Do You Know The Difference Between…

Published on December 31st, 2007

Posted by Uncle Dave in General

Click pic for better view

Read THIS before you answer.

36 users responded in " Do You Know The Difference Between… "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 iGlobalWarmer said, on December 31st, 2007 at 11:23 am

I had 3 immediate reactions to that:

1. What?!?

2. Am I having a stroke? There’s nothing comprehensible here.

3. That’s gonna leave a hell of a skid mark when she flushes.

# 2 gquaglia said, on December 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am

What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. In the case of Al Qaeda, the terrorist’s goal is to enslave the world under the oppressive rule of Islamic fanaticism. A case could be made for the PLO and IRA as they were fighting for the freedom of their people under the occupation of a foreign country. Al Qaeda may say all they want is the west out of the middle east, but the ultimate goal is an Islamic world.

# 3 Jim W. said, on December 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am

just what I needed.

An article full of self hate double speak to start the new year off.

# 4 Dennis said, on December 31st, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Simple to tell the difference. The terrorist doesn’t believe exactly what I believe, and they are in “MY” country destroying people and places that promote what “I” believe.

Funny how that can be said without defining what Country I am in….and how it might apply to those over there….rather than over here.

Terrorist is non denominational….same as ignorance.

# 5 Cursor_ said, on December 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pm

You have no idea of the actual aims of Al Qaeda.

At present they are still concerned with the return to Sharia throught the Muslim world. The end of foreign intrusion, socialism and nationalism.

Their present method to achieve this is not working and will never work. For they have become fanatics. And a fanatic redoubles his effort, while losing sight of his goal.

Lasting change does not come through phsyical war or force. It comes from the people collectively accepting change either by necessity (Major events like The Great Depression, The Plague, Discovery of the New World) or by shifts in thought and reasoning (Organised religion, The Renaissance, End of Slavery, etc.)

Al Qaeda id doomed to fail eventually with this line of action, just as the PLO did. It took the PLO to finally come to move minds and hearts, not bodies. Al Qaeda will have to learn to do the same in time.

If bin Laden continues to live, he too may be come like Arafat, though I doubt he will live long enough to do so, he is far too old and not as healthy as he used to be.

The West is not going down the right route either. For as much as they tout the idea of democracy, they can never achieve it. It is an utopian ideal like communism. In the real world it cannot succeed as it cannot exisit unless all the people under the policies are ethically, morally and interdependently minded. Which humans are NOT.

Both sides cannot win. And because neither side will compromise and build a realistic union together people will suffer who are caught in the middle.

The ideals of ideology are over. Just as the fuedal ideals are passed and the tribal ones.

We are a different civilisation now and we require a different method of living and governing oursleves. The world has moved from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to consumer-driven.

We need a system built for a consumer-driven planet. The touchstone started the process, we are now at the apex of that mindset and we are still struggling with archaic ideals and need to move on.

Returning to the past will not help us. But remembering the past can help us to move on as a race. It is time for change again.

Cursor_

# 6 gquaglia said, on December 31st, 2007 at 12:20 pm

#5 with all due respect, you are wrong. Islamic rule of the world is the ultimate goal. We could pull everyone out and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference.

# 7 Named said, on December 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Reading too much into it. There is NO difference between the two. What IS different is the end-goal / game of their manifesto. Whether or not you agree with said manifesto is beside the point.

Now, I DID notice one difference… Terrorists are Lefties, and freedom fighters are Righties… And the chick is in the middle instead of on the fringe.

# 8 pedro said, on December 31st, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Just the right ammount of bull I need to finish the year.

# 9 pedro said, on December 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Oh, and in the case of kuzcoland, political prisioners are to kuzco what the prisoners are to his best friends, the Colombian guerrilla.

IOW political prisoners are what commie governments with a “democratic” enamel call their hostages.

# 10 Dorksters said, on December 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Pawns pay their part very well.

# 11 Les said, on December 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm

The winners get to write the history books.

# 12 Angel H. Wong said, on December 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm

#11

Nobody could have said it better.

# 13 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, on December 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

–George Orwell

# 14 James Armstrong said, on December 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm

gynothink

# 15 eyeofthetiger said, on December 31st, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Those lefties have invaded the patriots.

# 16 Jeff said, on December 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pm

The only real difference is your internal compass. You see life through blinders (life experience). There is no absolute.

The real question, however, is what is best for America (and to a lesser degree humanity).

# 17 gitter said, on December 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm

This guy might be a terrorist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW9qLsED3Xw
…or maybe not

# 18 Thinker said, on December 31st, 2007 at 3:50 pm

#7 Well said!

Your actions speak so loud, I cannot hear what you say. : )

And while I’m thinking of it, if there are no absolutes, how can there be no absolutes #16? Or are you saying we need context to understand? That I can go with.

# 19 Phillep said, on December 31st, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Oh, I’m going to enjoy using this on you leftards. If A=B, then B=A, so what are you going to call “conservatives”?

Everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist, so it makes no difference at all if anyone blows up a bunch of people?

Would it make any difference if the US government is killing a bunch of people? Wheee. Hey, have you told the 9-11 “truth” movement that it does not really make any difference if the US gov’t was behind the twin tower attack? It’s all the same, “terrorists” and “freedom fighters”, right? “Patriot” and “Fanatic”?

# 20 Mister Catshit said, on December 31st, 2007 at 4:47 pm

#19, Philleep,

Oh, I’m going to enjoy using this on you leftards. If A=B, then B=A, so what are you going to call “conservatives”?

In the same vein as you, several suggestions come to mind. Disillusioned, retarded, wide-stance, selfish, criminal, neo-con, Bushit, rightards, liars, and assholes. Take your pick. You could even add your own description. Remember, words like decent, honorable, respectful, and similar terms don’t apply.

I’m waiting to see what citation you will come up with next.

I have to say this, Philleep. You are too damn shallow, why the hell do you try to get into a discussion requiring intelligence.

# 21 Phillep said, on December 31st, 2007 at 5:13 pm

You are making your insults meaningless by making everything morally equivalent, no matter that one thing is horrible and the other frivolous.

You do remember how “panties on head” were “torture”, right? So, the natural result of that was a poll showing that most US citizens thought “torture” was okay. After all, water boarding, feeding people feet first into shredders, feeding people to starving dogs, and drilling holes in them with hand drills are all “morally equivalent” to something as frivolous as “panties on head”.

Huh. “Shallow”.

# 22 Dorksters said, on December 31st, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Jeff said…

The real question, however, is what is best for America (and to a lesser degree humanity).

Only what is best for humanity is best for America. If we can’t apply our ideals to others, then we are disingenuous if we claim those standards apply to us.

If our ideals don’t apply to us, then any justifications we provide for our actions are self-deceptions.

We can only win by setting the better example.

If we win by setting the better example, then everyone wins.

If we try to win by making others lose, we will end up losing also.

PS. I believe if God exists, he holds self deceivers in greater contempt than those that lie to others.

PPS. Arianna Huffington is a babe.

# 23 JPV said, on December 31st, 2007 at 8:40 pm

gquaglia said

#5 with all due respect, you are wrong. Islamic rule of the world is the ultimate goal. We could pull everyone out and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference.

—–

You, just like the vast majority of Americans, are a complete and utter moron.

# 24 Jolly Infidel said, on December 31st, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Well, you could take the whole terrorist thing and ask what’s the point of killing yourself for some dumb old religious or ideology or political cause or whatever. Life isn’t that bad, is it? Apparently some people think so.

Very effective as sensationalism in the media, but wonder how much it will matter in the long run.

“And then the old Nobadaddy aloft
Farted and belched and coughed
And said:

I love hanging and drawing and quartering
Every bit as well as war and slaughtering

Damn the praying and singing
As long as it will bring in
The blood of ten thousand
By fighting and swinging!”

- William Blake

# 25 FuZ3 said, on December 31st, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Terrorists fight because the hate something. Freedom fighters fight because they love something.

# 26 Named said, on December 31st, 2007 at 11:19 pm

25,

If you hate oppression, should you fight against it? If you love oppression, should you fight for it?

You’re statement sounds good, like a sound bite, but it’s flawed.

# 27 bobbo said, on January 1st, 2008 at 3:40 am

Yea, well, even things that are very different from one another can have points in common.

When the commonalities are more important than the differences, then it is fair to say they are “the same” at least for those commonalities.

What is not accurate is to say any two things that share some common elements are the same for all their characteristics.

You will find this logical error in just about every argument that starts without defining its terms.

Happens all the time.

# 28 Cursor_ said, on January 1st, 2008 at 4:20 am

#6
The bloody christians tried that idea and it failed. What makes you think the muslims would be any better at it when they are simply humans as well?

History shows the failures at this approach. It simply doesn’t work. It always comes crumbling down on them.

Cursor_

# 29 pjakobs said, on January 1st, 2008 at 4:27 am

on telling the difference: I saw a TV programme here in Germany the other day with the title “Ben or Bin”. They had quotes from Ben(edict, the current pope) and Bin (Ladin). It was quite amazing how little the two differ in their judgement of the state of the western society.

But who would be amazed by that, after all, Ben was heading the organization that used to be the spanish inquisition before becoming pope.

# 30 JoaoPT said, on January 1st, 2008 at 5:13 am

So much banter…
Just realize that if you believe on what #4 says you are as much as a terrorist as “they” are. And what moved you to go there in the first place was fear. Fear brings out the shadow side of everyone.
Although simplistic, I agree with the article.

# 31 Guido said, on January 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am

#22: Ariana Huffington is a hideous old hag.

As for this article: It’s nice to see that intellectual rationalization is alive and well.

I expect better of you Mr. Dvorak.

# 32 Dorksters said, on January 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm

#31: So we can see it is all a matter of perspective regarding Mrs. Huffington.

# 33 pedro said, on January 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm

#29 yeah, just two years ago the inquisition was still running.

# 34 TIHZ_HO said, on January 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm

#5 Well said!

#28 I agree.

“Islamic rule of the world is the ultimate goal (of Al Qaeda).” As much as it is the Christian goal. Christians believe it is their God given right to overcome and ’save’ the infidels.

“Houston we have a problem…”

If only these goddamn ‘missionary’ religions would stop trying to convert and ’save’ everyone we would be all better off.

Cheers

# 35 Mister Catshit said, on January 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 am

#21 Philleep,

The short answer is yes, you are shallow.

The longer answer takes a deeper reply. I’ll type slow as I understand you don’t read very fast. It is OK to move your lips.

In #19, you wrote:

Everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist, so it makes no difference at all if anyone blows up a bunch of people?

If you are the parent, child, sibling, neighbor, or whatever of the person killed, does it matter if the cause was a child with explosives strapped to his body or a 500 kg bomb dropped from a F-16? The end result is the same. Another innocent life taken because of someone else. Not many people jump up and down for joy because their mother was killed by those fighting for a good cause.

Would it make any difference if the US government is killing a bunch of people? Wheee.

They and their friends, the Israelis, do with impunity. They do it under the banner of “freedom”. The lives of the people they conquered mean nothing. So I guess the “freedom” only applies to them.

In #21, you wrote:

You do remember how “panties on head” were [sic] “torture”, right? So, the natural result of that was a poll showing that most US citizens thought “torture” was okay.

Panties on the head was just one thing. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that in itself amounted to torture. It was degrading and extremely insulting to the prisoners. It was classified as abuse.

What was classified as torture was the snarling dogs inches from the prisoners faces. Forcing prisoners to make human pyramids while naked. Putting them into cold cells without clothing or blankets. Taping wires to their genitals then making them stand with their arms outstretched or they would be zapped. Forcing prisoners to have sex with each other. Sodomizing boys. Making women strip in front of men.

Nor do I ever recall US citizens thinking torture was ever “OK”. Torture has always been anathema to Americans, in fact, to the whole civilized world.

After all, water boarding, feeding people feet first into shredders, feeding people to starving dogs, and drilling holes in them with hand drills are all “morally equivalent” to something as frivolous as “panties on head”.

As I pointed out, the “panties” episode is abuse. Only you and the other shallow people equate it as torture and therefore allowable. Maybe the question should be where is the line between abuse and torture. If it was that offensive to your culture and beliefs, then maybe it is torture.

# 36 RickCain said, on January 6th, 2008 at 12:42 am

Easy. Terrorism is when other people do it. When WE do it its freedom fighting.

Do islamics want to take over the world? Sure they do, but so do christians, and the hindus, and the buddhists. The nasty thing about religion is that each group believes they are right and everybody else is wrong.

Now are the islamics succeeding? Well, not really! Have you ever seen a shiite and a sunni agree on anything? youtube is full of “debates” between the 2 religious sects that always degrade into shouting matches, and threatening comments posted by viewers. Osama has failed miserably…uniting the muslim religion under a single leader???? Ha! How naive could he be!

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!