newt g. advocates terror

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I've never said that attacking Iran using covert US Special Forces troops or the CIA was the right thing to do. I simply said that if we did it was not "terrorism" it was an act of war.

The same thing is true in reverse. If an oil field in Texas was destroyed by Iranian forces, that's not terrorism, that's an act of agression by a country.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that terrorists do not represent countries, soldiers do.

And soldiers, no matter what flag they serve under, are not terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that I can agree with that. I'm not wild about this "THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS" drums that Bush & Co keep shouting. If you want to go to war, be a man, step up, and declare it. Don't try to double-talk and schemantic your way into it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd never flame away at somebody who's being honest. If we have to go to war with Iran, then it should be because we HAVE to and should wipe them out as fast as we can.

But all of this talk about terrorism sponsorship and them being a threat to us is [censored]. If they move on us, we kill them quick. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Iran, there's considerable reason to be "interfering" with the Iraq war. Considering our actions, what would you expect them to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I've never said that attacking Iran using covert US Special Forces troops or the CIA was the right thing to do. I simply said that if we did it was not "terrorism" it was an act of war.

The same thing is true in reverse. If an oil field in Texas was destroyed by Iranian forces, that's not terrorism, that's an act of agression by a country.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that terrorists do not represent countries, soldiers do.

And soldiers, no matter what flag they serve under, are not terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

to the extent that they are operating as soldiers, yes. When they crossover to committing terrorist acts they are tautologically terrorists. If you are claiming that anyone who, in one aspect of their life, wears the uniform of a country, who then goes out and (either under orders or as a rogue) then blows up a school bus of children, is not a terrorist I think you are wrong.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is A threat. Drunk driving is A MUCH LARGER threat. <font color="red">currently, yes. if terrorism is left unchallenged, dd wont be the greater threat for long. You can play statistics all you want, exposure is half of the formula. The 215 colleagues of mine who died on 9/11 were exposed to a risk they never assumed. </font> Almost EVERYTHING is A threat. But being a good poker player, you'd have to understand that there is some sort of cost-reward ratio that should be applied. Spending this incredibly large amount of money to combat terrorism makes us worse at combatting OTHER REAL threats to our way of life. <font color="red"> you are understating the threat and the cost/benefit analysis imo</font> At some point, the cost outwieghs the gains. Especially when you're not just talking money, you're talking lives. And doubly so when the very thing you're fighting against gains strength because you're fighting it so badly. <font color="red"> again, this is unproven </font>

As for Blackwater, the [censored] that they are doing is just now coming out. Don't be suprised when you're suprised what they are doing over there.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> we'll see, and until we do, you are just speculating </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first, I disagree with your premise that terrorism, left unchecked, would be a greater threat than Drunk Driving. I see terrorists as a very small percentage of the population, driven by conditions (mostly) outside their control. I don't believe that percentage of people would increase high enough to "overtake" drunk driving. However, I am willing to agre that it's possible.

I don't know how many studies and polls need to be taken to make you agree that terrorism is gaining strength, but every report that I've read says the same thing. We're trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer, and then wonder why people are upset that we smashed the china.

Again, I don't want you to get the impression that I am against fighting terrorism. But Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. There are better ways to fight it than sending in 150,000 troops to occupy a country. If you really want to show that you're fighting terrorism, FIND OSAMA AND PUT HIS HEAD ON A PIKE. Collaberate with other countries to share intellegence so we can perform surgical strikes.

Lastly, check out http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/...=OVGNblackwater

When you're sending hired guns into a war zone, armed to the teeth and outside governmental oversight, what do you expect to happen?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is A threat. Drunk driving is A MUCH LARGER threat. <font color="red">currently, yes. if terrorism is left unchallenged, dd wont be the greater threat for long. You can play statistics all you want, exposure is half of the formula. The 215 colleagues of mine who died on 9/11 were exposed to a risk they never assumed. </font> Almost EVERYTHING is A threat. But being a good poker player, you'd have to understand that there is some sort of cost-reward ratio that should be applied. Spending this incredibly large amount of money to combat terrorism makes us worse at combatting OTHER REAL threats to our way of life. <font color="red"> you are understating the threat and the cost/benefit analysis imo</font> At some point, the cost outwieghs the gains. Especially when you're not just talking money, you're talking lives. And doubly so when the very thing you're fighting against gains strength because you're fighting it so badly. <font color="red"> again, this is unproven </font>

As for Blackwater, the [censored] that they are doing is just now coming out. Don't be suprised when you're suprised what they are doing over there.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> we'll see, and until we do, you are just speculating </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first, I disagree with your premise that terrorism, left unchecked, would be a greater threat than Drunk Driving. I see terrorists as a very small percentage of the population, driven by conditions (mostly) outside their control. I don't believe that percentage of people would increase high enough to "overtake" drunk driving. However, I am willing to agre that it's possible.

I don't know how many studies and polls need to be taken to make you agree that terrorism is gaining strength, but every report that I've read says the same thing. We're trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer, and then wonder why people are upset that we smashed the china.

Again, I don't want you to get the impression that I am against fighting terrorism. But Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. There are better ways to fight it than sending in 150,000 troops to occupy a country. If you really want to show that you're fighting terrorism, FIND OSAMA AND PUT HIS HEAD ON A PIKE. Collaberate with other countries to share intellegence so we can perform surgical strikes.

Lastly, check out http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/...=OVGNblackwater

When you're sending hired guns into a war zone, armed to the teeth and outside governmental oversight, what do you expect to happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh..that they do the job they were sent there to do?

[iron81]

My understanding of the term terrorist what that it was pretty mutually exclusive to the term "war criminal" and that one should not use the term terrorist when war criminal is more appropriate: when the act is committed by uniformed military personnel.

For instance, I don't think the Hezbollah rocket attacks during the last Lebanon-Israel war were terrorism, I think that war crime was a more appropriate term. Similarly, pretty much nothing done by uniformed US military personnel should count as terrorism. I don't know about stuff like CIA operations.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I've never said that attacking Iran using covert US Special Forces troops or the CIA was the right thing to do. I simply said that if we did it was not "terrorism" it was an act of war.

The same thing is true in reverse. If an oil field in Texas was destroyed by Iranian forces, that's not terrorism, that's an act of agression by a country.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that terrorists do not represent countries, soldiers do.

And soldiers, no matter what flag they serve under, are not terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, riddle me this. what was the operation that the US undertook when it blew up the USSR gas line factories or whatever? it wasn't an act of war because no one knew the US did it. was it terrorism? was it just sabatage? was it right? if it wasn't right, should people be prosecuted for it?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I've never said that attacking Iran using covert US Special Forces troops or the CIA was the right thing to do. I simply said that if we did it was not "terrorism" it was an act of war.

The same thing is true in reverse. If an oil field in Texas was destroyed by Iranian forces, that's not terrorism, that's an act of agression by a country.

The most important point I'm trying to make is that terrorists do not represent countries, soldiers do.

And soldiers, no matter what flag they serve under, are not terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, riddle me this. what was the operation that the US undertook when it blew up the USSR gas line factories or whatever? it wasn't an act of war because no one knew the US did it. <font color="red"> again, direct knowledge of who did it does not change the fact that it was an act of war </font> was it terrorism? <font color="red"> no </font> was it just sabatage? <font color="red"> yes, if you correct the spelling </font> was it right? <font color="red">Im not familiar enough with the situation to know if it was justified </font> if it wasn't right, should people be prosecuted for it? <font color="red">same answer, but if you are asking whether ANY act of war should be prosecuted, certainly not </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coper, in the case of Blackwater, we're not only paying them, we're protecting them from any kind of prosecution AFTER these incidents. <font color="red">Again, if these incidents are being fairly reported and are outside the scope of their legitimate assignments, then they are wrong and we are wrong to protect them. I still have never seen anything that says that is the case. </font> Could you not see how the Iraqis, Iranians, or ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD could see this as a legitimate sponsoring of terrorism? <font color="red">absolutely, if it happened </font>

And still, war with Iran would have nothing to do with terrorism. Just like war with Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. It's just the "big bad enemy" like communism was in the 80s.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">lol. Communism WAS a threat, and terrorism IS a threat. Terrorists are the enemy, and will continue to be for longer than communism was the enemy. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

To be more specific, Islamic Terrorism is the threat.

[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."