfranchised classes, playing a prominent role in the Egyptian nationalist movement, and promoting a conception of Islam that attempted to restore broken links between tradition and modernity.

[dreamscope]

Main article: History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (1928-1938)

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a schoolteacher, to promote implementing of traditional Islamic sharia law and a social renewal based on an Islamic ethos of altruism and civic duty, in opposition to political and social injustice and to British imperial rule. The organisation initially focused on educational and charitable work, but quickly grew to become a major political force as well, by championing the cause of disenfranchised classes, playing a prominent role in the Egyptian nationalist movement, and promoting a conception of Islam that attempted to restore broken links between tradition and modernity.

Yes and to answer my point, what happened afterwards?

And even then they didn't just disappear once they'd had their share of murdering their own:

Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, and is classified as a terrorist group by the U.S., European Union and Egypt. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the group is dedicated to the overthrow of Mubarak, seeking to replace his regime with an Islamic state.

The group has carried out numerous deadly attacks.

Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya may have been involved indirectly in Sadat's assassination. The group's leader has talked publicly about collaborating in planning the murder with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was blamed for the killing.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya carried out scores of terrorist acts in Egypt, including the murders and attempted murders of prominent Egyptian writers and intellectuals. The group also targeted tourists and foreigners.

In 1997, it carried out the notorious Luxor massacre in Luxor, Egypt, killing 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians. Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya went on a shooting rampage in that attack, even reportedly mutilating the bodies of victims. A note praising Islam was found inside one disemboweled body.

One year earlier, in 1996, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya carried out a shooting rampage at the Europa Hotel in Cairo, killing 18 Greek tourists.

In 1995, the group took responsibility for a car bomb attack on the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, murdering 16 people.

So you're saying that's not terrorism?

[wakeup2nwo]

The CIA Creates Terrorism and Terrorist Cells Muslim Brotherhood Started By Nazi and CIA

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIbVCscv5iI

[nimbus]

I find this argument so fucking retarded it's infuriating.

I'm sick to death of smug fuckwits sneering "aah - but who's the real terrorist eh? George Bush or Osama Bin Laden?" as they sit back in their chair with a self satisfied smile, looking across the table at you like they've just dropped the biggest mindfuck you've ever encountered. It's as lame as one of those half arsed sixth form conversations you have with some dozy cunt who can't work out "which came first eh, the chicken or the egg? Woo!"*.

The assumption is that if you can get people to simplify the world in such a way that they start to see bankers/politicians/military as the same as a suicide bomber you'll have made some sort of progress.

Simplifying the world around you IS NOT progress it's retardation.

The truth is that by trying to reduce people like Bush/Blair/insert-authority-figure-here to the status of terrorists you elevate the likes of the IRA and Osama etc. Neither deserve this treatment.

Rogue politicians like Blair are in actuality far more dangerous than terrorists. Furthermore they can and should be held accountable for their actions.

Terrorists like Bin Laden WOULD be worse than Blair if they had the power. If he had a nuke we'd all be cunted. Furthermore he is not elected and does not represent symptoms of the major problems which are highlighted by Blair who never lost an election, in his life, ever. He was popular - the reasons why that is the case in my opinion are down to the fact we live in a world where people like the OP thrive with stupid reductive visions of a simplistic world where everything is black and white. Teflon Tony and his banker mates are exactly the sort of twats who put forward equally vapid arguments in favour of their own world views - Four legs Goood ... two legs Baa baad etc.

Rant over.

*Answer = Egg. Google dinosaurs. They laid eggs and pre-date chickens.

I suppose we could class everyone who mentions something scary on a forum as a terrorist. I do feel though that someone typing on a keyboard at home is more low level than someone who is orchestrating world events including bombings that kill 1,000's resulting in invasions of other countries whilst controlling the media & public opinion to induce terror in the population. They are possibly both terrorists but some are more equal than others?

I don't think the OP has a bad argument it's more about who this simplified view that he projects would be the target audience. For me his original post is a headline grabbbing tabloid newspaper. I know what he is saying & can see the points & am personally not getting anything new from the post. That said there are many people out there who do not have this insight & the question "who should be labelled terrorists?" would be an opening line in a debate that could get people who have no concept of world events, who do not read web forums such as this, to question what they are given by the controlled media.

Yes we all know that our leaders are liars & possibly start wars but these are accepted as facts & are not news but the "sloppy logic" of "who should labelled as terrorists" is a radical thought to most people who cannot see past the theme park around them.

I think the assumption is that if terrorists & the powers that be are the same how can we class our Rose tinted world as stable & fair? Again it rocks your foundations.
If that elevates terrorist organisations to the same status as governments then so be it. The government controlled British SAS caught in Lybia are they really engaged on some diplomatic mission or engaged in some subterfuge act of terror?

I personally class Blair as a main stream politician there is nothing rogue about him thats how they all are. I also believe that Osama Bin Boogieman was/is a mujahideen CIA controlled asset & that if he was as powerful as they say he is there would be bombs going off daily in New York & London.
I quantify this statement by comparing the number of bombs set off by the IRA in the UK in the 70's & 80's. It felt like there was at least one a week. How hard would it be to do with a few radical driven people? The fact that this isnt happening speaks volumes to me.

Out of interest I would ask mrerisian who he or she think the worst terrorists in society are?


(By the way the earliest recorded crocodile is, I believe, 220Million yrs old. When a crocodile lays an egg you get, a crocodile.
The egg did come first before the chicken. This first chicken egg was laid by an animal that was 99.9% like a chicken).;)

[oiram]

WHO SHOULD BE LABELED A TERRORIST?

Those which finance & pay for it!
http://jokesprank.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/bankers_cartoons.jpg
Click to enlarge
Those which recruit misfits for money or by brain washing & trickery. http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9248
Those which train the brain-dead misfits & providing the facilities. http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9248
Those which are involved in the planning ahead of time before any acts are committed. http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9248
Those which supply the weapons & tools for there actions. http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9173


Those which profit from it in any way before or after any events.
http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=950&pictureid=9264http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=950&pictureid=9265
http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=950&pictureid=9178


Those once which have inside knowledge but not releasing it!
http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=950&pictureid=9261


Those which are in position to raise their voices but shutting up knowingly or for money gains
or for personal self-serving position protection because this would automatically make them part of it all
& they are clearly guilty by association in every conceivable way.
Includes all brain dead MSM monkey brains knowingly or for money fueling any propaganda from the mentioned above.

Those which investigating a Clinton Head-job more then an event like 9/11!
Those which destroying, manipulate, falsify data or hiding prove & evidence to protect the real terrorists.
Those which pay off witnesses or letting strange acting individual/suspects go free in there private jets.
Those which are working as official scientific professionals & falsifying knowingly data to hide or protect the reality & truth!
Those which use public Taxes or drug organization made money to finance self-made terrorists & bogus Wars to murder the innocent!


Those misfits & Sheep which understand or suspects what there Governments
are involved in & freaking Voting them back into Power again & again!
...etc
http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=950&pictureid=9195


All the once falling into the category stated below & are in public servant Positions &
are obligated by there own made laws to protect the interests of the Public in general:

Unless they oppose it, they will be blamed for it. If they defend it, they are part of it!
http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=950&pictureid=9206

My anger! ..Freaking Sick off ...... ALL the Sheep & Money hungry self serving Monkey Brains!

********************
************
*****
**


It's so hard to swallow & control all anger but I & others
have to try to find a way to trust Humanity overall to come together to fight
all the misfits/evil with combined knowledge & strong united logical wisdom! ....

The Religious Books are so full of hypocritical brain dead stuff no wonder they all run around in circles & most are living in a dream world & are lost in space!

Like I concluded maybe only 1% of the entire bible stuff makes logical Human like & Symbolical sense; the rest is good for toilet paper!

There are Humans & Humans have the Ten Commandments to prove it by implementing it personally 24/7!

And there are People which are = to true Animal like in there true being & the Ten Commandments are not belong or made for these proven Animals "Full Stop...Right?" ...
So what Christ says about animals is that we are aloud to kill any animal with a good logical reason? .....

Well I say there is no question about it then & animals have absolutely no right to request protection or make a claim towards a true for Humans only made Ten Commandments!
You follow the Law you will be judged & protected by the same Law you implement physical!

Only in accepting both ways; firstly the full self implementation of the universal human rules & the consequent judgment by the same Law you implement physical you have the right to claim the Ten Commandments..... Clear to me!

Human = Human & there Christ/Soul implementation is there mentor & Human law.

People with NO Christ like Soul & the NON implementation of it = true proven Animal "Full Stop & Clear to any true Human"

Regarding the part below when it says death this does not mean killing anyone physically; because by totally ignoring the Animal like beast you produce the exact same effect as death on the receiving end.

Many things are Symbolic & not be taken literally in most cases. (Personal self defense towards you're self & you're family members is a totally different story)

I like these parts:
There is no question that Jesus approved of killing apostates, exactly as killing those who mistreat their parents!

Paul:
Let us look at Romans 1:20-32 (from the New Testament) "
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Also psychics must be put to death. Let us look at Leviticus 20:27 "And as for a man or woman in whom there proves to be a mediumistic spirit or spirit of prediction, they should be put to death without fail. They should pelt them to death with stones. Their own blood is upon them."

The above verses clearly show that the Bible doesn't tolerate apostates. Jesus did honor the Old Testament's laws and ordered his followers to follow the Old Testament until the day of Judgment:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Christians always say as an excuse that an Old Testament law does not apply to them. According to Matthew 5:17-18, we clearly see that Jesus honored the Old Testament, and forced Christians to follow the unmodified laws of it that have not been replaced by newer ones in the New Testament. The Old Testament as we clearly see above orders the immediate killing of apostates/renegades. The New Testament as we also clearly see above, orders the death of the apostates/renegades. And according to Matthew 5:17-18 above, apostates/renegades in Christianity must be put to death simultaneously.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/death.htm


This is in many ways totally contradictory to the words written above ....
I wonder why & which misfits had there fingers in it all?

Satan must ask for a free ticket here to lie, steal, murder anyone & ending up being Loved respected & blessed for it?

There is such a thing as righteous anger.
And sometimes we need to talk about problems or deal with dangerous situations. (Even at these times, we must exercise self-control.)
Yet most of the time, our anger is not righteous.

As James wrote, "Man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires" (James 1:20).
Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil (Psalm 37:8).
A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult (Proverbs 12:16).
Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing (Proverbs 12:18).
A wise man fears the Lord and shuns evil, but a fool is hotheaded and reckless (Proverbs 14:16
A quick-tempered man does foolish things, and a crafty man is hated (Proverbs 14:17).
A patient man has great understanding, but a quick-tempered man displays folly (Proverbs 14:29).
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger (Proverbs 15:1).
A hot-tempered man stirs up dissension, but a patient man calms a quarrel (Proverbs 15:18).
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city (Proverbs 16:32).
A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered (Proverbs 17:27).
It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel (Proverbs 20:3).
Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you (Proverbs 20:22).
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control (Proverbs 25:28).
Mockers stir up a city, but wise men turn away anger (Proverbs 29:8).
A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11).
An angry man stirs up dissension, and a hot-tempered one commits many sins (Proverbs 29:22).

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment ... first go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift (Matthew 5:21-24).

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions (Galatians 5:19-20).

"In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold (Ephesians 4:26-7).

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you (Ephesians 4:29-32).

Let your gentleness be evident to all (Philippians 4:5).
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips (Colossians 3:8).
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful (2 Timothy 2:24).

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires (James 1:19-20).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

[wakeup2nwo]

I suppose we could class everyone who mentions something scary on a forum as a terrorist. I do feel though that someone typing on a keyboard at home is more low level than someone who is orchestrating world events including bombings that kill 1,000's resulting in invasions of other countries whilst controlling the media & public opinion to induce terror in the population. They are possibly both terrorists but some are more equal than others?

I don't think the OP has a bad argument it's more about who this simplified view that he projects would be the target audience. For me his original post is a headline grabbbing tabloid newspaper. I know what he is saying & can see the points & am personally not getting anything new from the post. That said there are many people out there who do not have this insight & the question "who should be labelled terrorists?" would be an opening line in a debate that could get people who have no concept of world events, who do not read web forums such as this, to question what they are given by the controlled media.

Yes we all know that our leaders are liars & possibly start wars but these are accepted as facts & are not news but the "sloppy logic" of "who should labelled as terrorists" is a radical thought to most people who cannot see past the theme park around them.

I think the assumption is that if terrorists & the powers that be are the same how can we class our Rose tinted world as stable & fair? Again it rocks your foundations.
If that elevates terrorist organisations to the same status as governments then so be it. The government controlled British SAS caught in Lybia are they really engaged on some diplomatic mission or engaged in some subterfuge act of terror?

I personally class Blair as a main stream politician there is nothing rogue about him thats how they all are. I also believe that Osama Bin Boogieman was/is a mujahideen CIA controlled asset & that if he was as powerful as they say he is there would be bombs going off daily in New York & London.
I quantify this statement by comparing the number of bombs set off by the IRA in the UK in the 70's & 80's. It felt like there was at least one a week. How hard would it be to do with a few radical driven people? The fact that this isnt happening speaks volumes to me.

Out of interest I would ask mrerisian who he or she think the worst terrorists in society are?


(By the way the earliest recorded crocodile is, I believe, 220Million yrs old. When a crocodile lays an egg you get, a crocodile.
The egg did come first before the chicken. This first chicken egg was laid by an animal that was 99.9% like a chicken).;)

Well said nimbus!

[nimbus]

So you're saying that's not terrorism?

No, it's terrorism by my definition.

My point was how fertile the Imperialistic rule of the British made the soil.
I don't think we were over there building canals & railways for the good of the Egyptian people because Britian is just a helpful nation.

[dreamscope]

[INDENT][I]Those once which have inside knowledge but not releasing it!

Balls.

So if someone isn't aware of what their knowledge is, you label them a terrorist?

And what about those on the business end, those who actually carry out the acts?

lol this thread shouldn't be 'what is terrorism', should be more like 'only the US / Uk gov' are terrorists, anyone else who murders their own is a freedom fighter'

Real world out there people, you aren't ever going to get all the facts from sitting at your computers.

And read my first post before any of you accuse me of being a shill :rolleyes:

I've probs got more info on gov' cover-ups than the lot of you out together :D

[nimbus]

lol this thread shouldn't be 'what is terrorism', should be more like 'only the US / Uk gov' are terrorists, anyone else who murders their own is a freedom fighter'

He who writes the history books defines who are the terrorists & who are the freedom fighters. I don't think it can be as black & white as many people believe.

I believe that there are terrorists out there that are not US or UK government lead or funded but we need to understand as a society that the powerful nations/globalists of the world are also guilty of acts of terrorism.

Can I ask you to answer two questions for me?:-

1/Was the invasion of Iraq an act of war, act of terrorism, a mistake, justified on the knowledge we had, which ones do you feel fit?

2/If I say I believe that there are people out there who are terrorists not controlled by US/UK governments do you believe that the US/UK governments control & finance terrorists?

Just interested to know what we agree on.

[dreamscope]

He who writes the history books defines who are the terrorists & who are the freedom fighters. I don't think it can be as black & white as many people believe.

I believe that there are terrorists out there that are not US or UK government lead or funded but we need to understand as a society that the powerful nations/globalists of the world are also guilty of acts of terrorism.

Can I ask you to answer two questions for me?:-

1/Was the invasion of Iraq an act of war, act of terrorism, a mistake, justified on the knowledge we had, which ones do you feel fit?

2/If I say I believe that there are people out there who are terrorists not controlled by US/UK governments do you believe that the US/UK governments control & finance terrorists?

Just interested to know what we agree on.

Okay I'll make it clear, seeing as my first post hasn't done that.

Are the US/UK gov' terrorists? Yes

Was Osama Bin Laden a CIA asset? yes

Did the CIA create Al-Quaida for the purpose of terrorising its own citizens? No

Did the US create the Taliban? No

Did the US create the 'Islamic Brotherhood? No

Are the Taliban, the 'Islamic brotherhood' and its offshoots 'terrorists'? Yes

Are those who kill, murder, maim, threaten and intimidate for their own purpose 'terrorists'. Yes.

So the definition of terrorism isn't just restricted to our own govs I'm afraid.

[wakeup2nwo]

Okay I'll make it clear, seeing as my first post hasn't done that.

Are the US/UK gov' terrorists? Yes

Was Osama Bin Laden a CIA asset? yes

Did the CIA create Al-Quaida for the purpose of terrorising its own citizens? No

Did the US create the Taliban? No wrong

Did the US create the 'Islamic Brotherhood? No They fund them

Are the Taliban, the 'Islamic brotherhood' and its offshoots 'terrorists'? Yes

Are those who kill, murder, maim, threaten and intimidate for their own purpose 'terrorists'. Yes.

So the definition of terrorism isn't just restricted to our own govs I'm afraid.no one said it was, way to twist shit up.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm

"CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban"

[See end for comment from Emperor's Clothes editor]

LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan, then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan," Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's "pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said.

It came after "the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (1)

[(C) 'Times of India', 2001 Reprinted for Fair Use Only


Webster Tarpley: CIA fuels 'mob rule' in Arab world to change power

Webster Tarpley: CIA fuels 'mob rule' in Arab world to change power - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvI6JqiAZjs

[wakeup2nwo]

He who writes the history books defines who are the terrorists & who are the freedom fighters. I don't think it can be as black & white as many people believe.

I believe that there are terrorists out there that are not US or UK government lead or funded but we need to understand as a society that the powerful nations/globalists of the world are also guilty of acts of terrorism.

Can I ask you to answer two questions for me?:-

1/Was the invasion of Iraq an act of war, act of terrorism, a mistake, justified on the knowledge we had, which ones do you feel fit?

2/If I say I believe that there are people out there who are terrorists not controlled by US/UK governments do you believe that the US/UK governments control & finance terrorists?

Just interested to know what we agree on.

He wont answer any question.. why? i dont know.

[nimbus]

He wont answer any question.. why? i dont know.

No I'm happy that the second question has been answered & that we agree that there are terrorsists out there some that are government controlled some that are independent. The answer to the second question means the first one doesn't need an answer.


Did the CIA create Al-Quaida for the purpose of terrorising its own citizens? No


No, but...
Al-Quaida traces its routes back to the mujahideen who were a terrorist/freedom fighter organisation (depends if you are Russian or American) who were funded by the CIA to "Freedom Fight" against the occupying Russians in the 80's.

I don't believe that Al-Quaida are now funded by the CIA but I do believe they are a great tool that the government can use to instil fear in their populations for political milage.


So the definition of terrorism isn't just restricted to our own govs I'm afraid.

Thanks, that's cleared that up & I don't believe that anyone has said that terrorists are only from governments. I think the OP was just trying to get people who can't read between the lines & who are not already aware to appreciate that governments can also be terrorists & that if you believe that 9/11 was government orchestrated they are probably the worst terrorists, certainly if you measure by numbers killed or lives effected then add this to the subsequent wars that were given justification after this day.

[oiram]

WHO SHOULD BE LABELED A TERRORIST?

Those once which have inside knowledge but not releasing it!
Balls.

So if someone isn't aware of what their knowledge is, you label them a terrorist?


LOL! ..... do we have a misunderstanding here :confused:

Where did I pointed to that the once which don't have any knowledge of anything are terrorists?
(Would have made my entire Posting illogical!)

Not sure if I don't understand my own written words; or if you misinterpret my wording?



Look I'm not very good in English my self not having the knowledge like a English born trained subject & yes I make many typo's; but I get my computer to read my text out to me & the meaning sounded correct to me!

Could it be that you are mixing up these two words?
releasing

realizing

[nimbus]

A bit old but here is a US doc on terrorism from 2003
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/31932.pdf

Taken from this the definition below

Definitions
No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term international terrorism means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term terrorist group means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

So from this when the then chief of British defence staff Admiral Michael Boyce declared to the Afghan people that the
"squeeze will carry on until the people of the country themselves recognise that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed"....
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shifting-reasons-for-being-at-war-20101021-16vxb.html

Premeditated? YES
Politically motivated violence? [B]YES
Against non combatant targets YES
Subnational group NOPE
Clandestine agents YES
Intended to influence an audience YES

So because the good admiral represented a nation rather than a sub-nation he isn't guilty of terrorism???

What about an act of aggression as defined by the UN?

Article 3 "in accordance with the provisions of article 2", defines certain acts as aggression, such as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression.

The UK & the US carried out an armed invasion of Afghanistan to locate & destroy terrorists. What documentary evidence was there that there were terrorists in Afghanistan & that they carried out the attacks on 9/11?

Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11 - YouTube

[mrerisian]

Do you understand that the war on terror is bases on lies?

That's all you need to know


I don't think you should place limits on knowledge.

One thing I find worth knowing is that you're the sort of person who thrives on knowing very little.

My wider point is that reductionism might play well in religious circles but it is the antithesis of genuine truth. Be wary of people who think they can tell you "all you need to know".

It's amusing that this same person wants a forum which is attended to ONLY by people who agree with him:

No, im saying that if i didn't, then i wouldn't waist my time on a forum that's dedicated exposing the NWO, Illuminati..


Is it a "waist" of time talking to people who disagree with you? Furthermore if EVERYONE on here believed in your shit, to whom are you "exposing the NWO, Illuminati" etc? Not to your intended audience, they already believe.

Nonsense.

It's not surprising to me that only a few posts on you end up glorifying violence:

No one is glorifying anyone, the USA have no right to tell others how to live.. or anyone else. you have obviously been indoctrinated by the military. :(

If i come and invaded your house, what would you do.. nothing? LMAO..

Then your a cowered.. :)

I'll tell you what I'd do, prior to the invasion I'd organise some friends, hijack a couple of planes, fly them into your house and then blame it all on the Jews. How's that for a plan?

Sorry - couldn't resist but give an answer to your retarded question. It wasn't serious but then neither is your logic.

[mrerisian]

I suppose we could class everyone who mentions something scary on a forum as a terrorist.


You can if you like. I suggest that such idiocy makes the word meaningless. This is the intent of the age old meme we're discussing which for the moment we'll call: "ahhh, but who is the REAL terrorist eh?"*

Making words meaningless and reducing the language we have available to us may well be part of your agenda but I personally think it's a dangerous sport. It's driven by the sort of mentality which casually proclaims "that's all you need to know" on forums. I wonder how closely you agree with the poster whom you defend?

I do feel though that someone typing on a keyboard at home is more low level


A low level terrorist? Someone who posts scary information such as wakeup2nwo?

He's an idiot I'll grant you that but if I were in a jury and the evidence you had that he was a low level terrorist amounted only to a few ill informed posts on the David Icke forum I'd voraciously defend the poor fool.

Furthermore, your contention that he is indeed a "low level" terrorist would call any additional allegations you made regarding anyone else into question. In other words, your laughable analysis of wakeup2nwo as a "low level terrorist" discredits you.

This is the intent of the idea.


I don't think the OP has a bad argument


It's not his idea. It's not a new idea. It is one which has made you decide to view him as a "low level" terrorist. I wonder what you would class as a good argument?


For me his original post is a headline grabbbing tabloid newspaper.


Right. Well, I suppose if tabloid newspapers are what you're looking to as a measure of quality ... :rolleyes:

the "sloppy logic" of "who should labelled as terrorists" is a radical thought to most people


It really isn't. This is remedial level stuff. No adult in the UK hasn't heard this bullshit at some point in their lives.


I think the assumption is that if terrorists & the powers that be are the same how can we class our Rose tinted world as stable & fair? Again it rocks your foundations.


Yes, but it's not true. Terrorists and the powers that be are not the same. One lot are incredibly dangerous and have the capacity to destroy all life on earth the other lot only wish they could.

They only become "the same" if you narrow your world view and widen the definition of terrorist so far that it even includes crusty morons posting bullshit propaganda onto internet forums.

Such a redefinition of the word terrorist serves the purposes of two groups of people.

1, The terrorists themselves. They suddenly become a larger and more powerful group of people. Their cause looks more popular and their fight more righteous.

2, The powers that be. They are anxious to condemn as many people as possible for terrorist activity as their power grab continues and civil liberties are further destroyed in the West in the name of "fighting terrorism". They'd love to try and call someone a "low level" terrorist for posting on a forum. In fact, they already do exactly that.


Out of interest I would ask mrerisian who he or she think the worst terrorists in society are?

The ones on my doorstep.

I'll tell you what I think is really fucking depressing. The number of repeaters on this forum who appear incapable of following the logic to some of the ideas they parrot off. You can elevate terrorists all you like just be aware of the consequences.

*It's important that this is delivered in a smug slightly high pitched voice.

[octopusrex]

We all know who the real terrorists are. the banksters who hold the world to Ransom and the governments who allow them to.. our governments who invade others for material gain. killing anyone who gets in their way.

WHO SHOULD BE LABLED A TERRORIST?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkxzmsvxLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkxzmsvxLE



TERRORIST?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU

You should be labeled a terrorist!:D

[entrangermercenary]

I don't think you should place limits on knowledge.

One thing I find worth knowing is that you're the sort of person who thrives on knowing very little.

My wider point is that reductionism might play well in religious circles but it is the antithesis of genuine truth. Be wary of people who think they can tell you "all you need to know".

It's amusing that this same person wants a forum which is attended to ONLY by people who agree with him:



Is it a "waist" of time talking to people who disagree with you? Furthermore if EVERYONE on here believed in your shit, to whom are you "exposing the NWO, Illuminati" etc? Not to your intended audience, they already believe.

Nonsense.

It's not surprising to me that only a few posts on you end up glorifying violence:



I'll tell you what I'd do, prior to the invasion I'd organise some friends, hijack a couple of planes, fly them into your house and then blame it all on the Jews. How's that for a plan?

Sorry - couldn't resist but give an answer to your retarded question. It wasn't serious but then neither is your logic.

:D

Dont expect a reply from wakeup2nwo !!!! 2 REASONS

1st....Far to many BIG words in there...and your own thought process is some thing he can not conceive..

2nd...Its not in a utube form...so again...whoosh straight over his head ;)


Jiffy had him weighed up pretty quickly as well....oh well..wish I had 16 hrs a day to sit in front of the computer brainwashing myself :rolleyes:

[_ree_]

@mrerisian

i love you man! well said :D

to many know it alls on the forum lately.. people that think they know when they know shit all, the blind leading the blind, i know it's a cliche but applies well here

here, i admit it, i know fuck all and i don't have any right what so ever to tell people what to do with their lives and what to believe... it's up to them, and it's up to me to NOT believe everything i'm told, thats where i usually get shit from others because i don't agree with them, especially on the board

always question and never trust, unless it's coming from within

the true knowledge is inside, truth is within - that's just my understanding, which i'm not forcing on anybody... just saying

[nimbus]

You can if you like. I suggest that such idiocy makes the word meaningless. This is the intent of the age old meme we're discussing which for the moment we'll call: "ahhh, but who is the REAL terrorist eh?"*

Making words meaningless and reducing the language we have available to us may well be part of your agenda but I personally think it's a dangerous sport. It's driven by the sort of mentality which casually proclaims "that's all you need to know" on forums. I wonder how closely you agree with the poster whom you defend?



A low level terrorist? Someone who posts scary information such as wakeup2nwo?

He's an idiot I'll grant you that but if I were in a jury and the evidence you had that he was a low level terrorist amounted only to a few ill informed posts on the David Icke forum I'd voraciously defend the poor fool.

Furthermore, your contention that he is indeed a "low level" terrorist would call any additional allegations you made regarding anyone else into question. In other words, your laughable analysis of wakeup2nwo as a "low level terrorist" discredits you.

This is the intent of the idea.



It's not his idea. It's not a new idea. It is one which has made you decide to view him as a "low level" terrorist. I wonder what you would class as a good argument?



Right. Well, I suppose if tabloid newspapers are what you're looking to as a measure of quality ... :rolleyes:



It really isn't. This is remedial level stuff. No adult in the UK hasn't heard this bullshit at some point in their lives.



Yes, but it's not true. Terrorists and the powers that be are not the same. One lot are incredibly dangerous and have the capacity to destroy all life on earth the other lot only wish they could.

They only become "the same" if you narrow your world view and widen the definition of terrorist so far that it even includes crusty morons posting bullshit propaganda onto internet forums.

Such a redefinition of the word terrorist serves the purposes of two groups of people.

1, The terrorists themselves. They suddenly become a larger and more powerful group of people. Their cause looks more popular and their fight more righteous.

2, The powers that be. They are anxious to condemn as many people as possible for terrorist activity as their power grab continues and civil liberties are further destroyed in the West in the name of "fighting terrorism". They'd love to try and call someone a "low level" terrorist for posting on a forum. In fact, they already do exactly that.



The ones on my doorstep.

I'll tell you what I think is really fucking depressing. The number of repeaters on this forum who appear incapable of following the logic to some of the ideas they parrot off. You can elevate terrorists all you like just be aware of the consequences.

*It's important that this is delivered in a smug slightly high pitched voice.

mrerisian, I'll try to reply to your post openly & objectively without resorting to a personal attack on you.

Calling people who type on a keyboard on a forum a terrorist was in response to you defining the OP a terrorist for the same thing which was obviously sarcasm & my response was ironic.
Kind of puts everything else you have said about my views on who are terrorists into a different light...

I agree with you that hijacking words waters down their meaning & should be avoided. I do not have an agenda & making words meaningless isn't part of it.

I don't agree with the OP on everything he types, to be honest this is probably the first post I have read by him & I was a bit perturbed about how he was being attacked for an apparently genuine view, albeit not his own & not something new.

He may well be an idiot but who are we to judge? It is great being far superior to others (wakeup2nwo I'm not referring to you just talking about people in general), maybe we should class those blessed with less intelligence as a sub species scheduled for extinction. Maybe we should start a secret society where the intelligent people should be at the top controlling all the weak minded people. It's a dangerous sport...

I would class a good argument as one where people can debate ideas & personal perspectives without the debate degenerating to personal insult & derogatory statements. Verbal violence leads to physical violence so what is the point of arguing when we should be discussing?

I would class a good argument in another context as one backed up with the best evidence I could obtain & the action derived from its result as being reasonable & proportional.

I described the original post as similar to a tabloid newspaper. It was headline grabbing, that's why I read the post. I don't have to read tabloid newspapers to understand the concept but again am I less of a person if I read tabloid newspapers? Tabloid newspapers sell millions of copies a day. The Sun is read by more people in the UK than any other paper. If we are going to educate as many people as possible which format will appeal to the most people to catch their interest?

Are you sure that most adults have heard this? I'd wager that most of the people would be astounded if they really 'Heard' this.

When I was very young I had a very poorly developed brain. It has taken me many years to grow it to its current condition. There are people with far better brains than me & also with far worse. We are all at different levels & are all developing at different degrees. Surely we should give people who are less advantaged than ourselves an opportunity to voice their thoughts even if they are old ideas & not there own.

"Yes, but it's not true. Terrorists and the powers that be are not the same. One lot are incredibly dangerous and have the capacity to destroy all life on earth the other lot only wish they could."

Terrorists & the powers that be are the same they are terrorists. For their own political agenda they terrorise people. The only difference is that the powers that be are more entrenched & so give a better facade of stability than the group whom we traditionally associate as terrorists. It is not in their best interest to destroy the world, only accumilate the resources from it as their own personal wealth. The differentiation between the people in charge & terrorists gives TPTB credibility. If we knew how corrupt they really were there would be a better chance of a revolution. Not identifying the terrorist acts of our leaders keeps them in power.

By seeing how the worlds military/industrial/banking/media/politics interlink with each other & identifying that they control the world by stealth, lies & violence I feel that you actually enlarge your world view not decrease it.
Please watch the two video's I have posted featuring Noam Chomsky to understand why I feel that world leaders are terrorists.


I'm sorry if I have defended someone who you obviously don't rate but I thought your post was a bit unjustified & confrontational, not knowing the posters involved.
I read many different posts on here & the ones I don't agree with I generally just close. If I feel passionate or have something to add I add it. If there is something posted that I feel I need to answer, I answer. I can't see the point of ranting at someone for the sake of it. It is negative & wastes everyones energy. That's just the way I am.


*It's important that this is not delivered in a smug slightly high pitched voice.
Ego holds us all back.
If we attack each other on a forum such as this, designed to get like minded people working together what hope have we of ever changing the world?

[mrerisian]

Terrorists & the powers that be are the same they are terrorists. For their own political agenda they terrorise people. The only difference is that


Your long and boring post is full of contradictions and rubbish, I've cut to the nub of the argument I hope you don't mind. If you think I've missed a crucial detail let me know and I'll deal with it at a later point.

Now, one of the things you confuse yourself about is what exactly a good argument is. I can put you on the right track there. A good argument is defined thus: a logical deduction built upon a set of sound premises.

Ok. I'm going to introduce you to Mr Logic. Don't be scared, Mr Logic is your friend. Take him by the hand and he'll set you free in the end...

Mr Logic in this instance, lives inside a story ... (is this tabloid enough for you?) ...

Once upon a time a factory mades some Apple computers which all looked THE SAME. Things which look THE SAME do not display ANY differences. Hence they are said to look THE SAME. Things without differences between them look THE SAME. All the people who worked at the factory said that "these Apple computers all look THE SAME".

One day the factory in broke down and produced one Apple computer that had no Apple logo on it! Although similar the people who ran the factory were dissapointed, "this is not THE SAME," they said, "it is different to the others".

Now, a lazy man called nimbus who works at the factory but spends most of his time reading The Daily Star came along and said "no, it is THE SAME, the only difference is it doesn't have a logo on it". What he But the boss of the factory chided him and said, "no nimbus, you're wrong it is not THE SAME, it is similar. Everyone laughed, at lazy nimbus "he's ignoring the differences and making excuses in order to avoid having to deal with the reality of the situation: this factory is broken and needs fixing". Poor nimbus agreed and they all lived happily ever after.

Good, now lets look at our problem in the real world:

If terrorists and the powers that be were THE SAME, you would not need to qualify such a statement with the telling phrase "The only difference is that".

So, terrorists are either THE SAME as Governments or there is a difference between the two. If that were the case you could make the argument that they are similar. Unfortunately for you and your tabloid style argument the differences twixt the two are many, some of the crucial ones are: terrorists are not elected and they have less power than politicians.

Hence what I would say, is what I have been saying all along, this argument requires you to reduce the complexities of the situation and ignore some of its realities.

That seems to me to be a bad idea and counter to what this forum is supposed to be about.

It appears others agree with me. (thanks _ree_ !)

Now you understand my point of view you can re-read my more complex, less tabloid style posts and enjoy them like everyone else. :)

[nimbus]

mrerisian

You have chosen to ignore most of the points in my long & boring post but thats ok.

Lets deal with the points that you have focused on instead...

You asked me what my idea of a good argument was. I gave you what my idea of a good argument was based on my personal beliefs defined by what the word means to me. I even gave you two contexts of the said word. Thank you for your definition.


Now lets deal with Mr Pedant rathen than Mr Logic...

One day at the Apple factory lazy Nimbus was building computers which all looked THE SAME. Things which look THE SAME do not display ANY differences. Hence they are said to look THE SAME. Things without differences between them look THE SAME. All the people who worked at the factory said that "these Apple computers all look THE SAME".

One day the factory broke down & produced a computer with an IRA logo on it & then later the factory produced a computer that had an ALF logo on it! The people who ran the factory were dissapointed, "the computers are not THE SAME" they said.

Now, a lazy man called Nimbus who works at the factory but spends most of his time reading The Beano came along and said "no, they are THE SAME, both computers have the wrong logo on them". The boss of the factory agreed and they all lived happily ever after.

Good, now lets look at our problem in the real world:

If governments are not the same as terrorist organisations then terrorsits organisations are not the same as other terrorists organisation. They have different names, different beliefs, & contain different people who wear different colour underpants. They are not the same there are huge differences between them.
The question is 'How far do you want to push it in looking for similarities?'

Terrorist groups & Governments are the same. I quantify this statement by giving the caviat that they are only the same in that they both commit terrorist atrocities. Do you agree that purely confined to this statement that they are the same?

The question still stands from an earlier post but I'll try and corner you a bit better...
Who do you think have comitted the worst terrorist atrocities terrorist organisations or elected governments?

Whilst I'm enjoying the onanism of this debate do you not think we are wasting energy that we could be using better elsewhere?

[mrerisian]

Now lets deal with Mr Pedant rathen than Mr Logic...

One day at the Apple factory lazy Nimbus was building computers which all looked THE SAME. Things which look THE SAME do not display ANY differences. Hence they are said to look THE SAME. Things without differences between them look THE SAME. All the people who worked at the factory said that "these Apple computers all look THE SAME".

One day the factory broke down & produced a computer with an IRA logo on it & then later the factory produced a computer that had an ALF logo on it! The people who ran the factory were dissapointed, "the computers are not THE SAME" they said.

Now, a lazy man called Nimbus who works at the factory but spends most of his time reading The Beano came along and said "no, they are THE SAME, both computers have the wrong logo on them". The boss of the factory agreed and they all lived happily ever after.


No. At that point the boss said, "no lazy Nimbus they are not THE SAME. They've both got the wrong fucking logo on, go back to reading your Beano and leave this problem to the big boys eh?".

The boss then swore at a few more people sacked a couple of others and got someone in to fix the factory so it made computers that actually were THE SAME. And they all lived happily ever after.


If governments are not the same as terrorist organisations then terrorsits organisations are not the same as other terrorists organisation. They have different names, different beliefs, & contain different people who wear different colour underpants. They are not the same there are huge differences between them.
The question is 'How far do you want to push it in looking for similarities?'


Terrorist organisations all have one thing in common, their only means of effecting the populace is fear. This is what makes them terrorist organisations.


Terrorist groups & Governments (...) are only the same in that they both commit terrorist atrocities. Do you agree (...)?


They are ONLY the same in that occasionally Governments rely upon fear as a method of control.


Who do you think have comitted the worst terrorist atrocities terrorist organisations or elected governments?


It's a meaningless question. So far no terrorist organisation has dropped a nuclear bomb. They would if they could but as I've tried to explain to you, they lack the power of Governments.

You describe your debating style as "onanism". On that we agree.

;)

[nimbus]

Mrerisian

We have never met. We have never debated anything before. Can you look at some of the abuse that you have given in response to my posts in this short thread so far.

...You can if you like. I suggest that such idiocy makes the word meaningless...

...He's an idiot I'll grant you that...

...your laughable analysis...

...Well, I suppose if tabloid newspapers are what you're looking to as a measure of quality ...

...This is remedial level stuff...

...I'll tell you what I think is really fucking depressing. The number of repeaters on this forum who appear incapable of following the logic to some of the ideas they parrot off...

...Your long and boring post is full of contradictions and rubbish...

...Now, a lazy man called nimbus...

...spends most of his time reading The Daily Star...

...Everyone laughed, at lazy nimbus...

..."no lazy Nimbus they are not THE SAME. They've both got the wrong fucking logo on, go back to reading your Beano and leave this problem to the big boys eh?"...

...You describe your debating style as "onanism". On that we agree...


Can you point out to me where I have abused you in a similar manner?
The only thing I can think of is the chicken & the egg which was a light hearted effort at showing you an alternative point of view.

You have consistently avoided the issues that I have raised. You probably have not looked at the links I have posted, you have twisted my words, you have flatly refused to listen to another’s point of view or even open up useful dialogue so that we can get a better understanding of each others beliefs.

I have been courteous to you whilst you have derided me & your attitude is not conducive to having any meaningful debate or exchange of ideas. You are more concerned about scoring points rather than actually communicating with someone else.

You describe my debating style as "onanism".
Personally I can't see your debating style. You merely shout louder than the other person, abusing them so they will go away. This is criticism but I supply it to be constructive.

From your signature I assume that you feel you are above average intelligence?
This to me says a lot. As I have said before ego holds you back & feeling superior to others is not a good thing.
I have not witnessed any emotional intelligence in any of your posts so far.

You are obviously a gifted wordsmith, as you have displayed admirably in all your posts. It is sad that you use this skill negatively rather than in a more useful way.

It's pointless trying to debate further with you. We are incapable of communicating meaningfully.
For me this thread is closed.

By the way...
I don't as you incorrectly assumed read a tabloid newspaper. In fact I generally don't read any newspaper.

I am though overweight, left school with 2 GCSE's & currently work as a street cleaner. Go on knock yourself out or for once don’t respond with a thread filled with abuse.

Your choice.

[mrerisian]

Mrerisian

We have never met.


That's right. It is absurd that you might take anything said on this forum about your posts personally. I'm debating the ideas you and wakeup2nwo are putting forward. I couldn't care less what you do for a living or how many GCSE's you've got. Academic qualifications and how you earn a coin don't make those ideas any more or less valid. They are irrelevant.*

I have walked you clearly through the consequences of the "ahh, but who is the real terrorist" argument and made it plain that your position is untenable.

That is the real reason you now feel:


It's pointless trying to debate further with you.


If this experience (of being proved consistently wrong at every step) has been painful for you perhaps you should look more closely at why you made so many logical blunders. Who has put this idea out and what were their motives? Neither you or wakeup2nwo were its progenitor.

The pain you're feeling is called a learning experience. I used to get hung up about them myself. Nowadays I, well, learn from them.


We are incapable of communicating meaningfully.


Twas ever thus.

"True communication is only possible between equals"
Discordia 23

None of us are equal, we're all individual. True communication is not possible, ever.

*I've done similar jobs. Fuck anyone who judges you for it they prove themselves unworthy of your note the moment they do so. Better you do an honest day's work than be a 'high flying' banker who fucks people up with a smile.

[nimbus]

LOL

You have convinced me of nothing & I believe I have a tenable position. You have not walked me through anything & the only thing I feel is bemusement that I am unable to successfully communicate with another person who is obviously intelligent.

I guess if you keep saying the same things over & over they eventually appear true to everyone & if you selectively pick your interpretation of a situation & push it as the truth you have an opportunity to have this selected as the truth.
Never experienced that before so brutally so thanks.

I thank you for toning down the abuse in your last post after I had identified this was an issue for me.

Over to you for the final word.

[mrerisian]

Over to you for the final word.

If spelling is a mark of intelligence the title of this string is apt.

[logos880]

Osama bin lid
or
The powers that be

They are one and the same.

What's up mrerisian? :cool:

[ottawafro]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/in-eVyq4O2Y

Please sign the petition.

http://www.harkatstatement.com

We need international support ,

Tyrone
WE ARE CHANGE OTTAWA