|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Your action? | |||
| Push |
   
|
27 | 49.09% |
| Call for set value |
  
|
21 | 38.18% |
| Other (explain please) |
  
|
7 | 12.73% |
| Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
09-29-2007, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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? 
|
|
#2
09-29-2007, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#3
09-29-2007, 03:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ]
|
|
#4
09-29-2007, 04:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#5
09-29-2007, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#6
09-29-2007, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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....
|
|
#7
09-29-2007, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#8
09-29-2007, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#9
09-29-2007, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
09-29-2007, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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".
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
