|
|
#21
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. 
|
|
#22
09-29-2007, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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).
|
|
#23
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.
|
|
#24
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".
|
|
#25
09-29-2007, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#26
09-29-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#28
09-29-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#29
09-29-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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>
|
|
#30
09-29-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
