Dad... what is a terrorist?

[nonconformist]

Originally posted by Maj
The only rule of war is to win. If any of the rules agreed upon at formal conventions threaten victory (or herald defeat) find a way around them (ie break them).

The rules of war were developed to put aside the atrocities that benefited neither side or could be easily reciprocated by the opposing forces.

Maj, forgive me, but that is a stupid view, in my opinion.
You are saying that if it will help win, or further a war, suicide bombers are allowed? Or a nuclear/dirty/biological/chemical bomb exploded in say, downtown New York would be allowed?

International law is to stop genocide or wiping out countries. It is to protect the last strains of innocence.

The Iraqi people have every right to resist foreigners in their country, under international law, and in common sense. It is their land, and they have taken up arms to protect it.

 

[Halcyon]

Terrorist [n] - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon.

Anyone who attempts to further a political cause or agenda through the induction of fear is a terrorist.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'd be insulted that you equate Bush with bin Laden, but my guess is that you don't believe bin Laden is a terrorist or you don't have a clue what a terrorist actually is.

Bin Laden

Rich, radical Islamist who believes in killing unbelievers to make world safe for Islamic domination and who hates anything Israel does.

Bush

Rich, right wing evangelical Christian who believes in killing anyone who stands in the way of American domination of the world oil supply. He often describes the influence of the Almighty upon his actions, and invokes Christian themes in his political statements. Regardless of the propaganda disseminated by the White House, his administration, like those before, support Israel unequivocally.

Like it or not.....war is terrorism.

 

[nonconformist]

In answer to your post RMsharpe I ask a question.
What is the difference between the bomb that is exploded in America by terrorists, and the bombs that hit a city in Iraq?

 

[Iggy]

Originally posted by stratego
Those red-coats are always looking for money.

You will pay for that comment.

 

[amadeus]

Your tirade against Bush was three times longer than that against bin Laden. My only assumption from this is that you endorse the actions of al-Qaeda.

 

[Civvin]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Your tirade against Bush was three times longer than that against bin Laden. My only assumption from this is that you endorse the actions of al-Qaeda.

My assumption from this is that you aren't very bright.

 

[nonconformist]

Maybe there is more to Bush than others. The list goes on.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Hey rmsharpe, I agree with you on what the pic you posted shows is terrorism. Just wonder what you call this (WARNING: Image not for the weak-hearted).

 

[Civvin]

Your link has been sanitized Stephan

 

[Stefan Haertel]

**** it, it worked when I posted it.

 

[Halcyon]

Well, if you think that the purpose of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan was/is to spread fear throughout a populace, then he can be defined as a terrorist quite happily. If you think there was some (any) other reason, be it retaliation, pretaliation, international law enforcement, counterterrorism, securing economic interests or whatever, then he's not a terrorist, though still belligerent. If you think those wars were started out of a pure and noble purpose, despite the evil opposition from the evil citizenry, the evil UN, and so forth, then perhaps you'll view him as a brave hero. How nice.


As for that link, if you really want to see it, copy and paste it to the URL box in your browser and remove the space before 'iraqi'. It's nothing too exciting, though.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

As for that link, if you really want to see it, copy and paste it to the URL box in your browser and remove the space before 'iraqi'. It's nothing too exciting, though.

I just want to know what rmsharpe says to this.

 

[Hakim]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Terrorist [n] - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon.

Anyone who attempts to further a political cause or agenda through the induction of fear is a terrorist.

I think this is a good definition. The phrase "political cause or agenda" seem to exclude 'military cause or agenda' - war actions and oppressive behaviour by a military force. Maybe it shouldn't?

OTOH, just because something doesn't fit into the definition of terrorism doesn't mean it's not evil. Perhaps "oppression" would fit better when talking about military vs civilians.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by nonconformist
In answer to your post RMsharpe I ask a question.
What is the difference between the bomb that is exploded in America by terrorists, and the bombs that hit a city in Iraq?

Anyone who has an avatar of a terrorist should not be asking questions about terrorists.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
I just want to know what rmsharpe says to this.

That is an unfortunate result of war.

 

[nonconformist]

So Che is a terrorist in your eyes? BOO FRIGGIN HOO! He isn't a terrorist, he fought against U.S intervention in Bolivia, which I seem to remember does not seem to be illegal, before being assasinated by your C.I.A.
And someone wuith an avatar with such a stupid expression should not be making remarks about other's avatars, thank you very much.

 

[Oruc]

stupid expression? thats al bundy

 

[nonconformist]

Who the...?

 

[Maj]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Maj, forgive me, but that is a stupid view, in my opinion.
You are saying that if it will help win, or further a war, suicide bombers are allowed? Or a nuclear/dirty/biological/chemical bomb exploded in say, downtown New York would be allowed?

International law is to stop genocide or wiping out countries. It is to protect the last strains of innocence.

The Iraqi people have every right to resist foreigners in their country, under international law, and in common sense. It is their land, and they have taken up arms to protect it.

"Allowed" is a subjective term; a tenant of rights. The powerful construct and demolish rights. My point was that the rules of war that have been established were those that barred little to no strategic advantage to the belligerents. When war time comes, the ultimate goal is victory, and with no one around to enforce these laws (at least when the belligerents are the more powerful nations of the world) the only 'justice' usually comes from retribution, usually as reciprocity.

I made no mention of international law, only the rules of war. The two are different, albeit related.

I made no mention of the Iraqi people and their rights, under any code of laws.