Quote :

"Ignoring the glaring errors in your statement the point still exists that you were using Saudi Arabia because it fit your point earlier although Saudi Arabia is not what was being addressed in the thread. You cherry picked a scenario and got called out, just man up and admit it."

BULLSHIT! It's what got osama fucking started! how can you ignore the man's initial motivations? come on...

Quote :

"Be that as it may, why is it that you believe the federal government should have to leave a federal fort at the behest of a state?"

Don't be obtuse.

Quote :

"What is being viewed as an invasion in this case is the seemingly unjustifiable occupation of bases in lands, not an actual foot mounted invasion"

If only Fort Sumter were the only invasion of Southern lands during the Civil War that might prompt a Confederate soldier to consider himself as defending his homeland against invasion, you might have a point.

Quote :

"Again the general populace makes this mistake all the time, and you have done anything but prove yourself worthy of exclusion. "

So, you'll just bury this thread in pedantic sophistry, instead of addressing the obvious point I was making. Good work.

Quote :

"Again, what are you even addressing?"

Dude, you can't derail the conversation into pedantic nonsense and then get pissy when I call you out on it.

Quote :

"I never said you were the first to put them aside."

No, but you made it a point to point out that I put them side-by-side (in order to try and back me into a corner) when I did no such thing. Again, you tried to derail the discussion with sophism. Now fucking stop it.

4/13/2010 8:39:15 PM

Your commentary is laughable.

Quote :

"how can you ignore the man's initial motivations?"

Because in this situation it isn't applicable. The topic and issue at hand is whether Martin's comparison was valid and sound. In Osama's quotes there was no mention of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia only came into this conversation because you made a mistake and rather than admit to it you rather drag your credibility further into the ground.

Quote :

"how can you ignore the man's initial motivations?"

So you have no supporting rationale? Next time just say nothing. But should you come up with a reason and precedent indicating that a state has power to direct the federal government to leave a federal fort/base then I am open to hearing and evaluating it.

Quote :

"only Fort Sumter were the only invasion of Southern lands during the Civil War"

It was the clear comparison being made in the quote. If you couldn't recognize that it isn't my problem. However, whether you extended the context or not the comparisons hold since we have, in fact, had a history of invading, sponsoring coups and supporting others invasions of arab lands.

Quote :

"instead of addressing the obvious point I was making. Good work."

I've explained multiple times why you failed to make your point. When you misspeak or misstate one can hardly call the point obvious. Alas, even when positioning Al-Qaeda against soldiers who fought in the southern rebellion we can still find identifiable traits both parties share. Your statement, if i recall correctly, was that the CSA were formal troops thus their actions were permissible. However, I disagree that they were any more formal than Al-Qaeda. The CSA maintained and organizational structure and were fighting for a joint cause while Al-Qaeda does the same. The support you gave was that the North provided POW status to the southern soldiers and to you that supports their legitimacy as military. That outcome was only a symptom of the age. We only chose not to provide Al-Qaeda with military status because this alteration provided us with a degree of moral flexibility when housing and obtaining information from its members. If an armed secession were to take place within the US those joining the secession would fall under the MCA and be identified as military combatants regardless if they were uniformed or not.

Quote :

"you can't derail the conversation into pedantic nonsense and then get pissy when I call you out on it."

Quote :

"No, but you made it a point to point out that I put them side-by-side (in order to try and back me into a corner) when I did no such thing. Again, you tried to derail the discussion with sophism. Now fucking stop it."

You didn't call me out on anything. I suggest this topic is too complex for you because your commentary is degrading from deranged to delusional. Also why separate that part of my comment when it applies and is in context to what you quoted below it? You addressed issues that never existed and I pointed this out, that is hardly derailing a conversation. Again, yes I pointed out that you put them side-by-side, but only as to address lazarus regarding my previous comment and a chain of juxtapositions . How is that backing you into a corner exactly?

4/14/2010 9:30:02 AM

Quote :

"In Osama's quotes there was no mention of Saudi Arabia. "

you might want to check your history, bub.

Quote :

"It was the clear comparison being made in the quote. "

which is why the quote is bullshit. it would be absurd to think that Southerners viewed Sumter as the only invasion of their land. That this guy proposes that is what made them mad is irrelevant.

there's not much point in addressing anything else that you've said, because you are obviously trolling at this point.

4/14/2010 8:34:07 PM

Quote :

"you might want to check your history, bub."

Again you provide no counter or evidence to your claim and continue to stray away from the issue being addressed and redirect to material out of the context and confines of the direct comparison made.

Quote :

"which is why the quote is bullshit. it would be absurd to think that Southerners viewed Sumter as the only invasion of their land. That this guy proposes that is what made them mad is irrelevant."

Is this your means of suggesting that Sumter was not a catalyst for the civil war? What was suggested in the article, which is what is being discussed, is that the supporting commentary made by supporters of confederate soldier reflects the same arguments used by supporters of Al Qaeda.

Interesting that you retreat to the last resort of internet discourse by calling me a troll. Even more intriguing since you have repeatedly skirted direct questions and made multiple attempts at derailing the conversation.

4/14/2010 9:14:11 PM

funny that you accuse ME of trying to derail the conversation. you've tried every bit of pedantic nonsense you can.

i'm sorry that you don't accept actual history and record fact as evidence, but to deny Osama's initial motivation was US bases in Saudi Arabia, when HE HIMSELF HAS SAID SO, is absurd. Don't believe me? FUCKING GOOGLE IT.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama#Formation_and_structuring_of_Al-Qaeda) It'll come up in the first fucking result. THAT is why you are a troll. Then, you tell me to ignore his initial motivations, while asserting that only the initial events in the Civil War are of interest. That is pure grade-A 100% trolling right there.

4/15/2010 7:07:39 AM

Your intelligence clearly doesn't reach the boundaries you think it does, but you are desperately grasping for the last word as to fulfill some part of your ego.

Reread my posts, I have not derailed the topic once and continually reassert what the topic is when you go in left field to obfuscate mistakes you have made or fight issues irrelevant to the nature of the initial subject, which is: are there identifiable traits between the southern soldiers and those of Al-Qaeda such that we can establish a semblance of legitimacy for both causes.

You continue to make claims against comments I have never made. I never said Saudi Arabia was not a concern of Osama's and merely stated that particular location has no effect on the issue since all arab lands are of a major concern. Even when specifically focusing on Saudi Arabia your stance isn't any more defensible since base occupation under treaty is still the primary concern, and that the North did not fight the South until the south fired the first shots. Surely if Saudis fired shots on our bases we'd then be at war. Would this make Osama more justifiable in your book?

The thing is right now you probably think you're trolling the shit out of me since I continue to play your game and reply lengthy replies to your void rants. The thing is, I don't care because the more this conversation goes on the more it is evident you are nothing more than an intellectual farce. A fact that has likely been a deep rooted issue all your life.

It breaks down only one of two ways. 1. You aren't trolling and you really suffer this much at comprehension and subjective analysis or 2. You are trolling and you only do it because you don't have the capability of holding a rational conversation where you address facts and issues placed before you.

4/15/2010 9:49:39 AM

how dare they compare them to an islamic terrorists. islamic terrorists = weak sauce. they can barely sustain their little civil war action in the gulf.

confederates are 100k's times more dangerous

4/15/2010 4:07:25 PM

Quote :

"I never said Saudi Arabia was not a concern of Osama's and merely stated that particular location has no effect on the issue since all arab lands are of a major concern."

so, again, the "first event" in the Civil War is majorly important, but the initial motivation for Osama is irrelevant? got it

Quote :

"Reread my posts, I have not derailed the topic once "

Lies. You tried to make me defend your comparison of CSA soldiers to AQ fighters, suggesting I initially made the comparison. You get into a pedantic rant about Taliban vs. AQ, when the context made it clear what I meant (OMG, I had a minor slip of the tongue!). You ask for proof of a historically accepted fact. You've also refused to accept that you've even posted things that you clearly posted, such as the issue of "invaded." If those aren't attempts at derailing the thread, then I have no idea what would be.

Quote :

"Even when specifically focusing on Saudi Arabia your stance isn't any more defensible since base occupation under treaty is still the primary concern,"

Remind me again, what treaty did the USA have with the CSA? I don't really recall any. The question at issue was whether or not the CSA was a sovereign nation. Thus, any agreements from when the seceding states where in the Union can not be claimed to be a "treaty," as their binding-ness (for lack of a better word) is at issue by virtue of the status of those states being up in the air. If you are going to be concerned about Osama's motivations throughout, you can't also ignore the obvious motivations and thoughts of the CSA at the same time. The CSA views itself as a sovereign nation at this point, while AQ has never been a sovereign nation, nor has it ever claimed to be, nor does it represent or claim to represent one.

4/15/2010 10:02:40 PM

It is well documented that the south had the moral high ground during and throughout the war. This was key to Davis and Lee's public opinion and personal beliefs. It was crucial that the north invade the south and not the other way around. The north was the aggressor in the the civil war you cannot deny this. The south, much like in the american revolution, thought that the government no longer served their interests! Slavery was just a side issue.

The comparison between confederate soldiers and islamic terrorists is dumb. Confederates fought for a country, never ever killing civilians. It was against the chivalrous code of conduct of the old south and of the confederate officers. Islamic terrorists view everyone, civilians and military, who do no believe what they believe as their enemy. They readily kill civilians as a part of their "holy war". The difference is really night and day.

4/16/2010 9:48:36 AM

Quote :

"so, again, the "first event" in the Civil War is majorly important, but the initial motivation for Osama is irrelevant? got it"

Apparently you don't. Saudi Arabia doesn't specifically matter since Osama's issue throughout, that is occupation of Arab lands, encompasses the Saudi Arabia issue as a part of a whole.

Quote :

"suggesting I initially made the comparison."

I never did that. Multiple times on both pages I've stated it was my comparison.

Quote :

"pedantic rant about Taliban vs. AQ, when the context made it clear"

I was addressing what you typed. Your context was not clear based on 1. your numerous factual and comprehensive fallacies up to that point. 2. the common nature of this error. and 3. the inability for you to use common words correctly. See: juxtaposed and the ways in which you've misused pedantic over and over.

Quote :

"ask for proof of a historically accepted fact"

again, never happened. I just said the issue was not in the context of discussion.

Quote :

"refused to accept that you've even posted things that you clearly posted, such as the issue of "invaded"

Incorrect again (noticing a theme?) I forthcomingly said you're correct when you pointed out I said invaded.

Your repeated assertion of events that never happened may be the indicator of a larger problem, but definitely explains your direction ITT.

Quote :

"The question at issue was whether or not the CSA was a sovereign nation."

Delusions of independence does not a sovereign nation make. If I decide my home is now a sovereign nation that doesn't make it true. The members of the CSA were rebels.

Quote :

"what treaty did the USA have with the CSA? I don't really recall any."

That statement is exactly correct, there was no treaty. Had the CSA established a treaty with the USA defining them as an independent and sovereign nation, which is common in most wars of independence or revolution(see: revolutionary war), then we could identify them as such. However, even according to you, there was no such treaty and thus rebel soldiers are the same as military combatants such as those of Al Qaeda.

Q.E.D.

4/16/2010 9:59:10 AM

Quote :

"It is well documented that the south had the moral high ground during and throughout the war. This was key to Davis and Lee's public opinion and personal beliefs. It was crucial that the north invade the south and not the other way around. The north was the aggressor in the the civil war you cannot deny this. The south, much like in the american revolution, thought that the government no longer served their interests! Slavery was just a side issue. "

Saying that confederates were fighting for slavery is like saying that republicans at an obama town hall meeting are protesting against abortion.

4/16/2010 2:49:43 PM

i want to be a confederate terrorist. where is the sign up sheet.

4/16/2010 3:07:20 PM

^^Correct. Slavery was just one issue not the whole issue. It's amazing how many people don't understand that.

4/16/2010 3:33:06 PM

Quote :

"Apparently you don't. Saudi Arabia doesn't specifically matter since Osama's issue throughout, that is occupation of Arab lands, encompasses the Saudi Arabia issue as a part of a whole."

then that makes even less sense. Again, Osama would NOT be acting on behalf of any sovereign nation. So, one could not suggest he was fighting any "invasion."

Quote :

"I never did that."

The hell you didn't. You asked me to defend the juxtaposition. Look, you are, again, denying the very things you have previously said.

Quote :

"again, never happened"

The hell it didn't. You asked me to defend that Osama was concerned about SA. TWICE.

Quote :

"That statement is exactly correct, there was no treaty."

So then you admit that there IS a difference between AQ being mad at the US for being in SA (you know, what caused them to start attacking us) and the CSA being mad that Union troops were on their lands.

Quote :

"Had the CSA established a treaty with the USA defining them as an independent and sovereign nation, which is common in most wars of independence or revolution(see: revolutionary war), then we could identify them as such."

False. We consider our nation to have been founded on July 4th, 1776, long before we signed a peace treaty with England. It is only convenient that you will ignore the parallel between the US's revolution and the CSA's thwarted one. Furthermore, such treaties force a given nation to accept another as sovereign. They do NOT establish the actual sovereignty. Even further, if the sovereignty exists when the treaty is signed, how can that be? How can one nation sign a treaty with a nation that, according to you, does not exist?

Quote :

"Delusions of independence does not a sovereign nation make."

but delusions of invasion by AQ makes said "invasion" real?

4/16/2010 4:13:17 PM

Quote :

"Osama would NOT be acting on behalf of any sovereign nation. So, one could not suggest he was fighting any "invasion.""

The initial context for "invasion" in the article was the establishment of bases, this is only one of the ways in which the plight of Osama reflect those of the southern soldiers. Al-Qaeda, being a multi-national group, views recognizes with the actual land mounted invasions of varied muslim lands, as referenced in Osama's quote.

Quote :

"The hell you didn't. You asked me to defend the juxtaposition. Look, you are, again, denying the very things you have previously said."

Your comment here is not consistent with your initial statement. You initially claimed "suggesting I initially made the comparison.

So yes, I asked you to defend the juxtaposition, but I did say you made the initial comparison. When you can't maintain continuity with your own complaints there is no reason I should expect you to maintain an in depth objective view of other issues.

Quote :

"The hell it didn't. You asked me to defend that Osama was concerned about SA."

Patently false. I only stated that focusing specifically on Saudia Arabia was unnecessary since the issue in the quote was related to all Arab lands, of which Saudi Arabia belongs.

Quote :

"So then you admit that there IS a difference between"

Not at all, what was stated was the exact opposite. I stated these two entities are the same because of the lack of treaty.

Quote :

" It is only convenient that you will ignore the parallel between the US's revolution and the CSA's thwarted one."

I actually connected the two of these revolutions on page 1, and then did it again in the paragraph to which you replied.

Quote :

"Furthermore, such treaties force a given nation to accept another as sovereign. They do NOT establish the actual sovereignty. Even further, if the sovereignty exists when the treaty is signed, how can that be? How can one nation sign a treaty with a nation that, according to you, does not exist?"

They do establish sovereignty through mutual acceptance. Mortgages operate the same way, there must be the agreement of both parties who are involved so that no one will renege. In this case the United States was having its territories removed and needed to acknowledge they accepted this transition. Signing the treaty turns one party from an abstract idea to a concrete reality. Many entities are established and formalized in this way when they are not legally established prior to. This is hardly novel.

Quote :

"but delusions of invasion by AQ makes said "invasion" real?"

Addressed in the first set of quotes.



[Edited on April 18, 2010 at 9:03 PM. Reason : typo]

4/18/2010 8:59:20 PM

picture of bigun20's truck

4/19/2010 11:21:32 AM

^ nope can't say that I drive an Xtera or a crosscountry

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2010 4:39:35 PM

Realistically the African American community came out ahead anyways.....

4/20/2010 8:37:46 AM

speaking of Islam

http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/33320/muslim-group-sends-death-threat-to-south-park-creators-201st-episode-censored

and there are plenty of other links in case "toonzone.net" isn't your favorite news outlet

4/22/2010 3:31:10 PM

Quote :

"Al-Qaeda, being a multi-national group"

so, you admit that they are not comparable, then. One group represents a nation, the other does not. One group is plainly defending their nation, the other is not.

Quote :

"Your comment here is not consistent with your initial statement."

false. nice attempt at being pedantic. more derailing. good work.

Quote :

"Not at all, what was stated was the exact opposite. I stated these two entities are the same because of the lack of treaty."

but that is NOT true. SA had a treaty with the US. And Osama was specifically angered because of the "invasion" of SA. If SA is a "part of muslim lands", then it must stand that a treaty between any part of those lands and the US is, in effect, a treaty between those lands and the US.

Quote :

"They do establish sovereignty through mutual acceptance."

Some do. Others don't. In particular, the Treaty of Paris, which specifically states the US as a party. The US, as in, the nation. Moreover, it states that the king acknowledges that the US is an independent nation. As in, he admits the fact that had already existed before the treaty. Nowhere does it say that the king grants the US independence. There is no abstract in this case, and it most certainly must have weighed on the minds of the CSA as such.

4/22/2010 8:06:07 PM

Quote :

"so, you admit that they are not comparable, then"

Not even close to what I was stated. I pointed out a minor difference between two groups. This does not mean they are not comparable, and if anything means they are not identical. Although, the armies of the southern states were a unified group of multi-lateral rebel states, not a nation.

Quote :

"false. nice attempt at being pedantic. more derailing. good work."

Why not explain how the statement is false or my response an attempt to derail instead of making blanket claims, that are inaccurate.

Quote :

"As in, he admits the fact that had already existed before the treaty. Nowhere does it say that the king grants the US independence."

In the treaty of Paris the King does not admit the 13 Colonies were an established nation at the time of their insurrection. In fact, the treaty was the declaration of sovereignty, and thus the formal transition of a war with rebel colonies to a nation of independence. What this means is the treaty established the US as a sovereign nation through mutual acceptance.

But speaking of treaties this brings up a good point. European countries refused to make treaties with the rebel states, because these nations held treaties with the US and did not view the CSA as a legitimate separate nation. Please explain the established evidence that the CSA was an independent sovereign nation since all contemporary evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

4/23/2010 9:42:02 AM

Quote :

"I pointed out a minor difference between two groups. "

that one represents a fucking a nation and the other does not is hardly a "minor difference."

Quote :

"Why not explain how the statement is false or my response an attempt to derail instead of making blanket claims, that are inaccurate."

because that would play right in to your attempt to derail the thread. duh.

Quote :

"In the treaty of Paris the King does not admit the 13 Colonies were an established nation at the time of their insurrection."

you might want to go re-read it, buddy. the word used is "acknowledge." As in, "admit the fact."

Quote :

"European countries refused to make treaties with the rebel states,"

They did so in order to hedge their bets. Had things gone better for the CSA, it would have changed. A similar thing happened in the revolution, too. That it would occur in the War of Northern Aggression is no surprise.

4/23/2010 1:29:02 PM

Quote :

"that one represents a fucking a nation and the other does not is hardly a "minor difference.""

Except that neither one was a nation.

Quote :

"because that would play right in to your attempt to derail the thread. duh."

Your casual dismissal illustrates your true intent.

Quote :

"ou might want to go re-read it, buddy. the word used is "acknowledge." As in, "admit the fact.""

Your limited vocabulary causes you to suffer again. The term is acknowledge, yes, but you fail to comprehend the meaning. The use is the same context as when a bank acknowledges deed or trust, meaning that it brings into existence or validity. Deeds and Trusts do not exist until this process is complete, and the same is true in the case of this treaty. For further evidence the treaty goes on to say that the king acknowledges he treats the colonies as a free and sovereign nation. Is it your contention the king was merely admitting publicly that treats America as a free nation as opposed to declaring intent to do so from there on out? ToP is widely accepted as the mutual agreement that formally established America as a sovereign nation. If you wish to rewrite history or display ignorance of a well established fact to defend your point to no one but yourself, please continue to do so.

Quote :

"They did so in order to hedge their bets. Had things gone better for the CSA, it would have changed. A similar thing happened in the revolution, too. That it would occur in the War of Northern Aggression is no surprise."

Hedging bets would consist of entering treaties with both parties or none at all. Furthermore, one would expect similar events to occur during the revolution since, as previously established, the US was not a country until after the war.

4/23/2010 2:55:01 PM

I want to be a confederate islamic terrorist. that would be uber bad ass.

4/23/2010 2:59:31 PM

Quote :

"Except that neither one was a nation."

saying that it wasn't a nation doesn't make it so. it's funny how you've never supported this assertion with any fact or logic. you've just continuously said "it wasn't a nation".

Quote :

"ToP is widely accepted as the mutual agreement that formally established America as a sovereign nation."

Only, it wasn't. That's why we celebrate July 4th, 1776 as our founding. What occurred on that day? oh, right, the Declaration of Independence. which did what, again? DECLARED our INDEPENDENCE. Thus, it only makes sense in this case that the word "acknowledge" is referring to the king accepting as fact our independence from England.

4/23/2010 4:57:14 PM

Quote :

" funny how you've never supported this assertion with any fact or logic. you've just continuously said "it wasn't a nation""

This entire discussion regarding the importance of treaties would seem to counter that statement.

Quote :

"DECLARED our INDEPENDENCE. Thus, it only makes sense in this case that the word "acknowledge" is referring to the king accepting as fact our independence from England."

If I declare that I am going to the kitchen to get orange juice, does that mean I have delicious orange juice in a glass to drink? No. It means I intend to have it soon. The Declaration was just that a declaration, not an establishment.

4/24/2010 10:47:41 AM

Quote :

"This entire discussion regarding the importance of treaties would seem to counter that statement."

not really. there are nations that the US doesn't have treaties with. doesn't make them any less of a nation.

Quote :

"If I declare that I am going to the kitchen to get orange juice, does that mean I have delicious orange juice in a glass to drink?"

yes, because orange juice and sovereignty are exactly the same thing

Quote :

"The Declaration was just that a declaration, not an establishment."

so then, why is our nation's founding July 4th, again? I notice that you continue not to address that. You are arguing against established history at this point.

4/25/2010 2:43:47 PM

Quote :

"Confederates fought for a country, never ever killing civilians."

Except for the ones they owned.

4/25/2010 4:21:38 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/24/martin.black.farmers/index.html?iref=allsearch

Now Roland is demanding reparations for black farmers...

We can see what this guy is really about, his obvious bias, and intrinsic racism...

4/25/2010 4:30:41 PM

Quote :

"not really. there are nations that the US doesn't have treaties with. doesn't make them any less of a nation"

The point my statement countered was that I have not supported my assertions with logic or fact. By discussing the particulars of nationhood I was supporting assertions by logic and fact. Who the US does and does not have general treaties with is immaterial since the point of discussion regards initial treaties to establish sovereignty.

Quote :

"yes, because orange juice and sovereignty are exactly the same thing "

They absolutely are not, but declare still means declare.

Quote :

"so then, why is our nation's founding July 4th, again? "

The date signifies a catalyst in our independence. A date on which action that guided us on a path to nationhood that was established by the ToP. The time in between July 4th and the ToP we were not a sovereign nation, but, rather, a group of rebel militia that were not a formal army and share many characteristics similar to the rebel military combatants in the civil war and, as Roland Martin pointed out, even Al Qaeda.

4/25/2010 4:38:21 PM

Quote :

"Now Roland is demanding reparations for black farmers... "

Did you read the article? This is payment for a discrimination case that the federal government lost in 1999. They (the Departments of Agriculture and Justice) had agreed to pay the settlement to the affected farmers by March 31st, but congress went on recess without paying it. If you have beef with the actual court case, that's a separate issue--the federal government lost, said they would pay the money, and they haven't. It's pretty simple.

4/25/2010 5:02:06 PM

The North wasn't "attacking" the south. The North was preserving the Union.


Also the Confederacy did attack the north at Fort Sumter.

4/25/2010 9:04:54 PM

thank you for reciting your history lesson from high school. The North, in its mind, fought to preserve the Union, yes. The South, in its mind, fought to preserve its newly founded nation. Given that, the attack on Fort Sumter is easily understood as a CSA attempt to exercise its right to sovereignty, namely not having foreign troops on its land without its approval.

Quote :

"The time in between July 4th and the ToP we were not a sovereign nation,"

And yet, July 4th is considered our nation's birthday? wait, what?

Quote :

"and share many characteristics similar to the rebel military combatants in the civil war and, as Roland Martin pointed out, even Al Qaeda."

wait, remind me again, what nation is AQ claiming to have or trying to found? I just can't quite recall that country's name...

4/27/2010 8:56:31 PM

Roland is retarded, it doesn't matter why they are fighting or what their motivations are.

The confederates didn't attack civilian targets to incite fear and influence policy, they fought as uniformed soldiers against the US military. Thus they aren't terrorists. If AQ did that they wouldn't be terrorists either.

4/27/2010 10:19:18 PM

Roland Martin is a tool, and an Obama dick sucker.

4/29/2010 8:43:28 AM

u find enough similarities between the jihadists and other violent movements then u has to take them out of their terrorist box and put them in some more politically acceptable box where they can has potential political allies.

4/29/2010 10:43:48 AM