Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
No doubt, this Democratic Congress has shown themselves to be very capable of shock and awe and terrorist like intimidation tactics to get what they want!
Who'd have thought it, Pelosi is actually a leader of terrorists; my, my, women have come such a long way in their journey these past many years after the 'vote'. I wish I could be proud, but no, it's sad and embarrassing to strong and intelligent women everywhere to watch her alternately preen, then wobble, then preen again, and you wonder what bird of prey is stalking to pluck out her false wings.
Miss taking your xanax tonight KFC? LOL! Your screeching is especially petulant this evening!
You do make me sad, feel so sorry for you, thought you'd speak up to the new Wizard persona, really hoped so, instead I find you personally attack me. You've got more than that to contribute to the problems we all face, it's not a funny guy theme now - if it ever even was. Think about it.
UPDATE: Went to the 'gun' topic and was very happy to see that you did speak up to that Wizard person, very happy, so a high five to you for doing so, and it seems odd you'd seek out me to attack when you clearly you .... can see clearly.
So you were speaking up to the wiz by attacking Pelosi? Forget what I said and take the whole bottle! It sure can't hurt your thinking process! Later Madame!
The Wiz and Pretty Panther are the same? Is that what you mean? Allrighty then......
"sad and embarrassing to strong and intelligent women"
Conservatives have Palin, Bachman, and now Sharron Angle.
Tea Party Candidate Misfires in Senate Race
I'll keep Pelosi, thank you.
You do that, keep her as long as the paper mache' holds up.
Good one, K!
Funny how anyone can be made to look crazy, huh?
Yeah, libs are good at being actually crazy and making others look crazy in their spin game, it's a well-honed defensive talent, kudos to libs for such talent and lamestream media backing ........but looking like paper mache', like you're a fragile qivering mask of foolery ..... that's just Pelosi, she's unique in that respect, and oh so original.
Despite how much you may rant and rave to the contrary, the "libs" have never come up with something as patently insane as "death panels." Until they have, you have no room to talk. (Although I wouldn't hold your breath waiting, I think that may be that special brand of Palin crazy (or conservative crazy, I'm not sure which).)
Bachman and Angle make themselves look crazy which is easy because they are crazy.
Rather than get into a detailed explanation, I just went ahead and used your own post to explain why you're wrong.
(see bolded type)
You mean like the New Black Panthers, or whatever they call themselves these days?
US Death Toll in Iraq since 2003 - Dec 2009: 4287
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … alties.htm
9/11 Death Toll: 2752
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeas … tc.deaths/
I think a more honest definition would make at least some attempt to include what people actually mean when they say "terrorist" (like intentionally killing civilians for the purpose of making a political point), and it would have served you better too.
If you want to claim that the U.S. is bad for going to war and make a death toll comparison, do it. Just say what you mean. But a semantic word game destroys your credibility, proving right out of the gate that you have no interest in having an honest conversation on the topic.
a person. Very good. So, the US Defense force is full of terrorists?
and to shadesofbreath, not my definition, its the Oxford definition.
So far as my credibility goes, I am not trying to start a movement on hubpages and nor is my whole opinion meant to be contained in such a simple post. However, although I am not claiming the US is bad or good, I do believe the US has a misconstrued understanding of terrorism.
You make a point about intentionally killing civilians. The US is not innocent by that measure.
Let's put it this way----
If you're not an American citizen, shame on you for trying to promote anti-American propoganda toward a Nation whose soldiers are doing all they can to honorably fight terrorism.
If you ARE an American citizen, shame on you for trying to promote anti-American propoganda.
Gee, did I say shame on you? Good.
Now, if you were to question whether the current Obama Administration is causing terror or not, you'd have a valid question. But you should've stated your title that way, in my opinion.
Shame on everyone? Who knew you were a Universalist?
Come on, Ron. You know I'm not a Universalist.
I'm just "universally" against Obama's hogwash. The stigma of his horrid policies stinks up everything all across the board (I mean the board of...just everything; it's a figure of speech).
Maybe an anti-universalist? Hell for everyone instead of salvation.
I wouldn't wish hell on anyone.
And oh Ron----you're fighting the Flame! lol. This tangent of conversation is one that should be in the Christian Discussion thread. Are you runnin' away?
Anyhow, it's past my bedtime. I'll leave you in the capable hands of the strong conservatives here. I do pity you in that, 'cause they're on the winning side come November or 2012 or some future time! See, I'm very optimistic.
I can separate military policy from the Nation Whole. Get over it.
If that reply was too coded for your restricted mind, I mean this; by the fact I oppose Western force in the Middle East does not mean I am spreading Anti-American propaganda.
Whats next, you will start calling me a communist?
I am a British and Australian citizen also, I don't support either of these countries in their military efforts. It is not about national pride or national identity or solidarity, it is about murder of civilians, it is about lack of respect for human life, whether those lives are Iraqi, Afghan, American, British, Australia, Islamic, Christian, Secular.
Do you get that Brenda?
I got it.
I just totally disagree and think that you're way too quick to make a put-down about America.
I got the "SweetCheeks" comment in your other post too, thank you! Makes me feel young again, SugarBun.
kind of like the beheading of people who dont agree with extremist Islam. Killing jews becuase of being jewish. blowing up people at their places of worship. tribal elders gang rapings young women for not being modest. Kill little kids becuase their parents dont support jihad. shooting people from hospitals and mosques. stone people to death for not following their brand of religion.
attacking military forces while surrounding themselves with women and babies. ( cowards) Torturing kids becuase they stole bread. holding entire communitys hostage by threatening to kill their children. yep sounds Humane to me.
That is not an appropriate address to a lady. A little respect isn't too much to ask.
Sounds like every damn nation in this world. No nation is exempt from the essential definition of "terrorist". Singling out one country to bear the weight of a certain ideology is ignorance. However, if that nation is the forerunner of that ideology then they will be "singled out" as a nuisance.
So, sort of like when one country bombs the Sh!t out of another country for about 30 years and then that country gets fed up and sends a few mini-terror army dudes to blow some stuff up and hopes that the big mean country will leave them alone? Sorta like that?
I saw a bumper sticker last week -
"Terrorism - War on a Small Budget"
Wiz, I see you for what you are.
Angry and envious, just like the rest of the world.
Angry the USA won't be like you, and envious you cannot be like the USA.
It is a lethal combination and it is eating you up.
Get some help... you have the Right to it.
Massy, I am sure that makes sense through your nationalistic eye but I am not envious and nor am I angry at the USA. I am not sure why you think these things. Like I said before, I have even considered a visit, I reconsidered but not out of anger or envy. Maybe one day I will visit, who knows. Clearly, you have made your mind up about me, I can deal with that. I won't lose sleep. I don't assume you are a representative of your country. I have met Americans before and some of them were pleasant some not. Same as any other place. I do find it entertaining that you think the world, not just me; we are all angry and envious. That is very interesting. Maybe you could come visit me in Australia, we have free health care here. We also have very good research universities. Maybe you could get yourself checked out while you are here. Maybe they could sort out these bizarre notions of world wide America envy?
" Maybe one day I will visit, who knows"
Whoa now, you gave your word that you would not.
"I lie all the time"
Well, now I can judge your character accordingly.
Go for it. I am sure your analysis will fit your cut and paste lifestyle very well.
This sort of reading will get you nowhere in life. Language is more than words. Are you playing the fool or are you just not aware of the second dimension?
YOU said that you are a dishonest person who does not keep his word. I would hope that is not true, but you said it not me.
Oh, was THAT a lie? I see...
Wow. So you really do see the world in one dimension?
Why don't we try this. YOU tell ME whether the above is accurate or not and I'll take your word for it.
I am not your English teacher. Work it out.
You most certainly are not, but that is not what I asked.
Yet again, over your head.
Two parts, Sab.
a) I am not your English teacher
b) Work it out.
I am playing word games with you because I can. I wouldn't bother jumping on the internet on a public forum and expect to have a mature, considered conversation with every troll that throws a line.
Because I know your English is not all there, I am not implying you are a troll. You may well be, but who am I to say? What I am suggesting, Mr Oh, is that some people read and they read with purpose, with an inquiring mind. Other people watch television, they read the newspaper, they might even Google. Without the desire for knowledge, all I expect from anybody is to regurgitate the food for thought available in the drive through library.
No offense intended, I never considered you an intellectual. I mean no insult by this, I am sure you are talented in some other way.
Sab Oh, it really is pointless to even engage in a conversation with someone ready to be snide and superior with broad statements of psuedo intellect coming from base empty/heartless/bogus rhetoric -- and only intended to quash legit discussion. Australia is mostly a fine country, fine people, and those that aren't no doubt are the ones that inspire the aborigines to set fire and burn at will.
Broad statements? Do tell.
Pseudo-intellect? Honey buns, I don't need to pretend.
Legit discussion? From you.. Or your buddy Sab Oh?
Re: the aborigines setting fires? Wow. Is that your authentic intellect
Are you incapable of qualifying the statements in question or electing to not admit the reality you actually have nothing to say and so carry on stringing words together without conveying anything but your delusion of being better than?
You haven't had anything constructive to say in this thread and the only time you pop up is to slap Sab Oh on the a$$ and giggle. You're a joke.
You apparently can't understand plain English despite your criticisms of others in that regard.
To repeat: LOL. Find another for your empty pretenses.
"I am playing word games with you because I can. "
You're not doing a real good job of it.
"Because I know your English is not all there"
Oh, it's all there. Don't worry about that.
"Sab Oh, it really is pointless to even engage in a conversation with someone ready to be snide and superior with broad statements of psuedo intellect coming from base empty/heartless/bogus rhetoric -- and only intended to quash legit discussion. Australia is mostly a fine country, fine people, and those that aren't no doubt are the ones that inspire the aborigines to set fire and burn at will."
I find nothing to disagree with in this fine post.
"Pseudo-intellect? Honey buns, I don't need to pretend. "
I believe we've been over this before, but you really should address women in a more respectful manner.
"I am convinced it is not there."
I haven't seen anything that suggests you are qualified to make that determination, but I assure you it is.
"respect is earnt sab."
But insulting sexist remarks are automatic?
"Aww. What are you going to do Sab?
If you or flipper is really offended by that then maybe you should go to bed earlier and your mum should cut off the internet privileges."
And now more insults AND implied threats? Come on man, you can do better than this. Why not just discuss the topic without all the extra stuff?
"In closing, i.e. this is my last reply to either yourself or Sab;
Logic stands and you have both bored me to death."
Very poorly done. I hope we can move past this kind of thing and have more productive discussions.
"You can try assure me Sab but you cannot administer assurance by the fact I am already closed to the idea. "
That's too bad. I guess you'll miss the fact that I am far more qualified in matters pertaining to the subject of the English language than yourself. Here's hoping we can have more positive and productive discussions in the future.
"You haven't had anything constructive to say in this thread and the only time you pop up is to slap Sab Oh on the a$$ and giggle. You're a joke."
Please refrain from personal insults.
Aww. What are you going to do Sab?
If you or flipper is really offended by that then maybe you should go to bed earlier and your mum should cut off the internet privileges.
Yes, I thought it was quite a pesonal sexist insult. Thanks.
"No offense intended, I never considered you an intellectual."
All things considered, I'll take that as a compliment.
It is hard having any kind of 'in-depth' communication with a flat-earther isn't it
I actually wrote a paper on this centering around the United States use of a strategy of "Shock and Awe." Reading the strategy manual on which it was based was quite enlightening, and not a little disturbing. I have included an excerpt from the paper following the U.N.'s current working definition of terrorism.
The current U.N. working definition of terrorism
Operation Iraq Freedom was conducted based on the doctrine of Shock and Awe, which was first articulated by Harlan Ullman in his 1996 book 'Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance.' Shock and Awe, as articulated by Ullman, is an inherently terroristic doctrine, and any campaign that truly applies the principles of Shock and Awe can be fairly called “terroristic.” First, according to Ullman, “The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the [...] goals of the conflict[.]” This is, as yet, not inherently terroristic; however, it could certainly be viewed as such, in the sense that “affect[ing] the will, perception, and understanding” could mean nothing more than terrorizing the target. This is certainly implied by the name Shock and Awe, which is nothing more than “terror” made politically acceptable. As one continues through the book Ullman uses a number of historical examples to illustrate the concept of Shock and Awe. Nearly all of them are terroristic. From the massive bombardments of World Wars one and two to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki his examples include incredible factors of cruelty, terror, and often civilian deaths. What is even more telling is the extent to which Shock and Awe perfectly matches the U.N. definition of terrorism: “The fundamental values or lives are the principal targets and the aim is to convince the majority that resistance is futile by targeting and harming the few.” This matches perfectly with “the immediate human victims of violence [...] serve as message generators.” Both include the concept of threat and violence in the service of coercion, specifically against civilian targets (Ullman cannot possibly think that “by targeting and harming the few” he could effect the surrender of an army). Finally Ullman nigh on states the terroristic nature of his strategy, “While there are surely humanitarian considerations that cannot or should not be ignored, the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm.” Not only does Ullman completely ignore the issue of civilian casualties but he states that the intent of Shock and Awe is to “frighten, scare, intimidate.” There is no conclusion but that Shock and Awe is intrinsically terroristic, a worrisome fact given that it was the strategy behind Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This conclusion is held out by the further statements made by Ullman and by the Pentagon. From General Tommy Franks now infamous statement that "we don't do body counts" to UIlman's own statement in an interview that "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," and finally the statement of an unnamed Pentagon official that "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad.”
The way the U.S. handled the aftermath of this operation, the occupation, finally proves its intention as a terrorist attack. Examined from any other prospective the U.S.’s handling of the occupation, and the extent to which they were prepared for it, is simply idiotic. The U.S. had an unworkable post-war plan, as Galbraith explains:
Galbraith is exactly right in that the Bush administration thought it would be easy; however, he is incorrect in his assumptions. The U.S. did not expect the bureaucrats and police to return to their posts the next day; the U.S. expected that the populace would be in such a state of shock that it would not matter. The U.S. intended for the populace to be too terrorized, too awed, to act in any meaningful way. This is why the force the U.S. sent to occupy Iraq was too few by several hundred thousand; this is why the U.S. provided no plans for replacing the police force, or any immediate interim government. As Frederick Kagan observed about the doctrine of Shock and Awe:
It is true that war is not about “breaking things and killing people” but terrorism is. Terrorism is about “breaking things and killing people” in such a way as to scare the people into doing what you want. This is precisely what the U.S. was expecting, that their terrorist attack would have scared the people into doing what it wanted, cowing them into submission. It did not, which is why it is in so much trouble there now.
If you want more of the essay, I can post it. Likewise, if you want my citations I can post those too.
I see Sarah Pailin is on top of the confusion. She wears a name tag so she knows who she is. A fine idea for when she gets lost in a trance while talking in tongues.
She is an embarrassment to our country, Earnest! At least to some of us. It is very frightening she was able to even be considered for such a high public office. This shows the amount of ignorance some on the right have about how qualified she is!
Not surprising unfortunately, considering those who supported Dubya for two terms!
Sarah Palin reminds me of an American version of one of our fish and chip shop ex-pollies, yet NOWHERE near as good looking
Pants down? haha. Are you saying Pauline or Palin is the hot one?
Hey Kanga! I'd forgotten about that crazy flake chucker! Mind you, her electorate is not the home of our greatest thinkers!
Pailin and her are intellectual twins. Elma Fudds in drag.
How dare you insult our Elmer Fudd like that, Earnest! He speaks so much better than Palin! LOL!
Im saying Palin is the hot one Wizard, Pants Down is.... Ok, lets not go there lol
Bush ordered the attacks on Iraq, not Obama. I feel safe in saying this would not have happened under any other administration. The info which allowed this to happen was manipulated and misconstrued by the Bush administration in order to enable this to happen.
Remember the posters with the mobile biological weapons labs pictured on them? It turns out they were made up to create the false impression of them actually existing at all. Only a terrorist would manipulate people into going to war in this manner.
Like the weapons of mass destruction, the mobile labs didn't exist at all. Whose heads rolled over this blatant act? No one so far!
And of course all of this can be proven. That's why all those charges have been brought...oh, that's riiiiiiiight....
I don't think I have to prove Bush, not Obama started the Iraq War, do I? Even someone of your ilk must know this!
I don't blame you for trying to change the subject.
Not changing the subject at all! The fabricating of the posters were admitted to! Computer generated renderings " of info, that's all! Or perhaps you have evidence they did exist after all?
Here is one of many links you can check out. Yes, it's wikipedia but it seems to cut to the chase. Check out others if you like! The Fox News version would probably be the best bet for you.
"in order to enable this to happen."
When does the trial begin?
p.s. LOL @ wiki !!!
I never said there would be a trial, just that there should be. I told you there were other links but you apparently are afraid to look. I don't blame you! LOL! It makes no difference, you obviously feel the war was worth whatever deception was needed to get us motivated to invade Iraq.
"I never said there would be a trial"
LOL! And we both know why.
Sure! Because the Bush cronies subpoenaed by congress refused to even show up and take the fifth! And we know why don't we? You think it was because they were innocent?
No, that's not it. You know why and I know you won't admit to it.
"You know why and I know you won't admit to it."
You're implying that since there has been no trial, and no convictions, that there has been no crime.
That is sophistry of the worst kind, and intellectually lazy to boot. (Not surprising, really.)
All that one can conclude from the fact that there has been no trial is that nobody has been convicted, and therefore nobody is legally guilty, and that's true.
Just because you haven't been brought to justice doesn't mean that you have committed no crime.
"You're implying that since there has been no trial, and no convictions, that there has been no crime."
THEN you said:
"therefore nobody is legally guilty"
Hi Randy - you are wasting your time and thread space I think - the same people who believe that the invasion of Iraq was not based on lies and deceit probably agree with the other nuts who try to tell us that the nazi death camps were fabricated lies and Jewish propoganda.
I know it China Man! But he needs feeding!
I hope you are not actually casting accusations of Holocaust denial, Straw man.
Yes Bush did order attacks on Iraq after approval from Congress. Mr Obama has continued that action and seems content to stay there.
Is Guantanamo Bay still operating??
I don't think "seems content" accurately describes his actions. And all of congress did not vote to go into Iraq as someone has already pointed out.
If the real intelligence had been made known to congress it is doubtful we would ever have invaded Iraq in the first place!
All of Congress did not all vote in favor of attacking, but, since when did a unanimous vote become necessary? Did I miss something?
Are we out of Iraq?
His inaction in that regard implies contentment to me.
And well over a year since promising to close Guantanamo it still operates.
I am all for giving him a chance to correct the mistakes he claims to have inherited, but he does nothing but point fingers, thats not leadership to me.
It is not doubtful - it is a certainty - Without the manufactured lies that 'justified' their actions it would not have been possible, even with the fundamentalist religious groups slavering at the thought of another 'crusade'.
And without the lies they would not have been able to con our dimwit UK Prime Minister into joining and supporting their actions, without that support the US would have had NO significant world backing at all, except for those countries with US puppet governments who do not count on the world stage on their own.
Also Obama has to contend with the entrenched forces such as the bankers, just under half the politicians and especially the military, he can't just 'pull out' because he does not have the power to do so.
I notice the theophobes never miss a chance to inject the subject of scary-scary religion into any and every topic.
Again your wrong, Chinamen...
I don't buy the lie, story, British intelligence still stands by that info. And I know for a fact that the "Socialist NAZIs" slaughtered the Jews in the camps. Well many, many, of the lil socialist people in Europe, turned a blind eye.
Americans on the right and in the middle are alot sarter then you arrogant leftists believe us to be. We have seen where the left has taken this world in the past and we will not allow it to be done again.
You can all bash Bush all you want... the man is a progressive... do i need to explain further. We see you leant leftists and Progressives, where and for who you all are.
If anyone is crazy it our own speaker of the house Ms Pelosi, who just this week said: "Unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs." Someone please explain this to me cause I did not attend Harvard, maybe it's why I just don't understand.
Them people is....edjumacated fewls...is how I refers to 'em.
Unemployment cheques put money in the pockets of people who would otherwise have a lot less money. In a society like yours, where the savings rate is essentially zero, money in the pocket gets spent. It gets spent at places that provide jobs, like mom-and-pop stores, car showrooms, WalMart, bookstores, and grocery stores. I am not saying I agree with the logic, because I haven't thought about it too deeply, but on the face of it, it does seem to make sense that the more money individuals have in their pockets, the better this is for businesses that sell stuff.
Actually, attending Junior High School should give a person all the education necessary to understand such a basic concept.
Some money is greater than no money.
A person with no money may salivate at the sight of a twinkie, but he cannot buy one to eat.
A person with some money can buy a twinkie.
The twinkie is only available to be purchased if a guy bakes it, someone else ships it, and yet another person displays it and sells it. (job creation as a result of federal government spending)
Nancy Pelosi gets mega campaign contributions from the twinkie company.
FoxNews has something to bitch about which creates a need to hire screaming morons who are otherwise unemployable.
I'm not totally against unemployment checks! They are a help to people who deserve them.
My disagreement is with Pelosi in general, and I'm sure her stance on illegal immigration and "artistic license" and such nonsense would eat up the funds that should be going to the hardworking citizens.
Oh, something Pelosi said about how artists and etc. could focus on their "work" and still have health care, which of course leads me to believe she'd want the government to provide them a living in all areas. I assume she's wanting America to become the modern version of ancient Greece or something.
Whatever. It does a man (or woman) good to earn their keep by the "sweat of their brow".
But hey, come to think of it, all us writers here on HubPages could ask Pelosi and the nonsense-Administration to take keer uv all uv us whilst we bask in our grrreatt artistic talllints! LOL
You may be onto something there.
But I have to agree. The state should be seperate from the arts (and the church)
You don't think artists and writers work hard?
Of course they do, many of them!
And my post was not to say that there aren't many hugely talented writers here on HubPages and elsewhere, because indeed there are! I'm in awe of some Hubbers' writings and skill. But personal writing shouldn't be put in the same category overall as a regular job. Some people, privately and publicly, make a living at it, and that's great! But I think Pelosi was opening the door to an ultimate situation that would cut way down on America's production of goods and services while we all become further and further under the thumb of her governmental-tyranny mindset.
Brenda wasn't implying that artists don't work hard, and her remark about a return to old Greece was apt given the political context, so I'm surprised at your persistent thrust to portray ill from her comments. I've even written a villanelle of late about the sweat of the brow and sweat of the mind -- it's an age old ...... argument of sorts.
The implications of Pelosi's gushing comments are nothing but reflective of Pelosi's mis-placed Goddess mentality. God help us all if we should ever find ourselves saddled with her as President, 'udderly' frightening......
Opening Post: "Terrorist n. a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community."
To Repeat: "You mean like the New Black Panthers, or whatever they call themselves these days?"
It was boring the first time you said it.. I guess that's why nobody replied.
Are you feeling unloved?
The book and movie "War Made Easy" document the United States' nasty habit of using military force to solve diplomatic and economic problems around the world.
Hope you enjoy your peaceful cup of coffee and choice of breakfast in the morning......
Thanks. I shall. I wish you had taken the time to watch the YouTube trailer of the movie. [I sent a copy of the book and movie video to Carl Levin. Somehow I doubt that he took the time to read or watch it either. I did get a thank you note from one of his staffers.]
Actually, I will watch it. But, nothing will ever make me see our country as somehow a bad place to be, a bad country to call home, a bad country that even the likes of China is superior to in any way. We'll never know the actual numbers of people killed or imprisoned in China, Iraq, Iran, and across the world where war and death are the daily bread for those who have an undesirable opinion.
I'm not saying the U.S. is a bad country. Just recognizing that it's an imperfect country. And one that's much less imperfect than most other countries.
That would be a matter of purely political opinion - I daresay if the USA held such a low spot on the totem, was so much "less imperfect than most other countries" we would not have any sort of an immigration problem.
The true intellectual discussion that those such as yourself bring to the table, would be at the table, regardless of any distress within our country, and that would be healthy for our country -- just not now when there is so much blatant intent to weaken us -- it serves no American.
Report me if you like.
It would find it remarkable to be banned for such a statement. If that is the mentality of the staff it would be a damn shame. Do what you must.
Wouldn't it be better for all of us to just try and communicate without personal insults and sexist remarks without needing to resort to 'reporting' and such? I'm sure it would be simpler to just exercise a little self control.
Apparently, Sob oh and KFC peed the most! Congrats! LOL!
by cooldad2 years ago
I can't help but wonder if the United States could be considered a terrorist nation. With its actions in the past and the present, can the U.S. be considered terrorists?The treatment of Native Americans, slavery,...
by cooldad4 years ago
Now that we all have had time to reflect, was the United States war on terrorism valid?Or, did our instant gratification culutre, react to quickly based on emotion and fear?I think American people are easily led by fear...
by Deforest3 years ago
For me, it would entail the coalition of an elite and a government to terrorize a third group, the people. For instance, the collusion of Mandchurian candidates and the CIA to attack totally randomly the Boston Marathon...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Good morning, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the terrorist threats facing our nation and the efforts of the FBI to...
by The stallion15 months ago
People all over the world think that we Pakistanis are all terrorists. I beg to differ! I know that recently there have been quite a few terrorist activities around the world which were supposedly associated with...
by Sooner284 years ago
No one had any question that George Bush's War on Terror was at least partially referring to terrorists. It wasn't "up in the air."An act of terror would have to be performed by a terrorist! No...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.