I like the FBI one (with the proviso that ‘unlawful’ includes the Geneva Conventions as commonly understood, not as ‘parsed by morally challenged neo-con lawyers for loopholes that allow us to act as savages’) but there are many different definitions.
WTF are you talking about? My definition came from dictionary.com. But it’s not their definition either. The origianl source is: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Since when is that not the dictionary???
Besides, I thought you didn’t care about the definition of words. Have you changed your mind about that?
Since Merriam-Webster:
We can play dueling dictionaries if you wish.
Now it’s my turn to say WTF. When did I say this?
Um, that’s rather a circlular definition. What happens when you look up “terror” in that same dictionary:
Note definition #4. Sound familiar?
Someone said that in in one of the threads. I thought it was you, but if not, my apologies. I’ll see if I can track down the quote.
Sounds like your definition. I concede your definition is in the dictionary, but it is not the definition, it is a definition… Definition #1 fits my broader interpretation, and the one under which my OP was based. You win a battle, I win the war.
I’ve got time.
That was me - and I don’t care how JM defines terrorism. Whether or not Coalition actions meet any of the many definitions of the word is secondary to the fact their actions are so often heinous as well as counter-productive.
I want people to stop parsing definitions to make themselves feel better and recognise that to all intents and purposes the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are performing acts that are to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable in outcome to terrorism.
Each result in a lot of dead innocents.
You’re right, my dear, liberal, blame-America-first-and-don’t-trust-a-word-the-government-says friends; payback is
And therein lies part of the current problem. The US has sown enough seeds already w/regards to worldwide blowback due to the essentially-unprovoked invasion of Iraq. The more we keep doing as we see fit with no consideration for what other inhabitants of the planet might deem appropriate, the more we confirm the impression that we’ve become a rogue nation with “might makes right” our only moral code for international affairs.
I’m sure parallel arguments could be constructed for the US-versus-AlQaeda-terrorists situation, but there are some non-parallel elements, too:
• Israel has confined its bombing strikes to a much smaller portion of the world, essentially restricted to the borders of nations that have openly participated in trying to wipe them out and those which have affirmed the desirability of doing so. Israel hasn’t bombed houses in Turkey or Algeria as far as I know.
• Israel has been hit up with a long string of terrorist attacks. Say what you will of their responses to it, there’s no denying that the Israelis as a people are individually at constant risk from the violence of ongoing terrorist attacks. The United States was the victim of one terrorist attack which took place four and a half years ago, and a prior attack at the same site a few years prior, plus some attacks on its military and embassy establishments off-soil. The United States citizen is simply not at much personal risk of being a victim of terrorism. When a snarling rottweiler leaps for your throat, you’re totally entitled to shoot it, but if a frenetic chihuahua bites your ankle that’s going to be viewed as overkill.
Well, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. But I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you consider a little experiment. If your definition is so good, why don’t you convince the next Democratic Presidential candidate to campaign on a platform of eliminating terrorism from the US government. See you well that works out for you.
Looks like it was tagos, not you. Sorry about that!
A noble platform. Only a Republican could sneer at such a goal.
• Israel has confined its bombing strikes to a much smaller portion of the world, essentially restricted to the borders of nations that have openly participated in trying to wipe them out and those which have affirmed the desirability of doing so. Israel hasn’t bombed houses in Turkey or Algeria as far as I know.
I dont’ think we should brush past this point too casually. Those adjacent countries were all, at one time, actually AT WAR with israel–in fact, I bet they don’t do target assissanations in Egypt, even tho there might be tempting targets, precisely because they have a treaty.
Note:I’m guessing on this.
Note also: a TREATY. They RESPECT their agreements. (well, let’s not get carried away here…)
I think the geographic element is paramount, as we will continue to observe in Pakistan.
No one reasonably argues that we breach some new international in Iraq when we riddle some family vehicle with bullets, because we’ve already trashed the place, and we’ve at least set out what arguably are administable( if illegal) standards for how to get around iraq in a car and not get shot. (don’t tailgate a humvee…)
but to expand our area of gung ho free-fire out of the blue is rather like the cambodian incursion, is it not.
neither is legal and to this day Kissinger can’t travel without looking over his shoulder because in Europe they are inclined to prosecute war crimes more vigorously than we.
A Godwin?
A GODWIN??
I am a motherfuckin’ Baldwin, pal.
Which is rather why I stepped into this wreck. You continue to insist (without evidence, or apparently, anything beyond your own desire to believe it), that they are operating on the most base motives. (Some or many may be, but we have not seen evidence of that.)
They may be acting on base motives or out of erroneous assumptions, but your assertion does not make the base motive the default position.
Your historical examples also fall flat: Japan and Germany were major aggressive forces that were defeated after intense struggle, where the people were more than willing to seek a new regime. Iran, like the other countries named, was no threat to the U.S. and was invaded without provocation “for their own good.” If I were an Iraqi looking for historical examples, which comes closer to my reality?
are you going to take yes for an answer or not?(reference my prior preparedness to stake a night at the mitchell’s (you buy your own “extras”) against a San Jose equivalent (as if…)
Actually you’re a Goth. But going by your gnashing of teeth I guess you take more to the kind that wear black makeup and hang around cemeteries pretending to be depressed, than to the raping pillaging Goth the Romans came to love so dearly.
News on Google is that one of the killed terrorist of last weeks attack was Midhat Mursi, also known as a lot of other things with Muhammed in it, al Qaeda’s master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert. How very fortunate he was in the wrong house.
Also killed in the wrong house were Khalid Habib, the al Qaeda operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, a senior operations commander for al Qaeda, and a couple of local Taliban leaders.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
RIP motherfucker. Hope you enjoy your packet of Sun-Maid.
Don’t know 'bout the rest, but whoever trained Richard Reid would have profitted from some mid- twentieth century technology courtesy of the zippo company.
c
[QUOTE=RuneNews on Google is that one of the killed terrorist of last weeks attack was Midhat Mursi, also known as a lot of other things with Muhammed in it, al Qaeda’s master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert. How very fortunate he was in the wrong house.
Also killed in the wrong house were Khalid Habib, the al Qaeda operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, a senior operations commander for al Qaeda, and a couple of local Taliban leaders.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
d.[/QUOTE]
all of which is germane to the murder of the little girls how?
I would be remiss, as well, not to add, vis-a-vis the convenient appearance of trophy names:
“says who?”
when asked whether the admin was planning an apology to the families of the innocent civilians, scotty M says:
“All we can do in this case it to continue to reach out to the Pakistani people, help them understand what it is that we are doing in fighting the war on terrorism and also to underline for them what a good friend America is,” McCormack said.http://www.haveeru.com.mv/?page=engdetails&id=6612
In other words, “eat shit and die, towelheads…”
"Qaeda operatives are the driving force behind the local militants and are influencing their tactics, the officials said. The militants have managed this despite a hammer-and-anvil strategy in the region, with American forces pressing from the Afghan side of the border. There have been three American strikes in the area in the past six weeks, involving missiles fired from remotely piloted Predator aircraft operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, but whether they were an expression of American frustration expression of or the outcome of a burst of intelligence “remains unclear.”
emphais added.
That’s great. We maybe blew away bunches of kids out of frustration.