To: Ilaine who wrote (72638) | 9/22/2004 5:07:48 PM | From: Sig | | | <<News of the Weird: 60 Minutes bumped a story about the fraudulent Niger documents in order to run the Bush TANG story, supported by fraudulent documents.>>>
Fraudulent documents?? I thought they would just be "un-verified." Can Bush plead 'misled' as Rather and CBS did.?
I say give Bush back his F-102 and give Kerry his Swift boat and have at it. May the best man win...
Free advice for Rather and Mapes.. "When you set out for revenge, first dig two graves" Courtesy, James Bond - for your eye only
Sig |
| Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
To: Lane3 who wrote (66707) | 9/22/2004 5:12:14 PM | From: TimF | | | Because there is a consensus that axe murderers are absolutely barbaric while there isn't a consensus that suicide bombings of busses and restaurants is absolutely barbaric. I understand that you are asserting the latter but I doubt that even you really believe that. If it were absolutely barbaric, then there would be no circumstance, no scenario, in which you could tolerate the practice.
If there is any situation that justifies suicide bombings, that same situation would justify ax murder. The method used doesn't change the moral implications of the act. Either its ok to be biased against suicide bombers, or its not ok to be biased against ax murderers.
Tim |
| Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: Lane3 who wrote (66919) | 9/22/2004 5:46:36 PM | From: TimF | | | ...using every bit of breath you had and every tactic available to fight off the commies or the Martians or Islamicists or whatever aliens were the enemy du jour. Personally, I'm sure I could never go so far as to specifically target little kids, but I think that I could target marketplaces if I truly believed my cause was just and existential, if I thought the tactic could be effective, and if there was no conventional alternative.
If your targeting enemy military or leadership at the marketplace you could reasonably argue you where engaged in guerilla war and not terrorism. Where it gets a little fuzzy is how big of legitimate target has to be there to be aimed at versus how much "collateral damage". If your just trying to kill people affiliated with the enemy, whether or not they are military or operate in support of, or in command of the military (which in this context would include militias, terrorist groups, para-military units, maybe police, not just soldiers in an organized national army) than you clearly are committing terrorism, but what about when you blow up a marketplace with 100 innocent people to kill one enemy private?
We could examine the exact boundary but that isn't my main point in this post. Which is that suicide bombing that isn't terrorism is possible, and indeed has happened (for example Kamikaze attacks were a form of suicide bombing). It is easier (although not easy) to imagine myself in a situation where I would attack "the commies, or the Martians or Islamiscists" using suicide bombing tactics, than it is to imagine a situation where I would become a terrorist suicide bomber against them.
Tim |
| Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (72608) | 9/22/2004 5:59:44 PM | From: Captain Jack | | | <<""When internationally respected Islamic personalities like Yusuf Islam and Professor Tariq Ramadan are denied entry to the United States, it sends the disturbing message that even moderate and mainstream Muslims will now be treated like terrorists," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR.">> Gee-- maybe this guy is correct. Maybe we should just cut their head-off..Oh-- hope they put this clowns name on a 'watch list'.. No one whines like the guilty. |
| Politics for Pros- moderated | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |