"William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ck1ibc$3u2$1@news.freedom2surf.net... "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message news:H-edndMgiJKBuvncRVn-sQ@adelphia.com... "William Black" <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ck13uq$vai$1@news.freedom2surf.net... "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message news:D8U8d.8$oM1.2740@news.uswest.net...> Paul Tiger wrote:> > define terrorist>> Someone who blows up a commerical airliner full of civilians? US Navy did that... But it was not a terrorist action (see below), but instead a misguided self-defense measure. I didn't see any qualification in the original remarks.
Use some common sense, right?
> Someone who bombs civlian hotels? US Army did that in Iraq... The Army bombed hotels? A cite, please? Sorry, shelled...
"I didn't see any qualification [he did say "bombs"]...in the original
remarks"...right? Again, cite? Remember, use of direct fire weaponry such as
the coax and M2 doesn't qualify as "shelled". To be completely honest, I
don't think the use of the 120mm firing non-explosive rounds as a whopping
big sniper weapon would meet that criteria either. Anywho...they would have
been engaging hostile targets, so your comparison falls flat...
In reality terrorists are defined not by their actions but by their cause. Rubbish. They are defined by their definition: "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (from USC, Section 2656f(d)) The 1978 Bonn Summit defined terrorism to include, ""Acts of kidnapping, hostage-taking, bomb attacks on innocents, hijacking..." Who cares?
You obviously don't, which is why you seem so all-fired anxious to excuse
terrorists at every opportunity while trying to paint the military forces as
being no better than they are.
It's legalistic twaddle to allow persecution of anyone who disagrees with the politics of the people concerned.
Eh? The terrorists are the ones doing the persecuting...you keep forgetting
that. We *prosecuted* the war; that is a bit different from "persecute".
Princeton University has defined it as, "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear." Again, who cares?
You should.
The common thread through all of the common definitions of terrorism is the fact that the *target* or objective for coercion is unarmed civilians. So terrorising civilians who, as an extreme example, were collaborating with the Nazis in WW2 was not legitimate?
Strawman. And not a very good one, I must say.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Not if his target is the unarmed. So shooting off duty soldiers is terrorism?
When the objective is to terrorize, yes. It is simple really--even you
should be able to grasp it if you apply yourself beyond the "who cares"
stage.
Brooks
-- William Black
