Monday, June 27, 2011

Terrorism Explained.

This is hilarious. Really made me think about double standards and how the media influences point's of view.


  1. LOL! clever! I haven't even thought about it that way!

  2. Not THAT good a point, if you ask me.

    America was founded on guerrilla warfare, and guerrilla-style combat is still my favorite type due to the more romantic side of it (as the comic stated, a small town boy fighting to help free his country/world/galaxy from an oppressive evil).


    Butbutbut, there's a major difference between a rebel fighter and a terrorist. For one thing, the PR involved...though that's a small thing, really. No, the major difference between a rebel fighter and a terrorist lays in how they go about their business.

    A rebel fighter does not need theistic dogma or drugs to cloud their judgment and obscure their thoughts. That in and of itself is a major point in my opinion when it comes to discerning the difference between two differing bombers. I'd trust that the rebel fighter is performing their plan with the idea of minimum innocent casualties, whereas a terrorist NEEDS innocent casualties. The higher the toll, the more glorified the slaughter, the greater impact their action is (in their own minds, at least...and, sadly, thanks to the media in general this is becoming if not already have become true).

    I'm not defending either side, really, just tryin' to throw my two cents into this, y'know? Public forums and all that...

    Anyway, it's hard to tell just who IS straight-out evil in a conflict, sometimes. The fog of war does that, and I blame the media for that as well: in a war, there are only winners and losers. If the "good guys" win, then good...the day is saved, everyone go back to living their lives.


    Butbutbut, it's only AFTER the war is over can the good guys be picked out from the bad guys, and by then it might be too late to find out that the bad guys DID win, y'knowwhatImean?

    The other thing...terrorist actions profit from a long, drawn-out siege offense. There IS no such thing as a good, drawn-out siege - the Art of War agrees with me there. In such a conflict, there is only one winner...the group who can snatch the most glory, the group that is loudest while the others dwindle due to exhaustion and desperation.

    I'm just sayin'.

  3. There's always going to be violence either way depends which way you look at it.
    But keep up the good work either way

  4. That was great, excellent post man!

    Also wanted to say I really appreciate your input on one of my more recent blogs! You're a very intelligent person.

  5. @ that bastard... - "the PR involved" is the most important thing. It's how things are spun. Loyalty is won by the media and people are demonized.

    It could be argued, for instance, that since the USA went to war with Iraq based on lies ,that they are terrorist's. Especially since Saddam never threatened or attacked the US.

    Although he wanted to stop using dollars in his country and started selling oil in Euro's, which maybe his weapon of mass destruction, but he's not a terrorist. And he was severely restricted, weak army, north and south no fly zones, as well as USA military presence.

    Terrorism is a non-sense word these days, because in war you have two sides, and once the peace is broken terrorism ceases to be an issue, because there is open combat. (guerrilla warfare included.)

    @everyone - thanks guys, ill respond more later, gotta go to work lol

  6. lol Had a laugh, but really get you thinking about those kinda things.