2006-08-02 20:06:33 · 11 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Look at it this way the empire needs terrorists and the terrorists need the empire to justify thier existance. You remove either the other wont exist. So if there were no terrorists... the empire would surely create them for its own survival.... and if there were no empire there would never be any terrorists who can work on peoples emotions to bring it down.
We need a world which is just equal and free... and trust me it is possible.
2006-08-02 20:37:26 · answer #1 · answered by boogie man 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What you should have asked was this. Has the actions of people from the mid-east set in stone the definition of the word terrorism.
2006-08-03 03:24:58 · answer #2 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The label 'terrorist' seems to be a blanket term for anyone living in the Middle East!
Israelis use the term to justify in their own minds, the killing of civilians. Bush uses the term broadly to go after whoever he likes. He has said that he will regard any vountry that harbours terrorists as terrrorists themselves. That statement leaves the interpretation of that term more open still meaning that eventually, you too could be called a terrorist!
2006-08-03 03:51:10 · answer #3 · answered by Bapboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The definition of terrorism depend if win or not. If you ask the British before 1776 about George Washington they tell you he was a terrorist.
2006-08-03 03:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by rod 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's why westerners should ponder why so many people around the world hated you so much... that they can even kill themselves just to make revenge for them homeland, familiy, friends and much mch more.....
i agree that terrorism is not good. but sometimes, when i also ponder to reactions of the places you've wasted in the name of help, maybe if i am there, i'll sign up for terrorism training too...
and i guess terrorism is the most battered up word today, especially in the US...
Look at Iraq, US is still pressing they have WMD, but until now, there is still no traces that it exists...
2006-08-03 03:14:33 · answer #5 · answered by BHEEELLAAATTT!!!!!! 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
basically yes!! by definition, we are terrorizing the living crap out of people in the middle east so no one dares to say no.
and people wonder why the Arabs hate us so much!!!
jamie sweetie where the hell did you get that saddam had something to do with 9/11 from? Bush LIED TO US and then in HIS OWN DAMN WORDS said " i dont remember ever saying that saddam was involved in 9/11 " that's what your president said honey!!!!!!
so please wake up we need here with us!
2006-08-03 03:13:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean blowing up innocent civilians or holding them hostage, then umm, no...
__________________
UPDATE:
fire fighter,
The Roman empire existed for centuries without the same threat. And if you're implying that the U.S. is an empire, then how is it that 99.999% of the terrorism we deal with is OUTSIDE of our country?
How do you propose we CREATED that? Although your argument is well-worded, the logic behind it is trivial at best...
2006-08-03 03:15:07 · answer #7 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, OUR ACTION IS NECESSARY, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE TRAIL OF TERRORISM AND THAT IS WHERE THE TRAIL LED US. S. HUSSEIN WAS HAD HAND IN 9/11 AS WELL MANY OTHER COLLEGUES IN IRAQ.
2006-08-03 03:12:54 · answer #8 · answered by Work-N-Hrd-2-Mk-It 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The old saying: PAYBACKS ARE A B__CH is appropriate here.
2006-08-03 03:12:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whatever it takes. We always find terms for dehumanizing our "enemies".
2006-08-03 03:12:36 · answer #10 · answered by GJ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋