Do you condemn ....

[Indofred]

....terrorism, any government that supports terrorism and the people of any country who actively support terrorism and what would you suggest happen to such government or people?

Just asking.

 

[syrenn]

I see this as a loaded question.....leading to an agenda point.

"Terrorism" and what constitutes "terrorism" of course is a matter of opinion.

 

[Noomi]

You do nothing at all unless you are attacked first.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I like the Founders idea of leaving everyone the hell alone.

If we had stuck to that we would never have been in WW1, WW2, NK, VM, Bay of Pigs, Cold War, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Yemen

krist

on and on..

oh and if this is some bullshit;

We were attacked by terrorist, we are going to kill them all now and we will use fear.

 

[Artevelde]

You do nothing at all unless you are attacked first.

That sounds wonderfully stupid.

 

[editec]

Many nations and most empires, ours included, have supported (or created) terrorist organizations to conduct black ops against governments they are seeking to topple.

Imagining that terrorism is unusual, or uncommon, or just something that people without a government do is ignorant.

The USA has been supporting terrorists organization conducting terrrorist strikes for decades in central and South America.

The CONTRA were terrorists, for example.

 

[Noomi]

You do nothing at all unless you are attacked first.

That sounds wonderfully stupid.

Or I could agree with what the Americans do. Invade and kill without there being any threat.

 

[Artevelde]

You do nothing at all unless you are attacked first.

That sounds wonderfully stupid.

Or I could agree with what the Americans do. Invade and kill without there being any threat.

Do you feel proud of your ignorance? You seem to have an urgent need to exhibit it.

 

[Noomi]

That sounds wonderfully stupid.

Or I could agree with what the Americans do. Invade and kill without there being any threat.

Do you feel proud of your ignorance? You seem to have an urgent need to exhibit it.

Do you want to do anything besides troll?

 

[Artevelde]

Or I could agree with what the Americans do. Invade and kill without there being any threat.

Do you feel proud of your ignorance? You seem to have an urgent need to exhibit it.

Do you want to do anything besides troll?

Well, if you were to spout less stupidity and ignorance and said something intelligent once in a while you could be debated.

 

[Indofred]

Do you feel proud of your ignorance? You seem to have an urgent need to exhibit it.

Do you want to do anything besides troll?

Well, if you were to spout less stupidity and ignorance and said something intelligent once in a while you could be debated.

I have the answer.
Perhaps Noomi could post a couple of examples to back up her claim, and you have to show there was a threat to the US from that state.

I suspect Noomi will have the easier job but you may shock me.

 

[Noomi]

Do you want to do anything besides troll?

Well, if you were to spout less stupidity and ignorance and said something intelligent once in a while you could be debated.

I have the answer.
Perhaps Noomi could post a couple of examples to back up her claim, and you have to show there was a threat to the US from that state.

I suspect Noomi will have the easier job but you may shock me.

My evidence is Iraq. No threat from Iraq to the US, yet the US invaded.

My job is done. Your turn, Artevelde.

 

[there4eyeM]

"....what constitutes "terrorism" of course is a matter of opinion. "

The Rebels terrorized the British. We don't consider Washington a terrorist leader, and neither do the English today.

 

[Artevelde]

Well, if you were to spout less stupidity and ignorance and said something intelligent once in a while you could be debated.

I have the answer.
Perhaps Noomi could post a couple of examples to back up her claim, and you have to show there was a threat to the US from that state.

I suspect Noomi will have the easier job but you may shock me.

My evidence is Iraq. No threat from Iraq to the US, yet the US invaded.

My job is done. Your turn, Artevelde.

Lets regard a few facts:

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and explicitely threatened the whole region. The US and many other allies responded to this threat by attacking Iraq and defeating it militarily. In 1991 Iraq sued for an armistice, which it received, subject to a series of conditions.

2. Between 1991 and 2003 Iraq met some of the conditions of the armistice and violated many others. It repeatedly issued threats and tried to build up new forces, resulting in near-incessant aerial clashes between the US and UK on the one hand and Iraq on the other hand. Iraq also tried to assassinate a former US President and engaged in various other hostile acts.

3. In 2003 the US and a number of its allies decided that the permanent threat of Iraq, and its continued violation of the armistice conditions, wasn't going to go away as long as the Baathist regime was in power and decided to renew the hostilities that were suspended in 1991.

 

[Noomi]

"....what constitutes "terrorism" of course is a matter of opinion. "

The Rebels terrorized the British. We don't consider Washington a terrorist leader, and neither do the English today.

The US thinks that any country that says something bad about them is guilty of terrorism...

What does it have to say about the people in Gitmo, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

[Artevelde]

"....what constitutes "terrorism" of course is a matter of opinion. "

The Rebels terrorized the British. We don't consider Washington a terrorist leader, and neither do the English today.

Washington formed a regular army with which he engaged the British in regular combat. He didn't send people to blow up London.

 

[Artevelde]

"....what constitutes "terrorism" of course is a matter of opinion. "

The Rebels terrorized the British. We don't consider Washington a terrorist leader, and neither do the English today.

The US thinks that any country that says something bad about them is guilty of terrorism...

What does it have to say about the people in Gitmo, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

More nonsense.

Khalil Sheikh Mohammed was in the wrong place at the wrong time? You are sickening in your stupidity.

 

[Noomi]

"....what constitutes "terrorism" of course is a matter of opinion. "

The Rebels terrorized the British. We don't consider Washington a terrorist leader, and neither do the English today.

The US thinks that any country that says something bad about them is guilty of terrorism...

What does it have to say about the people in Gitmo, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

More nonsense.

Khalil Sheikh Mohammed was in the wrong place at the wrong time? You are sickening in your stupidity.

What about the others? David Hicks, for example?

 

[Artevelde]

The US thinks that any country that says something bad about them is guilty of terrorism...

What does it have to say about the people in Gitmo, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

More nonsense.

Khalil Sheikh Mohammed was in the wrong place at the wrong time? You are sickening in your stupidity.

What about the others? David Hicks, for example?

He went to be trained to become a terrorist. He was rightly treated as an illegal enemy combatant.

 

[there4eyeM]

'W's Iraq invasion was illegal by international law and, as those laws and treaties were approved by Congress, was also unconstitutional. 'W' terrorized the world and the American people.