Also, Mr. Hymen, its funny how you're reporting me when your name is a moving sexual reference...

If you had been around for more than 20 seconds you may have known it has been done in protest of Pooncrews/squads stuff.
I'd happily change it if Fizzer asked however he has not and it's been about 6 months now :)

If Mods were a thing I'd ask for this thread to be locked now... lol. It's become pointless.

Why do you guys have to be so aggressive between yourselves ? Are there past stories or what ? Anyway, on the same subject....

Snowden is a legend. What do you US citizens think about him btw ?

I understand he broke the law and a big one, but the law was broken in first place : it should be allowed to reveal any abuses including from government policies or corporations, as it serves the US population. Otherwise it's like a dictature and it's not allowed to reveal it.

I think Djihad went worse since Bin Laden is out of the picture, as now its total terrorism, disorganised, with more frequent attacks. Ok Bin Laden did a much bigger one (WTC) but it seems to me it was easier to slow down. Unless the modern terrorism was just about to become this way and would have not been avoided with or without Ous ?

Bin Laden should be BL btw ^

Edited 2/10/2016 02:11:04

"Martyr: a person who is killed or who suffers greatly for a religion, cause, etc
Where does that mention resistance? And it doesn't even require death. Please refrain from calling me ignorant when you make up definitions.


Finally! You found a definition (which is even not a good one), but you seem too illiterate to even understand it...

"a person who is killed" is basically a dead person, so he does "require death"... You are contradicting yourself alone wow LMAO"

Koala, get your head out of your ass.


Martyr: a person who is killed or


Do you not know what the word OR means? I mean, I knew you were an idiot, but I assumed you at least understood the meaning of basic two letter words. No?

Do you not know what the word OR means?

I skipped this yes, and I acknowledge I read it too quickly. However his definition wasn't even a good one, did you pay attention about the definition I posted later?
Goodkid, I am starting to believe you have no other purpose here than to make angry comments to random people, and that you have no other way to communicate than by insulting people, a pathetic behavior tbh. Find something else to do with your life.

I mean, I knew you were an idiot

Keeping with your "ad hominem" statement? (btw forgot to answer you in our previous dialogue but "ad hominem" contrary to what you said there is a logical fallacy).


"You even called me stupid in your verse, and I’m almost agreeing, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend."

-Franz Grillparzer

EDIT: Corrected myself about the "Or", I apologize PE, this time you were right.

Edited 2/10/2016 17:31:05

Are you saying I edited in the OR part?

When Pakistan stops oppressing women and Christians and respects basic human rights, we can talk. Until then, international law can f*ck itself.

You think the US really cares about what happens there? Even if Pakistan did that, the US would still break laws to suit itself. Laws are obeyed by those too weak to do otherwise when it's against their interests.

Why do you think Pakistan didn't launch more than a token protest at its sovereignty being violated? Because it's weak and its leaders are corrupt and dependent on US aid.

Laws are obeyed by those too weak to do otherwise when it's against their interests.

Yes you are right SVY, and by not respecting international law, the US are playing a dangerous game exactly like once did Nazi Germany : during ww2 Germany illegally invaded neutral states, and France and GB were enough dumb to follow International Law and believe Germany would respect the principles of inviolability of Neutral Nations, you know what happened next.
In the short term, it is a great advantage (see Germany's victory), but in the long terms there will be fatal repercussions and retaliations. Do not underestimate countries such as Pakistan which is already a nuclear power (just in case you did not know it).

@Koala: Its not the same thing.

Not at all.


You can't really compare assassinating a terrorist in a allied country to saying "Fuck international law, lets go invade neutral countries."