Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
next time please post the time of what you imagined you heard. I wasted 8 1/2 minutes listening to what I knew would be NOT A WORD ABOUT US TERRORISM.

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't you hear the part about newt wanting a covert operation to blow up iran's only oil refinery? is that not terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, its not.

The UNs working definition in drafting anti-terrorism resolutions:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Moreover in general discussions of terrorism the key element is targeting civilians.

Nothing he talked about involved death or bodily harm to civilians and noncombatants.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very politically convenient definition, yet ironically loosely describes US domestic policy.

Here's the dictionary's definition:

[ QUOTE ]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
next time please post the time of what you imagined you heard. I wasted 8 1/2 minutes listening to what I knew would be NOT A WORD ABOUT US TERRORISM.

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't you hear the part about newt wanting a covert operation to blow up iran's only oil refinery? is that not terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, its not.

The UNs working definition in drafting anti-terrorism resolutions:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Moreover in general discussions of terrorism the key element is targeting civilians.

Nothing he talked about involved death or bodily harm to civilians and noncombatants.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very politically convenient definition, yet ironically loosely describes US domestic policy.

Here's the dictionary's definition:

[ QUOTE ]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, but Newt G. clearly would be responding in terms of international law, not colloquial definitions in the dictionary. He is one of the brightest politicians and most precise speakers around, and he is not about to make the mistake of advocating terrorism under international standards

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, look at it this way. a former top iranian politician, goes on iranian tv and says that iran must set up a covert operation to smuggle a nuke into the US and destroy a major US city.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not terrorism, it's an act of war by one country on another.

[ QUOTE ]


Is it terrorism when it's done to the US, but not terrorism when the US does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a group of American citizens without the sanctioning or prior knowledge of the US Government destroys Iran's oil refinery, then yes, it is an act of terrorism.

We cannot classify actions taken by soldiers as terrorism. They are acts of war. That is precisely why it is wrong to treat the prisoners at Guan. as war criminals. They aren't war criminals because they aren't soldiers. They're terrorists.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

" If they do it it's terrorism, if we do it, it's fighting for freedom. "
a U.S. Ambassador in Central America in the 1980s, asked to explain how such U.S. actions as the mining of Nicaragua's harbors and bombing of airports differed from the acts of terrorism that the U.S. condemned around the world.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
next time please post the time of what you imagined you heard. I wasted 8 1/2 minutes listening to what I knew would be NOT A WORD ABOUT US TERRORISM.

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't you hear the part about newt wanting a covert operation to blow up iran's only oil refinery? is that not terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, its not.

The UNs working definition in drafting anti-terrorism resolutions:

"intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

Moreover in general discussions of terrorism the key element is targeting civilians.

Nothing he talked about involved death or bodily harm to civilians and noncombatants.

[/ QUOTE ]
So we bomb their oil refineries:
[x] kill/injure civilians
[x] meant to intimidate Iran's government
Yup, it's terrorism.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
Correct, the specific act of providing weapons and personnel against US forces is not terrorism. It is still an act of war, but not terrorism. That also doesnt preclude them from taking other actions that ARE terrorism, including sponsoring other terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

[/ QUOTE ] QFT Nice to bring clarity to a picture individuals are intentionally trying to blurr.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
the specific act of providing weapons and personnel against US forces is not terrorism. It is still an act of war, but not terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you do acknowledge the many acts of war the US has committed around the world as the world's largest arms dealer and supplier of weapons to countless dictators across the world to fuel their wars against either their internal populations or neighbors.

Falsehoods
 

The OP is deliberately watering down the defintion of terrorism to the point of absurdity by implying everyone is terrorist. It is a tranparent attempt to excuse the barbarism of Arab terrorists. I have no interest in playing his game....

The modern reoccurence of terrorsim was resurrected by that scum of scum...the PLO. One of the happiest periods I enjoyed last year when Hamas and the PLO were killing eachother. I was rooting for both sides to achieve a high number of kills. Unfortunately the PA were a bunch of cowards but I should not be surprised. They are good at murdering Israeli civilians but run away like little girls when they encounter soldiers....

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the specific act of providing weapons and personnel against US forces is not terrorism. It is still an act of war, but not terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you do acknowledge the many acts of war the US has committed around the world as the world's largest arms dealer and supplier of weapons to countless dictators across the world to fuel their wars against either their internal populations or neighbors.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were at war with their neighbors, yes their neighbors could consider them acts of war. Civil wars? No, I wouldnt consider arming one side of a civil war an act of war, though its a fine distinction and I can see some thinking it is.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
The OP is deliberately watering down the defintion of terrorism to the point of absurdity by implying everyone is terrorist. It is a tranparent attempt to excuse the barbarism of Arab terrorists. I have no interest in playing his game....

The modern reoccurence of terrorsim was resurrected by that scum of scum...the PLO. One of the happiest periods I enjoyed last year when Hamas and the PLO were killing eachother. I was rooting for both sides to achieve a high number of kills. Unfortunately the PA were a bunch of cowards but I should not be surprised. They are good at murdering Israeli civilians but run away like little girls when they encounter soldiers....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Ive freqently wondered whether PLOlover is a pot limit omaha player or the other interpretation. Based on his earliest posts I had actually assumed it wasnt the poker variation.