say what..... .. Except terrorism actually exists.
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - justinacase (09/04/2013) [-]
"The people fled the terminal after I shouted terrorist, much like Mexicans on a border town when I shout 'la migra'.
User avatar #45 - sheateme (09/04/2013) [-]
Except terrorism actually exists.
User avatar #62 to #45 - dongers ONLINE (09/04/2013) [-]
but terrorism is such a ******* broad term, the word itself means pretty much someone trying to make someone else terrified
User avatar #63 to #45 - daboomee (09/04/2013) [-]
Did you know you're more likely to die from a police officer than a terrorist?

Just saying.
User avatar #73 to #45 - comeatmebrother (09/04/2013) [-]
it only exists if you're actually terrified
User avatar #86 to #45 - missrainbowdash (09/05/2013) [-]
it does, but it's not the ones you think it is doing it, governments terrorize their own people to start wars over nothing.
User avatar #90 to #45 - espay **User deleted account** (09/05/2013) [-]
witchcraft does exist

its "does it actually work" the real question
User avatar #101 to #45 - Yesitsme (09/05/2013) [-]
Yeah... these two things aren't alike at all.
#67 to #45 - anon (09/04/2013) [-]
So did witchcraft, at least in the minds of the people. Terrorism isn't like what it is portrayed to be, at least when it comes to American news.
#51 to #45 - witislimited (09/04/2013) [-]
So ******* what?

Both scare people and neither is a rational fear- you're more likely to get struck by lightning then get killed by a terrorist.

Picture relevant, source included.
#74 to #45 - blokrokker (09/04/2013) [-]
So do witches.
#48 to #45 - anon (09/04/2013) [-]
So does witchcraft.

Altough it depends a bit on your point of view. Hey, just like Terrorism!
User avatar #49 to #48 - unncommon (09/04/2013) [-]
Yeah dude, I've been blaming 9/11 on those ******* Wiccans for years, but no one's believed me.
You really get me.
#53 to #48 - anon (09/04/2013) [-]
You're retarded.
Are you really saying that witchcraft exists?
User avatar #10 - GhandisPimpCane (09/04/2013) [-]
Causes witches are real and indiscriminately kill people.....
#57 to #10 - kmichel (09/04/2013) [-]
They HAVE reasons for killing people. I don't want the US to be attacked of course but our foreign policy certainly isn't winning us any friends. Just look at Syria, which we're going to invade over oil and gas right now.
User avatar #70 to #57 - drewbridge (09/04/2013) [-]
Are.....are you ******* retarded? Like, seriously ******* retarded?
#99 to #70 - kmichel (09/05/2013) [-]
For saying what exactly?
User avatar #126 to #99 - newforomador ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
That witches have reasons to kill people. You're confusing witches (more typically called wiccans nowadays, although there is a difference) with people like Devil Worshippers, who kill people in the name of their god(s). It's actually a very strict rule in Wiccanism that you never sacrifice things in the name of whatever you worship.
#138 to #126 - kmichel (09/05/2013) [-]
I meant terrorists, not witches. Sorry for the confusion, but I didn't think anyone would think I was referring to the latter.
#69 to #57 - ajweston (09/04/2013) [-]
Syria hasn't consisted of more than a third of one percent of the US's oil imports. Plus the attacks carried out by insurgents in Iraq had a tendency for hitting civilians too, especially in the case of suicide bombers.
#100 to #69 - kmichel (09/05/2013) [-]
I'm referring to attacks against the US for its foreign policies. If we stop our conquest over oil, that all terrorist attacks against us would stop after a few generations.
#98 to #69 - kmichel (09/05/2013) [-]
The problem is that you're looking directly at Syria's oil, which is not the target of the US or the worry of Russia. Covert operations in Syria were planned by the Bush administration as early as 2007 with the goals of 1.) pressuring Assad to be more open to negotiations with Israel and 2.) improving access to oil and gas resources. Gaining access to these resources is more complicated than simply controlling Syria, which is why the removal of Assad from power was only part of a larger plan to topple the governments of seven nations in the region. The goal was to replace these governments in areas with proven oil and gas reserves with leaders more friendly towards our interests due to a stated US need for Persian resources in the foreseeable future. In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement that would extend an oil pipeline into Qatar to supply Europe with oil and natural gas. This pipeline would have run through Saudi Arabia, benefiting their economy as well. This of course angered Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and much of Europe, and was done primarily in Russia's interest since Russia is currently Europe's largest supplier of natural gas. The Saudi's pleaded with Russia to dispose of Assad, even offering $15 billion and greater influence in the region. However, Russia refused. Ties between Russia and Syria have been strong for half a century and constitute a stable and profitable relationship that Russia does not want to abandon. Instead, Syria negotiated a $10 billion pipeline deal with Iran that the US was not very happy about. So in the end, the US, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Europe want Assad out, while Russia wants Assad in power. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons, and evidence from leaked documents points to the attacks being staged by the rebels instead, with help from the US. As far as international politics goes, it doesn't really get more clear cut than this.
User avatar #108 to #98 - drewbridge (09/05/2013) [-]
Sounds like a lot of apophenia and ******** .

#116 to #108 - kmichel (09/05/2013) [-]
******** ? Every sentence I wrote is backed up in major foreign media or in government documents. The connection between the events is straightforward and explains why Putin is against intervention, why the US wants to intervene, why we we're surprised by Britain's lack of enthusiasm for going to war...etc. Wars aren't fought for moral reasons like saving a people from genocide, but for natural resources or access to them, political sway in a region that will be useful in the future, and other similar things. Neither the US government or Russian government cares about chemical weapons being used or the people being killed, and why would they? If the US did, it wouldn't have used chemical weapons on civilians in Afghanistan. If we cared about the stability of a region over our own profit, we wouldn't have overthrown the leader or Iran, or supported brutal dictators and military factions in a dozen or so countries.
User avatar #118 to #116 - drewbridge (09/05/2013) [-]
I didn't say your facts were wrong, I was saying the story doesn't make sense.

Being friendly and open is a whole lot ******* easier than going in, raping literally everything and declaring yourself King **** .
#139 to #98 - ajweston (09/05/2013) [-]
Russia's main interest in Syria is their sole naval base on the Mediterranean which from my understanding they negotiated their asses off to get in the first place and they rightly fear losing it under regime change. And the US will not back chemical weapons use by the rebels either. Oil imports have also decreased in general in recent years as oil production in country has risen significantly and is planned to increase further.
#143 to #139 - kmichel (09/05/2013) [-]
Don't forget that Russia forced Assad to get out of a pipeline agreement with Qatar, and sign a new agreement with Iran that would benefit them. They're supplying Europe with about 200 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year and would lose their dominance with Assad out of power. That's interesting about the naval base, but I don't think I'd go as far as calling it the main reason.
#144 to #143 - ajweston (09/05/2013) [-]
Citing natural gas as a reason for war makes less sense when I think about the logistics of it. Gas from Qatar needs to be pumped (if the shortest route to Europe is the target) through Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria before getting to Turkey. Two of these countries are at war with Israel. One has just been duct taped together politically. And one is in a state of rebellion and is also the main military ally of Iran who has a bigger supply of natural gas than Qatar does in the first place. The point is that it is much more expensive and dangerous for natural gas to be pumped this way than it is to get it from Russia. Russia's natural gas has the added benefit of being easier to access as the majority of the pumps are land based instead of being based offshore as the majority of Qatar's resources are. Add to that the fact that Russia has a larger supply of natural gas to begin with as well as a more powerful infrastructure to pump it, their supply to Europe would be far cheaper than importing from Qatar.
#146 to #144 - kmichel (09/06/2013) [-]
Do you think Russia's naval base would be at risk if another government were in place in Syria? I'm not convinced that they would lose it given the power Russia has in comparison to Syria, and doubt that Russia would let themselves get kicked out. However, I'm on the fence about it and could be wrong.
#148 to #146 - ajweston (09/06/2013) [-]
They don't know what will happen if someone else takes over, but by setting themselves up as allies of the current regime, they've made themselves adversaries of any group that could take control if the rebellion is successful.
#145 to #144 - kmichel (09/06/2013) [-]
Qatar is the world's largest supplier of natural gas, having massive fields up north that they're just itching to sell off. While Russia is supplying Europe with 160-200 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, Qatar has the ability to supply about 240 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, with the potential to supply Europe with a lot of that product. The ruler of Qatar said that he was "eager" to get a pipeline built, which would run from Qatar's northern fields through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and into Turkey. It's definitely risky, and I'd agree with you on risk alone but the leadership has said that they wanted this pipeline built. I didn't look for any articles about their intention to sell off their natural gas in Europe, and will need to do some reading into that when I have time, but with the capability to exceed Russian supply I think the Russian government is rightfully worried. For the US, it's more about control of a larger area, in which Syria is one part. A memo from the Secretary of Defense back in 2001 talked about invading 7 nations, including Syria, with the reason (according to General Wesley Clark, if you choose to believe him) being control of natural gas and oil.
#147 to #145 - ajweston (09/06/2013) [-]
I don't believe in any agenda for the US to control the middle east and General Clark retired in early 2000. The thought of getting involved in the area for gas or oil is unbelievable as we don't get as much of both from Canada as we do from OPEC as a whole with major plans to decline the amount we import from overseas.
User avatar #13 to #10 - arkytior (09/04/2013) [-]
they are real... can't say for the second part
#94 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
you do not see any witch's around now do you. it must of worked
#93 - kennyh (09/05/2013) [-]
People post my picture alongside poorly conceived ********
User avatar #127 to #93 - ponchosdm (09/05/2013) [-]
wait... are you the one and only conspiration guy?!
#60 - igneous (09/04/2013) [-]
**igneous rolled a random image posted in comment #118 at Beating a dead horse ** What I shout
#61 to #60 - unotouchzetaco (09/04/2013) [-]
**unotouchzetaco rolled a random image posted in comment #1 at Sterio Types ** Witchcraft <----
**unotouchzetaco rolled a random image posted in comment #1 at Sterio Types ** Witchcraft <----
#129 to #61 - doubledisme (09/05/2013) [-]
**doubledisme rolls 304**
sometimes I think I can get nice rolls too
#68 - spacemasterfive (09/04/2013) [-]
what are you, a communist?
#111 - malithmp (09/05/2013) [-]
I never know funnyjunk was filled with world political experts.
#114 to #111 - thevic (09/05/2013) [-]
I never know this was a correct way of saying things
#115 to #114 - malithmp (09/05/2013) [-]
*knew* ok ok.. gimme a break..
User avatar #121 to #115 - yuukoku (09/05/2013) [-]
I forgive you for the grammar. Anyway, yes, there's a lot of us on FJ that are into politics. I like to think of the "terrorist" thing as a new McCarthyism. It's always to serve an interest. McCarthyism was to keep people against Communism. It was somewhat justified in that the U.S. didn't want the spread of Communism and saw the injustice that it brought, but they went way too far at that time because not everybody who subscribes to some Communist ideas is a Communist. That's exactly as it is now. The whole Terrorism thing is to keep another 9/11 from happening (and to keep a level of public approval of wars in the Middle East), but it's not like all Muslims are terrorists or plotting the downfall of the U.S.

Somebody has been following me for three days thumbing down everything that I post. He is going to be the first to redthumb this. I'm not going to say his full name or it'll just bring him here quicker. It starts with sparkyskarky, though. I help for ****** sake! I don't know what he wants from me and I can't get him to stop.
User avatar #130 to #121 - acemcgunner (09/05/2013) [-]
shh, you Nazi Communist terrorist Jew ****** monkey.
User avatar #131 to #130 - yuukoku (09/05/2013) [-]
Whelp, time to move back to Antarctica. They found us.
#105 - jackii (09/05/2013) [-]
apart from the fact witches never existed
apart from the fact witches never existed
User avatar #112 to #105 - vortexrain (09/05/2013) [-]
By that logic, terrorists don't exist! It's a bad joke, please don't ******* kill me.
#3 - xast (09/04/2013) [-]
I suddenly got a great idea involving a bag and some sausages.
I suddenly got a great idea involving a bag and some sausages.
#4 to #3 - micekill ONLINE (09/04/2013) [-]
is your ass involved in that?
User avatar #5 to #4 - xast (09/04/2013) [-]
More like taping the sausages and putting them in a bag and scream: "ALLUH AKKBAR"
#7 to #5 - micekill ONLINE (09/04/2013) [-]
you could just use confetti
User avatar #9 to #3 - highfocus (09/04/2013) [-]
hopefully you die a bit
User avatar #28 to #3 - iwanttousenumbers (09/04/2013) [-]
User avatar #122 - usmcrecon (09/05/2013) [-]
the only difference being witches never existed but terrorists do
User avatar #110 - darthlegolas (09/05/2013) [-]
**darthlegolas rolled a random comment #199877 posted by annadewitt at Shin Anime Social Board ** :
yeah it bugs me a lot. i sorta let it slide though since he was mentally challenged.
what i shout
#107 - stokers (09/05/2013) [-]
Robot Chicken: The Terrorists Are Winning
User avatar #11 - alcohol (09/04/2013) [-]
or communist.
#78 - princepeanut (09/04/2013) [-]
out of their mouths...?
#46 - mrslippyfist (09/04/2013) [-]
**mrslippyfist rolled a random image posted in comment #3748673 at Friendly ** wake up sheeple
**mrslippyfist rolled a random image posted in comment #3748673 at Friendly ** wake up sheeple
#104 - adrenalinbbq (09/05/2013) [-]
Come on... Witchcraft was when something happened which people couldn't explain at the time. Terrorism is people attacking civilians in order to instill fear, and further their cause.
**** post is **** .
User avatar #135 - cowisbeast (09/05/2013) [-]
except there were never any witches and there are actual terrorists
#133 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Do they also burn terrorists on the stake?
User avatar #134 to #133 - alseides (09/05/2013) [-]
i bet they also checked their teeth for signs of terrorism
User avatar #109 - duvallwhitey (09/05/2013) [-]
The "Red Scare" all over again.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)