How do you define terrorism?
 

You are a hater and an instigator. (And this is a troll, but I'll bite).

To even ATTEMPT to tie together accidental civilian casualties with the deliberate destruction of human life caused by the religous and political zealots that infest the world is disgusting.

Are you suggesting that the US is deliberately targeting innocent people like that cowardly attack on the World Trade Centers?

What's wrong with you?

I'm sorry that you feel such outrage. You might want to consider whether the recipient of such violence really cares about the motivation of the person that inflicts it. A mistaken bombing under good intentions is a bombing none the less. Make no mistake - terrorists always have the purest of intentions, that's what makes them so insidious.

Besides, what do you think it is that makes US lives more valuable or sacred than Afgani?

Contrary to your opinion, I am not a hater - I deplore all this violence that's going on around the world. As to being an instigator - yeah, I'd love to instigate a bit of insight within the borders of the US as to how the rest of the world views its application of foreign policy.

But then if you don't want to hear it...

How many hundreds of thousands of accidents does the US military have to make before we equal the amount of HIS OWN PEOPLE that Sadaam killed Purry?

Once again I ask the question that you keep avoiding - Were the Iraqi's better off without us?

I agree the violence is a last resort. But do you honestly believe that a maniac like Sadaam was going to be voted out? THat the impassioned pleas of some diplomat would get him to stop the violence he was conducting? Do you believe he REALLY got rid of all his most powerful weapons?

Civilian casualties are extremely regrettable and SHOULD be reported on, to keep the military careful and honest. But calling this terrorism is wat I take offense too, not the report itself.

Let me pose a hypothetical question to you Purry...

You state that you deplore violence. Okay. Most of us do.

If someone is attacking your family, is violence to stop it okay?

What about if they are attacking your next door neighbor?

What about if the "head of the household" is killing his own children? and threatening to kill the neighbors? and supporting a person who killed one of your family? and has owned lots of rifles but claims to have "gotten rid of them" despite his violent past.


..again, I take no ofense at the report of civilian casualties. I support that. ...but it is NOT terrorism.

Actually, based on the riots in Iraq last week and the fact that the country has something like 70% unemployment, uncertain supplies of clean water, etc, etc. it seems unlikely that Iraqis are better off with the US/British occupying force.

Continued bombings and "insurrections" even long after the capture of Saddam certainly suggests that large segments of the Iraqi population feel that they are worse off with the occupation.

This continued focus on the brutality of the Iraq government as a rationale for the invasion (now that the WMD issue has melted away) is getting a bit stretched, don't you think? Iraq is a pretty new entity (only been around in its present form since '68 - and in any form since post-WW2, I believe) - and most of the "atrocities" happened years ago. Virtually every nation on earth went through extremely violent stages in the formative years.

As to modern day management of internal affairs - you can slice and dice statistics all day long about the relative fairness and equality of how the citizens of any country (including the US and Iraq) are treated by their own governments.

But it doesn't take a statistician (just an accountant or two to add up the $ and an undertaker to count the bodies) to measure the way the governments of the US and Britain are treating the citizens of Iraq and Afganistan.

BTW - do you think the word "terrorist" could be exchanged for the word "communist" back in the McCarthy era? i.e. it has become a handy metaphor for anything that someone wishes to label as bad without a need to define, evidence or rationalize.

...I can't resist any longer:

...do you see the possibility that that statement is hugely ironic (or absurd) in view of the US/Brit anhilation of Iraq? Or is your view of political zealotry flexible dependent upon who possesses it?

Purrybonker, I feel sorry for you.

Try and do something useful with your life instead of being a pain in the tokhes.

Socrates the gadfly you are not.

Purry, are you Bo's replacement on the HATE USA frontlines?

Why does anybody even bother to reply to Purrybonker? It's obvious that he hates America and Americans, despite his arguments to the contrary. He produces nothing here but liberally slanted BS in a pathetic attempt to get people all riled up.

And yes, I'm responding here, too....but this is definitely my last look at anything presented by this miserable lout. America certainly has it's problems, but for somebody to sit there and post article after article of how we are the scourge of the planet, without proposing anything even resembliing a solution (no, Purry, someone just taking your side of whatever argument you may have is NOT a solution), it's sensless drivel.

Purry, feel free to spout off all you want. I know one set of eyes/ears that is going to simply ignore you. Have a nice life....as soon as you get one, that is! ;)

Randy

How ironic is it that PB is going on my ignore list while tabs is not???

No, I think that the USA and Americans are great! Quit taking stuff on the chin you guys!

relax...

take a deep breath...

terrorism: having a meter maid give a legally parked car a ticket for no front license plate.

The terrorists are alive and well in LA. gawd save America...

and where are all my crazed left-wing minions? Why am I left alone to argue common sense?

damn, maybe I'll have to go and do something worthwhile with my life after all.

Purry: I doubt that will ever happen. There are people born to be rabblerousers; what in chemistry are referred to as "catalysts", causing a reaction, but not involved. If you cannot make the world a better place by action, then, for God's sake at least stay out of the way.

BTW...Wayne, don'ty you have a rule about Trolls?

eff you and your common sense. read all the articles you want, but keep you opinion to yourself. i think you kinda like working people up. and that is the only reason you even exist here on the forum. dont take it personal, i know alot of people like you, and i tell them all to eff off. why dont you go and post a few questions on the tech side?

valium.

War is legalized Murder....thats the object of the game to eliminate as many of the other guy so that you can achieve your goals.

Warfare starting in the 19th century stopped discriminating between civilians and armed combatants.

The problem here boyz is your all trying to be PC...Purry saying oh whats the diff between what Al Queada does and a B-52 does. None, people are dead either way....so what if they were noncombatants, they shoulda moved outa the way....

Tabs, you are as close to the truth as an american can be. Kudos !

Aurel

my actual issue has nothing to do with being politically correct. i just dont see the need to always try to stir up issues and emotions.