Is Obama a terrorist?

[peener weener]

for the mentally challenged: big number > small number

but you probably won't get it so i'll stop wasting my time on you

stay classy. why don't i, a mentally challenged man, go over your previous post?

it was an example, sir fuccboi.

yeah, classy. just like that.

i'm also not going to look up the exact numbers to please you, if you're wondering.

so, essentially, you're saying you don't really give a fuck. i'm not sure about what it is that you are not giving a fuck, though. i have no idea what numbers you are speaking of. number of deaths prevented, maybe? deaths prevented by like, killing a few thousand people in the middle east or whatever, probably. right? yeah, that sounds about reasonable.

how is deaths prevented even a quantifiable statistic? deaths prevented from... what, exactly? terrorists?

i know those people have lives,

good fucking job. and here i thought you were lacking common human decen--

and it sucks that people have to die

oh.

(people die every day btw)

oohh.

but if it would be to make sure another 911 doesn't happen

another 9/11? do you even realise what you're saying? what if "god damn terrorists" start bombing the shit out of american cities with drones to prevent them from continuing the killing of thousands? is repeating "911" like a mantra to you? do you really think a religious extremist suicide bomber's attack twelve fucking years ago justifies bombing a country regularly?

there you go. bluh bluh duhhhh me no thunk too good. (that's me, a mentally challenged man)

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies...

...

jesus fucking christ.

Edited May 26, 2014 by fuccboi

[Parrhesia]

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies...

How do you read this thread, and the point from it you take is 'three thousand dead isn't a big deal'?

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies.

Hat-tip for having the backbone to post this.

[Sunshine]

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies...

I don't think I even know the names of 3000 people I've met in my life. This is like.... me literally losing everyone I've ever known. I know that 3000 isn't a lot in comparison to the entire fucking world, but it's a lot in comparison to the community that they live in. Besides, 3000 can snowball when BOTH sides are pissed about losing people that they care about.

Edit: On topic... I don't think he's a terrorist. A bad leader, maybe; I don't even know if I can find too many leaders I can agree with in the world. I wouldn't necessarily call any of them terrorists, though I don't really feel like many of them are doing too great. Then again, I don't keep up with world news too well, and the news doesn't often inflate the good news as well as the bad.

*Turns on news* Let's see.... Fire in california, train derailment, car accident, and all a lot of people may think is "Damn, I gotta take a different route to work. Sucks about the other things though."

Edited May 26, 2014 by Marek

[Rehab]

I remember hearing at some point on the News Hour, while the Iraq war was going on, that they weren't even counting the number of civilians dead, but that it would be much higher than the number of our soldiers dead

Even people who support the U.S.'s actions because whatever have to admit we've shed a lot of (innocent) blood, certainly a lot more than we ourselves have lost

[Parrhesia]

Hat-tip for having the backbone to post this.

No, accidentally outing that you're a miserable waste of oxygen doesn't mean you have to take off your baseball cap in respect. That is not a logical reaction.

[peener weener]

also, the premise of the thread could help being at least mildly less contrived bullshit. honestly. "are obama's actions in the middle east acceptable?" is much more inviting to serious discussion than "OBUMMER IS A TERRORIST. IT SAYS SO IN THE DICTIONARY." jesus fuck.

Edited May 26, 2014 by fuccboi

[Comet]

stay classy. why don't i, a mentally challenged man, go over your previous post?

there you go. bluh bluh duhhhh me no thunk too good. (that's me, a mentally challenged man)

...

jesus fucking christ.

i was wrong, i know. i apologize for causing the trouble.

Eh... What the fuck... Like you don't care about people dying prematurely? Do you?

How do you read this thread, and the point from it you take is 'three thousand dead isn't a big deal'?

no, i was apologizing for talking about something i had about no knowledge about.

@naughx: i don't like it when people die, but i'm also not going to cry for an hour for every person that dies.

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

I remember hearing at some point on the News Hour, while the Iraq war was going on, that they weren't even counting the number of civilians dead, but that it would be much higher than the number of our soldiers dead

Even people who support the U.S.'s actions because whatever have to admit we've shed a lot of (innocent) blood, certainly a lot more than we ourselves have lost

Using the amount of dead soldier isn't exactly a good number to compare at. A bloodbath of 1000 civilians (not pointing any situation ever happened) is a bloodbath of 1000 civilian, no matter if you lost 10 or 10000 soldiers. Other than that I am not going to argue your point

No, accidentally outing that you're a miserable waste of oxygen doesn't mean you have to take off your baseball cap in respect. That is not a logical reaction.

I do not like his way of thinking but I have the decency to acknowledge that he admitted his mistake. I'm not going to hate the guy for admitting he has made a mistake for goodness sake. As for hat-tipping, I know admitting own mistake is hard and I respect it.

Edited May 26, 2014 by a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes

[Emeraldfox]

I like where this thread is going.

Also, no.

[Lord Raven]

How do you read this thread, and the point from it you take is 'three thousand dead isn't a big deal'?

I interpreted it as "9/11 was a huge deal and 3000 people died so 2400 must be pretty bad" or something. The "only" part was the kicker

To contribute to the thread: I don't think the President does as much as one thinks, and I believe a ton of what's going on now can be traced back to the Regan administration and beyond. I would say the actions of the current administration are abhorrent but I also would say that the entire situation is more complicated than we think it is.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Naughx]

no, i was apologizing for talking about something i had about no knowledge about.

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies...

^ This ^

[Rehab]

Using the amount of dead soldier isn't exactly a good number to compare at. A bloodbath of 1000 civilians (not pointing any situation ever happened) is a bloodbath of 1000 civilian, no matter if you lost 10 or 10000 soldiers. Other than that I am not going to argue your point

I do not like his way of thinking but I have the decency to acknowledge that he admitted his mistake. I'm not going to hate the guy for admitting he has made a mistake for goodness sake. As for hat-tipping, I know admitting own mistake is hard and I respect it.

I just mean you have to be pretty generous to us (or rather our government) to say "what the U.S. has been doing is worth it, on balance"

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

"only 3000..." is in this context "The amount of 9/11 victims was much lower than I expected it to be" and you really should harp on it so hard.

And no, Obama is not a terrorist because he is for all intends and purposes doing his job. I do not like what is going on but I sure as hell won't single him out as terrorist and blame him for U.S's crap

@Rehab

U.S is doing what US is doing because it can. U.S just has somewhat better reputation than its kin. Yes you can read "kin" as Russia and the Ukraine thing.

Edited May 26, 2014 by a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes

[Phoenix Wright]

i don't think this post will matter, as other posters have already shown you how dangerous your views are. and if those haven't done anything to persuade you, then neither will this. nevertheless:

compared to what osama did, it really isn't that much... and when you see the world population, 2400 isn't that big of a number... would it be better if those lives could be saved? definitely. is a perfect world where stuff like this never happens plausible? sadly, no, or at least not for a long time.

i prefer idealistic. if you could end 2400 lives to save 500000, wouldn't you do it? it is a shame that people die either way, but 500000 is much bigger than 2400, also proving my point on 2400 not being that big.

though the fact that osama wasn't given a fair trail isn't exactly fair i will admit, regardless of the severity of his crimes...

what did osama do that killed 500k people? i don't think al-qaeda has directly killed anywhere near 100,000. really, it's us that have murdered tens of thousands of civilians (nearly 20,000 in afghanistan alone). it is really us that is the tirading monster in the middle east.

if you're talking about 9/11, then your number is...incorrect, to put it lightly.

save them from who?

it was an example, sir fuccboi. i'm also not going to look up the exact numbers to please you, if you're wondering. i know those people have lives, and it sucks that people have to die (people die every day btw) but if it would be to make sure another 911 doesn't happen, it would be worth it.

that's cute, you think i care about what some stranger on the internet thinks of me

oh, yes you are. you aren't going to pull shit from your ass, present it to all of us as gold, and sit back down with and smile like you've succeeded in something.

[Comet]

i don't think this post will matter, as other posters have already shown you how dangerous your views are. and if those haven't done anything to persuade you, then neither will this. nevertheless:

what did osama do that killed 500k people? i don't think al-qaeda has directly killed anywhere near 100,000. really, it's us that have murdered tens of thousands of civilians (nearly 20,000 in afghanistan alone). it is really us that is the tirading monster in the middle east.

if you're talking about 9/11, then your number is...incorrect, to put it lightly.

save them from who?

oh, yes you are. you aren't going to pull shit from your ass, present it to all of us as gold, and sit back down with and smile like you've succeeded in something.

...only 3000... oops... well, everybody here has my apologies...

...

[peener weener]

...

i think you missed the point entirely.

[Junk]

hmm I define terrorism as committing acts to cause terror and fear. I will admit I have no sources but I don't think that was Obama's intention to cause terror and fear.

[Comet]

i think you missed the point entirely.

you mean where i was wrong to a pathetic level? yeah, i know. ANYWAY, i was wrong, so can we just stop talking about this?

[NobodiePichu]

bah calling obama a terrorist is a gross exaggeration. they guys not the best leader but he certainly isn't the worse. plus the term terrorist is just a word humans created to justify something that has happened in history plenty of times, its propaganda for allowing the stupid wars going on to happen in the first place. i think a better term for the idea of terrorist that commonly goes around is religious extremist and not only have we had plenty of those in history, but obama certainly isn't a religious extremist.

so calling obama a terrorist is silly and a grossly exaggerated propaganda created by those who have a problem with his policy's or just don't want him as president for whatever reason. However calling group mentality, anti Semitic propaganda, and the current attitude and belief of many us citizens scary, I think is perfectly reasonable.

Terrorist is just a made up word with no clear definition. it doesn't mean anything unless people let it mean something.

[Phoenix Wright]

you mean where i was wrong to a pathetic level? yeah, i know. ANYWAY, i was wrong, so can we just stop talking about this?

that was a big part of your post, but it wasn't a big part of how you feel, or the idea you were trying to get across. i don't take much issue with the fact that your numbers were off (other than that this should be a lesson to research first), it's more the philosophy of "2400 deaths isn't a lot, so in the big scheme of things, it's not harsh" that alarms me. this is the point i was alluding to in my initial post, as well.

take world war two as an example. over 60 million perished, yet that was a "measly" 2.5% of the world's population. so really, is 60 million that big of a number? 20,000 divided by afghanistan's current population (34.5 million) gets us at about .05% its population. tiny.

yet, 20,000 is a huge number of people, is it not? my point is that focusing on the numbers is a very dangerous way to think because it in many ways dehumanizes and devalues the lives of those that have been taken. no one is asking you to "cry for an hour" every time someone dies, but perhaps a little sympathy is nice. maybe something that gets you thinking "why is this happening?"

Edited May 26, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[MercyWalk]

bah calling obama a terrorist is a gross exaggeration. they guys not the best leader but he certainly isn't the worse. plus the term terrorist is just a word humans created to justify something that has happened in history plenty of times, its propaganda for allowing the stupid wars going on to happen in the first place. i think a better term for the idea of terrorist that commonly goes around is religious extremist and not only have we had plenty of those in history, but obama certainly isn't a religious extremist.

so calling obama a terrorist is silly and a grossly exaggerated propaganda created by those who have a problem with his policy's or just don't want him as president for whatever reason. However calling group mentality, anti Semitic propaganda, and the current attitude and belief of many us citizens scary, I think is perfectly reasonable.

Terrorist is just a made up word with no clear definition. it doesn't mean anything unless people let it mean something.

No, it shouldn't mean "religious extremist" that's just pigeonholing the definition and a close minded way of seeing it. Terrorism may be done in the name of religion in some cases but ultimately but ultimately it's motivations are in political changes, for example, the Khmer Rouge were most definitely terrorists.

Since there seems to be some sort of confusion between what terrorism means from looking to fucking dictionary.com and the U.S manual, they probably aren't the best sources of definitions, I believe the Oxford Dictionary is considered the standard for English so here it is

NOUN [MASS NOUN]

• The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:the fight against terrorisminternational terrorism

Key word/s there being "unofficial or unauthorized", now i'm not too sure about the history of the Obama administrations role in the war in the Middle East but if it's formally recognized as wartime and the attacks were in the name of the US Government/Army, I don't think it counts as terrorism, but if it was never declared in the first place, then yeah, he is a terrorist.

Another US president that wouldn't be a terrorist in my eyes but it is debatable to most whether or not he is would be LBJ. Despite having no official declaration of war, he had authorization by South Vietnam (probably manipulated by US personnel anyway) to send in troops and help fight.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Alb

[NobodiePichu]

No, it shouldn't mean "religious extremist" that's just pigeonholing the definition and a close minded way of seeing it. Terrorism may be done in the name of religion in some cases but ultimately but ultimately it's motivations are in political changes, for example, the Khmer Rouge were most definitely terrorists.

Since there seems to be some sort of confusion between what terrorism means from looking to fucking dictionary.com and the U.S manual, they probably aren't the best sources of definitions, I believe the Oxford Dictionary is considered the standard for English so here it is

Key word/s there being "unofficial or unauthorized", now i'm not too sure about the history of the Obama administrations role in the war in the Middle East but if it's formally recognized as wartime and the attacks were in the name of the US Government/Army, I don't think it counts as terrorism, but if it was never declared in the first place, then yeah, he is a terrorist.

Another US president that wouldn't be a terrorist in my eyes but it is debatable to most whether or not he is would be LBJ. Despite having no official declaration of war, he had authorization by South Vietnam (probably manipulated by US personnel anyway) to send in troops and help fight.

hmm excellent point i guess. though i suppose this is if were going technical on the term of terrorism then yes this argument pretty much captures the general idea. though if were going by the way people flippantly use the term terrorist in most discussion now a days, then i still stand by my opinion, except for the religious extremist point i guess, since i was a little hasty in my wording.

[eclipse]

This blew up in the wrong direction. I'm still deciding what to do about this.

[Esau of Isaac]

No, it shouldn't mean "religious extremist" that's just pigeonholing the definition and a close minded way of seeing it. Terrorism may be done in the name of religion in some cases but ultimately but ultimately it's motivations are in political changes, for example, the Khmer Rouge were most definitely terrorists.

Since there seems to be some sort of confusion between what terrorism means from looking to fucking dictionary.com and the U.S manual, they probably aren't the best sources of definitions, I believe the Oxford Dictionary is considered the standard for English so here it is

Key word/s there being "unofficial or unauthorized", now i'm not too sure about the history of the Obama administrations role in the war in the Middle East but if it's formally recognized as wartime and the attacks were in the name of the US Government/Army, I don't think it counts as terrorism, but if it was never declared in the first place, then yeah, he is a terrorist.

Another US president that wouldn't be a terrorist in my eyes but it is debatable to most whether or not he is would be LBJ. Despite having no official declaration of war, he had authorization by South Vietnam (probably manipulated by US personnel anyway) to send in troops and help fight.

The confusion stems from the fact that the term is used very differently depending on who is speaking. I agree that there needs to be an agreement on the definition of the term, but I think everyone here acknowledges that the word, at least in recent history, is never used in such a solid manner. Today "terrorism" is really just a term used to refer to "the bad guys," in all honesty.

Because of that, to me, debating whether Obama is a terrorist is as fruitless as discussing whether Ganfalf could be called a mage. The word has deep roots but isn't used in such a way by the vast majority of the populace.