newt g. advocates terror

[PLOlover]

[ 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?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ 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 ]
Fool! The war has already started.
There are firefights along the Iraq-Iranian Border to stop inflitrations. There are Iranian agents supporting the insurgency and there are Iranian weapons be given to insurgents with the specific intent to pentrate armored vehicles and killing US/UK troops.....

It is time to raise the stakes. It is time that Iran learns there are consequences to taking armed actions against the USA. More importantly, it is time that other nations learn the consequences with crossing swords with the USA. Doing so will lead to long term peace....not doing so will invite more transgressions...

[John Kilduff]

[ 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 ]
Fool! The war has already started...


[/ QUOTE ]

"Matthew 5:22. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

[PLOlover]

[ 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).

[Albert Moulton]

"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.

[bobman0330]

In case anyone was still on the fence, I think this thread proves that arguments about definitions are always stupid.