Modification of Geneva Conventions

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When I refer to terrorists, I am talking about people who are not acting on behalf of a country but are just acting on their own. I don't think it's a complex issue as to who is a terrorist and who is not. The guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center were obviously terrorists. I don't think you can make a logical argument that their actions were justified and that this wasn't a terrorist act.

If we were at war with a country and that country bombed us, I would not call that terrorism.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of Iraqis did in fact see us as liberators. There were plenty of independent polls done over there that showed that. I'm talking about when we first went over there. For the first year or so, over 70% of the population said that they were happy that we came. Things have obviously changed now. At this point, they're starting to get sick of us over there and many of them want us to leave. In addition, many of the people over therea re disappointed that their lives are not better now. They thought that everyting would be great after Saddam was gone and things are not great over there at all.

Again, words...you call the people that flew planes into the WTC terrorists,
I call them religious fanatics. Equally as inflammatory as the Pope's recent remarks. More words. More deaths.
Are we liberating Iraq or occupying it? Hmmm...
"We're winning the war on terror." GWB
Believe what you want.
Last I heard, Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban. The freely elected president of Iraq recently signed an alliance with Iran.
Our brave men and women in our military continue to die...for what?
Words.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Again, words...you call the people that flew planes into the WTC terrorists,
I call them religious fanatics. Equally as inflammatory as the Pope's recent remarks. More words. More deaths.
Are we liberating Iraq or occupying it? Hmmm...
"We're winning the war on terror." GWB
Believe what you want.
Last I heard, Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban. The freely elected president of Iraq recently signed an alliance with Iran.
Our brave men and women in our military continue to die...for what?
Words.

If we didn't use words, we wouldn't understand each other. We're speaking English on this board. All of our communication is through words.

You can come up with a bunch of nonsense that you don't know what a "terrorist" is and it is just a word. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary? It's not just a word. It actually means something and it has a definition.

If you and I put together a group of guys that don't like Mexico or the Mexican government, what would we be if we decided to sneak into Mexico with explosives and blow up a bunch of buildings in Mexico? We would be terrorists. That would be a terrorist act. It's not debatable whether that would be terrorism or not. That would clearly be terrorism.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I we didn't use words, we wouldn't understand each other. We're speaking English on this board. All of our communication is through words.

You can come up with a bunch of nonsense that you don't know what a "terrorist" is and it is just a word. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary? It's not just a word. It actually means something and it has a definition.

If you and I put together a group of guys that don't like Mexico or the Mexican government, what would we be if we decided to sneak into Mexico with explosives and blow up a bunch of buildings in Mexico? We would be terrorists. That would be a terrorist act. It's not debatable whether that would be terrorism or not. That would clearly be terrorism.

Far too much nonsense.
So, if you and I go to Mexico to blow up some buildings because we believed "Allah" or "Yahway" or "God" told us to, and that we'd go immediately to paradise to feast forever on 72 virgins, is that "terrorism" or "religious fanaticism"? It sounds very "nuts" to me, no matter how you shake or bake it.
Words are what people die and kill for. Agree or not.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Far too much nonsense.
So, if you and I go to Mexico to blow up some buildings because we believed "Allah" or "Yahway" or "God" told us to, and that we'd go immediately to paradise to feast forever on 72 virgins, is that "terrorism" or "religious fanaticism"? It sounds very "nuts" to me, no matter how you shake or bake it.
Words are what people die and kill for. Agree or not.

Of course we would be religious fanatics if we did blew up buildings because of our religion. But we would also be terrorists. When individuals use force or the threat of force to intimidate, usually for political gain, that is terrorism.

I guess if a person just heard a voice that told him to kill and there was no political motive, then I might not call him a terrorist. But when there is a political reason reason for the act, then I think terrorism is the correct definition.

I'm a big animal right's supporter. I'm not upset at all if an animal right's group breaks into a place and rescues animals that are being abused. But if an animal right's group blows up a building at a university because the university does animal experimentation, then that would be domestic terrorism. It doesn't matter whether I think it's right or wrong, it is still terrorism. By the way, I think that would be totally wrong to blow up a building and I would be totally against it even though I am sympathetic to animals.