Terrorism -- Define It!

The tax cut excluded the 12 million children whose parents make between $10,000 to $26,000 a year. Those who needed the money most got the shaft.

The tax rate for incomes below $14,000 was reduced from 15% to 10% in the initial Bush tax cuts. Many people in the bracket you designated can use deductions and excemptions to get below the threshold that requires them to pay income taxes.

Infact, that group ($0-25k) saw a 1.3% income increase in the first two years of the initial Bush tax cuts (while the top end (200k+) saw drops). Not to mention that the child credit was increased by nearly double and that the marriage penalty was removed.

The top would of course get the largest dollar value of a tax return seeing as they currently pay they largest amount to begin with. Infact, that tax burden has swung to be increased on the rich. As Matthew said, the top 20% pays 82% of the taxes (up from 78% in 2001) while the bottom 80% pays 18% of taxes (down from 22%).

The initial Bush tax cuts had a more focused goal to get the economy booming. The second term plan is more across the board income rate reductions whereas the core of the initial Bush tax cuts was not the income tax reductions but the dividend and capital gains cuts. As insensative as it may sound (though not to me and I'm po') I've never been hired by a poor person.

Here's a simpler explanation of tax cuts:

Every night, ten men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, though he grumbled about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12, and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance of $59.

The ten men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos. It announced that it was cutting its prices: Now it would charge only $80 for dinner for the ten men. This reduction wouldn't affect the first four men — they would continue to eat for free. The fifth person decided to forgo his $1 contribution to the pool, and the sixth contributed $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and now paid $5. The eighth man paid $9, the ninth, $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52. Outside of the restaurant, the men compared their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I got only $1 out of the total reduction of $20, and he" — pointing to the last man — "got $7." The fifth man joined in the protest. "Yeah! I got only $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get a $7 reduction when I got only $2?" The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20 reduction. Where is our share?"

The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the tenth man. The nine angry men carried the tenth man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

But we aren't talking about tax cuts here. We're talking about the war. And as I've said before, it trumps everything, for we must win.

Hehe terrorism threads, where the geeks come out to play

I think this guy is full of shit if he compares freeing a country to terrorism.

Oh man was that a mistake or what.

Whatever side your on, whether it be good or bad, you always think your doing the right thing. "Terrorists" as north americans know them (e.g. osama) don't sit around thinking they're the bad guys, just like americans dont think that they're the bad guys. No one thinks that they are the bad guy, and in fact there is no bad guy, there are just two sides. Contrary to CNN not all middle eastern people want to be "freed" by bush. Saying we're going over there to "civilize" them is so naive, wasn't that hitler's goal as well? napoleans? If they had won, and we lived in a world child to their reign, I don't think we'd be remembering them as villains, but rather as heroes. History is written by the victor. There is no good guy in war, and all the reasons conjured up by either side are for naught because in the end peope will die and people will suffer and I don't think any good can come of that.

If america wanted to "free" people they should just keep doing what they're doing and force feeding american culture to other civilizations through magazines and tv and movies and fast food chains. Eventually the world will just be america under different names. I dunno if I'd call american freedom freedom, I don't know if freedom even exists or if its a good thing, but i guess democracy is the closest thing we got.

My definition of terrorism is the use of violence to force ones own belief upon others.

governments and organizations are bullshit. We should just be cavemen and scratch our balls and fuck and shit. True we may have never discovered clothes, or cars, or medicine. But what the fuck, happiness is in the eye of the beholder. Thought is the devil

Actually, Michael Moore who hates bush has been over to a ton of countries has said people like us. And more people want America to be there than people who don't.

You don't understand, anything is better than what they had. Installing a government for them isn't terrorism it's called freeing them. We aren't "force-feeding" them anything. Most of them want it. And in this case, there is a bad guy. I feel anyone who kills innocent people in his own country is just plain wrong. That my friend, is a bad guy.

So I'm sorry if you wish we would just sit and watch the world fight, kill civilians and hate. But I feel it's our duty as a free country to spread the freedom. People who are confined and live in fear aren't treated fairly. Everyone deserves freedom. It shouldn't be "the way it is" in other countries. If freedom isn't there it should be.

I think there are somethings worth fighting for and somethings worth dying for. Those thousands of people died but there is a bigger picture. How about the millions freed from supression? The violence has picked up since we came there, which is expected when you start a war but the end result will be far greater.

Does anyone genuinely give a shit what happens to the Iraqi people? As heartless as it seems, I really don't.

OK... heres the truth...


it may hurt


but i need to tell all of y'all


the true meaning of terrorist... cause one of you can change it into a terrorism meaning...




















and here it comes
















THE MEANING OF TERRORIST is:

ANYONE WHO GEROGE BUSH HATES!

so i better watch my back!

but when will it end? You can't kill everyone, and someones always going to hold a grudge. It's never ending. You're fighting for the future, the future never comes. If you want to help someone, pour the money your pouring into Iraq into Africa and fight aids and rape. Their have been and are injustices occuring throughout the world for a long time, and I didnt see America doing anything then. Do you really think Suddam only started killing people just now? Did you think Iraq wasn't treating people badly before? This is not a war for america to free people, this is a selfish war, this is a war to scare people from attacking america. Stop trying to justify your countries terrorist actions and take it for what it is. It's like Jae said, you didnt give a flying fuck before, and now you expect us to believe you're god sent fucking angels bringing world peace and freedom and pretty pink flowers? Give me a fucking break.

p.s. do you really think that the people who hate or at least partially dislike americans are gonna walk up to an american and tell them they hate him, especially given the current circumstances?

Michael fucking Moore? Are you kidding me? Okay. Riddle me this: some fat white guy who most would presume american comes up to you, asks you, basically, do you like me. a. Are you going to spit on his face and tell him you think he is a fat fuck yankee assed monkey shitting son of a father fucking mother fucker. b. smile and say your okay to get the fat fuck out of your face as quickly as possible.

example 2. If an indian who stunk of fucking crap akin to rotten eggs with melted cheese and 2 year old banana stuffed with horseshit soaked in 3 day old pig puke came up to me and asked me if he stunk like crap, i'd tell him he smelt like roses just to get his stinky ass out of my zone of smell. This is not a racist comment, just an example. Chill. I think indians smell like roses.

.................................

Last edited by hmm on Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

While the actions might seem similar, the motivation is what sets them apart. Terrorist groups commit acts such as the 9/11 attack out of hatred for a group of people to not only take lives but also inspire terror. Consider the people who are afraid to fly or live in fear of further attacks on important buildings and during important events.

With the war in Iraq, the motivation is somewhat different. The controversy about oil aside, the idea of overthrowing a violent dictator and his regime, one that was suspected of having weapons of mass destruction is a little more noble.

One might say that is isn't America's business to change the political structure of another country, but at least it's a little more noble than the Vietnam War. After all, Ho Chi Minh wasn't a dictator with the intent to hurt his own people - he wanted independence for his country, something that was repeatedly denied by the United Nations.

America's fear of communism, at least in Vietnam, was unfounded. Communism suited Vietnam's economy and was a means of revolution in a country seeking independence. America's economy and well-established political system didn't invite revolution in the form of communism.

In comparison, their fear that Sadaam would use weapons of mass destruction to attack other countries and that he would torture his own people was somewhat justified. In that regard you could say they had good intentions going into Iraq, but like any war good intentions still yield bad results with many innocent people losing their lives - just as they do in terrorist attacks.

Motivation is what sets them apart.

Becuase you commended the entire Military, not just the few who found him. This after you compared the military to terrorists.. so you go from critising to commending, and you can't see a backflip?

I'm commending some of their actions and scolding some of their actions. Anything wrong with this?

It's not like they were looking for a queen ant. He was found almost by accident, and it was neccesary to wipe out his whole regime, becuase even though sadaam was the catalyst, if they were to just take out sadaam and leave the rest

Please don't tell me that it was necessary to kill eleven-thousand innocent civilians to find a man and his posse.

And now the challange is to take out all the terrorists and violent people who are disrupting peace in iraq, so the country can continue to develop.

Well, that actually brings in another story --

The American military received intelligence that there was a shack housing a terrorist. And do you know what they did? They blew up the house and everything around it. No, they didn't raid it to refrain from more innocent people dying. They took the easy way out and blew up the entire house, so not only could the terrorist die but more women and children could fall to death too.

Wow, so thats your answer to everything? "get bombs that work 100% of the time" Good logic!

Oh please. Not only is it an outrage to use bomblets that only explode on impact 5-20% of the time, but the Human Rights Watch has called it an outrage that they use it in urban areas. But it's just several...thousand(!) people dying. The families can live without them.

You can't get tax cuts without playing tax in the first place..

They pay tax! 10-15%. And you know how much they had to pay after the tax cut -- 10-15%.

I think this guy is full of shit if he compares freeing a country to terrorism.

Stop misinterpreting my posts the way you want them. I'm just comparing! I'm not saying that they're the same. I'm looking at their one huge similarity -- innocent people dying!

Does anyone genuinely give a shit what happens to the Iraqi people? As heartless as it seems, I really don't.

Sorry Jae but it does seem heartless to say that. I don't know if you read the stories that I shared in my first post, but when I read them, they were so important that I felt I had to share them with the rest of the forum.

Motivation is what sets them apart.

I agree, Andrew but I like to look at it in a different way. It's like in pre-school where you knock down someone's blocks and say it was an accident. At that age, you don't realize that even though it's an accident, it's still your fault. Whether we're killing innocent people on purpose or killing them on accident, it's still our fault. It's something so huge, in fact, that I see zero justification for it.

Sorry Jae but it does seem heartless to say that. I don't know if you read the stories that I shared in my first post, but when I read them, they were so important that I felt I had to share them with the rest of the forum.

I didnt mean that in the sense that you shouldnt have shared anything with the forum, I just meant in general.. if a bunch of Iraqi's get killed sure it's sad, it's sad when anyone dies regardless of their nationality but the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't affect my day whatsoever. And I don't think there's very many people here who would be too greatly affected by it either.

Yeah it doesn't affect any of our lives, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't care. Do you think people should stop donating to charities? Most people who do so aren't affected at all by what they're donating to. Should we stop funding the AIDS epidemic(one thing I'm proud that Bush has done) in Africa? I mean, just because it doesn't affect us doesn't mean we can't care.

Terrorism = People Fucking With Our Minds And Taking An Action To Fuck It Up Even More.

While the actions might seem similar, the motivation is what sets them apart. Terrorist groups commit acts such as the 9/11 attack out of hatred for a group of people to not only take lives but also inspire terror. Consider the people who are afraid to fly or live in fear of further attacks on important buildings and during important events.

Who is to say that what drives the terrorist is not the same exact concept that drove the americans? The americans wanted to free a country, get rid of a dictator. Fine. But isn't that exactly what the people they are fighting are trying to do as well? To them, bush is a dictator, and the world needs freedom from america. Like I said, bad things have been going on in Iraq for years and years, and until now, America has at large turned a collective blind eye. Now that something bad happens to them, suddenly they're all "justice-seeking", and "righteous". Please. The reason behind the "freedom" of Iraq is not to free, but to inspire fear or "terror" of the consequences on further attacks on america. Likewise the terrorist groups conjured 9/11, not only out of hatred, but more than likely to prove a point, much in the same way america is doing now. Consider the people who are afraid to speak out against americans, considering the unavoidable example in Iraq and Afghanistan of what anti-americanism brings you.

Truth be told, I do not think americans are bad, they are in fact, from the facts I know right now as of today, the most merciful and nicest superpower in the history of the world (but who knows how they will be seen if their power eventually fades to another in the decades to come..... history has always been written by the victor). But I think you have to see things from both sides, and in the end the only conclusion that it brings me to is that war is the enemy. It brings nothing, but inevitably more war.

Does anyone genuinely give a shit what happens to the Iraqi people

But thats the thing. America, England, Australia, we all pretty much like to think we care about the less fortunate. When Hitler was sluaghtering all those jews, many people ask in hindsight "why didn't anybody do anything?" but yet, in this situation, when we do actually do something, we get called "terrorists".

Damned if you do, damned if you don't..

but when will it end?

When terrorisim is stoped, or at least contained. I don't think terrorisim can be 100% stoped, becuase the only way is for everyone to be monitored and that will never happen.

If you want to help someone, pour the money your pouring into Iraq into Africa and fight aids and rape. Their have been and are injustices occuring throughout the world for a long time, and I didnt see America doing anything then. Do you really think Suddam only started killing people just now? Did you think Iraq wasn't treating people badly before? This is not a war for america to free people, this is a selfish war, this is a war to scare people from attacking america.

Oh please, so you want to critisise the coalition for improving a country becuase aids is rampant in africa?

Stop trying to justify your countries terrorist actions and take it for what it is. It's like Jae said, you didnt give a flying fuck before, and now you expect us to believe you're god sent fucking angels bringing world peace and freedom and pretty pink flowers? Give me a fucking break.

I hardly think this is a terrorist action. I'm not sugar coating anything.. war is ugly and war is bad. But sometimes it has to happen. Look at it this way: the world changed on sep.11 . america, and england, and australia and any other country who felt threatnened realised that they could be next (look at bali or spain). So when this intelligence said to us that iraq had wmd's what are we sposed to do? Sit back and ignore the threat just to make you happy? Well, thats what canada did . But the rest of us took action before anything escalated, and it was needed. Not only did it eliminate the threat, sadaam is gone and their country is in alot better shape. But you want to call that a terrorist action? Well I guess when England retaliated to germany invading poland in ww2 was a terrorist action too. If you say no, you're contradicting yourself.

p.s. do you really think that the people who hate or at least partially dislike americans are gonna walk up to an american and tell them they hate him, especially given the current circumstances?

What is the point of that? It would be like me judging canadians on your thoughts or believes...

One might say that is isn't America's business to change the political structure of another country, but at least it's a little more noble than the Vietnam War. After all, Ho Chi Minh wasn't a dictator with the intent to hurt his own people - he wanted independence for his country, something that was repeatedly denied by the United Nations.

I never took history in high school, but if im not mistaken, the North (backed by russia) would have demolished the south, forcing communisim on the whole country. It would be like nsw and victoria joining forces and taking over all of australia to force communisim.

I'm commending some of their actions and scolding some of their actions. Anything wrong with this?

Yes, when you don't specify and make blanket statements as you did earlier.

Please don't tell me that it was necessary to kill eleven-thousand innocent civilians to find a man and his posse.

Well, yes i am. Saddam wasnt going easily. How difficult was it to take hitler out? How many civilians died there? Alot more thant 11 000.

The American military received intelligence that there was a shack housing a terrorist. And do you know what they did? They blew up the house and everything around it. No, they didn't raid it to refrain from more innocent people dying. They took the easy way out and blew up the entire house, so not only could the terrorist die but more women and children could fall to death too.

Lol, it sounds like you want them to go door to door looking for sadaam. You live in a dream world.

Oh please. Not only is it an outrage to use bomblets that only explode on impact 5-20% of the time, but the Human Rights Watch has called it an outrage that they use it in urban areas. But it's just several...thousand(!) people dying. The families can live without them.

Hehehe, human rights watch... Sounds like you dont mind if sadaam was still in power? Becuase you are critising the actions taken to remove him?

They pay tax! 10-15%. And you know how much they had to pay after the tax cut -- 10-15%.

They get it all back tho.

Stop misinterpreting my posts the way you want them. I'm just comparing! I'm not saying that they're the same. I'm looking at their one huge similarity -- innocent people dying!

and you ignore 80% of mine and bens posts, so your just like riot!

I agree, Andrew but I like to look at it in a different way. It's like in pre-school where you knock down someone's blocks and say it was an accident

Who is to say that what drives the terrorist is not the same exact concept that drove the americans? The americans wanted to free a country, get rid of a dictator. Fine. But isn't that exactly what the people they are fighting are trying to do as well? To them, bush is a dictator, and the world needs freedom from america.

But, uh, Bush isnt a dictator? The rest of your post is just rambling on, so theres no point in replying.

so your just like riot!

uh, thanks?

Sit back and ignore the threat just to make you happy? Well, thats what canada did . But the rest of us took action before anything escalated, and it was needed.

Bullshit! The Coalition of the Wlling doesn't even make up the majority of the world. Some of the countries don't even have their own army. Some were so miniscule in influence that they were asked to join so it will look like a lot of countres are actually behind the US in all of this. Here's the list:

Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Rep.
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Phillipines
Poland
Palau(wtf?)
Costa Rica
Iceland
Marhsall Islands
Solomon Islands
Micronesia
Morocco
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

Now here's a list of some countries who DID NOT support us:

Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

...and 103 other countries.

Well, yes i am. Saddam wasnt going easily. How difficult was it to take hitler out? How many civilians died there? Alot more thant 11 000

This is the 21st Century! With the technology and intelligence that we have on our hands, I find it ridiculous that anyone would find it necessary to take the lives of 11,000 people to take out a group of men.

Lol, it sounds like you want them to go door to door looking for sadaam. You live in a dream world.

Did I say that we should knock on their door and ask, "Excuse me miss. We hate to disturb you at this time of night but we were just wondering if there were any terrorists you happen to be housing in here....No? Well than, have a nice night." But I know that it is not necessary to bomb an entire household so you can find one man.

Sounds like you dont mind if sadaam was still in power? Becuase you are critising the actions taken to remove him?

Anything wrong with criticizing the actions? There are better ways to go about things. Killing 11,000 people so you can find a group of men is not necessary and in my opinion, not the right way to fulfill your mission.

and you ignore 80% of mine and bens posts, so your just like riot!

HA! No I don't. I pretty much quote everything you respond to me. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Wow, 11,000 isn't even that much in war terms. We didn't even kill all of them.

I'm so sorry that there are innocent lives lost in WAR but that's what happens. We all knew that lots of innocent lives would be lost when we invade a country full of hate and terrorism

but when will it end?

When terrorisim is stoped, or at least contained. I don't think terrorisim can be 100% stoped, becuase the only way is for everyone to be monitored and that will never happen.

= it will never end. Your fighting a battle that cant be won.

If you want to help someone, pour the money your pouring into Iraq into Africa and fight aids and rape. Their have been and are injustices occuring throughout the world for a long time, and I didnt see America doing anything then. Do you really think Suddam only started killing people just now? Did you think Iraq wasn't treating people badly before? This is not a war for america to free people, this is a selfish war, this is a war to scare people from attacking america.

Oh please, so you want to critisise the coalition for improving a country becuase aids is rampant in africa?

No, I think you should concentrate on things that are fixable first. Stop trying to police the world. If you put the money into Africa and into aids you will save a lot more lives than waging wars in Iraq to "free" people. There is no loser in finding a cure or helping to constrain disease.

I hardly think this is a terrorist action. I'm not sugar coating anything.. war is ugly and war is bad. But sometimes it has to happen. Look at it this way: the world changed on sep.11 . america, and england, and australia and any other country who felt threatnened realised that they could be next (look at bali or spain). So when this intelligence said to us that iraq had wmd's what are we sposed to do? Sit back and ignore the threat just to make you happy? Well, thats what canada did . But the rest of us took action before anything escalated, and it was needed. Not only did it eliminate the threat, sadaam is gone and their country is in alot better shape. But you want to call that a terrorist action? Well I guess when England retaliated to germany invading poland in ww2 was a terrorist action too. If you say no, you're contradicting yourself.

You should've stopped in afghanistan than wise ass. Afghanistan was the pay back, the way Iraq was handles was needless and just plain dumb. Maybe you shouldve let the UN inspectors some more time to finish inspecting? I dont think it would hurt considering the alternative. Yes, sometimes war is inevitable, but in this case it could've been avoided. Just bomb Suddams house for fucks sake. Don't tell him your going to war with him, don't tell him you suspect anything of him, he'll just go out unawares for coffee, and then you can just kill him plain and simple. Kill his retainers on the same day if you want.

Wow, 11,000 isn't even that much in war terms. We didn't even kill all of them.

11,000 for nothing is. You freed Afghanistan from Suddam? whoopee doo. thats a good thing, no doubt, but how many people can Suddam really torture all by himself? The average person in Africa lives to the age of 30. There are bigger fish to fry. If america really wanted to free a country they should've went for North Korea, but they knew North Korea could actually retaliate so they went for the little guy instead. How does the us plan to eliminate terrorism when they find it so hard to finish off one 3rd world country?

p.s. do you really think that the people who hate or at least partially dislike americans are gonna walk up to an american and tell them they hate him, especially given the current circumstances?

What is the point of that? It would be like me judging canadians on your thoughts or believes...

this was in response to someone saying that statistics showed people actually like americans. Considering what happens when you don't like americans, I hardly think any semi-intellgient person or government is going to release statistics portraying themselves as anti-american.

Well, yes i am. Saddam wasnt going easily. How difficult was it to take hitler out? How many civilians died there? Alot more thant 11 000.

Saddam isnt hitler.

But, uh, Bush isnt a dictator? The rest of your post is just rambling on, so theres no point in replying.

If you read my post then you'd understand that I said that from their perspective bush is a dictator. Good and bad are in the eye of the beholder. one can say that bush is "torturing" americans by allowing them to eat so much they get fat, cant walk, and die early Saddam doesnt sit around his campfire thinking "I'm a fucking evil bastard", he's thinking "I'm gonna free the world of those bastard americans", just like americans dont sit around thinking "we're fucking assholes", but rather "yay! we're freeing barbarians!". Again, I say, American's attack on Iraq wasn't to fucking "free" them. Iraqs been in the shit for years. America's attack was to insight fear to prevent future attacks. Stop trying to justify it to make yourselves look better. Its not a bad thing, intimidation.

War on Iraq is about saving generations.

Wrong again, buddy. It's all about cheap oil. It's a lot easier to get when you've raped and destroyed the country that has it.
When it comes to American politics, they think with their wallet instead of their brain.

This war has benefits for us, I know. But do you really think that is the only reason Bush sent people's sons, daughters, dads, ect into war? We aren't doing this just for oil, I don't even think that is the #1 reason. If you think this war is about oil than I will call you a flat out jackass.

This war has benefits for us, I know. But do you really think that is the only reason Bush sent people's sons, daughters, dads, ect into war? We aren't doing this just for oil, I don't even think that is the #1 reason. If you think this war is about oil than I will call you a flat out jackass.

There is no reason you could convince me of that this war is necessary. There is no reason to give the lives of innocent American civilians who for some reason have decided to join the army. They should never have to be put in harms way, unless it is absolutely necessary. The military is for defense, and Iraq poses no threat to the U.S. or anyone else. If they just did it to get rid of Sadaam, fine. But they got rid of him months ago, and they are still there and are still killing and being killed.

And second of all, this war does not benefit us. It benefits Bush and the rest of his oil buddies, who are getting rich off of it, by paying them millions while your economy is still FUBAR. There are more important problems Bush could deal with (education, health care) but unfortuantely for the American public, they will not benefit him financially and are therefore not a priority.

So what you're saying is we should go in there get saddam then leave? That would leave the country in an even worse being.