Israel

I know Huyton schools get burned ever summer, which effects the school work but if your schools, houses and libraries get bombed then it makes it that bit harder for you and other kids to learn
 
Bambi said:
nah, theres loads of instances of govts who werent at war carrying out acts of terrorism, israel, us , spain, UK, russia. Its all the rage, declaring war is sooo 1940s

You don't have to be at war to commit an act of war. AFAIK it means any action committed by a government which could provoke a war if it were committed in peace-time, such as assassinations, bombings, occupying territory, kidnapping government officials and so on.
 
Su Jacko said:
I know Huyton schools get burned ever summer, which effects the school work but if your schools, houses and libraries get bombed then it makes it that bit harder for you and other kids to learn

You think it's going to be a whole generation before Iraq has an organised school system again?
 
as much as i know the hamas want to hurt other countries 2 so the terror attakes soon will get to few of you (thought i hope not)
anyway they wont use nuclear weapons because they know israel can destroy them, they're scare as much as the israeli do.
i just hope shit not gonna his israel too much
and i also think sharon done something stupid, i hate this asshole. :erk:
 
CHRESTFALLEN said:
You must find it very acceptable and secure to sit in your UK chair while all of you in UK are kissing American ass just to secure peace. You just copy in a bad way, "The American Way"...

What makes you think the UK public kiss Americas arse? I was in Greece last summer and this Greek fella grabbed me by the shoulders shouting "YOU ARE SLAVE OF GEORGE BUSH!!!" and he wouldnt let go, so I twatted him. Dont be ignorant mate, UK government kiss Americas arse for sure, but dont accuse 100% of the public of doing it.
Anyway, why am I defending the UK? ..come on Roscommon
 
nuke.jpg
 
Strangelight said:
Dont be ignorant mate, UK government kiss Americas arse for sure, but dont accuse 100% of the public of doing it.

Allright, maybe i took my word a little further but for sure i'm not ignorant.
I was just pissed off with pagan2002 who i think he is the ignorant one writing in such way. There are a lot of 13teens-15teens writing and reading in here, listening to what their favorite artists write or state, ignorant as he is making his words theirs, his believes theirs.
This is a burden you must carry Duncan along with all the other "famous" guys, lets say...like the rasist, fasist pagan2002... :err:
 
Crazy business, I feel like an ass having an opinion about it at safe distance.

Ariel Sharon is a lunatic, no doubt about that, but so is Arafat and that cripple, I can't help but think Sharon only killed, in the hope, it would lead to all out war, crazy. No way, there'll ever be peace with them at power.

What I don't get is the lack of perspective on both sides, how can either of them ever believe they'll drive out the other side? Senseless bloodshed, crazy business. Easy for me to say that at safe distance, but that doesn't make it less true.

At least the Kosovans seem to have come to their senses.

Oh, and i just heard a little story at the end of the news today, about Sudan suffering possibly the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of Africa. Minor news of course.
 
creastfallen what you write is stupid as hell and its just offensive accusation so dont say your a tolerant person when you cannot bear other ppls opinion - pagan was against philosophycal and religios beliefs theories and systems of violent extremist groups, not ppl (here), ffs, and you are offending a person - thats a big difference. and from a govermental action you condemed a whole nation... If anyone is a racist/fasist/biased/aggressive/evil here then its you. shame. get a cold shower.
and look up "hypocrisy" in a lexicon, maybe you didnt notice that its what you did.
 
lord667 said:
No, what I mean is that terrorism when it's backed by a government is not an act of terrorism, it's an act of war.

this is the most stupid thing i've heard lately. it's that easy like, eh? like black and white?


and for fuck's sake, dont expect anything from the US, they are being ruled by jews, they wouldnt go and support palestine or hamas, eh?
 
Don Corleone said:
this is the most stupid thing i've heard lately. it's that easy like, eh? like black and white?


and for fuck's sake, dont expect anything from the US, they are being ruled by jews, they wouldnt go and support palestine or hamas, eh?

Yes, it is black and white. A "terrorist" act, when committed by a national government, is an act of war. If you send your army or Secret Service into another country without international authority, to blow shit up or kill government officials, it's not "state terrorism", it's an act of war. If you think I'm wrong, explain how a government could order a "terrorist" act against another country without it being an act of war.
 
lord667 said:
Yes, it is black and white. A "terrorist" act, when committed by a national government, is an act of war. If you send your army or Secret Service into another country without international authority, to blow shit up or kill government officials, it's not "state terrorism", it's an act of war. If you think I'm wrong, explain how a government could order a "terrorist" act against another country without it being an act of war.
So by the same token a member of a police force beating up someone they 'suspect' of a crime is committing an act of policing and not abusing the postion for gains...???
 
lord667 said:
Yes, it is black and white. A "terrorist" act, when committed by a national government, is an act of war. If you send your army or Secret Service into another country without international authority, to blow shit up or kill government officials, it's not "state terrorism", it's an act of war. If you think I'm wrong, explain how a government could order a "terrorist" act against another country without it being an act of war.
Firstly, there is no accepted definition in international circles for terrorism, so i dont know where you get the idea that you can give a black and white definition for it. Maybe you should tell the UN that they arent up to speed :tickled:

But just as an aside, explain to me how the french bombing the rainbow warrior was an act of war rather than an act of terrorism? Or maybe what the brits were up to in dublin and monaghan in 1974?? Or what the indonesian government did to tamils and christians...can you commit acts of war against your own population?? :ill:
 
siderea said:
israel doesn't listen to any international law organisation.
puts all decisions of the united nations besides them, has nuclear weapons and still america doesn't demand international embargoes like 'no medication is allowed to go into that country' as we did to irak.
The killing of Yassin is just another example that Law without Enforcement is a MYTH. And where should the Enforcement for International Law come from when Israel commits a crime?
 
Bambi said:
Firstly, there is no accepted definition in international circles for terrorism, so i dont know where you get the idea that you can give a black and white definition for it. Maybe you should tell the UN that they arent up to speed :tickled:

But just as an aside, explain to me how the french bombing the rainbow warrior was an act of war rather than an act of terrorism? Or maybe what the brits were up to in dublin and monaghan in 1974?? Or what the indonesian government did to tamils and christians...can you commit acts of war against your own population?? :ill:

The Rainbow Warrior could have been viewed as an act of war by the nations of any of the passengers. The French government's official secret service attacked foreign nationals in foreign waters without just cause. Dublin and Monaghan could have been an act of war because the British government's official army bombed and killed Irish civilians. Either could have easily started a war in more militaristic times. As for the Indonesians - you can, though I wouldn't normally call it such. It would be a cause for civil war, rather than (uncivil?) war.