• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Egypt the latest to feel terroristic blows

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/07/23/185433.html

83 Die in Car Bombs at Egyptian Resort
By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer
4 hours ago

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt - A rapid series of car bombs and another blast ripped through a luxury hotel and a coffeeshop in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik early Saturday, killing at least 83. Egypt's president vowed to hunt down the culprits as rescue workers said the death toll could still rise.

The attacks, Egypt's deadliest terror hit ever, came just two days after the latest strikes in London and sent an already jittery world reeling again.

With an al-Qaida-linked group claiming responsbility, Egypt tightened security at other busy tourist sites like the Pyramids and Luxor, and the government and British tourist agencies sent large aircraft to the Sinai to fly home now-nervous tourists.


I wonder, when those who want to psycho-analyze terrorists are going to finally realize that these people have NO conscience, and will strike their own because they think they can?
 

The American

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was just wondering how many of these barbaric acts must rock the world before liberals will realize what IS terrorism...?!
 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Terroristic is a made-up word. Terrorist is already an adjective.

What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
 

The American

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jakurus said:
Terroristic is a made-up word. Terrorist is already an adjective.

What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
????.... I would like to know what you mean...
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
jakurus said:
Terroristic is a made-up word. Terrorist is already an adjective.

What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?

Better consult your dictionary. Terrorist is a noun... terroristic is the adjective.. remember adjective's describe.

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

terror·istic adj.
 

The American

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
debate_junkie said:
Better consult your dictionary. Terrorist is a noun... terroristic is the adjective.. remember adjective's describe.

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism

terror·istic adj.
I know that!!!... WHAT is your point?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The American said:
I was just wondering how many of these barbaric acts must rock the world before liberals will realize what IS terrorism...?!
I do not understand this post? Maybe it's Rove who doesn't understand what terrorism is since he stopped chasing after terrorists to start a useless war in Iraq?

Where do you war supporters think we'd be had we continued our war on terrorism instead of invading Iraq? Maybe the people in Madrid or London can answer for you?

When Rove decided to invade Iraq he guaranteed that there would be more terrorist attacks all over the world. That will be his enduring legacy. Maybe he'll be remembered as the "Terrorist President"?
 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok, I don't want to get into a grammar fight, but terrorist was already the adjective that terroristic is now. Terroristic was made up by idiots.

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.


See that? You edited your post to make it look like terroristic was the only adjective version. That's pretty weak. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist
 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
 

FiremanRyan

Active member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
283
Reaction score
1
Location
Chico, CA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jakurus said:
What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
im not seeing the point your're trying to make. thats like saying, whats the difference between killing someone or shooting a person in the head, resulting in their death? its just another way of a calling one thing something else. if we said Al Quaeda is a group that makes unprovoked attacks on another country and kills civilians, would it make you feel better? the problem is that its almost the exact definition of terrorism.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FiremanRyan said:
im not seeing the point your're trying to make. thats like saying, whats the difference between killing someone or shooting a person in the head, resulting in their death? its just another way of a calling one thing something else. if we said Al Quaeda is a group that makes unprovoked attacks on another country and kills civilians, would it make you feel better? the problem is that its almost the exact definition of terrorism.
I think that jakurus is trying to say that the war in Iraq is equivalent to terrorism. If so, Jakurus must believe that Saddam never provoked us.
 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am not saying that, I'm just asking what makes terrorism against civilians bad? Would it be more honorable if they had a bigger and better army and killed our military and then us?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jakurus said:
What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
Terrosim. Publicly undeclared attacks against a non military, non governmental target, that targets civilian's with the purpose OF targeting civilians in hopes of inspiring terror and loss within a country or a community hoping to break thier spirits and thier hopes.

Attacks on another country that kill civilians. Attacks against military, governmental, or infastructure ((power/water/etc)) facilities done during war time or a declared military action with the hope of crippling the military of governments ability to control its troops. Civilian casualities generally come due to errors in targetting, or collateral damage. While they are still a horrible horrible loss, it is not the purpose of these attacks to kill civilians.


That is the main difference. We did not just decide one day to go to iraq, sent planes without stating our intention, and then started bombing houses or places of gathering with the explicite purpose of killing civilians to scare the government.

Civilian life is a horrible thing to lose, in any way shape or form. But civilian lives lost during a war time action that is expressed well in advanced and is attempted to be prevented is in no way equivilent to terrorist attacks made explicitatly against citizens. Please tell me what military target were those hotels in Egypt. What military target was the world trade center? What announcements of war by a country was made against those things?

Also, please check facts on the amount of civilian deaths in Iraq. Likely someone will quote the 100,000 range that was posted by a british paper. With proper research ((i will have to find the link again)) and looking at that as a whole, there was a parenthese after the number with statistical terms within. The statistical terms stated that that number could be off by 92,000 in either direction, with 100,000 being the rounded off "middle." Think on that a moment...tell me that wasn't put in there to spin or what kind of statistics they were using to have a range of error that is nearly as LARGE as the number they quoted. That is insanity, and the number can not be taken seriously. Yes, many civilians have died in iraq, but many of the places giving the numbers of civilians are doing a horrible job either skewing the statistics, or including insurgents/terrorist citizens that attack our troops into the numbers of "civilians" killed....not to mention a large number of civilians killed have been by those very same iraqi "insurgents"
 

The American

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Zyphlin said:
Terrosim. Publicly undeclared attacks against a non military, non governmental target, that targets civilian's with the purpose OF targeting civilians in hopes of inspiring terror and loss within a country or a community hoping to break thier spirits and thier hopes.

Attacks on another country that kill civilians. Attacks against military, governmental, or infastructure ((power/water/etc)) facilities done during war time or a declared military action with the hope of crippling the military of governments ability to control its troops. Civilian casualities generally come due to errors in targetting, or collateral damage. While they are still a horrible horrible loss, it is not the purpose of these attacks to kill civilians.


That is the main difference. We did not just decide one day to go to iraq, sent planes without stating our intention, and then started bombing houses or places of gathering with the explicite purpose of killing civilians to scare the government.

Civilian life is a horrible thing to lose, in any way shape or form. But civilian lives lost during a war time action that is expressed well in advanced and is attempted to be prevented is in no way equivilent to terrorist attacks made explicitatly against citizens. Please tell me what military target were those hotels in Egypt. What military target was the world trade center? What announcements of war by a country was made against those things?

Also, please check facts on the amount of civilian deaths in Iraq. Likely someone will quote the 100,000 range that was posted by a british paper. With proper research ((i will have to find the link again)) and looking at that as a whole, there was a parenthese after the number with statistical terms within. The statistical terms stated that that number could be off by 92,000 in either direction, with 100,000 being the rounded off "middle." Think on that a moment...tell me that wasn't put in there to spin or what kind of statistics they were using to have a range of error that is nearly as LARGE as the number they quoted. That is insanity, and the number can not be taken seriously. Yes, many civilians have died in iraq, but many of the places giving the numbers of civilians are doing a horrible job either skewing the statistics, or including insurgents/terrorist citizens that attack our troops into the numbers of "civilians" killed....not to mention a large number of civilians killed have been by those very same iraqi "insurgents"
Thank you, you have said it all!
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Zyphlin said:
Civilian life is a horrible thing to lose, in any way shape or form. But civilian lives lost during a war time action that is expressed well in advanced and is attempted to be prevented is in no way equivilent to terrorist attacks made explicitatly against citizens. Please tell me what military target were those hotels in Egypt. What military target was the world trade center? What announcements of war by a country was made against those things?
That is the one thing that the appeasers & apologists will never understand.

If the US wanted to, it could make the Middle East a parking lot in about 20 minutes.

We are doing out best NOT to let that happen; this is the first war in history where we would rather NOT hurt anybody. As weird as this may sound; this is the most HUMANE war ever tried...People cry about thousands of casualties...they don't understand that we could make the death toll millions...and rather easily...
 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know this is probably one of the most humane wars ever conducted, but answer my question.

Would you rather the terrorists has an army bigger and better than we did, or used terrorism?

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Terrorists use the tactic because they have to. If they could role over us with their military they would use that instead.

Do you disagree with any of that?

I think the thing that makes people mad is that they target innocent civilians. Is it more honorable to target some government institution? In some way, yes, because they are targetting people more directly responsible for the things they are angry about, but obviously they aren't doing this.

I think the thing thas is most deplorable about these terrorists is that they are fighting for a cause that's plainly wrong and killing people who live a pretty good life in a pretty good country. In all but a very few cases, killing civilians is wrong, and in this case they are very wrong.

But let me ask you: if we were living in a fascist military state and we could cripple the power of the state by destroying its finanicial center, would you do it?
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What I want to know is: for all the rhetoric about us being the "great Satan". the Arabs sure spend a lot of time and energy blowing their own "brothers" up. We haven't done that since the civil war. We have progressed. What's their excuse. I'll say it. Savages. They beat their women with sticks. I've seen the video from Saudi Arabia. For all of everyones rhetoric. They TARGET CHILDREN and beat their women with sticks in the street while all around turn a blind eye. Yea, I'll say it. Fuc*k PC. Those that act so need the United States of America to come straighten them out. Fuc*k borders and sovereign nations rights. It is the moral thing to do. With great power comes great responsibility. Our sons and daughters that today VOLUNTEER know exactly what harm they put themselves in front of. They are true hero's. You that claim Bush has no right because of the military deaths don't consider that those that fight do so freely. Makes that argument moot, don't you think? This is the gazillioneth time I've said this on this site and not once has there been a reply to debate it. You libs just ignore it and carry on with "Bush lied". Grow up. Grow a pair. It's none of your concern until the next election. The last election said what it said.

Class dismissed.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jakurus said:
But let me ask you: if we were living in a fascist military state and we could cripple the power of the state by destroying its finanicial center, would you do it?
I'm surprised we are NOT doing it!

Conspiracy theorists are more than happy to spout the Liberal company line..."This war is for oil."

If that were true, don't you think that we could invade Saudi Arabia on the first of the month and secure their oil fields by the fifth? Why haven't we done this?

Because its not about the oil...It's about securing our own liberty while spreading democracy across the one area in the world that has been left behind, by fault of their own. Helping the Middle East "catch up" with the rest of the world not only is in America's best interests, but the rest of the world also...That's why I find it funny & ironic that Europe takes shots at us...Europe may have MORE of an interest in the Middle East than the US...yet they won't get their hands dirty...Just like France in WWII.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Although it has yet to be verified, a terrorist group aligned with al-Qa'ida has claimed responsibility for the numerous attacks at Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt. Recall also that al-Qa'ida claimed responsibility for the murder of the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq recently. al-Qa'ida has stipulated in communique's and on websites that it will target Arab/Muslim nations that recognize and/or establish diplomatic relations with the government of Iraq.

The attacks in Egypt are aimed primarily at tourists... as tourism is the lifeblood of the Egyptian economy. Terrorist attacks against Egypt have two manifold purposes... 1) By attacking tourist venues, the economy of Egypt suffers tremendously. 2) Attacks such as this serves to increase the intrusive activities of the Egyptian security forces which in turn results in resentment against the government by the Egyptian populace.

Last October terrorists bombed tourist hotels in Taba, Egypt... and these attacks were intended to cripple the Egyptian economy and kill Israelis. I'll tell you a little-known secret...

The Egyptian city of Taba lies next to the Israeli port city of Eilat. You can believe this or not, but Egypt welcomes and encourages tourism by Israelis. To this end, Egypt has designated all territory between Taba and Sharm el-Sheik as Zone C. Israelis need neither a passport nor a visa to enter Zone C in Egypt. You can just walk across the Israel/Egypt border at Eilat/Taba and I have done this many times. As a bonus, I speak the Egyptian (mISR) dialect of Arabic which enables me to converse with any Egyptian living or working within Zone C. Although the world is well aware of the terrorist attacks in Taba last October, it is not so well aware of this...

Within minutes of the Taba attacks, Israeli military, security, and medical personel in Eilat poured across the border into Taba. Severely wounded victims (including Egyptian civilians) were immediately evacuated to Eilat and attended to by Israeli surgeons and physicians. The IDF assisted the Egyptian military in sealing the area, and Israeli counterterrorism specialists and forensics experts assisted Egypt in collecting and analyzing evidentiary materials. Both governments coordinate on terrorism, but for understandable reasons do their best to publically minimize this bi-lateral cooperation.

With persistent and deadly terrorist attacks in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt... it is becoming quite obvious that Islamic terrorism knows no bounds and is a malignant scourge on the entire corpus of humanity.


 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
teacher said:
What I want to know is: for all the rhetoric about us being the "great Satan". the Arabs sure spend a lot of time and energy blowing their own "brothers" up. We haven't done that since the civil war. We have progressed. What's their excuse. I'll say it. Savages. They beat their women with sticks. I've seen the video from Saudi Arabia. For all of everyones rhetoric. They TARGET CHILDREN and beat their women with sticks in the street while all around turn a blind eye. Yea, I'll say it. Fuc*k PC. Those that act so need the United States of America to come straighten them out. Fuc*k borders and sovereign nations rights. It is the moral thing to do. With great power comes great responsibility. Our sons and daughters that today VOLUNTEER know exactly what harm they put themselves in front of. They are true hero's. You that claim Bush has no right because of the military deaths don't consider that those that fight do so freely. Makes that argument moot, don't you think? This is the gazillioneth time I've said this on this site and not once has there been a reply to debate it. You libs just ignore it and carry on with "Bush lied". Grow up. Grow a pair. It's none of your concern until the next election. The last election said what it said.

Class dismissed.
Testify, teach!

The Liberal Borg doesn't understand "tough love"...These are the same people that don't keep score at baseball games because it might make somebody feel bad.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
Testify, teach!

The Liberal Borg doesn't understand "tough love"...These are the same people that don't keep score at baseball games because it might make somebody feel bad.

Hey, I don't keep score at baseball games, cept when my team is winning. Does that make me a lib? ;) JUST KIDDING (before panties get bunched this early in the am)
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
debate_junkie said:
Hey, I don't keep score at baseball games, cept when my team is winning. Does that make me a lib? ;) JUST KIDDING (before panties get bunched this early in the am)

Man, do I have to teach you guys everything? Panties get WADDED. Bananas come in a bunch. As to which my now complete monkey army can testify.
 
Last edited:

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jakurus said:
I am not saying that, I'm just asking what makes terrorism against civilians bad? Would it be more honorable if they had a bigger and better army and killed our military and then us?
Okay, I see what you're saying. If they want to kill us after they kill our military as you say, then they are just delaying the punishment by having to beat the US. So, no.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
jakurus said:
I'm just asking what makes terrorism against civilians bad?
Civilians are, by definition... 'non-combatants'.


 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Terrorism is a tactic of the weak. I think it's wrong to kill innocent people, but the reason they are innocent is not just because they are civilians, it's because they are right and the terrorists are wrong.

There's a lot of gray here, not so black and white.
 
Top Bottom