this will never stands, city sends 200k bill to would-be quran burners

[Kalam]

The systematic use of terror, especially as a mean of coercion.

How wonderfully vague. Are you sure you don't want to try and come up with a definition that doesn't include many of the actions of the US military, not to mention those of nearly every other armed group in the history of conflict?

Yes , do attempt to compare your scum bag buddy terrorists to our military. That will certainly convince us of your peaceful nature.

terrorist.

You're the one who's supposed to be providing the definitions here, so don't get your Huggies in a bunch when I identify groups that are guilty of "terrorism" based on the criteria that you put forward.

 

[ConHog]

How about pissing on women and breaking their arms?

Hiring her for the services SHE offered and then an industrial accident. I didn't force her to do anything.

Yet you seem to be under the impression that some lie you drummed up about me beating women makes me a more morally reprehensible person than you.

What lie? Your Islamic, are you not? They punish their wives, do they not? Are you not a good Muslim? Why if you don't when I ask you you're answer is something like "I have never touched my wife in any way that wasn't out of love" or something similar? To a man wife abusers say they do it because they love their wives.

But to be fair, if you will just simply answer the question, you will never hear me make the accusation again. Have you ever physically punished your wife?

 

[Synthaholic]

City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church | quran, city, security - News - Northwest Florida Daily News

what the church was planning on doing was legal and its the cities responsibility to protect. what a bunch of bullshit, they are trying to silence people by threatening them with large bills!

The hell it won't. This jack ass has a right to free speech, but it's more than reasonable to expect him to pay the bill for the security when he creates an international incident.

Just like you get charged for an ambulance ride.

no group would be able to protest or do anything unfavorable to the city government where an event is held if this were the case. Imagine if DC sent the security bill to every grouped that gathered at the capital...

That's why you get a permit first.

 

[blu]

You call it "freedom fighting".

What's the definition?

The systematic use of terror, especially as a mean of coercion. IE when you threaten to beat your wife if she doesn't do as you say, you are terrorizing her.

'so would an example be 'give up your nuke program or we will nuke you'?

or

'give up your nuke program or we will overthrow your governemnt' ?

 

[blu]

The systematic use of terror, especially as a mean of coercion.

How wonderfully vague. Are you sure you don't want to try and come up with a definition that doesn't include many of the actions of the US military, not to mention those of nearly every other armed group in the history of conflict?

Yes , do attempt to compare your scum bag buddy terrorists to our military. That will certainly convince us of your peaceful nature.

terrorist.

there is no definition of terrorism that wouldn't encompass a number of actions taken by the us military

 

[ConHog]

What's the definition?

The systematic use of terror, especially as a mean of coercion. IE when you threaten to beat your wife if she doesn't do as you say, you are terrorizing her.

'so would an example be 'give up your nuke program or we will nuke you'?

or

'give up your nuke program or we will overthrow your governemnt' ?

Nice try, but we've threatened neither.


Here's an example

"if you don't let us build our mosque, the radicals among us will go crazy"

 

[blu]

The systematic use of terror, especially as a mean of coercion. IE when you threaten to beat your wife if she doesn't do as you say, you are terrorizing her.

'so would an example be 'give up your nuke program or we will nuke you'?

or

'give up your nuke program or we will overthrow your governemnt' ?

Nice try, but we've threatened neither.


Here's an example

"if you don't let us build our mosque, the radicals among us will go crazy"

we have threatened that

and your example is terrorism as well the opposite of:

'if you build your mosque we will burn it down' much like has happened to a number of mosques around the country and was threatened against the 'ground zero' one

 

[Meister]

How wonderfully vague. Are you sure you don't want to try and come up with a definition that doesn't include many of the actions of the US military, not to mention those of nearly every other armed group in the history of conflict?

Yes , do attempt to compare your scum bag buddy terrorists to our military. That will certainly convince us of your peaceful nature.

terrorist.

there is no definition of terrorism that wouldn't encompass a number of actions taken by the us military

You stated it....now please explain what you mean, and don't be vague.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How about pissing on women and breaking their arms?

Hiring her for the services SHE offered and then an industrial accident. I didn't force her to do anything.

Yet you seem to be under the impression that some lie you drummed up about me beating women makes me a more morally reprehensible person than you.

I agree that him lying about you, if he is, does not make you morally reprehensible. What makes you morally reprehensible is your practice of defending terrorism and murder.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'so would an example be 'give up your nuke program or we will nuke you'?

or

'give up your nuke program or we will overthrow your governemnt' ?

Nice try, but we've threatened neither.


Here's an example

"if you don't let us build our mosque, the radicals among us will go crazy"

we have threatened that

and your example is terrorism as well the opposite of:

'if you build your mosque we will burn it down' much like has happened to a number of mosques around the country and was threatened against the 'ground zero' one

The closest we got to threatening either was during the Cold War with our policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. That said, a policy that clearly stated we would only use nukes if attacked, and that we would only go full out if they did, does not amount to an ultimatum. If we actually had either of those polices you falsely claim we do there would be only one nuclear power on Earth, or it would be a vast wasteland ala Mad Max.