newt g. advocates terror
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=331VYtpGmAY

newt advocates sabatage and terrorism against iran. admits US has sponsored terrorisim in the past vs. USSR.

good or bad?

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

Sounds like a good idea. That way, we can give the entire defense budget to Blackwater rather than just part of it.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
Iranian weapons are coming into Iraq to kill American

[/ QUOTE ]

American weapons are coming into Israel to kill Palestinians.

Everytime I watch a Fox News clip I think about their ratings and hold my head in my hands.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=331VYtpGmAY

newt advocates sabatage and terrorism against iran. admits US has sponsored terrorisim in the past vs. USSR.

good or bad?

[/ 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.

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iranian weapons are coming into Iraq to kill American

[/ QUOTE ]

American weapons are coming into Israel to kill Palestinians.



[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq and Turkey aggreed combine forces to crack down on a terrorist group: the Kurds, the ally of the US. WTF?????? The US is the ally of a terrorist group? That our bff4lyfe Iraq said is terrorist?

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ 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?

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

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.

isn't this the precise terror scenario everybody in D.C. keeps talking about?

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

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

[ 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.

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, as long as Iran supplies weapons that only kill US Marines/Soldiers and Iraqi security forces they are not sponsoring terrorism? So, in reality the only terrorism Iran is sponsoring is against Iraqi civilians?

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 ]

So, as long as Iran supplies weapons that only kill US Marines/Soldiers and Iraqi security forces they are not sponsoring terrorism? So, in reality the only terrorism Iran is sponsoring is against Iraqi civilians?

[/ 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.

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.

Re: Falsehoods
 

seems to me if US blows up iran oil refinery with military in the open, it is an act of war.
If US *covertly* blows up iran oil refinery and doesn't "take credit" for it, then it seems to me that that is some form of terrorism.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, produce the post(s).

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
seems to me if US blows up iran oil refinery with military in the open, it is an act of war.
If US *covertly* blows up iran oil refinery and doesn't "take credit" for it, then it seems to me that that is some form of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both acts of war. Again, as used today, both in international resolutions and common usage, terrorism involves intentional attacks on civilians, almost always with no other strategic value. As FN points out, this whole post is just an attempt to trivialize the meaning and contempt for terrorism.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seems to me if US blows up iran oil refinery with military in the open, it is an act of war.
If US *covertly* blows up iran oil refinery and doesn't "take credit" for it, then it seems to me that that is some form of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are both acts of war. Again, as used today, both in international resolutions and common usage, terrorism involves intentional attacks on civilians, almost always with no other strategic value. As FN points out, this whole post is just an attempt to trivialize the meaning and contempt for terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are both acts of war. Again, as used today, both in international resolutions and common usage, terrorism involves intentional attacks on civilians, almost always with no other strategic value. As FN points out, this whole post is just an attempt to trivialize the meaning and contempt for terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it an act of war if nobody knows who did it?
I mean, suppose 911 was a total state sponsored deal by saudi arabia. according to you, that was an act of war by saudi arabia. but since no one knows about it ...

also, is iran justified in blowing up oil refineries or nuclear power plants in the US if they do it *covertly* and no one knows that iran is behind the attacks?

also if it is an act of war, how can the US do it *covertly*? wouldn't it require a declaration of war by congress before the CIA or whoever can carry out an act of war? see where I'm going with this?

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you don't understand, but when newt says "covertly", he means no soldiers will be used, no military, nothing like that. he means secret sabatage CIA squads or whatever.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like when we declare Iran's soldiers terrorists?

Re: newt g. advocates terror
 

"Sabatage" and "terrorism" are not the same thing.

Newt did not advocate blowing up schools to demoralize the Iranians, for example. Nor did he advocate capturing hundreds of Iranians, holding them hostage, and killing one every day until Iran gives in to US demands.

You seem to imply that any state-sponsored, preemptive use of deadly force is "terrorism."

I reject that premise.

As for whether that is a good idea, I'm not sure. The consequences of destabilizing Iran's infrastructure might be too unpredictable. For example, what if it just makes their people even more determined to build and use nuclear weapons. Or even more determined to militarize as an entire nation to fight a kind of "jihad" against the US.

After all, we were pretty sure Iraq would be a cake walk once the Army was destroyed, right? That hasn't turned out to be so easy.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are both acts of war. Again, as used today, both in international resolutions and common usage, terrorism involves intentional attacks on civilians, almost always with no other strategic value. As FN points out, this whole post is just an attempt to trivialize the meaning and contempt for terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it an act of war if nobody knows who did it? <font color="red"> since when is knowledge of the perpetrator needed for something to be an act of war? At the time of attacks on Israel it wasnt known whether any support came from Iran or Syria, they were still acts of war if they were state sanctioned </font>
I mean, suppose 911 was a total state sponsored deal by saudi arabia. according to you, that was an act of war by saudi arabia. but since no one knows about it ... <font color="red"> if it was state sanctioned, yes, it was an act of war </font>

also, is iran justified in blowing up oil refineries or nuclear power plants in the US if they do it *covertly* and no one knows that iran is behind the attacks? <font color="red">of course not, and the us would be justified in retaliating against the act of war once theres reasonable assurance that it was iran that attacked </font>

also if it is an act of war, how can the US do it *covertly*? wouldn't it require a declaration of war by congress before the CIA or whoever can carry out an act of war? <font color="red"> no, the definition of "act of war" does not require a formal declaration of war</font>

see where I'm going with this?

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> around in circles?</font>

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like when we declare Iran's soldiers terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly I've heard the Bush Administration say that the Iranian army is a sponsor of terrorism, and therefore as bad as terrorists themselves. So, if Iranian soldiers are smuggling explosives that others in Iraq use for suicide bombings in crowded marketplaces, then yes, they are terrorists.

But, again, Newt isn't advocating sending explosives to suicide bombers to blow themselves up in Iranian marketplaces.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like when we declare Iran's soldiers terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ] link?

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you don't understand, but when newt says "covertly", he means no soldiers will be used, no military, nothing like that. he means secret sabatage CIA squads or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would still be a sanctioned, government attack. CIA agents are government agents, regardless of what Matt Damon's movies suggest.

Not all warfare is fought in the open. By using the same logic that says CIA agents destroying the oil refinery are terrorists, Navy SEAL teams and Army Rangers are terrorists, because they don't always wear standard issue fatigues and attack in the daylight.

I'm still undecided as to whether I believe attacking Iran's oil refinery would be a good idea, however, if we do it, it's still not terrorism imo.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like when we declare Iran's soldiers terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ] link?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081401662.html

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

-------------------

Which of course led to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047176/

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution to label the CIA and the U.S. Army “terrorist organizations.” The move is seen as a diplomatic tit-for-tat after the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like when we declare Iran's soldiers terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ] link?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081401662.html

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

-------------------

Which of course led to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047176/

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution to label the CIA and the U.S. Army “terrorist organizations.” The move is seen as a diplomatic tit-for-tat after the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you even bother to read your first link? Obviously when a group supports or commits terrorist acts, they are terrorists, whether or not they happen to also be part of an organized army. Hint: second paragraph

Re: Falsehoods
 

So the CIA should be labeled terrorist?

I fail to see your point.

Both sides are saying "THEY are the terrorists", but in the end it's not about terrorism at all.

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the CIA should be labeled terrorist?

I fail to see your point.

Both sides are saying "THEY are the terrorists", but in the end it's not about terrorism at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly the motivation for labeling the Iran guard as terrorist is pragmatic in that allows for certain actions to be taken. However the JUSTIFICATION for labeling them terrorist is their support or commission of terrorist acts. So in the end that IS about terrorism.

The Iranian resolution is exactly what the article says as well..tit for tat.

Should the CIA be labeled as terrorists? If they commit terrorist acts, absolutely. got any examples that meet the criteria of terrorism, namely that it intentionally targets civilians?

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should the CIA be labeled as terrorists? If they commit terrorist acts, absolutely. got any examples that meet the criteria of terrorism, namely that it intentionally targets civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we have any examples of this happening with Iran? Or are we just labeling anybody we don't like Terrorist? Blackwater gunned down some civilians. Terrorists? We're paying them. If Hamas is terrorist and Iran is terrorist because they support Hamas..........

The original point of this was in response to the comment:

[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what we're doing. Because if we say "Iranian terrorism", maybe we can fool the country into thinking that, you know, they ARE straping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians along with our troops.

And we BOTH know that the war with Iran has nothing to do with terrorism.

Re: Falsehoods
 

TomVeil,

"Do we have any examples of this happening with Iran?"

An example of Iranian state terrorism that people may not know about is the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which left 85 people dead.

wiki page

"On 25 October 2006, prosecutors in Buenos Aires formally charged Iran and Shi'a militia Hezbollah with the bombing, accusing the Iranian authorities of directing Hezbollah to carry out the attack and calling for the arrest of former President of Iran Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others, including some who still hold official positions in Iran."

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still undecided as to whether I believe attacking Iran's oil refinery would be a good idea, however, if we do it, it's still not terrorism imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

so by the same logic, if iran decides to covertly and deniably blow up oil refineries in texas, that would be ok with you?

Re: Falsehoods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the CIA be labeled as terrorists? If they commit terrorist acts, absolutely. got any examples that meet the criteria of terrorism, namely that it intentionally targets civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we have any examples of this happening with Iran? <font color="red">Yes, we do </font> Or are we just labeling anybody we don't like Terrorist? Blackwater gunned down some civilians. Terrorists? We're paying them. <font color="red">are we paying them to commit those acts or did they act outside of their assignment. If we paid them to, yes we should be considered terrorists </font> If Hamas is terrorist and Iran is terrorist because they support Hamas.......... <font color="red"> by George, hes got it</font>

The original point of this was in response to the comment:

[ QUOTE ]
I also see it as an attempt to turn legitimate soldiers into "terrorists".

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly what we're doing. <font color="red"> show me some evidence of that</font> Because if we say "Iranian terrorism", maybe we can fool the country into thinking that, you know, they ARE straping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians along with our troops.

And we BOTH know that the war with Iran has nothing to do with terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> If there is war with Iran it will have EVERYTHING to do with terrorism </font>