T Nation

Am I A Terrorist?


Here are my answers:

  1. No I’m black
  2. I voted for Barr. If I knew more abou Ron Paul I’d have voted for him, I was in Iraq.
  3. I’ve posted pro-American/right wing stuff here and on 2 other forums.
  4. Yup. Fuck NAFTA.
  5. Yup. Kck the illegals out.
  6. I’m not giving up my ammo and I buy more whenever I can.
  7. IRS? Who likes them?
  8. Why not?
  9. Never seen it, but now I want to.
  10. It’s already happening.

You’re part of a military force that’s deployed all over the world for the purpose of strengthening, and/or maintaining US hegemony. This involves violence, the threat of violence and terrorizes innocent civilians.

So, yes, you are a terrorist!

[quote]lixy wrote:
You’re part of a military force that’s deployed all over the world for the purpose of strengthening, and/or maintaining US hegemony. This involves violence, the threat of violence and terrorizes innocent civilians.

So, yes, you are a terrorist![/quote]

That is not entirely true, he would have to use terror with the expressed purpose of reaching some political goals.

So “Shock and awe”=terrorism, guarding the South Korean embassy, not so much.

edit: You could argue though that he is a member of a terrorist organization.

That would work.

It is kind of interesting though that as soon as it has been established and accepted that normal rules of conduct do not apply when it comes to terrorism, everyone and their driver suddenly is called a terrorist.

Even porn producers.

Who would have thought.

Wait, tons of people, and they were dismissed as liberal America hating hippies.

[quote]lixy wrote:
You’re part of a military force that’s deployed all over the world for the purpose of strengthening, and/or maintaining US hegemony. This involves violence, the threat of violence and terrorizes innocent civilians.

So, yes, you are a terrorist![/quote]

You would certainly know what a terrorist looks like, considering your fondness for them.

[quote]lixy wrote:
You’re part of a military force that’s deployed all over the world for the purpose of strengthening, and/or maintaining US hegemony. This involves violence, the threat of violence and terrorizes innocent civilians.[/quote]

You know, Lixy, you’re going to get me feeling you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship, and sorry that we saved your sorry ass from that.

I take that back: I DO feel you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship.

However, I’m not quite at the point of being sorry that we saved you from it. Keep up your shit though and you will accomplish that mission as well.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
lixy wrote:
You’re part of a military force that’s deployed all over the world for the purpose of strengthening, and/or maintaining US hegemony. This involves violence, the threat of violence and terrorizes innocent civilians.

You know, Lixy, you’re going to get me feeling you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship, and sorry that we saved your sorry ass from that.

I take that back: I DO feel you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship.

However, I’m not quite at the point of being sorry that we saved you from it. Keep up your shit though and you will accomplish that mission as well.[/quote]

When did we save Morocco from Soviet dictatorship?

You don’t think the Soviets, unopposed, would have left Morocco alone? Or any of Europe and Africa?

Communist doctrine called for worldwide Communism headed from Moscow. They worked hard at it and definitely had the military to do it, if not for the United States.

Not that it matters, but why does he list Sweden as his location? They’d be under Soviet domination as well.

But you know, these America-hating folk are ingrates.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
lixy wrote:
You’re part of a military force that’s deployed all over the world for the purpose of strengthening, and/or maintaining US hegemony. This involves violence, the threat of violence and terrorizes innocent civilians.

You know, Lixy, you’re going to get me feeling you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship, and sorry that we saved your sorry ass from that.

I take that back: I DO feel you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship.

However, I’m not quite at the point of being sorry that we saved you from it. Keep up your shit though and you will accomplish that mission as well.

When did we save Morocco from Soviet dictatorship?[/quote]

The Cold War. Look into it.

I could be wrong, but, I do believe Morocco exports oil.

But, I believe Bill was referencing Sweden.

If you gave your brain a chance, I’ll bet you could have answered your own question.

But, I could be wrong.

JeffR


That’s funny. I seem to fit the profile pretty closely, except that I don’t have a balaclava, a Kalashnikov, and Rhodesian camouflage fatigues like the fellow in the picture.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
That’s funny. I seem to fit the profile pretty closely, except that I don’t have a balaclava, a Kalashnikov, and Rhodesian camouflage fatigues like the fellow in the picture.

[/quote]

Were they on back order? I joke!

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
The Cold War. Look into it.

I could be wrong, but, I do believe Morocco exports oil.

But, I believe Bill was referencing Sweden.

If you gave your brain a chance, I’ll bet you could have answered your own question.

But, I could be wrong.

JeffR

[/quote]

Oh, Jeff.

Are you going to call me a jackass again? Those were good times.

As a matter of fact, I knew that Bill was referencing Sweden. My post was sarcastic.

And you are not wrong. Morocco does indeed export oil. 21,890 barrels a day, to be precise.

But as for Morocco being “saved” from Soviet dictatorship by the United States during the Cold War, I’m not so sure. So I took your kind advice, and I looked into it. Here is what I found.

In the late 1950s, Morocco was still without clear links to either superpower. It associated itself with the emerging non-aligned movement which sought neutrality in the superpower conflict with the possible benefit of being able to play the two superpowers off against one another to secure certain benefits.

One government dominated by left wing leaning forces from the recently created UNFP tried to link Morocco to the Soviet Union by seeking expanded commercial relations both for ideological reasons as well as a means of exerting pressure on the US and the other Western countries.

The Western leaning forces in Morocco (headed by the monarchy) resisted the move, and received the support of the US. As a result, Morocco became securely anchored in the West, a fact recognized by both the US and the Soviet Union.

In the mid 1960s, Hassan II tried again to revive the Soviet “card.” Concerned with the lack of support he was receiving from France following the Ben Barka affair, Hassan sought US support, which he could only have by threatening to lean toward the Soviet Union. This was not successful, for two reasons.

On the one hand, Morocco was seen by the Soviet Union as clearly part of the Western camp, and not worth any serious effort to attract. On the other hand, Morocco was seen by the US as bluffing, and the threat was not taken seriously.

(Source: Analyzing Moroccan Foreign Policy and Relations with Europe, Michael Willis and Nizar Messari, Routledge, 2005)

So yes, we “saved Morocco from Soviet dictatorship”, if by “saved” you mean “essentially disregarded Morocco’s bluff” and if by “Soviet dictatorship” you mean “lack of Soviet interest in Morocco’s phony overtures.”

‘Similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1991’s.’

I’m so glad our government puts enough time and effort into an alienating and damning pamphlet for law enforcement to use to persecute citizens, that they at least have someone proof read it before publish it. Lol…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You don’t think the Soviets, unopposed, would have left Morocco alone? Or any of Europe and Africa?[/quote]

See my post above.

First off, if a bully is deterred from beating up a nerd on the playground and taking his lunch money, because he sees the other bully, who’s a nominal friend of the nerd, over on the other side of the playground, and is uneasy about what that bully might do, can we really say that the second bully “saved” the nerd from the predations of the first bully?

And secondly, if the nerd is pretending to be friends with the first bully to make the second bully jealous, and the first bully is wary of getting mixed up in the whole head game, can this also be considered “saving” on the part of the second bully? I have my doubts.

We “saved” El Salvador, (but not Nicaragua), Korea (but not Vietnam), and Afghanistan (sort of) from Soviet aggression and/or Communist takeover, but I think including Morocco into the list of “saved” nations is stretching it a bit. Not that it matters. [quote]

Communist doctrine called for worldwide Communism headed from Moscow. They worked hard at it and definitely had the military to do it, if not for the United States.[/quote]

What’s really sad is that in twenty years I can imagine someone on a Chinese or Russian political forum saying, "Capitalist doctrine called for worldwide Capitalism headed from Washington.

They worked hard at it and definitely had the military to do it, if not for Russia and China, and our mole in the White House!"

Lixy is a Moroccan graduate student studying in Sweden. Not, as you say, that it matters.

What’s really ironic is that the Swedish Empire once attempted to take over Russia, but was repelled by Peter the Great.

Had it gone the other way, we might now be talking about trying to “save” minor oil-producing countries from Swedish World Domination: a horrifying world of mellow socialism, safe and dependable cars, buxom blonde women, and IKEA in every city and town.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

What’s really ironic is that the Swedish Empire once attempted to take over Russia, but was repelled by Peter the Great. Had it gone the other way, we might now be talking about trying to “save” minor oil-producing countries from Swedish World Domination: a horrifying world of mellow socialism, safe and dependable cars, buxom blonde women, and IKEA in every city and town.[/quote]

There is a science fiction novel where a world torn apart by conflict turns to Sweden to be saved.

Not the main part of the book, but interesting to read.

There are no such persons as terrorists.

There are only murderers and thieves.

Guess which anti-social organization is responsible for producing most of these people.

[quote]orion wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
What’s really ironic is that the Swedish Empire once attempted to take over Russia, but was repelled by Peter the Great. Had it gone the other way, we might now be talking about trying to “save” minor oil-producing countries from Swedish World Domination: a horrifying world of mellow socialism, safe and dependable cars, buxom blonde women, and IKEA in every city and town.

There is a science fiction novel where a world torn apart by conflict turns to Sweden to be saved.

Not the main part of the book, but interesting to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero[/quote]

No one messes with Nordic Countries. This could all be made up but didn’t Hitler ask a Swedish General what would happen if they attacked Sweden with 4 times Sweden’s man power, and the General’s reply was,“I’d give my men four bullets each and be home by the weekend.” It was something to that affect.

[quote]riverhawk23 wrote:

No one messes with Nordic Countries. This could all be made up but didn’t Hitler ask a Swedish General what would happen if they attacked Sweden with 4 times Sweden’s man power, and the General’s reply was,“I’d give my men four bullets each and be home by the weekend.” It was something to that affect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War[/quote]

It was Switzerland, not Sweden. Kaiser Wilhelm, not Hitler. A Swiss militiaman, not a Swedish general. The German Army outnumbered the Swiss Militia two-to-one, and the militiaman’s quote was “we will shoot twice and go home.”

And the Winter War was all about Finland, not Sweden.

Otherwise, you got it right. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
riverhawk23 wrote:

No one messes with Nordic Countries. This could all be made up but didn’t Hitler ask a Swedish General what would happen if they attacked Sweden with 4 times Sweden’s man power, and the General’s reply was,“I’d give my men four bullets each and be home by the weekend.” It was something to that affect.

It was Switzerland, not Sweden. Kaiser Wilhelm, not Hitler. A Swiss militiaman, not a Swedish general. The German Army outnumbered the Swiss Militia two-to-one, and the militiaman’s quote was “we will shoot twice and go home.”

And the Winter War was all about Finland, not Sweden.

Otherwise, you got it right. :P[/quote]

The Fins were closer to 10 to one though.

Plus a few tanks and airplanes, for shits and giggles.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I take that back: I DO feel you deserve to live under Soviet dictatorship.
[/quote]

It would be like heaven…minus the 72 virgins.